Foreign policy address to the Storting 10 February 2011

Translated from the Norwegian
Check against delivery

Mr President,

As a backdrop to this foreign policy address, both we and the whole world are following developments in Egypt. Events of the last few weeks have brought the political future of the country into question. An apparently strong presidency is tottering, and the people’s many voices are being heard. It is not long since popular unrest led to the fall of the President of Tunisia.

President Mubarak will not be standing for re-election, and the country’s new government is now having talks with the opposition. We support democratic development in Egypt. It is the Egyptians who must decide Egypt’s future, the Egyptians who must find the way towards national reconciliation and an orderly transition to democracy.

Egypt’s position and stability are important for a whole region that includes large parts of Africa, the Arab world and the whole of the Middle East. The international community’s message to those in power in Egypt and to the representatives of the opposition is: Take steps towards each other, take joint responsibility for a peaceful transition to democracy. Norway stands ready, together with its European partners, to support the democratic transition process that has been signalled.

A common feature of authoritarian regimes is that they have little capacity and hardly any channels for picking up the views and opinions of the people. Power makes you blind. Civil society is kept down. There is no proper distribution of power, and the legitimacy of those in charge is gradually eroded. In the wake of such a concentration of power we find corruption, abuses of power and injustice.

The events of the last few weeks send a strong message about the force of legitimate popular demands for participation and the opportunity to exert an influence. We are seeing how this force can rise up to the surface and cause authoritarian regimes with powerful police and security forces to falter. And we are seeing – as we have seen at other decisive moments in the past – that increasing food and petrol prices can spark a popular uprising.

Mr President,

An American think-tank surveyed confidence in the future in a number of countries at the beginning of the year. The question asked was: Is your country developing in the right direction? In China, 87% answered “yes”, while in countries such as the US, the UK and France, only 26–31% gave an affirmative answer. And countries such as Brazil and India are in between, at 45–50%.

The study reveals a trend that says something about our time. In Western countries, which were traditionally characterised by confidence in the future and the ability to adapt, people are now more sceptical and uneasy about the future. Meanwhile, while the majority of those living in countries that are experiencing strong growth and development associate the future with opportunities and prospects for a better life.

Although concerns about the future often hit the headlines in our part of the world, if we take a broader perspective, we see that never before have so many people seemingly regarded the future with such great enthusiasm – people who can now see a way out of poverty and prospects of better health and greater freedom.

We should not underestimate the importance of feelings in foreign policy. Collective feelings can overthrow governments – as in Tunisia, and make governments totter – as in Egypt, rebuild a country after a war, label a whole ethnic group or give people the confidence that together they can build a new future. Feelings and currents of hope, confidence, fear and humiliation can affect the available room for manoeuvre in the field of foreign policy.

In 2010, the factor that perhaps had the greatest impact on our room for manoeuvre was change. Throughout the year, we were reminded in no uncertain terms that the world is in a transitional phase, where change can be felt in a number of areas.

The financial crisis is still unfolding. In many countries, it is developing into an economic crisis, and in some it is leading to extensive social and political unrest. Imbalances in government finances are crippling the economic freedom of action of like-minded countries – both across the Atlantic and in our own continent.

Global power is shifting geographically. This is not anything new, but the trend has become stronger in the wake of the financial crisis. New countries are making their entry in the main global policy arenas. China’s economic and environmental – and increasingly political – footprint is becoming clearer.

We see new power constellations in the global world community that Norway is such an integrated part of. The world is no longer dominated by two rival powers, as was the case during the Cold War. The world is not led by the US, as it was in the years immediately afterwards. The world has become multipolar, with more, and to some extent new, centres of power. This is the “new normal”.

The distribution of power between states is becoming more equitable, and that is a step forward. But it does not make the world easier to govern. It does not make it any easier to agree on norms and values, or to agree to complex treaties and conventions. Nor does it make it any easier to bring about peace and disarmament. But although it is not easier, it is all the more necessary.

These are the developments that shape this year’s foreign policy address. For we have to ask ourselves the following questions: How does this affect Norway? What is our room for manoeuvre? And what are the choices facing us?

Mr President,

We are living in a time of upheaval in terms of foreign policy, a change in tempo in a number of areas. Power is shifting, economies, cultures and societies are becoming more closely interwoven.

China’s economic and technological progress is making a mark. It has recently become the world’s second largest economy. This will gradually have political implications. Never before in the course of history has a country failed to convert its economic and technological power into political influence.

In 2011, it is expected that Chinese loans to developing countries will exceed the total of all new loans granted by the World Bank. A Chinese company is taking over the Norwegian concern Elkem. China is buying up government debt in Europe. We must stop seeing this as something new. This too is the “new normal”.

In contrast, the media are portraying the US as a country under strain, with a huge debt (both national and private), political tension, high unemployment and heightened fear of economic backlashes among large population groups.

Over the years, there have been many predictions of decline in the US. In the 1960s, people feared that the Soviet Union would outstrip the US in terms of economic development. Twenty years later, there were fears that Japan would do the same. In neither case did this happen.

Nevertheless, the changes we are seeing are significant. Internationally, the US is still gauged in terms of the influence it used to have. This is a contrast to the real situation today where the relative power of the US is being reduced. This too is not anything we should see as being new. Once again, it is the “new normal”.

