Norwegian defence and security policy

Speech by defence minister Grete Faremo at the Heads of Station meeting held at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Tuesday 24 August 2010.

Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen

We have in recent years found ourselves facing a new security situation. A situation characterised by international conflicts and a threat picture which is far more complicated than before. This has consequences for our defence and security policy. Just a few years ago, we could scarcely have imagined that clashes over cartoons of Mohammed in a Danish paper, or an Israeli bombing of Gaza which caused major disturbances in the streets of Oslo, would create security challenges for Norway.

Global influence today is not only about military, political and economic strength; cultural strength is also important. Geography and geographical proximity is relevant only to parts of the threat picture.

Through what appears to be the planning of terrorist action in Norway, we have recently seen an illustration of the decentralised and global nature of terrorism. This calls for national and international coordination. The degree of cooperation between the principal international players will be decisive for peace and stability, especially in a situation where we see that the emergence of new power centres is contributing to an increasing degree to a multipolar international system.

The growth of geopolitics and the emergence of new major powers, often with conflicting interests, increase the risk of great power rivalries. This brings with it the danger of the use of military force to achieve political aims, especially against smaller countries. An increase in the risk of interstate conflict is therefore a possibility.

However, what we have witnessed most frequently in recent years has been the emergence of new forms of conflict and warfare. We have seen several kinds of civil war, conflicts between ethnic groups, sometimes across borders, and more regional instability. In the future we must expect increased competition for important resources. Not least, we must expect climate change to have implications for security policy. It is now already apparent that the most negative consequences of climate change form part of the backdrop for crises and conflicts in the most exposed areas, such as the Horn of Africa.

The effects of climate change in the High North are of particular significance in the context of security. Here there are possible conflicts of interest associated with the melting of the Arctic ice, future transport routes and the exploitation of fish, oil and gas resources. In a worst case scenario this could provide fertile ground for future conflicts. It is therefore of vital importance that Norway contributes to stability and predictability in the High North through means that include the maintenance of a military presence.

Our geographical location makes us very conscious of our relationship with Russia. The war between Russia and Georgia is a good example of Russia’s new self image and strategy. The Russian interests have always been there but we have not always been perceptive enough to see them – and we have been a little optimistic in the belief that Russia has wanted to develop in a “western” direction.

For Norway, Russia is first and foremost an important partner for cooperation. But we cannot deny that developments in our major neighbour to the East are a central factor in the shaping of Norwegian security policy. The Russians have an interest in the stability of the northern regions with an eye to the utilisation of their own resources. At the same time we cannot ignore the fact that the High North is of great strategic and military importance. We are therefore following developments closely.

The global financial crisis affects most countries and in many different ways. There is increased competition for resources and raw materials, something that is a source of rivalry between states and, in the worst case, a potential basis for conflict.

The economic recession has created, in many countries, a need to restructure the armed forces. The majority of our collaboration partners are heavily burdened by the long-lasting and comprehensive military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. They have to reduce their military costs while at the same time having to restructure their forces in order to be able to meet new security challenges. Our close European allies, such as the United Kingdom, Germany and the Netherlands, have difficult priorities and choices to reconcile, both with regard to participation in “out of area” operations and where safeguarding their own security is concerned.

That brings me to what constitutes unquestionably out greatest security policy challenge today, – Afghanistan.

Afghanistan
Norway is there because we wish to take our share of responsibility in contributing towards stability and security, and to prevent Afghanistan once more becoming a breeding ground for international terrorism. The aim of the military involvement in Afghanistan is to safeguard security until the Afghans themselves can take on this responsibility.

By contributing to security in Afghanistan, we also increase our own security.

The Norwegian forces are doing an enormously important job in training, advising and mentoring Afghan military personnel. Most of the training takes place in the field, during operations. Then we have units which accompany and support Afghan military forces on actual operations, so-called “partnering”.

This is both demanding and high-risk because it means that the Norwegian soldiers actually engage in combat side by side with the Afghans. At the same time, I believe that this is the only practicable way to proceed if our efforts are to lead to something which is sustainable in the longer term. The Norwegian soldiers have great respect for, and trust in, their Afghan partners. And the personal relationships built up between Norwegians and Afghans form an important foundation for the encouraging results we are now seeing.

