Foreign Policy Address to the Storting, 13 February 2007

Translation from the Norwegian

French version of the speech (pdf)

 

Mr President,

In times of change, contrasts can often be illustrated by snapshots from different periods.

When I did my military service in the Navy between 1979 and 1981, the Cold War was still on. I remember two episodes that made a deep impression on me. One was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The other was the strikes at the Polish shipyards on the Baltic and the mounting tension caused by them. I remember the Norwegian Navy was put on heightened alert.

Today the Soviet Union is history. In the north, new agendas are being set for cooperation in such a broad range of fields as energy, fisheries, the environment, climate change, industry, research and education, tourism, infrastructure, Arctic agriculture, culture, health, and justice and home affairs. New opportunities are presenting themselves, but so are challenges that will require a carefully balanced combination of firmness, continuity and innovative thinking.

The road travelled by Poland illustrates Europe’s transformation. Poland is now a member of NATO and the EU, and one of our partners in the EEA. The sons and daughters of the Polish shipyard workers of yesterday are today doing work that is in high demand in Norway.  

And NATO, which was created to safeguard transatlantic security during the Cold War, is engaged in its most important operation ever. Not in Europe, but in Afghanistan.

The Soviet occupation of Afghanistan came to an end in 1989, shortly before the Soviet Union itself became history. The cost of occupation became too high. But the costs to the Afghan people continued through new decades of civil war and suffering. This provided fertile ground for the Taliban. It was here 9/11 was planned. For the first time ever, NATO invoked Article 5, which states that an attack against one of the parties shall be considered an attack against them all.

In Afghanistan, not only NATO, but the entire the international community, is now facing a task that combines some of the key challenges of our time: poverty, weak state structures, a weak national economy, extremist rebel groups and a high crime rate – all of them threats to a proud and dignified people with a rich culture. The situation is a threat to the Afghan people. But it is also a threat to security in our society.

This situation has a direct effect on us.

It is a paradox that conflicts located far beyond our own borders – like Afghanistan, the Middle East, Sudan and Somalia – are affecting our own society more directly than did the Cold War during the 40 years it lasted.

The Cold War is history, primarily because both East and West – and not least Washington – opted to make dialogue their main tool. Dialogue, based on firmness and strength – including military force – was at the core of a policy of engagement that facilitated the détente with China, the conclusion of historic disarmament agreements, and the democratisation in Central and Eastern Europe. Europe showed the way itself in many ways, beginning with Willy Brandt’s Ostpolitik in the 1960s followed by the establishment of the CSCE, which would later become the OSCE.

Today’s world lacks a defining order. Borders are no longer impermeable, and the concept of deterrence has changed. The complex interaction of a wide range of measures is required to resolve the conflicts we are facing.

We should not have excessive faith in what military force alone can achieve. We need to return to a policy of engagement in order to master this interaction.

In my address, Mr President, I will concentrate on the challenges related to Afghanistan, the Middle East and the High North. These are key challenges that are also relevant to how we formulate our foreign policy in many new other areas, such as energy and climate change.

As for the EEA and Norway’s relations with the rest of Europe, the debate later on today will provide opportunity for in-depth discussion. I would like to briefly underline that we are currently in a negotiation process concerning the enlargement of the EEA. These negotiations have not been concluded, but our aim is to reach political agreement on the outstanding issues as soon as possible. Norway intends to contribute to building a secure Europe based on solidarity.

In this connection I would like to refer to the letter from the parliamentary leader of the opposition to the Prime Minister regarding the status of the work on the Services Directive. The deadline for submitting consultative comments on the draft text is 22 February this year. The Government will synthesise the submitted comments before presenting its assessment to the Storting.

As regards the WTO negotiations, little of significance has occurred since our debate in this chamber before Christmas, except for clear political signals calling for the resumption of negotiations. Norway is in favour of a resumption, and the Government will consult with the bodies of the Storting as the negotiations proceed.

Mr President,

During my visit to Afghanistan in January, one of the Afghan ministers commented that Afghanistan is not a post-conflict society. It is a post-disaster society, with conflicts that have not yet been brought to an end.

The task facing us today is to help to pave the way for reconciliation, peace and development in Afghanistan. The task is to build a country that is no longer a breeding ground for terrorism, and that no longer sends “weapons of mass destruction” in the form of huge heroin exports over vast distances – right into the heart of our own society.

These are the reasons why today Afghanistan is our most important military priority area and one of the largest recipients of Norwegian civil assistance. And it is a high priority not only for Norway, but also for NATO – our own security alliance and our own allies and a wide range of partner countries, including our Nordic neighbours.

We share the responsibility for ensuring the success of this operation.