Mr President,

Developments such as these are frequently in the headlines, and not without reason. But we must beware of over-simplifying and taking a one-dimensional view. For a number of countries are experiencing strong economic growth. Brazil stands out as country with a mature democracy, economic growth, increasing welfare and social stability in relative terms.

However, this is not the case for a number of other emerging economies. In many countries, a high rate of growth balances on the top of social unrest, political tension, corruption, unstable food commodity markets and high food prices, rapid population growth and increasing disparities. Countries with strong growth and authoritarian regimes may find popular unrest rising up behind the next quarterly economic report. To some extent, this is what we are seeing unfold in North Africa and the Middle East.

The US and countries in Europe are grappling with national debt and the aftermath of the financial crisis. However, we should not underestimate the strength of theses mature democracies. It is still here that we find the world’s leading economies, universities and companies, in addition to well-educated populations and multifaceted civil societies. The US armed forces are still the strongest military force in the world. And the freedom and opportunities that follow from a democratic social structure and the strong position of human rights give societies in what we call the West robustness and advantages in terms of innovation, renewal and social stability.

Another perspective is the degree of cooperation that has developed in different regions. Looking to Asia, we see rapidly emerging economies, but we also see unresolved tensions in a continent with weak cooperation structures, unsettled sovereignty and border issues, and longstanding contentions dating back to various earlier, unresolved conflicts.

With regard to Norwegian foreign policy, we must focus on taking good care of our close ties with our allies and economic partners in our part of the world, at the same time as we develop relations with countries outside this circle. By far the most of our trade is still with countries in our neighbouring areas. This means that maintaining our cooperation with the EU remains a priority.

The Government looks forward to the report of the committee appointed to review our experience of the EEA Agreement. This will provide input for a white paper on our cooperation with the EU. Our aim is to continue to ensure predictability for the Norwegian business sector, good political channels for promoting Norwegian interests, and continued access on equal terms for Norwegians – whether for trade, work, studies, research, or just travelling as tourists.

With regard to Norwegian security policy, the transatlantic dimension remains firm. The military dimension of these ties is less prominent than during the Cold War. Given Norway’s geography and developments in the High North, the political dimension is now of the utmost importance.

It is in our interests to nurture our close relations with the US. Norway seeks to win support for important international principles and for the development of modern international rules in our neighbouring areas, where the sea, the need for sustainable resource exploitation, established and new transport routes, as well as closer cooperation between countries and regions in and around the Arctic are all key factors.

We will seek to cooperate with the US in areas where we have common interests, for example with a view to strengthening the international legal order, and promoting a more effective UN, a modern NATO, forward-looking and constructive cooperation with Russia. We will look to a US that is helping to find solutions to global challenges.

We will continue to demonstrate that we take responsibility for our neighbouring areas, that we have the capacity and will to exercise our sovereignty in Norwegian areas and to exercise authority in the areas where we have jurisdiction. The Norwegian armed forces have an important role to play here, both independently and in cooperation with civil authorities.

The adoption of a new Strategic Concept at the NATO Summit in November was a milestone for the Alliance. It reaffirms that collective defence is the core task of the Alliance. NATO has emphasised the importance of meeting challenges in our neighbouring areas and of not allowing operations far away to take priority over its core task.

NATO must do both, and the new Concept successfully reflects this balance, which is something, Norway advocated. The practical implementation of the Concept will start this year. This will entail reform of NATO’s command structure to slim it down, and make it more flexible and more closely integrated with national resources. A new partnership policy will also be drawn up. We will begin a systematic review of NATO’s nuclear weapons strategy, spurred on by steps taken by President Obama: the new START treaty with Russia, and the new US guidelines for its own nuclear weapons policy. Norway has worked actively with Poland to put reduction of tactical nuclear weapons on the agenda. We will follow up this issue closely.

We have much in common with the Obama administration’s foreign policy approach – both thematically and geographically. Our cooperation with the US, for example on promoting global health and combating sexual violence, is important both for these areas as such and in providing an important platform for dialogue on other issues. We are engaged in the efforts to resolve some of the world’s most difficult conflicts – in Sudan, the Middle East and Afghanistan. We will continue to make use of this fact in our close cooperation with the US, despite the fact that the President may have to make compromises in Congress, and may have to give pressing economic challenges at home higher priority than previously.

Mr President,

It is of particular interest for Norway to follow developments in the EU in the light of its role as a political actor, not only in Europe but also in the international arena. Here too, much is shifting and much remains unclear in the light of the national debt crisis in many countries.

This has consequences for Norway because here we are talking about our neighbours, our partners and allies, our most important trading partners, and markets for investing our financial wealth. Because our foreign policy positions are so closely linked to European positions. And because any progress Europe makes on global issues relating to values and interests so often coincides with opportunities to further Norway’s views.

There are many forces behind the changes we are seeing in Europe. The EU itself has set the direction of these changes: through its enlargement with the addition of 10 new countries, its common currency and the adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon. All in all, Mr. President, this is a tough agenda to follow up and implement. This task still remains to be completed.

