Staying relevant – NATO in changing times

The Minister’s remarks were based on the following points
Check against delivery.

Ladies and gentlemen, Members of NATO’s Parliamentary Assembly – and its Political Committee,

• Welcome to Norway and Oslo. I am very pleased to see you here, convinced as I am of our Alliance’s relevance in a time that is so often referred to as “global”.
• Globalised our epoch may indeed be. It is true that globalisation opens up the world. It is equally true that it highlights all that which unites – or, on the other hand, separates - communities and individuals. And it highlights the importance of solidarity.
• I am honoured to have the opportunity today to address elected representatives of NATO’s member countries. And I am proud that Norway belongs to an Alliance that has its own parliamentary assembly. Not all military alliances do. Indeed, this is why, through changing times, we remain attached to NATO. The Parliamentary Assembly shows the “strength” of NATO as an alliance. In such assemblies we share our outlooks. The processes of sharing outlooks – around the table – are important.
• We must preserve NATO’s linkage with the general public. This linkage is the guarantee that NATO continues to be an instrument of democracy.
• I’ll concentrate my remarks on three issues; first on NATO’s legitimacy, second on ensuring NATO’s relevance, and third I’ll focus on the High North – this is why I’ve brought with me a map (of the High North, Arctic, North Pole). 

First, on legitimacy

• Today, we have to tell our children about the role and importance of NATO. NATO’s support of the 1960s, 70s and 80s was sort of “automatic”, we (I remember when I served in the Norwegian Navy, my own background) took it for granted, the background or backdrop for a military alliance was obvious – the Cold War. Now, the outlook has changed. We must explain to our children that the rationale has changed. The NATO is needed for new times.
• NATO’s legitimacy among our populations depends on politicians’ work. People must be convinced of the need for and the relevance of NATO. The public in member countries are well informed; by definition they live in open and democratic societies. Young people. New generations. Born after 1989. High level of knowledge. Engagement, involvement, democracy.   
• Defining the modalities for fulfilling NATO’s mandate is the task of politicians. It is a demanding one. Even after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and after 9/11, times continue to change. So must NATO. Update.

That is why NATO has “gone abroad”. Responded to the call. International terrorism. Afghanistan. ISAF. “Out of area” – but not “out of business” (re: the debate a few years ago).

It is why NATO countries will elaborate a new Strategic Concept.

It is also why NATO has embarked upon an ambitious transformation agenda.

It is why it needs to restructure its HQ and increase the efficiency of its work. Update the organisation.

• NATO must change to keep our free and prosperous societies just that. Democratic work. 
• As NATO responds to multidimensional threats – or challenges rather – in the years to come, good public diplomacy will be required to maintain the support and involvement of the public.
• Ordinary citizens lead ordinary lives “at home”. They do not necessarily feel “global”. (There is a “hype” around the globalization concept). It is at home that NATO must meet the challenges. (And: NATO “never left home”). NATO’s relevance starts at home. And we must also show that Afghanistan is still relevant for the security “at home”. 

Second, on raising NATO’s profile and ensuring its relevance

• Norway has stressed that, while we must continue to give high priority to operations –Afghanistan (our “job number one”) – we also need to put Alliance territory – and its periphery – higher up on our agenda.
• This line of thinking is reflected in the Declaration of Alliance Security from the Strasbourg/Kehl summit, which will provide input for the Strategic Concept.
• The Declaration establishes that NATO members (...) will improve our ability to meet the security challenges we face that impact directly on Alliance territory, emerge at strategic distance or closer to home.
• Norway will follow up on this throughout the working process towards the new Strategic Concept. I am convinced that it is vital for NATO to demonstrate more clearly its ability to meet security challenges at home.
• NATO needs to be visible and to have a clear profile – of solidarity through collective defence – towards the general public. In spite of different individual outlooks, NATO is building consensus, around the table.
• Challenges facing individual allies are basically common to all, but each region also has its own particular security needs, its own neighbouring areas to take into consideration.  Each and every nation has its own experiences as regards security. And so different outlooks.
• NATO should be present and visible in every region – dealing with the full range of security issues of all its members and thus reinforcing the partnership among its members. A formidable but meaningful task.
• Taking Norway as an example, we have a special interest in the High North, including our relationship with Russia in this region. (And you will later at the Assembly’s various meetings discuss Afghanistan – “NATO’s job number one” – in length). 