The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) needs to further develop its strategy for dealing with new attacks inside Afghanistan. At the same time, a much stronger political focus on preventing infiltration from the border areas between Afghanistan and Pakistan is needed. The Pakistani Government must gain stronger control over the groups operating out of these areas.

This underscores that the conflict in Afghanistan, in addition to its international dimension, also has a regional dimension. It is important to engage all countries in the region in a positive way, and this is an issue we raise in bilateral talks. However, it is primarily up to the Afghans themselves to develop close, balanced relations with other countries in the region.

The Afghan leaders I met were very clear on the subject of international military involvement: the most important question is not how many ISAF soldiers are deployed in Afghanistan, but what the international community can do to train and equip the country’s own forces.

There is a need for more extensive training of the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police. The challenge posed by the Taliban and other rebel groups should as far as possible be met with an Afghan response. The sooner the Afghans themselves can be given the capability to meet this challenge, the more effectively these groups can be fought. It is essential that the Afghan people see that the central and regional authorities are able to ensure security, law and order – the necessary framework for development.

The Afghan girl Naoroz, who is now receiving specialist treatment for her burns at Haukeland hospital, can be seen as an image of Afghanistan today and as a symbol of hope. In fact her name means “new day”. Without help she would not have survived. Due to our help, she will. We are in the process of launching a project to prevent similar accidents and to strengthen the Afghan public health service in this field. By the end of the month, Naoroz and her father will be back in Fayrab province. From then on, her future life will depend on the help of her family and her village.

It is essential that those who wish Afghanistan well recognise that the military approach should not be the prime approach to addressing the challenges the country is facing. And I would like to underline that it is military personnel in the field, at all levels, who are stressing precisely this point.

It was this consideration that was behind the Government’s decision to terminate Norway’s participation in Operation Enduring Freedom, with its mandate to fight terrorism, and rather focus on our participation in ISAF, with its mandate to promote security, stability and development.

There is not much use in quelling resistance if the people do not have any prospect of development, good governance, respect for human rights and an atmosphere that is conducive to reconciliation. People must believe in and see permanent changes for the better.

And equally important: what we help to build up through military presence and civil efforts – including the work done by NGOs – the Afghans must be capable of maintaining in the future. Unless we succeed here, the local population could easily turn against the international forces and regard them – and us – as occupiers and a source of instability.

NATO has the military ability and capacity necessary for military success. Now we need to mobilise the knowledge required for reconstruction.

Norway can draw on more than 50 years of experience of development assistance. We understand the importance of good coordination, of providing help that matches local needs and creates a sense of local ownership, and ensuring that assistance is provided in a form that the recipients are able to handle.

Few other places illustrate the cross-sector nature of foreign and security policy more clearly than Afghanistan. The challenges here are not a task for NATO alone. This is why Norway proposed that NATO should invite the UN, the EU, the World Bank and other leading institutions to participate in the discussions during the NATO Foreign Ministers’ Meeting last month.

There is today far greater agreement compared with just a few months ago, that different measures must be considered in relation to each other, that a more appropriate balance between civil and military measures is required, and that the civil efforts have not been sufficient and – what is maybe more important – not effective enough.

The NATO Summit in Riga confirmed that this is the right way forward, and the Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in January and the informal meeting of NATO Defence Ministers in Seville last week both pointed forward in the same direction. It was interesting, and most heartening, that at the NATO meeting in January, the US Secretary of State spoke in favour of a new strategy for Afghanistan with more emphasis on the civil elements of the efforts.

This is in line with the position taken by Norway, which has been reflected in previous debates in this chamber and in the bodies of the Storting, as well as in initiatives Norway has taken in NATO and the UN.

The overall picture of the international efforts in Afghanistan is thus different from what it was as we entered the new year. This is encouraging.

Mr President,

The Government believes that carefully tailored international efforts can help to create lasting, stable peace. Norway has set the target of increasing its civil assistance to Afghanistan to about NOK 450 million in 2007, making it the second-largest recipient of Norwegian development assistance after the Palestinian Territory.

On the military side, Norway currently has 550 women and men are serving in Afghanistan under demanding conditions. We are proud of their work. Our contingent consists of highly-motivated and well-qualified soldiers and officers who are carrying out their tasks in a carefully considered and professional manner. In addition there are all the Norwegians who are working for humanitarian organisations with humanitarian mandates and must therefore not be confused with military personnel.

Norway will continue its military engagement. Our main focus will still be on the north. It is important that our units build up sound knowledge of local conditions in order to fulfil their tasks. Apart from that, we have not imposed caveats on the use of the Norwegian contingent in Mazar-e-Sharif as a task force.

It is crucial that the government institutions in Kabul become firmly established and extend their range of influence. Kabul is the capital and the gateway to the country. From 1 April this year Norwegian personnel will be responsible for operating Kabul’s international airport.