The euro cooperation, which now encompasses 17 countries, Estonia being the most recent addition, faces major economic and institutional challenges. The national debt crisis in certain euro countries has revealed the need for closer coordination of economic policy. This is having considerable political and institutional consequences, and is making new and old conflicts apparent.

The whole agenda is now under additional pressure from the reverberations of the financial crisis. Europe as a whole is enjoying growth – some countries considerably so, while others are lagging behind, caught between heavy debt, major deficit and weak or no growth.

The situation we are seeing here is unsustainable, the effects ranging from the unacceptable queues of job seekers, particularly of young people both with and without formal qualifications, to the social impact of national austerity measures, and the approach taken to addressing major debts and deficits in many countries. In some countries this has engendered frustration, social unrest, demoralisation and feelings of helplessness – a combination that can provide fertile ground for populism.

In the hardest hit countries, many newly qualified academics are taking advantage of the free labour market and moving to other EU countries where the prospects of finding work are better. This is a positive aspect of the common labour market that we are a part of. But one of the side-effects is that the most severely affected countries are losing precisely those parts of the workforce that ideally could help to redress the situation.

Here in Norway we can see one effect of the many austerity measures implemented in many EU countries: the number of international applicants to our universities and colleges for the coming academic year has increased so much that the Norwegian Association of Higher Education Institutions has held meetings dedicated to discussing how to process the huge pile of applications.

Mr President,

Reducing deficit and debt is the task of each country concerned. Political tensions and instability – of which there have been increasing signs round and about – are mainly developing at country level. It is here the political costs for democratically elected national assemblies and governments will be most strongly felt.

This will affect the EU’s ability to take coherent action, and many of our partner countries will have an agenda quite different from our own.

At the same time as these efforts to respond to the economic crisis are unfolding, we are also following the establishment of the European External Action Service (EEAS), which is designed to give the common foreign and security policy greater force and a clearer direction. The various institutions engaged in this area are to pursue a common policy and support the EEAS with concerted political effort.

Considerable political energy is currently being used to build up the EEAS and distribute posts and positions. It is also, of course, necessary to clarify the distribution of power between the various institutions. It seems that a good deal of energy is being spent on Brussels-based tugs of war. This could undermine the political footprint of the EEAS outside the EU.

It is in Norway’s interests, Mr President, that the EU succeeds in pursuing a clear and coherent foreign policy, and that its voice is loud enough to be heard in important international forums. Norway and the EU often take common foreign policy positions in many areas, including human rights, the principles of the rule of law, and climate and environment policy.

We are now working to maintain and further develop consultation arrangements with the EU within this new structure. We had channels for consultations in the old set-up, and we wish to maintain them in the new one.

For this fact remains unchanged: we are listened to in areas where we have expertise. But this makes it more important for us to be well coordinated, focused and able to identify opportunities.

The EEAS will take over responsibility for coordination of the EEA Agreement. We will continue to cooperate with the European Commission, represented by its various Directorates-General, in the areas where EU legislation is in development. Our right to participate in expert groups and committees that assist the Commission with the development of legislation is set out in the EEA Agreement.

We are following with interest the way the EU countries’ national foreign policies are being affected by this closer coordination. We are witnessing a shift in culture. Most of the EU countries have long traditions as foreign policy actors. Meanwhile, a common foreign policy has developed over the last decade. With the new institutional set-up, the 27 countries will to a greater extent have to strike a balance between common positions and their own policies. It is not given where this point lies. But the vigour and force of the various institutions are appreciable. Foreign policy energy is being drawn towards Brussels.

We are seeing some effects on national policy formation. Many countries are reducing their diplomatic representation, primarily as a result of cutbacks in the wake of the financial crisis, but in part probably due to the expected long-term effects of the EU’s common foreign and security policy. The closure of missions and reduced presence of EU countries, especially our Nordic neighbours, will have consequences for us.

We are also seeing that matters with a specifically national agenda are gaining importance, and these are naturally not included in the formation of common policy. Business promotion is one such area. The foreign services of the individual countries will be even more visible as instruments for supporting national companies in new markets. And we should take note of this. The EU countries are our partners, but their companies are among our most important competitors.

The EEA and Norway Grants are still an important tool for strengthening bilateral relations with beneficiary states in the EU. For we are seeing a surge of bilateral and regional contracts, and again these are developing below the common EU foreign policy radar. Earlier this week, the Polish, German and French leaders met for security policy talks. The British initiative on Nordic–Baltic–British cooperation is one example, but there are many others – clusters of enhanced regional cooperation in all corners of the continent.

This puts the Nordic cooperation in an interesting light, and it highlights the regional bodies in the north – from the Arctic via the Barents Sea to the Baltic Sea and the EU Northern Dimension – as examples of established, cross-border cooperation. We therefore have opportunities here. And we will make use of it, for example in our relations with the other Nordic countries, where we are following up the recommendations of the Stoltenberg report on developing even closer civilian and military cooperation.

Mr President,

In the debate on the white paper on the main features of Norwegian foreign policy,[1] which was presented to the Storting during the last parliamentary session, there was broad agreement that Norway must become engaged with new actors, and that the need to defend and promote our interests does not stop at our border.