Third, the High North

• There is a fast growing international interest in the High North (see map on the screen). Norway’s neighbourhood. NATO’s neighbourhood.
• Norway welcomes this interest, as we are aware that challenges which are clearly visible in the Arctic region – such as climate change and its consequences – will affect all humanity and are of global concern. These are not “security threats” in classical terms, but global and regional challenges – environment, pollution, climate change, oil and gas resources, management of fisheries, etc. The changes in the Arctic, in the High North, are profound. There are three “drivers” for (our outlook and) increased attention of the High North, as I see it; a) our relations to Russia – bilaterally and in a number of important regional and sub-regional organisations – as the Arctic Council, the Barents Cooperation and others, b) the natural resources in the region, c) the climate change.
• For a long time, many Norwegians have sought to draw NATO’s attention to the High North. (However, there has not been/there is not “a situation of alert”). That is no longer necessary. The Alliance today is fully aware of the importance of the region.
• Does this mean that we face security threats in the region?
• Not necessarily (i.e. not “old school security threats”). But in the future Norwegians may face challenges to their safety and well-being, resulting from changes in natural conditions. Therefore we want our partners and allies to be aware of developments in our region and to have a presence:
• The most likely scenario involving threats to Norwegian’s safety is linked to practical issues like search and rescue at sea, coastal surveillance, the passage of tankers and the risk of pollution. New sailing routes. (These are at least as probable as a terrorist attack or a challenge to Norwegian rights in the region). The Law of the Sea.
• Thus, many of the challenges we face in the High North call upon other capacities than those of NATO, i.e. they do not call on NATO responses, and they are not primarily “NATO issues” as such.
• Other organisations are relevant here. A range of stakeholders must pull together. The Arctic Council’s Ministerial meeting in Tromsø last month. The Illulisat Declaration May 2008 (USA, Canada, Russia, Denmark-Greenland, Norway), the coastal states’ responsibilities and roles, a large Arctic ocean. It is not a “race to the Arctic (North pole)”. The Antarctica Treaty 50 Years meeting in Washington last month. The Alliance must define its role in the High North carefully. These issues were discussed at an international seminar in Reykjavik in January, and I have met the NATO Council twice on these questions, presenting Norway’s High North Strategy.
• “High North – Low Tension” is something of a credo for us; something that we as Norwegians will do our utmost to uphold. Our neighbour relationship with Russia is good. Norway and Russia: peaceful common history. Today, people living on each side of the border have a lot to do with each other, profiting in their daily lives from the end of the Cold War. Still, the relationship between Russia and Norway is, of course, an asymmetrical one. However, no deep concern.
• NATO is the cornerstone of our security. NATO needs to be on good speaking terms with Russia and vice-versa. There is much to gain and a lot to lose. As partners, NATO and Russia must confront not one another, but common threats. Be it regional instability, nuclear proliferation, resource scarcity or climate change – we are in the boat together.
• Therefore, Norway has a double-track approach to Russia: as a member of NATO and as a peaceful neighbour. Both are fundamental dimensions of Norway’s foreign and security policy. This will continue to be the case even as increasing international attention is directed to the High North. 

***** 

• Then, in conclusion, one final point: There is perhaps a need for NATO to strengthen or improve its analysis capacity, how to understand, conceive and classify conflicts and disputes, social, cultural, economic factors, how to perceive new challenges, how to plan for new realities, better civil-military cooperation, building of local capacity.
• Geographical distance has become less important as a parameter of security policy in our globalised world. The credibility and relevance of NATO depends on our ability to convince voters that events and developments “far away” in other parts of the world – as well as at “home” - may constitute a threat, or a challenge, regardless of how far away they are, and that our reaction is based on legitimate political decisions. As politicians we must not fail in this task. Thank you for your attention