The security challenge in Afghanistan is real. The Taliban attacks last summer and autumn were at times dramatic. Continued military presence and vigilance is required throughout the country. The Taliban and other rebel groups can be expected to remain active. Taliban resistance may manifest itself again when winter is over. It is not given that the 2006 offensive will be repeated, but ISAF is prepared and well equipped.

On 5 February, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) requested Norway to provide an additional military contribution in the form of C-130 Hercules transport aircraft, F-16 fighters or special forces.

The Government has carefully considered this request taking account of what we are already contributing, the situation on the ground, the goals the international community has set itself in terms of civil assistance, and our current available capacity.

On this basis we have decided to meet NATO’s request by providing special forces  for use in the Kabul region, where ISAF has unmet needs. This contribution will thus be in addition to our contributions in the north and our upcoming responsibility for operating Kabul’s international airport, which is the lifeline between Afghanistan and the rest of the world.

Our special forces contribution will be in line with NATO’s request, and will play an important role in defending and maintaining stability in the capital, and consequently in protecting not only the civilian population, but also the Government, public institutions, and the international community’s efforts. It will thus underpin Norway’s other efforts in Kabul – both our military efforts, including the responsibility for operating the airport, and our civil efforts, including all the elements I have already referred to.

A Norwegian special forces contribution in Kabul will therefore help to safeguard and support the comprehensive, balanced strategy that it is now imperative to develop. The unit will be stationed in the Kabul region, not in the south or in any other part of the country. In our reply to NATO we will make it clear that Norway will not be making any further military contributions in 2007 beyond what has now been announced.

Mr President,

Our military contribution must be designed in such a way that it opens a larger space for political processes. The reconciliation process is among the most central political processes.

We consider the task of reconciliation that the Afghan Government is facing to be of decisive importance. President Karzai and members of the Government have underlined the need for creating much stronger ties between the democratically elected institutions in Kabul – primarily the President – and the more traditional power structures in rural areas. We will help to facilitate these efforts.

In cooperation with the Afghan authorities, we will develop an extensive programme to promote more long-term recruitment to the public administration. The goal is to bring together students from all parts of the country, particularly from the most disadvantaged provinces. Strengthening the position of women will be a key concern. If we succeed in our efforts, we will be helping to form stronger ties between Kabul and other parts of the country, and at the same time be helping to build a public administration in which women will be able to participate fully in the future.

This project forms part of a broad package of Norwegian assistance for capacity-building and state-building. Norway will provide assistance to ensure that an institute for public employees is able to start training personnel as soon as possible. Norway is also the first country to contribute to a project for competence-building in local administration.

We are also initiating efforts to assist Afghan energy authorities in drawing up a regulatory framework for developing the country’s gas resources. We are providing support for building up the Afghan security forces. Norway has nine police advisers and five legal advisers in the country at the moment, and we are planning to increase the number of advisers. In addition, we will continue our extensive efforts in areas where we are already heavily involved, such as education and rural development.

The UN does not currently have sufficient capacity in Afghanistan to play a leading role in coordinating the international efforts in the country. We wish to improve this situation, for example by reinforcing the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) with a number of new positions, particularly to strengthen humanitarian efforts in the provinces.

Mr President,

You may wonder why I am going into these issues in such detail.

I am doing so because the situation in Afghanistan is of great importance. Because the perspectives here involve questions of principle. And because the measures employed are so clearly of relevance to other situations – to today’s foreign policy, and not least to our own and our allies’ ability to play a constructive role in resolving the conflicts of our time.

Our efforts illustrate that we need to take a comprehensive approach to providing assistance in other countries as well. Good governance, human rights, reconciliation, security sector reform, competence- and capacity-building in a number of areas, such as education, health, employment and humanitarian relief. All of this is necessary in order to help fragile states.

For too long there has been an excessive faith in what superior military force can achieve. A strong military focus can become self-reinforcing as it can lead to the military perspective being applied too readily when solutions to new challenges are being sought. The disaster in Iraq illustrates this.

Change will gradually have to come. Here the UN must play a key role, not least by underscoring that all use of military force must be in accordance with the UN Charter. But the UN should also be used to coordinate the other dimensions: political solutions, humanitarian assistance and reconstruction. In this connection the further work of the recently-established Peacebuilding Commission will be of great significance. Norway will actively follow the UN’s lead.

Mr President,

A number of the features that characterise the situation in Afghanistan can also been seen in other critical conflict areas. The challenge is how we deal with countries where the state structures are extremely weak  – societies where rebel groups are waging what they perceive as a struggle against the Western world and Western values.

We see that several of the conflicts taking place in a vast region are fuelling each other, creating negative ripple effects. There appears to be an unbroken belt of interrelated conflicts stretching from Afghanistan, through the Middle East, to the Horn of Africa and the massive humanitarian disaster in Darfur, in Sudan – from Kabul to Khartoum.