This is an exciting task, not only for foreign policy, but also for the Norwegian business sector, the cultural sector, civil society and policy formation in many other areas from climate change to health and migration.

In today’s world, the countries in what we call “the West” find that they no longer have a majority in the global organisations. When the UN was established, there were 50 states in the world. Now there are nearly 200.

This has consequences for the approach Norway needs to take in its multilateral efforts, for example in the area of human rights. To succeed here, it is not enough just to reach out to the countries closest to us, which generally have the same views as us. We must expand our horizon and seek alliances with moderate forces outside our own group of Western countries. We have a good deal in common with many countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia, and we are working systematically on developing this potential both in the UN and in bilateral relations.

Some of the issues Norway has engaged most heavily in during the past year in the UN General Assembly and in its capacity as member of the UN Human Rights Council have been work on promoting the adoption of a resolution on a moratorium on the use of execution as a form of punishment, on improving the protection of human rights defenders, on identifying legislation that discriminates against women, and on advocating the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons.

There is one example of new foreign policy approaches and partnerships that I would like to elaborate. This is the development of our relations with Indonesia, an important country on the wide horizon in the east, far away in geographical terms but considerably closer in terms of common interests.

Indonesia is becoming an increasingly important geopolitical actor. It has nearly 240 million inhabitants and the world’s largest Muslim population. It has moved from authoritarian rule to democracy, and has positioned itself as a bridge-builder both in the region and at global level. It is the largest economy in South-East Asia, pursues an active UN policy, and is an important member of the G20.

After many years of systematic effort, Norwegian–Indonesian cooperation has gathered momentum – on climate change and energy, global health and the Millennium Development Goals, disarmament, democracy and human rights, and on international political issues and trade. 2010 was an important year in this regard.

In the area of climate change, Norway and Indonesia entered into a partnership on reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation, forest degradation, and peat land conversion. This partnership shows great promise and is an inspiration for others. In May, we signed a memorandum of understanding, and in November I signed a joint declaration on cooperation and close consultations in this field.

And in the area of trade, Norway recently became engaged in negotiations on a trade agreement with Indonesia through EFTA. This would benefit the business sector in both countries and promote increased trade and investment.

In the multilateral arena, we are gradually expanding our cooperation in the UN and in other forums. Indonesia is a partner in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation, and it is party to most global arms control agreements. We also cooperate closely on strengthening the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, particularly in the field of disease surveillance.

The human rights dialogue between Norway and Indonesia – the tenth of which will be held this year – is an important aspect of our bilateral relations. It is an arena for talks at political level and for thematic discussions between representatives of the authorities, academia and civil society. Last autumn, we cooperated with Indonesia on organising a regional Asian conference on the need for better protection of civilians in armed conflict.

And the first security policy consultations at senior official level between Norway and Indonesia were held in Jakarta in January. More will follow.

In other words, Mr President, an example of a country that is far from Norway in geographical terms can be a close partner in terms of common interests in a relationship of mutual confidence and a long-term perspective. Ten or twenty years ago, it would have been difficult to predict a partnership of this kind.

We are following a similar course, but with adaptations to the country concerned, with countries such as India, Brazil and South Africa, in addition to Russia. We are not going to overreach ourselves, but we are moving foreign policy resources so that we are able to give these countries priority as regards closer follow-up and focus.

Next month, the Government will launch a Brazil strategy. We are intensifying efforts to complete EFTA negotiations on a trade agreement with India, and we making good progress with the implementation of the India strategy, with a significant rise in trade since 2005. In December 2010, Norway launched a research project with leading institutions in the US, South Africa, Brazil and Indonesia within the framework of the Foreign Policy and Global Health Initiative. Just to give a few examples.

Mr President,

Our relations with China are of particular importance. This is due to China’s prominence, growth and influence, and also to the opportunities that are opening up for Norway.

In general, we note a considerable development in our relations – economic, political as well as cultural. There has been an extensive exchange of visits, including some at high level, for example in connection with Expo 2010 in Shanghai. And we are developing our relations in a broad range of areas. This is in line with our China strategy, which we have been following since 2007.

Our human rights dialogue has been substantial and has provided an arena for a large number of Norwegian organisations and bodies and their counterparts. We particularly note China’s interest in learning more about our welfare state. China never copies anyone, but makes use of virtually any relevant experience.

The award of the Nobel Peace Prize to human rights defender Liu Xiaobo brought us into sharp focus. Ahead of the Nobel Committee’s decision, the Chinese authorities made it very clear that the choice of Liu Xiaobo would have consequences for our relations. The Norwegian Government emphasised, prior to the decision and as a matter of principle, the Committee’s independence and integrity. This was repeated and elucidated after the prize was awarded in December.

We have registered that, since the award of the Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo, our political ties have rather been put on the back burner. We take note of China’s reaction. We firmly uphold the Nobel Committee’s independence. We repeat our protests against the imprisonment of Liu Xiaobo and the treatment he has received, and we continue to emphasise the importance of China respecting human rights, including the right to freedom of expression. At the same time we are aware of the significance of the economic and social progress in the country, which has lifted millions of Chinese out of poverty.