Despite a difficult security situation, we are making visible progress militarily. Afghan forces are assuming a steadily greater degree of responsibility both in the North and in the South, and they have taken over responsibility for security in Kabul. We have also come a long step further along the way towards seeing the Afghans taking over responsibility for security in Faryab, where that responsibility currently rests with us. Here an Afghan force numbering almost a thousand has been built up. When we came into Faryab in 2005 the Afghan military presence in this area was minimal.

The military and civil involvement in Afghanistan is indissolubly linked. It has proved to be very difficult to conduct long-term development work in areas where security is poor. In order to be able to build schools, produce food and establish democratic institutions in Afghanistan, it is crucial that the Afghans themselves can take responsibility for the security, stability and safety of the local population. Good sustainable development cannot be achieved without adequate security.

We cannot avoid the conclusion, however, that the security situation is serious and that it has deteriorated over the last 6 – 12 months. There are several reasons for this. The main reasons are that the Taliban have come in from outside, and that increased military activity by ISAF and the Afghan forces is leading to increased resistance from local power players. But at the same time, ISAF’s new strategy, focused on making everyday life safer for the local population, has had a positive effect. In many regions the local inhabitants are able to enjoy a normal everyday life. But this strategy does mean that our personnel take more hits.

Among the reasons for this are the fact that ISAF and the Afghan forces are now entering areas in which the Taliban and other groups have hitherto operated more or less unmolested in imposing taxes, suppressing and harassing the local people. There is every indication that these groups will take brutal measures aimed at disrupting the parliamentary election in September.

Even if ISAF and the Afghan forces increase their efforts in the future, this does not necessarily mean that the situation will improve over the coming months. Building security takes time and the Afghan forces and police need to be strengthened both numerically and in terms of quality before they can carry out their tasks unaided.

That is a job we have to complete.

NATO has always maintained that responsibility for security is to be transferred to the Afghan authorities as soon as conditions are right. At the Kabul conference in July, a new framework for the way ahead was adopted. Afghan leadership and ownership are central to this process. NATO is now engaged in creating a concept for how this so-called “transition process” can be implemented in practice.

The assumption is that ISAF’s military input will be gradually transformed from a “partnering” role, in which allied and Afghan forces operate side by side, to more of a support role. At the same time the Afghan military forces will assume a more independent responsibility for the operations. ISAF will focus more on training, education and guidance, and will reduce its participation in operations.

This adjustment of ISAF’s military input will need to take place in step with the Afghans’ growing ability to take more of the responsibility themselves. But we must play an active part in moving them into the driving seat. The shaping of this concept, and putting flesh on the bones of the transition process, is an important part of preparing for the NATO summit meeting this autumn.

The result will affect the nature and extent of the Norwegian force contribution.

When the Afghan forces are operating more independently, and when we have also ensured a sustainable build-up of their competence for the future – yes, the time will then have come to think about a gradual phase-out of the military task. The civil contribution, on the other hand, is something that will need to be continued. Afghanistan will remain dependent on international assistance and support for many years to come.

Chad and Aden
Norway is making an important military contribution in Afghanistan. We have also contributed to a whole series of overseas operations in recent years. Among other things we have made available a field hospital and a well-drilling unit for the UN operation in Chad. This has involved around 170 personnel over the period from spring 2009 to May this year. These were two very important force contributions to the UN’s mission to bring peace, stability and the development of the rule of law in Chad.

Then, together with the EU, we have done an important job in helping to curb piracy in the Gulf of Aden. For a period of six months, up until January this year, we contributed a frigate together with special forces units off the coast of Somalia. For Norway, as a serious shipping nation, it is important that we should make an active contribution to security in this area, so helping to ensure that food aid supplied under UN’s World Food Programme can be delivered to those suffering in Somalia.

We have delivered in Chad, we have delivered in Aden, in Congo and in other places, in addition to our main involvement in Afghanistan.

Restructuring of the Armed Forces
Our ability to do as good a job as we are now doing in international operations depends, of course, on having Armed Forces that that are up to it. What we now have are a set of modern armed forces of the highest quality, organised and equipped to deliver in an international setting. And that is important.