The extended Middle East region is the site of conflicts that are closely intertwined, growing tension along ethnic and religious lines, and rivalry between regional powers. This underscores the need for a regional approach, combined with a broad, inclusive political process.

Those who are spearheading such political processes must have our support.

It is against this background that the Government supports the agreement reached at Mecca to form a Palestinian unity government.

The Government has for several months been actively supporting President Abbas’ efforts to get Hamas to cooperate on forming a government that reflects the basic norms of international cooperation and the principles established by the Quartet: the acceptance of previous agreements, renunciation of  violence and recognition of the state of Israel.

Under the Mecca Agreement, Hamas has undertaken without any reservation to respect the agreements the PLO has concluded with Israel on behalf of the Palestinian people. These agreements, which include the Oslo Accords, are based on Palestinian recognition of the state of Israel – indeed on mutual recognition – and the use of negotiation rather than violence to resolve the issue of Israeli occupation.

The unity government is not yet in place. It must be established, final agreement must be reached on its composition, and the principles agreed on at Mecca must be incorporated into the government’s policy platform. But we want to signal that if this does become a reality, it will open the way for normal political and economic relations with the Palestinian Authority.

In our view, what President Abbas has achieved is the best we can hope for. The alternative to Palestinian unity is civil war, disintegration and a new wave of extremism on the Palestinian side. This would be disastrous for the Palestinians. But it would also pose a security threat to Israel and an obstacle to the resumption of Palestinian-Israeli negotiations.

This fragile process needs support now. Norway has experience, networks and access to all the parties, which means that we are in a position to make a contribution. And this is what we are doing now and will continue to do.

The Government would in particular like to commend Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Syria and the Arab League for the part they have played in the efforts to form a unity government. This joint regional effort to prevent the total collapse of Palestinian society and civil war demonstrates a sense of responsibility and the will to tackle major political challenges in the region.

Now the international community must continue to build on and support what has been achieved so that it is possible to restart a process and negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians that can address the final status issues, which would make it possible to establish a viable Palestinian state that can live side by side with Israel within internationally recognised borders.

At the same time, we reiterate our call on Israel. As the strongest party, Israel must demonstrate a will for real negotiations. Illegal settlement activity must cease. We deplore the building of the separation barrier. And we urge Israel to transfer withheld revenues from Palestinian trade and ease border restrictions.

Each of the conflicts in the world today is unique in both its origin and substance. But the conflicts in the Middle East are more closely interrelated today than they have been for a long time – the Israeli-Palestinian, the Israeli-Syrian, the Israeli-Lebanese conflicts, and the fragile political equilibrium in Lebanon. In addition there is Iran’s growing role as a regional power and player. This is why we must keep alive the idea of a regional peace conference. The parties must be engaged in the process and made to take their share of the responsibility.  We will continue to build on the outcome of Madrid +15 Conference last month, which was the result of the Norwegian-Spanish initiative to commemorate the 15th anniversary of the original Madrid Peace Conference.

The greatest danger in the Middle East today is the situation in Iraq. There is a significant risk that the situation in the country could trigger further conflict in neighbouring areas. If Iraq should collapse, this could create a dangerous vacuum, and could result in regional powers being drawn into the situation in unpredictable ways. The solution will have to come from within Iraq. But the players in the region must be engaged. It will hardly enhance stability in Iraq if Syria and Iran are isolated and become more unstable.

Mr President,

The conflict areas I have been talking about here today have a number of features in common.

Firstly, the importance of state structures – and the great danger of instability when these structures are absent.

Secondly, the need for establishing dialogue both within a country and across borders, and the importance of pursuing a policy of engagement that combines firmness with the ability and will to engage states and political, social and religious groups in a political process to resolve the problems. And not leave them on the outside.

A third common feature is that these conflicts affect us. They have a bearing on our own security and welfare. Not just because we are moved as fellow human beings when we witness injustice and suffering. But also because we are dependent on peace and security in far-away places if we are to enjoy security here at home. By the same token, it is a paradox that expressions like “here at home” and “far away” are no longer meaningful in a global political perspective.

This is why Norway’s role as a nation of peace has such a prominent place in our policy platform. We are intensifying our efforts to prevent, reduce and resolve conflicts. Norway has particular qualifications and experience, and we have built up expertise that we are prepared to draw on, but we must not take on more than we can handle.

I set great store by the public debate engendered by our peace efforts. Much of what we are doing is pioneering work, and we welcome any criticism. We must be realistic, we must have no illusions. The challenges we are facing in our peace efforts are formidable. But at the same time, we must have visions and ideals in our foreign policy. We must seize the opportunities that arise and be able to see the broader picture – and at the same time we must be better at doing so.