Now we must look ahead. Norway and China have a broad and firm foundation for cooperation. We want to build further on this. This is not a question of one-way relations. They are two-way and are developed in line with common interests. And there are many issues that fall into this category:

• the work on developing a free trade agreement that will provide new opportunities for the business sector in both countries;
• cooperation in the Arctic, where Norway supports China’s ambition of gaining observer status in the Arctic Council;
• trade, investment and technological cooperation;
• political dialogue on a long range of topics, from welfare to security policy, from climate change, the environment and energy to cooperation on the prevention of humanitarian crises; and
• further dialogue on human rights and social issues within the framework of our human rights dialogue.

Mr President,

A world with a greater spread of power has clear advantages, because a spread of power also implies a spread of responsibility. But at the same time it poses additional challenges to global governance. This should be a matter of concern to Norway, which has always had a strong interest in promoting good global governance and clear respect for the international legal order.

We are now seeing that the international governance system, which by far and large was established after the Second World War, is being put under increasing strain. The common resolve needed to establish a fundamentally new order or carry out profound reforms is lacking. Progress towards the conclusion of major agreements of global scope comes to a halt in the face of conflicts of interest. This is clearly demonstrated in the clashes of interest in connection with the climate negotiations. The world is not seeing the global action that is required. And this is also apparent in the efforts to negotiate a new global WTO agreement.

How should Norway react to a governance system in a state of flux?

Most importantly, Mr President, we must preserve the elements that work satisfactorily. And they are actually quite numerous. Despite the difficulties in concluding a global trade agreement during the Doha Round, the WTO still plays an important role in preventing a surge of protectionism and upholding rules and effective mechanisms that ensure compliance. Norway will do its part in helping to give the Doha negotiations the final, decisive impetus needed to reach agreement, 10 years after they were launched. For an open economy like Norway’s, it is vital that the multilateral trading system is strengthened.

In addition, we aim to play a role in the numerous bodies that do, in fact, ensure good governance and development of international rules, many of which are part of the UN system.

Meanwhile, a continuous reform process is needed in the UN. We have contributed to this, and will continue to do so. Prime Minister Stoltenberg co-chaired the High-level Panel on UN System-wide Coherence. Key elements of the reforms set out in the panel’s report Delivering as One are now being put into practice – ranging from implementation of “One UN” at country level to the establishment of UN Women, a single UN entity for gender equality and the empowerment of women.

We play an active role in the World Bank and the IMF together with our Nordic neighbours. Work on Security Council reform has, however, come to a standstill. Most actors can see obvious new membership candidates, but numerous counterforces have so far thwarted any conclusive breakthrough.

Norway will continue to be an outspoken advocate of reform, streamlining and improved management. As a good friend of the UN, Norway makes demands, holds the UN accountable and has zero tolerance for mismanagement and inefficient use of resources. When Norway takes on positions in UN bodies, we do so whole-heartedly and with commitment – as illustrated by the part we are playing in the UN Human Rights Council and in the World Health Organization, where Norway has a seat on the Executive Board until 2013 – and we will do likewise as a new member of the Peacebuilding Commission.

At the same time, we note the emergence outside the UN of broader partnerships and different power structures from those we are used to seeing within the UN system. In recent years, this has particularly been visible in the field of global health. The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria are good examples. New partnerships with the private sector, civil society and developing countries, more up-to-date dynamic management systems and a stronger focus on measurable results have all been necessary to trigger new funding and ensure that initiatives are more clearly targeted.

The Global Strategy for Women’s and Children’s Health, which was launched by the Secretary-General last September, builds on precisely these emerging structures and the partnership approach. This is an acknowledgement of the fact that reform is necessary. Norway has been at the forefront of much of the reform work, as is reflected in the Government’s Climate and Forest Initiative and our role in REDD+, and we will continue to play an important role in linking UN bodies and new initiatives in a productive way. We are currently preparing a separate white paper on the Government’s work on global health issues.

In a multipolar world with several power centres and no strong global governance system, no single state is in a position to call the shots. The establishment of the G20 is a symptom of this. When the G20 first attracted attention as a focal point of global governance, it was mainly in the economic area.

There can be little doubt that the G20 played a critical role in the initial phase of the financial crisis that started in 2008. But it was most effective to begin with, when the common interest in combating the global crisis was at its greatest.

Since then, the G20 has established its position as a leading forum for international key decision makers. We welcome this, but on the condition that important decisions are made by bodies that are as representative as possible – and as long as they are ready to implement them. In that case they have Norway’s support. But from experience we know that it may not be easier to resolve difficult issues in a forum of 20 states than in one of 200. The G20 too comprises several competing constellations.

Questions can also be raised about the G20’s legitimacy. As you are aware, the G20 is a self-appointed body, its mandate is unclear, and, taking it to the extreme, one might question whether the rest of the world’s countries, including Norway, should take what could almost appear to be orders from a group we are not a member of, and whose composition we have not had any say in. Another concern is that discussions in the G20 may undermine cooperation that does in fact take place in other bodies. And any solution arrived at by the major actors in this forum may be perceived by others as a fait accompli. 

