Address to the Storting on the situation in Libya and Norway’s participation in the international response

Check against delivery
Translated from the Norwegian

Mr President,

Thank you for this opportunity to follow up the Prime Minister’s address in this chamber on 29 March with an update on the situation in Libya and the Norwegian and international efforts to protect the civilian population, alleviate the humanitarian situation and help to find a political solution to the conflict.

Norway is taking part in humanitarian, political and military operations in Libya. The conflict is complex and poses many dilemmas, and there is no simple, perfect solution. It is therefore both fitting and important that there is a broad and thorough debate on Norway’s participation in these operations, both in this chamber and in the public sphere.

Norway’s military engagement enjoys the broad support of the Storting. This is important, given that it is such a serious engagement, and it is important for our women and men who are participating in the operation.

Libya’s future now hangs in the balance. For the people of the country it is a matter of getting rid of an authoritarian regime and ensuring participation in the political process and opportunities for development for the many rather than the few.

For us it is a matter of promoting fundamental values that we cherish: ensuring protection of civilians, assisting people in need, strengthening the UN and the international rule of law, and supporting key principles of international law that we ourselves have championed. 

It is important to recall that the alternatives open to the international community when faced by the situation in Libya were far from ideal. By far the worst course of action open to us was to do nothing.
 
The international community had reliable information indicating that an acute crisis was brewing for Libyan civilians. Gaddafi’s own pronouncements that he would crush all opposition by means of military force gave cause for grave concern. The consequences of not taking action could have been disastrous for the civilian population.

Despite the fact that the situation in Libya today remains difficult and unresolved, and that civilians are still suffering due to internal hostilities, it is important to ask precisely what would have happened if we had not acted so decisively.

Sometimes military force is necessary as part of an overall effort to prevent abuses and attacks on civilians and lay the groundwork for peace and stability.

I understand that many commentators and others are asking: What about other brutal regimes? I admit that this is a dilemma and that there is no easy answer to this question.

But objections to intervening in just one critical situation cannot be a decisive argument for not intervening when the UN Security Council has in fact reached agreement on taking action in a particular case. And we can assume that many dictators have noted the international community’s response in recent weeks.

After Security Council resolution 1973 was adopted, it was necessary to act quickly. Norway was among the countries that were able to do so and deploy an effective, operational military force.  

The Government made its decisions on the basis of our constitutional requirements. There was ongoing contact with the parties represented in the Storting. I would like to thank the leaders of the opposition parties for their cooperation during those critical days at the end of March. The fact that there is broad-based consensus on foreign policy and that the Storting supported Norway’s participation in the operation is one of our country’s strengths. 

UN Security Council resolutions 1970 and 1973 are historic. They establish that a state’s authorities are responsible for protecting their own population, and confirm that use of military force against the state’s own population may constitute a threat to international peace and security.

Norway has long sought to ensure that the principle of non-interference set out in the UN Charter should not stand in the way of international intervention to protect a population from massive atrocities perpetrated by its own government.

This understanding of the principle has now been further strengthened by these Security Council resolutions. It is important for Norway that this development takes place within the framework of the UN and that it is not used as a pretext by individual countries and groups to take the law into their own hands without a mandate under international law.  
 
It is also historic that the international community authorised the use of military force to protect the civilian population of Libya once it had established that Gaddafi’s regime had no intention of complying with the requirement set out in Security Council resolution 1970 to end the violence against its own civilian population. Resolutions 1970 and 1973 also give the international community a mandate to bring about a political process that fulfils the Libyan people’s legitimate demands for protection, participation and development.

The international community is encouraged to provide humanitarian assistance, while at the same time demanding humanitarian access to all those in need of assistance.

In Norway’s view, it is important that the humanitarian, political and military dimensions of the resolutions are followed up and that a coherent approach is taken. This is, of course, a demanding task, and success will depend on the overall effort.

Let me add that in resolution 1970, the Security Council decided to refer the situation in Libya to the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

In the Chief Prosecutor’s first briefing to the Security Council, which was held last Wednesday (4 May), he made it clear that he would seek arrest warrants in the coming weeks against three individuals who, in his view, bear the greatest criminal responsibility for crimes against humanity in Libya. The names of the three are not specified, but it is assumed that they are people who hold key positions in the Libyan security forces. According to the Chief Prosecutor, additional cases could be opened, for example for war crimes, as the investigation proceeds. The Chief Prosecutor also indicated that arrest warrants could be sought for war crimes perpetrated by both sides in the conflict.

The Pre-Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court will decide whether arrest orders should be issued for the persons concerned. This depends among other things on whether the panel of judges finds that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the persons charged have committed crimes that fall within the jurisdiction of the Court.