The fourth common feature I want to talk about today is engagement. Isolation and boycott are proving to be increasingly unviable as foreign policy tools. Conflicts cannot be isolated. If anything they have a tendency to spread. Unless we become engaged.

There is a general perception today that there is a growing potential for conflict and tension between the “Western world” and the “Muslim world”. There are a number of extremist, polarising and destructive forces, which get a lot of attention, but there are also a number of other forces – and they are probably in the majority – that are engaged in bridgebuilding.. These are the forces we must support.

States and groups that use terrorist methods and destroy bridges, whether religious, nationalist or political extremists, must be dealt with firmly. As states we have the right and obligation to defend ourselves, but how we do so is the crucial issue. Here, too, we are talking about much more than military capability. Only by curbing recruitment to extremist groups will we – as states – be able to prevail in the long term.

Military means are necessary in this context, but they can also be counterproductive if they kill indiscriminately, are perceived as being invasive or drive potential recruits into extremism. A political and economic strategy is also called for. In today’s world, political, social and religious groups – and not just states – are important players. We cannot define them away.

We should be deeply concerned, Mr President, that so many other agendas are being overshadowed by the war on terror:
 disarmament – which must be viewed in connection with non-proliferation;
 democracy-building – which involves strengthening civil society, broad participation and building democratic institution; and
 human rights – which must be pursued in our efforts to safeguard human dignity, to combat the death penalty and to fight for children’s and women’s rights, through our active involvement in the UN, the Council of Europe, the OSCE and other multilateral institutions. Given global developments, these dimensions merit more attention, not less.

Mr President,

NATO foreign ministers will meet here in Oslo in two months’ time. In addition to Afghanistan, Kosovo will be one of the main topics of discussion.

We see traces of the common features of the conflicts I have been talking about here today in the Western Balkans as well: cultural and religious tensions, fragile structures following war and conflict, and groups that must be engaged in political processes.

Norway supports the work being done by UN Special Envoy Martti Athisaari.  Two weeks have passed since he presented his proposal for the future status of Kosovo to the parties. Now he will have consultations with them before presenting his final plan to the UN Security Council. After that it will be important to ensure that the Council is able to adopt a resolution that reflects the plan, and that the solution chosen can be implemented in practice.

The agreement on Kosovo’s status must safeguard the interests of the minority. The aim must be to ensure that all the people of Kosovo are able to safeguard their own security and decide the direction of their own political development. This requires that we help to create conditions that are conducive to long-term economic growth and institutional reform. But it also requires that the people and their leaders show a will to reconciliation and make it clear that they will not resort to violence.

Mr President,

I would now like to turn to the High North.

As regards “Norway’s interests” in the traditional sense, we see that many of our most important interests are in our neighbouring areas in the north.

There we have extensive natural resources and important partners and allies. We have vast sea areas and boundaries with international waters and with neighbouring states. It is in the north that much of the foundation for security, welfare and development in Norway – both now and in the future – is being laid.

This is why the High North is the Government’s most important foreign policy priority.

Norway’s policy in the High North will continue to be recognisable. The key words for our strategy are presence, activity and knowledge.

The Government’s High North Strategy, which was launched in Tromsø on 1 December 2006, provides a general overview of Norway’s priorities and ambitions. Allocations for measures in the High North were increased by NOK 270 million in last year’s budget. The implementation of the strategy will be high on the Government’s agenda.

This will not just be a priority for the next few years or for this parliamentary period, but an effort that will go on for generations. The Government will act as prime mover and facilitator and will invite private and public actors, both Norwegian and international, to take part in our efforts.

An important part of our High North strategy is fulfilling our obligations and responsibilities and exercising our rights as a coastal state. There are aspects of this work – to which we are devoting considerable time and resources – that rarely attract much public attention, but they definitely deserve to be mentioned.

It is essential that Norway’s policy is based on an existing, internationally recognised legal framework. This enables Norway to exercise its authority in a consistent and predictable manner, which is readily recognisable to other countries. This is particularly important in cases where there are several countries that both show an interest in – and have interests in – the High North.

Last year agreement was reached on the outer limit of Norway’s continental shelf and 200-mile zones in the vast sea area between Svalbard and Greenland. And we signed an agreement with Iceland and Denmark/the Faroe Islands on the delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles in the southern part of the Banana Hole of the Northeast Atlantic. This is a very significant development.

It means that all the important, previously unresolved boundaries in western sea areas have now been settled.

We give high priority to our negotiations with Russia on the delimitation of the continental shelf and zones in the Barents Sea. A solution to this issue would benefit both countries and would release considerable potential for cooperation, not least in the petroleum sector in what is currently considered a disputed area. Progress is being made by small but important steps.