At the same time it is essential that our forces in the North have the capacity to deal properly with national tasks in peacetime as well as contributing effectively in matters of crisis management. A robust Norwegian military presence in the North is pivotal to NATO’s ability to ensure collective security and defence in the region. This in turn is crucial in maintaining the High North as a safe and stable region, not least as seen from Moscow.

In the course of a decade we have transformed the Norwegian Armed Forces from an invasion-oriented organisation based on conscription and the needs of the Cold War, into a modern, mission-based set of forces capable of effective deployment both at home and abroad.

This process had to be faced. It has been both demanding and painful, but it has also been successful.

As I mentioned in my introduction, today’s threat picture is associated to a far greater degree with the possibility of crises of various kinds, or of a surprise terrorist attack of some kind which also involves Norway. But we can by no means exclude the eventuality that, at some time in the future, pressure could be exerted on us, possibly supported by “pin-prick” operations, with the aim of damaging our economy – perhaps targeting oil installations for example – in order to put force behind political demands.

It is therefore absolutely crucial that that we have the capability to deal with episodes that threaten our security, terrorist actions and a range of crisis situations. It is essential that we have a good national capability so that do not find ourselves in a situation in which “the crisis was too big for us but too small for NATO”. That is why we are actively involved in the further development of the Alliance in such a way that we can avoid finding ourselves in an unacceptable situation of this kind in the future.

Compared with the former Armed Forces, our defence organisation today is substantially smaller in terms of headcount. But the quality, combat capability and availability of the new units have been lifted to a far higher level. That is not to say that our Armed Forces are shrinking as some seem to believe. Since 2005 the Armed Forces have in fact grown.

The organisation is also undergoing renewal where equipment and investment are concerned and to an extent unequalled since the early days of the Cold War. We are in the final phase of bringing into service new vessels which will give us one of the world’s most modern navies, we have new transport aircraft and new maritime helicopters are just round the corner. We have taken the decision to procure new combat aircraft and are well on the way in planning their introduction into service.

The Army has a brand new artillery system, Archer, and planning is under way for the updating of our armoured vehicles. Our soldiers are getting new equipment including new hand weapons and communications equipment. This means a lot for our soldiers’ safety and combat capability. The Home Guard has undergone comprehensive quality reforms and is scarcely recognisable compared with the Home Guard of a decade ago. Two new vessels for the Naval Home Guard in 2010 represent yet another step towards a more flexible and modern Home Guard.

Despite having built up modern mission-oriented defence forces which are far better able to contribute units to international operations, there are still limitations on where, to what extent, and for how long our forces can be deployed.

The same applies to our allies and closest cooperation partners. Today they are militarily stretched after a long involvement in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in consequence have a limited capability to engage militarily in other areas at the same time. The global financial crisis is a contributory cause of the substantial defence budget reductions that a number of countries are being obliged to make. Many countries, including our cooperation partners, are hard pressed and this places limitations on their ability to contribute forces and equipment to international operations.

A number of western countries are having problems in carrying out their planned tasks and investments, something that could have an effect on NATO’s capacity for action. The current reorganisation of NATO is partly being driven by this.

NATO
In November the NATO countries will adopt a new Strategic Concept for the Alliance, a concept that will reflect the changes in the global security picture. And Norway has been playing an active part in the process of formulating this new policy for NATO. 

It is important for us that NATO should in the future retain its ability to honour its mutual defence commitments towards its member countries while at the same time remaining involved in international peace operations. We have, however, long advocated a better balance between “home” and “away” in the overall perspective. It is our view that NATO’s focus on “out of area” operations – geographically remote from the territory of the member countries – has become so dominant that the Alliance’s core tasks have been relegated to a place in the background.

There are three reasons for our wish that the core tasks – that is to say looking after the security and defence of the member countries – should be given higher priority in the future.

Firstly we believe that it is in NATO’s interest to focus more on the ‘back yards’ of member states, whether it be round the shores of the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea or the Mediterranean, or in the High North. In this connection the Government has been working actively to highlight the High North as a strategically important area for the Alliance. Before the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the northern regions were of strategic significance because of their geographical location between the two superpowers. In more recent years the region has gained renewed significance due to questions associated with climate change and natural resources. Here NATO can play an important role in helping to ensure stability in the area and preventing the emergence of latent conflicts.