So we see obvious dilemmas here. On the one hand there are small bodies – in terms of membership – that can be effective when it comes to decision-making, but that score lower on legitimacy, like the G20. On the other hand, there are large bodies, like the UN, that gather many countries, but are unable to reach agreement and are less effective.

Norway’s approach is to seek direct contact with the incumbent G20 chairmanship to provide concrete input on matters that are important to us – as the Minister of Finance and I did vis-à-vis the French chairmanship last week. We have also requested that contact between the UN General Assembly and the G20 should be formalised. And finally, we believe that the G20 would benefit from having more systematic regional representation – something along the lines of the IMF constituency system. This was our message to the French chair at our meetings in Paris.

The multipolar world order is making itself felt in other ways as well. We are seeing the formation of regional arenas in response to the lack of an obvious common arena for key decision-making. This can be explained by the fact that countries that are located close to each other have many of the same issues to deal with.

In itself, this is a positive trend. But it does not fully address many of the most evident common challenges we are currently facing in areas such as climate change, energy, trade and disarmament.

Norway supports many of the existing regional groups of states. We also play an active role in organisations of this type in our part of Europe. Nevertheless, the global community’s dwindling capacity as regards global governance is worrying. More bridges between the various regional cooperation organisations are needed, as are closer links between newly established organisations and long-standing global organisations such as the UN and the IMF.

Mr President,

In a world where power is becoming more spread, and where old authorities are being questioned, there is an urgent need for resolute action on addressing some of the world’s most complex conflicts. Over the years, these conflicts have shown that lasting peace cannot be achieved by means of military force and violence. The parties involved in these conflicts need to demonstrate considerable political courage and resolve, and the international community must contribute by facilitating and supporting processes that lead towards peace and reconciliation. Or by mobilising relief efforts to alleviate the serious humanitarian situation caused by the drought in East Africa. Or by demonstrating stronger common resolve to address the consequences of increasing food prices and an escalating food crisis.

Failed states pose a major challenge, and the international community is not able to deal adequately with this problem. Somalia is the prime example. Piracy in the Gulf of Aden is now extending far into the Indian Ocean and into vast areas to the south, and is creating problems for Norwegian shipping interests.

The Government is engaged in providing Norway’s contribution to fighting this problem. In this connection it is considering a new contribution of Norwegian navy resources to the international forces, and it is also focusing on the situation on land, where the problem originates. Norway is making a significant contribution to stabilising Somalia. This includes emergency aid, intensified work on prosecuting pirates, prison funding, and preventive measures aimed at improving the situation for shipping and at curbing the laundering of ransom money, efforts that are coordinated by the international Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somali. The issue of whether Norwegian ships should be armed raises a number of questions which the Government intends to clarify shortly.

I will now proceed to speak about three current conflicts: in Sudan, the Middle East and Afghanistan.

Sudan is at a crossroads. The 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement was a breakthrough that put an end to decades of war and suffering – but peace still needed to be built. In January, the people of South Sudan used their opportunity to vote on their own future. The result was an overwhelming majority for independence. Challenging negotiations on the terms for secession still remain to be conducted in the period leading up to July. There are many outstanding issues, and a lot is at stake. However, there is every indication that Africa will gain a new state this summer, and Norway intends to recognise it.

Norway acted as midwife for the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement. Together with the US and the UK we make up the troika that monitors the implementation of the provisions of the agreement. The key external actor today is, however, the African Union, including the African Union High-level Panel on Darfur chaired by former President Mbeki. Norway supports the leading role African actors have taken – particularly the AU and the neighbouring countries that are most affected. But there is so much at stake here, both regionally and internationally, that the engagement of the troika and actors such as China and the EU is also needed.

In addition to ongoing diplomatic work, Norway will focus particularly on the oil sector and the negotiations on how the north and the south can share and cooperate in this field. Both parties are heavily dependent on oil revenues, and both have a lot to lose if they fail to reach agreement.

At the same time, they have much to gain if they succeed. Norway will work towards this goal in close contact with the authorities in the north and the south. In addition, Norway considers it important that the parties agree on future citizenship rights, and that they do so before the Comprehensive Peace Agreement expires. Since October last year, about 200 000 people have returned from the north to the south.

Mr President,

For the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2011 will be a decisive year – although every year of hostilities is fateful for those affected by this long and bitter struggle. A huge number of these people – the vast majority – say they are ready to accept a peace based on compromise and negotiation, but their leaders have failed to translate this into tangible efforts to overcome their differences – and to give the Palestinians their own state and Israel security within its borders.

In September this year, the deadline expires for reaching a peaceful solution and the establishment of a Palestinian state, as agreed by President Obama, Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas in September 2010, when they gave themselves one year for negotiations. In September, one year will also have passed since President Obama, speaking from the rostrum at the UN, said that he hoped that the following year’s General Assembly would be able to welcome a new state, and what he was referring to here was a Palestinian state, not South Sudan. By August or September this year, Palestinian Prime Minster Fayyad will probably have completed his reform plan for building credible government institutions for a Palestinian state.

In September 2010, the World Bank announced to the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee (AHLC) donor forum, which is chaired by Norway, that progress in the reform work indicated that the Palestinian Authority was now ready to establish a state in the near future. We are likely to see that future this coming summer.