Both parties are seeking to find a comprehensive solution to the delimitation issue that safeguards important interests in the fisheries and energy areas. At the same time we are concerned that an agreed solution be perceived as being just and reasonable in accordance with the criteria set out in the law of the sea. The development of the law of the sea has progressively helped to clarify the factors that should be given emphasis in this area.

In accordance with our obligations under the law of the sea, Norway last autumn submitted data on the outer limits of its continental shelf documenting that the part of the continental shelf extending beyond its 200-mile zone covers areas measuring nearly 250 000 square kilometres in the High North. The documentation will be considered by the international Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf , a body made up of scientific and technical experts, which assesses the validity of the data and analyses submitted by coastal states on the basis of the criteria set out in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.  The Commission will soon begin assessing the documentation and will issue its recommendations, which will provide a basis for determining the extent of the Norwegian continental shelf beyond the 200-mile zone.

I would also like to say a few words about the five-party agreement on the management of the Norwegian spring-spawning herring stock, which was concluded on 18 January this year. The agreement rightfully gives Norway a larger share of the total allowable catch (TAC) for this important stock. The fact that the agreement more closely reflects the zone attachment of the stock than was previously the case is important both to the Norwegian fisheries industry and as a more general matter of principle.

However, in my address here today, I would like to stress that  through this agreement, we have helped to ensure the sound management of all the fish stocks in our sea areas, which also migrate into international waters in the Loophole and the Banana Hole. This is an important achievement in terms of the sound management of living resources in accordance with the principles set out in the UN agreement on fisheries on the high seas. It is also an important step in efforts to combat illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing and other environmental crime at sea, which are among the most serious challenges we are facing in our neighbouring areas.

The Norwegian armed forces and the Norwegian Coastguard also have an important part to play here, through their continual monitoring activities and exercise of authority.

Research, education and knowledge are the key in the north. Our ambition is that Norway should be known as a country that manages its sea areas on the basis of scientific knowledge and the precautionary principle. The integrated management plan for the Barents Sea and the sea areas off the Lofoten Islands fits right into our tradition of sound stewardship.

Mr President,

Our relations with Russia are the key bilateral dimension of our High North policy. Our policy vis-à-vis Russia is based on interests and cooperation; it is pragmatic and firm. Several of the challenges in the north, including those relating to the environment, rescue and emergency preparedness, and the management of resources, can only be met with the involvement of Russia and through Norwegian-Russian cooperation.

At the same time, our dialogue with Russia must be open and unambiguous with respect to our views on the principles of the rule of law, and human and political rights. This is necessary at a time when we are seeing disquieting authoritarian tendencies and worsening conditions for the press and NGOs. And we speak up.

Major progress has been made in our cooperation in the High North, through measures to facilitate border crossing, the many initiatives taken under the Barents cooperation, the growing number of cooperation projects, particularly within research and education, and steadily increasing people-to-people contact. Complications arise from time to time, for example in connection with the export of Norwegian fish. There are still a number of challenges to be dealt with, and it is our experience that effort and patience are needed in order to find solutions.

Now we want to make further progress in the High North. We want to develop a dialogue with Russia on closer cooperation on both sides of the border with a view to realising the opportunities that future petroleum operations in the Barents Sea could provide for land-based activities. Today this strip of coast has an infrastructure designed for a quite different era. During the course of the spring, we will present ideas for further developing cooperation in this region, where so many changes can be expected in the years to come.

Energy is a main driving force for activities in the High North. Norway and Russia share the responsibility for developing these opportunities in a sound and sustainable way. Petroleum projects such as Snøhvit and Shtokman are good examples of the challenges connected with operations and cooperation in the Barents Sea.

Again, patience and a long-term perspective are important – for the authorities and companies alike.

Mr President,

The energy issue has gained a foreign policy dimension in that energy supply and energy security now figure prominently in international relations.

At the same time, the environmental dimension of energy policy is becoming increasingly important. Oil and gas account for a considerable share of greenhouse gas emissions. The effects of global climate change are becoming apparent most rapidly in the High North. The pictures of diminishing ice cover speak for themselves. Good climate policy is also sound energy security policy.

What do these developments in the High North entail for Norway? I would like to highlight three dimensions.

Firstly, stronger international focus on the development of the Norwegian continental shelf. Although the era of the giant fields may be over, the fact that there are still considerable oil and gas reserves, combined with our reliability and predictability, will make Norway an attractive partner for importing countries in Europe. The interest in our waters will continue – or increase.

Secondly, increased international interest in the environmental solutions and technological innovations applied on the Norwegian continental shelf and in the Norwegian petroleum industry. The fact that operations on the Norwegian continental shelf are the most energy efficient and environmentally sound in the world is an important factor for importing countries that want to pursue a progressive climate policy.