Secondly there is a close linkage between involvement “home” and “away”. All the member countries must be able to feel that their fundamental security interests are being safeguarded if the Alliance is not to lose support and legitimacy. It is this security umbrella that new member countries are seeking when they apply for membership of the Alliance. If any doubt were to arise as to whether the Alliance is in a position to safeguard the security of member countries, support for “away” operations could fall away or disappear altogether.
And last but not least, NATO’s organisation must adapt to the new security challenges. NATO must limit its expenditure and avoid engaging in activity which is no longer of high priority. The financial crisis and an uncertain economic situation in many of the member countries serve to underline the need for this. The restructuring and modernisation of NATO in which we are now engaged is necessary if the Alliance will in future continue to be able both to fulfil its mutual defence obligations and to engage in “out of area” operations on a sound basis.

Norway is following this process closely an d is playing an active part.

We are seeing an EU that is in a state of change, not least where defence and security policy is concerned. For me it has, for example, become more difficult to make political contact and engage in dialogue with the EU. The old “Troika meeting”, where I met with the EU’s political leaders four times a year, has been discontinued and not replaced in any form that we would consider satisfactory. We are working hard to find a new and acceptable solution. This is important in enabling us to safeguard Norwegian interests.

I have already mentioned that close allies have now embarked on preparations for the far-reaching restructuring of their defence forces. Through our North Sea Strategy we have forged close bonds with the United Kingdom, Germany and the Netherlands.

We appreciate that there are two main reasons for their forthcoming defence restructuring. Firstly it is about costs, but is also about the reshaping of defence assets to meet the new realities of the security picture while adapting to modified ambitions, especially where “out of area” operations are concerned. From a Norwegian viewpoint we see the forthcoming defence reforms of our close European allies as providing an opportunity to strengthen multinational cooperation.

In the United States as well, the defence organisation will be undergoing some radical restructuring. At the same time, however, America’s armed forces will remain hugely comprehensive. The aspect that is probably of the greatest interest to us in the future is the United States’ balance of focus between the Atlantic and the Pacific theatres. From our own viewpoint, it is important to develop still further our current cooperation with the United States, and it is gratifying to see that the Americans have been quick to focus on the challenges in the High North.

Nordic cooperation
NATO is important to us but Nordic cooperation is also steadily increasing in significance. In November last year we saw a new cooperation structure put in place, Nordic Defence Cooperation – NORDEFCO, which brings together in one organisation all aspects of Nordic defence cooperation. Norway holds the chairmanship in 2010.

We have a great deal to gain from cooperation and the potential is important. It covers everything from the joint education and training of personnel, joint exercises, joint purchasing and the maintenance of systems and equipment, to common transport, logistics and much more. Not least in relation to operations abroad, Nordic cooperation offers very considerable advantages. By acting together we can make a more substantial contribution to operations under the auspices of the UN, NATO or the EU than we ever could when acting alone.

The obstacles that previously hindered effective defence cooperation between the Nordic countries, involving differing attitudes towards NATO, the EU etc, no longer constitute formal impediments. At the same time, however, Nordic cooperation could never become an alternative to NATO or the EU. We see such cooperation rather as a deepening of the broader European integration in the field of security and defence policy, and as an important expression of EU-NATO cooperation. Nordic cooperation supplements the countries’ membership of NATO and/or the EU and is in no way an alternative.

I believe that we have already achieved much. I am also well satisfied with the plans that we now have for still closer collaboration within ISAF. I hope that we shall eventually end up with a joint Nordic force, fully integrated and with common maintenance and supply arrangements. This is of particular importance as we enter the phase of operations in which the Afghans will be taking over responsibility for their own security while we gradually scale down the military support.

Our ambition, from the standpoint of the Norwegian chairmanship, is that we should be making a joint Nordic contribution to a UN-led operation during the course of the next two or three years.

We in Norway are fortunate, our economic situation is good and we have been able to increase the defence budget in contrast to most other European countries.

We also have a strong Norwegian defence industry.