But government institutions are of little use if there is no state. We must acknowledge that in the absence of direct negotiations, little or no progress is being made. Leaked Palestinian negotiating papers do not give a complete picture of events. In some people’s view, the leaks substantiate the claims that President Abbas has been willing to make major concessions in order to reach an agreement. But it is equally notable the Israel has not been willing to move towards a solution on this basis. There is simply a lack of will, trust and ability to move the negotiations forward.

It is also apparent that the US, which plays a unique role as facilitator and active promoter, lacks the means, ability or will to bring about agreement. Clear statements on the part of the Middle East Quartet, made up of the US, the UN, the EU and Russia, have also failed to achieve this.

Norway will support all efforts to break the stalemate in the months ahead. As chair of the AHLC donor group, we will continue to assist the Palestinian Authority in implementing Prime Minister Fayyad’s reform plan. We have scheduled a meeting in Brussels in April in close cooperation with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Catherine Ashton. Norway will co-chair a new donor conference for the Palestinian Authority in Paris in June. We will also convene the annual AHLC meeting in New York in September in cooperation with the UN Secretary-General.

We now stand ahead of the final round of political negotiations, in which the parties bear the main responsibility, but where neighbours and the international community must also play a clear and consistent role. If the negotiations do not lead to any progress, there is a danger that the vision of a two-state solution will fall apart. At present, Norway and other states have to deal with a situation that is untenable under international law, involving occupation and de facto annexation of occupied land. We are in a longstanding diplomatic state of emergency where the hope that we will see a negotiated solution is leading large parts of the international community to expect the occupation to come to an end.

If the anticipated end does not materialise, the picture will change. The situation will be perceived as what it in fact is: the unlawful confiscation of occupied land, involving discrimination of people within the borders of a geographical area. This will not strengthen the moderate forces, but rather the extremists. This scenario should inspire all parties to enhance their efforts to reach a peaceful solution.

Mr President,

I will inform the Storting more closely about Afghanistan at a later point in time, and I will therefore now limit myself to giving an outline of the broader picture. In Afghanistan too, the test will be whether the parties have the ability and will to engage in political negotiations – mainly between the parties themselves, but also with significant contributions from neighbours in the region and the broader international community.

Following the Kabul Conference in July and the NATO Summit in November 2010, the course is set for a gradual transfer of responsibility for security to the Afghan security forces. There is progress on some parameters, but the overall security situation is deteriorating. Since last summer, the US forces have intensified the military pressure on Taliban groups in various parts of the country. By spring and summer it will become clear whether this has changed the balance of power on the ground. The security situation in the north of the country, including in the areas where the Norwegian troops are located, has deteriorated since last summer and poses a major challenge to the ISAF coalition forces.

Any lasting solution will have to be the result of a political process. The Afghans must sit down at the negotiation table with other Afghans. President Karzai has established the High Peace Council as a means of facilitating such a process. At the same time, we know that an Afghan peace solution will have to involve neighbouring countries. Afghanistan and Pakistan will have to reach an understanding, and the other countries in Afghanistan’s immediate surroundings will have to engage to a much stronger degree. Norway supports a process along these lines, and we will contribute to moving it forward in areas where we have capacity and are in a position to do so.

Mr President,

The entire world, including us, is looking east and south. This is where new high-growth economies are emerging, setting new agendas, offering new opportunities and questioning established truths. China and Indonesia, which I have touched on earlier, are examples of this. Allow me to make a large leap – in terms of topic and geography – to the northern horizon, to the High North, the Government’s most important strategic priority area.

More and more people are also looking north, towards a horizon that is changing as a result of climate change and new geopolitical realities. It is becoming increasingly interesting internationally due to the region’s resources and transport corridors. The northern horizon is here, on our doorstep. Here Norway is helping to expand the scope of opportunity. Here Norway is a key actor.

In 2010, important results were achieved in a number of areas. Our High North policy considers the links between developments in different areas: fundamental questions of international law, cooperation in the entire Arctic region, resource management, the environment and business development, cooperation between neighbours in the High North at a practical level; in short, it is a policy for work opportunities, welfare and peaceful coexistence in the north. Here we see one of the new regional growth centres, where the most relevant states have joined forces by engaging in innovative regional cooperation.

The treaty between Norway and Russia on maritime delimitation in the Barents Sea and Arctic Ocean, which the Storting deliberated two days ago (8 February 2010), plays a key role. As many have pointed out, the treaty is of historical importance. It will resolve the most crucial outstanding issue in our bilateral relations with Russia, fully in accordance with the law of the sea and international legal principles. The treaty also paves the way for increased cooperation and the development of business opportunities in the north.

The treaty on maritime delimitation has attracted international attention, as a clear demonstration that the Arctic is a region where differences of opinion can be resolved peacefully between neighbours. Both the treaty and our Arctic cooperation with Russia in recent years have clearly shown that our two countries have a range of common interests in this region. This is a fundament we will build further on.

International interest in developments in the Arctic is continuing to grow. It is important for us that this interest is met in the best possible manner and within institutional frameworks. I will briefly mention three.