The debate in the Security Council last week confirms that the Chief Prosecutor still has the full support of the Council in his efforts in connection with the situation in Libya. Norway fully supports the ICC’s important efforts to investigate and prosecute those responsible for serious international crimes committed in Libya.

The current military operation is extensive and includes protection of civilians, a no-fly zone and an arms embargo. The Minister of Defence will address the Storting in more detail on Norway’s participation in the military operation. 

We must bear in mind that Security Council resolution 1973 contains no time limits. Nor have we stipulated a deadline for Norway’s support for the implementation of the resolution.

It is important to show resolve in our implementation of the provisions of the resolution. Norway will continue to do its share in this respect. 
 
Norway’s contribution has been singled out as being substantial and effective. Our military forces deserve praise and recognition for their efforts. This is worth noting after yesterday’s celebrations of Veterans’ Day and Liberation Day all over Norway. 

The duration of the military operations will be determined primarily by how the situation in Libya unfolds. Norway’s further contribution will also have to be considered on the basis of this.

The prospects of a ceasefire and a political solution in Libya are still uncertain. From a military point of view, the fighting between Gaddafi’s forces and the opposition is at more of a stalemate than in the earlier stages of the conflict. The pro-regime forces show greater fighting ability than many had expected. At the same time the opposition forces are in general poorly organised and equipped. 

Even though Gaddafi’s forces have been considerably weakened, it appears that neither of the parties has the military means needed to win a military victory in the near future. The fighting could end up being protracted, with the humanitarian and other consequences this would entail.

The UN mandate only concerns protecting civilians, not assisting military forces in effecting regime change. We are, of course, adhering strictly to this.

Ii is important that the implementation of the resolution is in keeping with its wording, and that the military operations are not extended beyond the scope set out in the mandate. 

The meeting of NATO Foreign Ministers in Berlin in the middle of April set out three conditions that must be fulfilled in order for the military operations to cease:

First, all military attacks and threats against civilians and civilian-populated areas must be brought to an end.

Second, Gaddafi’s military forces must be withdrawn to their bases, and in such a way that it is possible to verify that this has in fact been done. This condition also applies to snipers, mercenaries and other para-military forces. These forces must withdraw from the areas and towns where they are currently based.

Third, the Gaddafi regime must permit immediate, full, safe and unhindered humanitarian access to all the people in Libya who are in need of such assistance.

Norway supports these conditions, and they are in keeping with the views of the international Contact Group on Libya.

A freezing of the military status quo could lead to a de facto division of Libya, with a western part controlled by Gaddafi and an eastern part under the opposition’s rule. However, both sides rule out such a solution. Resolution 1973 also reaffirms the UN commitment to Libya’s national unity.

As I mentioned in the beginning of my address, the protection of civilians is the purpose of the two resolutions and at the core of the international engagement. Humanitarian access and the lack of security for humanitarian organisations still pose a challenge.

Humanitarian organisations have had access to the eastern part of Libya for a long time, and the UN has succeeded in negotiating an agreement on humanitarian access to the western and southern parts of the country. Free and unimpeded access has not, however, been achieved in practice. We saw this when, in response to coalition air strikes on targets in Tripoli, crowds attacked UN offices in the capital and international staff had to be evacuated. Since then the authorities in Tripoli have asked the UN to return and will cooperate on ensuring the safety of humanitarian actors and allowing aid convoys access to those in need.

The humanitarian situation in Libya is difficult. The fighting continues in the west, and the situation is particularly critical in the town of Misrata, where there is a severe shortage of food, medicines and health workers. Several large consignments of relief supplies are arriving by sea, and some 11 000 injured people and people with special needs have been evacuated from the town.  

The armed conflict has also spread southward to Nafusa, to the mountainous areas where an increasing number of Libyans are now reported to be fleeing across the border to Tunisia. There are reports of civilian deaths, attacks, displaced persons and a growing shortage of goods and services. It is very difficult to get hold of verified data, particularly in areas controlled by the regime.

However, with the exception of the areas where there is intense fighting, there is no humanitarian crisis in Libya – at least not yet. The president of the International Committee of the Red Cross also confirmed this when I spoke to him this morning. The international aid organisations are in the process of storing food and medicines in the area to prevent such a crisis arising if the conflict should become protracted.

Norway was quick to allocate funds for emergency relief, and we have provided support through the UN, the Red Cross and other NGOs. The Government has earmarked NOK 80 million for this purpose. NOK 60 million of this has been disbursed to various programmes. During the first phase, most of this money has been used to repatriate citizens of third countries and others, primarily to the eastern part of Libya.

As access is gained to the areas affected by the fighting in the west, an increasing share of the Norwegian funds will be channelled to those in need of humanitarian assistance inside Libya.

Just under 700 000 people have fled since the conflict began. Most of them have made their way over the border to Egypt and Tunisia. Around 260 000 of them are citizens of third countries. So far almost half of them have been repatriated to their countries of origin.