Thirdly, the greater need for producer countries and consumer countries to maintain a close and constructive dialogue. Where there is a relationship of mutual dependency, the producer country will seek to ensure security of deliveries and the consumer country will seek to ensure security of supply. Openness and transparency are necessary for well-functioning global energy markets.

Besides, transparency of income flows from the extraction of oil, gas and minerals promotes development and stability. We are making a contribution here through our support to the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) and through the establishment of the EITI secretariat in Oslo.

To summarise: Norway has important interests to safeguard in the broad interface between foreign policy, energy policy and climate policy. The development of Norway as an energy nation, the importance of knowledge and research in these key policy areas, particularly in relation to the north, and the central issue of climate change – all these factors are changing the face of Norway compared with 10 to 20 years ago. Our character as a national is changing.

Our gas exports to Europe could increase by some 50% by 2012, bringing them up to the same level as Russia’s exports to Europe. From the autumn, gas from Snøhvit will be exported to the US. We have enormous resources, not only in terms of oil and gas, but also in terms of technology and knowledge that can make a vital contribution to the global efforts to address climate change.

Our energy industry is making inroads into new markets, in countries where we may not have a long history of trade, many of which are developing countries, and many of which have political regimes that are in sharp contrast to our own.

In total, these developments are of significance for Norway’s interests. Norway’s practice in relation to oil and gas exports will not be altered as a result. We attach importance to predictability underpinned by a clear regulatory framework. We will fulfil our role as a major supplier of oil and gas on commercial terms. We will continue to develop business and commercial opportunities subject to democratically determined and sustainable conditions.

At the same time we have to be able to see the overall picture, where energy and climate are key dimensions, not least in our efforts in the High North. This is why the public administration, including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, is strengthening capacity in this area. We must also bear in mind that High North policy also covers land-based activities, the conditions for Arctic agriculture and genetic resources.

Mr President,

The foreign policy framework conditions are changing and being reshaped. We must ask ourselves: Are we able to fully appreciate the implications of this?

The nature of Norway’s alliances has changed since the Cold War. Together with our allies we are facing new security challenges. International alliances are shifting, institutions are changing, and major powers in Asia such as China and India are rapidly making their presence felt in the international arena, with warranted self-confidence.

The EU has expanded. Europe is becoming more closely integrated and more clearly focused, but challenging tasks remain both in terms of deepening internal relations and in terms of further expansion, for example towards Turkey. The US as superpower has a taken on a different role to the one it had during the Cold War. The fight against international terrorism has led to new alliances and dividing lines .

The dimension of religion in foreign policy – the role of those who practise a religion as gate keepers or as peacebuilders – is coming more strongly to the fore, and so are questions related to identity, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, discrimination and tolerance. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is currently expanding its contacts with religious organisations and leaders in Norway and abroad. The dimensions of culture, identity and public diplomacy are also being strengthened in Norwegian foreign policy.

We have succeeded in developing a broad dialogue on corporate social responsibility with the business sector, NGOs and centres of expertise. This dialogue focuses on human rights, the environment and anti-corruption efforts. The international conference on corporate social responsibility that is to be held in Oslo next month is one example of the closer cooperation that has been developed with the Norwegian business sector in this area.

And, Mr President, there is one international development that is of particular importance for Norway. Multilateralism, as we have known it since the establishment of the UN and the Bretton Woods institutions after the Second World War, is taking on new forms. More actors are joining, and new alliances and networks are being formed.

The vision of a predictable UN-led world order that enjoys multilateral support is particularly important for Norway. The Government is contributing – not least through Prime Minister Stoltenberg’s participation on the UN reform panel – to a much needed process to modernise the organisation and make it more effective. The proposal of “one UN” – which has been advocated by Norway and the other Nordic countries for many years – is now, as a result of the panel’s recommendation, being tried out in eight pilot countries. Norway will provide both political and economic support for these pilot projects, which are to establish one programme for the whole UN family funded through one budget for each country.

It is also important that each member state also better coordinates its positions in the UN system’s many organisations. We find today that a country may present one point of view in one UN connection, and another point of view in another UN connection. Indeed this need for better coordination is a challenge that is equally applicable to us.

Now that there has been a change in the world organisation’s leadership, Norway’s clear commitment, support for the secretary-general and emphasis on reform will be more important than ever. Efforts to follow up UN Security Council resolution 1325 to ensure the participation of women in peace processes and in post-conflict reconstruction are at the core of Norway’s efforts and many of the areas I have mentioned in my address today.

It is vital that international decision-making structures are enabled to better deal with the major global challenges that are facing us. This applies to the UN, the WTO, the wide range of UN specialised agencies, and others. Political responses are needed as a counterbalance to the free market forces’ strength and scope of action. It is necessary to develop cooperation and consultation arrangements that are able to take decisions that encompass several countries, both at regional and at global level.

Global structures that are able to take decisions are needed to shoulder the common burdens that weigh on the international community.