First, there is the Northern Dimension, in which the EU, Iceland, Norway and Russia take part. Norway held the chairmanship up to the ministerial meeting in Oslo last November, which was the second of its kind in this new regional forum. At the meeting, we agreed to expand our cooperation by establishing two new partnerships, one on transport and logistics and one on culture.

Second, Norway will take over chairmanship of the Barents Euro-Arctic Council this autumn. Our focus will be on further developing work on energy efficiency, renewable energy, health and social issues, rescue cooperation and emergency preparedness, cross-border people-to-people cooperation and business development.

Third, there is broad agreement among the members of the Arctic Council that the forum should be strengthened, and we are discussing how this can best be achieved. Five years ago, it was struggling to make itself relevant and visible. Today the greatest challenge is how to deal with the massive interest shown by states seeking observer status.

Norway’s position is that the Arctic Council should devise an arrangement for the aspiring observers. It is in Norway’s interests that key Arctic issues are discussed in a body where we are full members. We would also like to see new initiatives to generate better knowledge about the challenges and opportunities in the Arctic, in fields ranging from climate change to business development and transport, from health and maritime search and rescue services to the situation of indigenous peoples.

Norway and the other members of the Arctic Council are playing a leading role in the development of international rules for shipping in polar waters. The Polar Code, as it is called, has now been submitted to the International Maritime Organization for review. An international agreement on search and rescue operations in the Arctic was also reached towards the end of 2010, as a result of an initiative taken by the Arctic Council, and signing is planned at a meeting in Greenland in May.

There has been significant progress in cross-border cooperation with Russia, inspired by the agreements signed by Norway and Russia during President Medvedev’s visit to Norway last April. In November 2010, the two countries also signed an agreement on local border traffic permits, which I hope will enter into force in the course of this year. At the same time, Foreign Minister Lavrov and I drew up a list of joint priorities for the further development of our cross-border cooperation. Experts in our two countries are using this as the basis for further work. Tasks include following up the introduction of the local border traffic permit with further practical steps to facilitate cooperation, for example simplified procedures in the labour market and increased capacity at border-crossings to deal with growing traffic. But I would like to add, Mr President, that we expect the measures undertaken by Norway to be reciprocated by Russia.

The strategic projects set out in the document New Building Blocks in the North, published in March 2009, form the basis for our efforts in the High North. We are well on track, having initiated 80% of these. Allocations for High North-related projects in this year’s government budget amount to a total of NOK 1.2 billion.

There is also great international interest in research cooperation in the High North. One example of this is cooperation on the Svalbard Integrated Arctic Earth Observing System (SIOS), which is further developing Svalbard as an international research platform, and where countries such as China, Russia, Germany and France are participating.

In its white paper on High North policy, which will be submitted to the Storting before summer, the Government will provide an outline of international trends that have an impact on the High North and of the main features of Norway’s policy in the north.

To conclude, Mr President, large-scale change is the order of the day. It is the task of foreign policy to deal with this, ultimately so as to make domestic policy possible. Our overriding goal is to defend democracy, the rule of law, human rights and international humanitarian law. We must work to ensure that the forces of change strengthen these values, rather than undermining them.

In the 1990s, people often referred to the “Washington consensus”, the free-market, democratic social model that became mainstream in international politics. Researchers spoke of the “end of history”, this model having emerged victorious.

Today the picture is different. We see the outlines of several competing social models. The global wave of democratisation, which began in the 1980s and rolled into the following decade with great force, has now subsided. We see combinations of authoritarianism and open market economy delivering both growth and welfare. Developing countries are not looking solely to the West for inspiration. They are also looking to other parts of the world, and are finding other models in entirely different regions.

The attempts to impose democracy during the past decade cannot be said to have a glowing track record either. The arguments used to justify the invasion of Iraq have served to undermine support for democracy in the region. And in the end, the so-called war on terror was no showcase for liberal values and the promotion of human rights either.

However, there is reason to believe that democracy, rule of law and human rights will be brought to the fore in other social processes – processes that Norway should help to support and shape.

On the one hand, we see that in some parts of the world, such as the Arab world, the legitimacy of authoritarian regimes that are incapable of providing economic growth, welfare, work and opportunities for political participation is under severe strain and popular support is weak. The upheavals in Tunisia and Egypt are clear examples of the way people, many of them young people, are rising up against authoritarian leaders, corruption, misuse of power and restrictions on liberties. This unrest and popular discontent may continue to spread, and could affect the political stability of the entire region.

In our own continent, Belarus stands out negatively. Europe’s voice should be loud and clear in this regard, and the Belorussian champions of democracy and human rights must know that they have our support.

On the other hand, rapid economic growth may usher in the rule of law and democracy. A diversified market economy that is integrated into the global economy cannot be micro-managed by authoritarian political bodies. Legitimate institutions governed by the rule of law are indispensable in securing the stability and predictability that are essential to a market economy. As large groups of people experience increasing prosperity, they will demand political participation and influence over their own future.

This means, Mr President, that an international agenda for promoting democracy, rule of law, human rights and international humanitarian law must be kept alive, made relevant and clearly voiced. Norway must continue to focus on the fact that human rights have been codified in universal instruments that the majority of states have acceded to.

The world will be a safer place for us all if these instruments are adhered to in practice.