Industrial cooperation
Norwegian exports of defence equipment are showing strong growth, increasing from NOK 2.9 billion in 2005 to about 4.8 billion in 2009. Over the period from 2008 to 2009 alone, our exports rose by around 17 percent. This growth is due both to the fact that the Norwegian defence industry is highly competitive and to the constructive relationship that exists between the armed forces and industry.

This growth is also the result of our industrial policy with its increased emphasis on industrial collaboration and offset purchase agreements. And I would like to take this opportunity to give credit to our embassies and defence attachés who do such valuable work in opening doors and acting as support players for the defence industry.

This dynamic is of great importance to Norwegian industry and Norwegian jobs. The growing needs of the Armed Forces for advanced military equipment helps to strengthen the competence of Norwegian companies in contributing to the development of new technology, new market opportunities and the creation of added value in the longer term. 

In fact the development of advanced military equipment often leads to the development of spin-off products that can be exploited by industry in civil applications. In this way our military needs can contribute to innovation which in turn can provide the basis for new industrial initiatives.

One challenge to our security lies in the fact that espionage did not die with the end of the Cold War. International industrial espionage in on the increase, not least because more states now have ambitions to play a more central role on the international stage. It would be naive to believe that militarily oriented espionage directed against Norwegian interests has ceased. At the same time, it is not least our oil, gas and other offshore industries that are the focus of interest on the part of foreign actors.

Combat aircraft
One project with widespread repercussions where innovation, the creation of added value and new industrial initiatives are concerned, is Norway’s procurement of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter as its new combat aircraft. Our aim is that the project’s contribution to the creation of added value on a national scale should, over time, be of the same order of magnitude as the actual procurement cost of the aircraft themselves.

Work on the plan for industry to achieve this aim is well under way. A number of Norwegian companies have received key deliveries needed for production of the aircraft itself and its engines. To date we have concluded contracts to the value of USD 330 million. Norway has in place good relations with the aircraft manufacturers and these will be developed further in areas not directly associated with the F-35.

We are also working actively to be able to sell Norwegian developed technology for incorporation in the aircraft. Talks are in progress, both with the Americans and with the authorities in other countries, with a view to selling Kongsberg’s Joint Strike Missile (JSM) and APEX ammunition from Nammo. This is where we need the assistance of our embassies and missions in the countries concerned in gaining support for these initiatives.

The production rate for the F-35 is now being gradually built up and the aircraft is expected to reach full production by 2016. It is important, therefore, that we now position Norwegian companies so that they are well placed to compete for the larger long-term contracts.

Repercussions of offset agreements
Offset is an effective means of positioning Norwegian industry in the international defence market. At the moment, the Ministry of Defence has as many as 27 agreements running with foreign companies. In total, the outstanding commitments under these agreements amount to some 9 billion kroner.

Norwegian firms have been successful in the international defence market with a wide range of products from communications and maritime technology to a variety of weapon systems.

Every year, between 150 and 200 Norwegian companies compete for one or more offset contracts. This brings Norwegian industry orders worth around 2 billion kroner annually from foreign contractors, which makes the offset scheme the most important support measure for the defence and security related industry in Norway. Many of the companies which benefit from this play a very important role in providing employment in their local communities, whether it be Natech in Narvik, KDA in Kongsberg, Nammo in Raufoss or Kitron in Arendal. In addition, these companies often have an extensive network of subcontractors which also contribute significantly to value creation.

Conclusion
We have carried through a far-reaching restructuring of the Norwegian Armed Forces. As a result we now have a lean and effective organisation with modern, well equipped mission-oriented forces capable of meeting both current and future security challenges.

The Norwegian Armed Forces have the capacity to make important contributions to demanding operations abroad. They are also trained and equipped to undertake important tasks in our own neighbourhood in peacetime. These include surveillance, upholding Norwegian sovereignty and the exercise of authority in connection with the husbandry of resources in sea areas under Norwegian jurisdiction, as well as episode and crisis management.

We are also playing our part in the development of European and global security policy. Our contribution to the formulation of NATO’s new Strategic Concept is an example of this. Our involvement in UN affairs, and the work we do with our European allies and our Nordic cooperation partners, is directed towards the same end – that of making a contribution towards global peace and security – which is, after all, our primary defence task. And behind all this there stand rock-solid national defences with the capability for swift action when needed.

Thank you for your kind attention.