I would like to commend the UN and the International Organization for Migration for their rapid and effective response, which has helped to prevent the situation from deteriorating further. 
 
During the past few weeks, some 30 000 people have crossed the Mediterranean bound for Europe. So far, most of them have been labour migrants from Tunisia who are not entitled to refugee status. However, an increasing number are fleeing via Libya. In recent weeks, 5 600 people fleeing from Misrata by sea to Lampedusa and Malta have been registered. The majority of them are refugees from other African countries who are seeking asylum. At any rate, the migration is creating considerable challenges for Europe, something we will also notice in Norway.

If the situation in Libya deteriorates further, this could lead to even larger migrant flows to Europe. Norway has a responsibility to show solidarity, and we will do what we can to help the rest of Europe deal with the influx of migrants constructively.

Our humanitarian assistance has helped people to return to their countries of origin.

Norway has already agreed to use 90 places of our existing quota for resettlement refugees from Libya, primarily for citizens from third countries who are in need of protection. Thirty of these people will be taken from a group of refugees who are currently in Malta. It has also been decided to increase the quota by 250 in order to meet the need for protection of civilians in the region.

The European border agency Frontex is coordinating a joint naval operation in the Mediterranean Sea. Prompted by the flow of migrants across the Mediterranean, France and Italy have advocated that Frontex should be strengthened and have proposed amendments to the rules with a view to implementing internal border controls on a temporary basis. However, any amendments to the Schengen rules must be discussed both in the European Council and in the European Parliament. Norway would be able to take part in such a discussion by virtue of its participation in the Schengen cooperation.

The international efforts to find a political solution to the situation in Libya have so far been to no avail. A ceasefire would be the first step in such a process, but is complicated by the fact that the various actors involved are unable to agree on the terms.

A key question is whether Gaddafi’s resignation is to be one of the terms of a ceasefire. The Libyan opposition is adamant on this point.

There is also agreement in NATO and in the international Contact Group on Libya that Muammar al-Gaddafi has lost all legitimacy and must step down. The African Union, which is working to promote a negotiated solution, has not made his resignation a condition for a ceasefire and negotiations, but sees this as a likely outcome of the negotiations.

The Security Council’s mandate does not include an externally imposed change of regime. Any change in the governance of Libya and its political regime must be brought about by internal popular pressure in Libya.

Norway is participating in the international Contact Group on Libya together with Denmark and Sweden. The meeting of the group in Rome last Thursday (5 May) reaffirmed the broad consensus on the international community’s efforts to implement the Security Council resolutions.

The Contact Group expressed its strong support for the UN’s coordinating role and stressed that the UN Special Envoy to Libya, Abdelilah al-Khatib, should be the parties’ point of contact in the political process.

The Contact Group advocated putting increased pressure on the Gaddafi regime by using political measures to further isolate the regime, tightening the sanctions regime, and continuing the military operation. The group expressed concern about the humanitarian situation in the country and reiterated its call for free, unimpeded access for humanitarian aid. The National Transition Council participated in the meeting and presented its proposal for a roadmap for the political process in Libya.

The Contact Group agreed on a temporary mechanism to help the National Transition Council to finance the immediate welfare needs it has undertaken to address. This includes the disbursement of salaries.

Norway has not yet decided whether to contribute to this mechanism, but we are concerned that it should be an accountable and transparent arrangement that is in accordance with Security Council resolutions 1970 and 1973.

We have observed a certain degree of tension among the members of the Security Council as regards Libya. Russia, China, India, and to a certain extent South Africa, have been critical of NATO’s implementation of resolution 1973. There has also been criticism of the role of the Contact Group in connection with implementation of this resolution, as some of the members of the Security Council are of the view that responsibility for implementation must lie solely with the Council itself.

This reflects the differing interests, traditions and assessments of the members of the Security Council, but if this situation is allowed to persist, it could have a negative bearing on the Council’s effectiveness and ability to act.

Both developments on the ground and the differences of opinion in the international community have played into the hands of Gaddafi. Progress on the political track is critical if the current stalemate is to be resolved.

It is therefore crucial that we step up our efforts to secure international agreement on a roadmap for the further process. Norway is actively promoting this, both in bilateral consultations with likeminded countries and in multilateral organisations. It is also important that the two most affected regional organisations – the African Union and the Arab League – play a key role in this work.

Muammar al-Gaddafi has based his leadership on a policy of divide and conquer, pitting various ethnic and other groups against each other. There has been no distinction between the regime and the state, there are few government institutions, and civil society is virtually non-existent. It is therefore no wonder that the opposition is diverse and divided.