In parallel with the efforts within the multilateral institutions, it is necessary to enter into cooperation that can give new input and lead to more dynamic multilateral efforts and ripple effects in other areas.

Let me conclude by giving you five examples – which include both areas of cooperation and tools – examples that illustrate how the foreign policy perspectives are changing and expanding, and how Norway is building new networks.

Firstly, health. Few factors are of such fundamental importance for human life and social development. Health issues have direct foreign policy relevance in a number of areas, for example in conflict areas, in connection with epidemics and as an arena for confidence-building, cross-conflict cooperation. Norway and France have taken the initiative to develop a closer dialogue, and, together with an established group of countries from all parts of the world, will present proposals for putting health issues on the international political agenda during the course of the spring.

Here I would also like to highlight Norway’s support for the prevention of HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases, including though international vaccination programmes, such as the GAVI Alliance, which is seeking to provide vaccination for all the children in the world, and through our increased efforts to achieve the UN Millennium Development Goal of reducing child mortality by two thirds by 2015. Since its establishment in 2000, the GAVI Alliance has prevented around 2.3 million deaths, mainly among children – particularly in poor countries. This result speaks for itself – it is preventing suffering and paving the way for development.

Secondly, climate change. The challenges posed by climate change make it necessary to take an innovative approach to foreign policy. The progress of the multilateral climate negotiations is too slow. The Kyoto Protocol covers just 30% of greenhouse gas emissions. More players must take part, and the body of agreements must be strengthened and expanded. Norway will fulfil its climate obligations. But we must go further. We must address climate problems in our bilateral relations; we must form new alliances that give these efforts more momentum. Last year, the Government initiated cooperation on climate efforts with India. This year we will take new initiatives to promote efforts to address environmental issues and climate change vis-à-vis other key players.

Thirdly, human rights and humanitarian law. The Government has initiated an international process to introduce a ban on cluster munitions that cause unacceptable humanitarian suffering and impede development. States and organisations have been invited to a meeting in Oslo next week with a view to initiating cross-regional cooperation that will give new multilateral momentum to the efforts to introduce a ban on cluster munitions that cause unacceptable humanitarian suffering. It proved possible in the case of landmines, and it should be possible now, not least due to the important role played by NGOs.

Fourthly, trade and the WTO. The contact between leading members of the WTO has been intensified since last summer, and particularly since the new year. Norway has contributed actively to this process by bringing together five other member countries – Canada, Chile, Indonesia, Kenya and New Zealand – to discuss how we together can contribute to the resumption of real negotiations. Together we share an overarching interest in the success of the WTO negotiations, and attach particular importance to the interests and needs of the developing countries. Our participation in this group has also given us access to a new network and new knowledge.

Fifthly, disarmament and non-proliferation. Norway is playing a leading role in the seven-country initiative, a good initiative launched by my predecessor, which is seeking to set new, realistic agendas to ensure progress in nuclear disarmament – an issue which is as important today as it was before. This work is particularly relevant in connection with the launch in April of the international efforts leading up to the Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 2010. Here, Norway will seek to lead the way.

Mr President,

An important backdrop to these changes in foreign policy perspectives – at both national and international level – is what is generally referred to as “globalisation”, and this has been one of the main themes of my address. The rest of the world is coming closer.
t is against this background that the Government has taken the initiative for a major study, which the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has given the preliminary title of Norway’s interests in a globalised world. The last time we carried out such a broad review was in 1989. And much has changed since then.

The purpose of this project is to encourage reflection and broad debate on how Norway can best promote its interests, goals and visions within changing international framework conditions. It is to be an inclusive project. The idea is that greater insight will give us a broader, clearer outlook.

The project has three main objectives.

We want to encourage a debate on how we perceive our foreign policy interests and goals. What are our main interests? What are our goals? How can we best set priorities between them?

We want to highlight new issues that affect us directly – issues that I have touched on now in this address. How should foreign policy be used to meet the opportunities and challenges in these areas?

And thirdly, all of this is about tools. How can we best promote our main foreign policy objectives? How do we relate to international alliances and institutions that are shifting and changing, to both new and well-established players, networks and arenas?

The Government is inviting political and other organisations in Norway, research centres and everyone with an interest in societal issues to take part in a dialogue with the objective of developing a deeper and broader foreign policy understanding. The Government aims to present the results of this process to the Storting before the end of the present parliamentary period.

We have a long tradition in Norway of developing our foreign policy based on broad consensus. Consultations and broad agreement between all the parties on the main policy lines have been the general rule, and we consider this to be of great value.

But we can stand more – not less – foreign policy debate. We are not well served by making an unnatural distinction between debate on foreign policy and other political debate. We could well do with more discussion of foreign policy, more debate.

Without discussion and debate, broad involvement is not possible.