This also means that a political solution and a new and hopefully more democratic Libya will have to be broad-based and bring together a wide range of political actors in Libyan society. Political change must come about as a result of political processes in Libya, and the role of the international community must be to support these processes. In this work it is important to maintain contact with all parties to the conflict, including the Nation Transition Council, which brings together the Libyan opposition. There is reason to believe that the Council will play a central role until a new constitution endorsed by all important factions has been adopted and elections have been held.

Several former ministers in Gaddafi’s government have already joined the National Transition Council, including the Justice Minister and the Interior Minister. The Council is also supported by several former Libyan ambassadors, including the country’s ambassador to the UN before the start of the unrest. In addition, a number of former high-ranking officers have joined the opposition.

I would like to underscore that Norway has not “recognised” the National Transition Council under international law, but we have engaged with this group, which brings together the Libyan opposition.

From today’s vantage point there seem to be, broadly speaking, three possible alternatives for Libya’s future, if we rule out a division of the country between Gaddafi’s forces in the west and the opposition in the east, which is a solution both parties reject.

The first alternative would entail the continuation of Gaddafi’s regime. In my view, this is not very likely, due to the growing opposition to Gaddafi, the international community’s isolation of the regime and the gradual weakening we are witnessing of the regime’s military power.

The second alternative would be the military defeat of Gaddafi’s regime, with the opposition taking over control of the country.

The third would be a negotiated settlement between the opposition and the incumbent regime, based on a ceasefire followed by negotiations on a political power-sharing agreement. 

My point is this: no matter which of the second two alternatives proves feasible, those who take over the running of the country will need international assistance and support. This might be in connection with the political transition process, reconstruction, humanitarian efforts, establishing government institutions and the principles of the rule of law, reform of the security sector or building civil society. Moreover, there may be a need for some kind of military presence to monitor a ceasefire agreement.

The UN Secretary-General has initiated an effort to examine what role the UN and the international community could play once the hostilities have ended and a political solution has been found. It is too early at this stage to draw any conclusions, but it is important that we are aware of the possibility that the international civilian efforts may prove to be long-term.
 
In my statement to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on 28 February, i.e. before the resolutions were adopted,  I pointed out that, in Norway’s view, a power vacuum in Libya would not be in anyone’s interests and could be dangerous for the whole of North Africa.

I urged the Security Council to consider what role the UN and the international community could play to promote democracy, stability and respect for human rights in Libya. We will support UN plans to take responsibility in this area, in cooperation with the regional organisations.

I would like to conclude by returning to the regional backdrop and to how the situation in Libya arose. Libyan citizens, inspired by the changes that had been brought about by the protests in neighbouring Tunisia and Egypt, took to the streets in Benghazi, Tripoli and a number of other towns and cities to demand democratic participation and respect for fundamental human rights in Libya, too. But the Libyan authorities responded to the people’s peaceful demonstrations with ruthless, brutal violence.

In other Arab countries, too, in what has become known as the “Arab Spring”, the authorities are using force in an attempt to crush the people’s aspirations for democracy and freedom.

Norway has condemned the use of violence in Syria, Bahrain and Yemen, and we will condemn such violence elsewhere, too. We have urged the authorities to listen to the people and allow freedom of expression and peaceful demonstrations. The solutions are to be found through democratic participation, cooperation and respect for human rights.
  
Regimes that turn their military forces on civilians lose their legitimacy. In cases like this the international community should consider imposing sanctions.

Although the countries in the region differ from each other, they share problems that can be linked to authoritarian regimes, widespread corruption, nepotism, great social disparities and violations of human rights. All the countries in the region are being challenged, but they are dealing with the situation in different ways. The situation is dramatic, as was the case in Europe following 1989.

In Jordan and Morocco, demonstrations are allowed and reform processes have been initiated. In Egypt and Tunisia, the political leaders had to resign before a credible process could begin. Norway continues to follow developments closely, and we have regular contact with the authorities and democratic actors in these countries. We have a presence in the region and we are listened to, due to our contacts and networks. And we are prepared to support the democratic process.

An optimistic scenario is that the far-reaching changes in North Africa and the Middle East will, in the long term, lead to more democratic regimes that respect the legitimate rights and demands of their people. This would reduce the level of conflict and tension in the region, and generate resources for reforms and for greater economic and social development and justice. In general this would also lead to greater stability.

A trend in this direction would also pave the way for resolving protracted conflicts in the region. But there is still a long way to go. In reality, the revolutions in Europe in autumn 1989 also took many years, and in the Balkans we are still seeing the after-effects. There may be setbacks along the way, and situations where there are power vacuums and chaos.

Having said this, there are signs that we are witnessing a watershed in the history of North Africa and the Middle East, and that we are seeing, as time passes, a more positive trend in many countries in the region. We, and the international community as a whole, should help to drive this process of change forward.