Foreign policy address to the Storting

Translated from the Norwegian

Mr President,

(The financial crisis)
The financial crisis, which started in 2007/2008 continues to unfold phase by phase. It is having a profound impact, particularly in countries close to us – in Europe, and the US. First and foremost we are seeing the consequences for individuals and society as a whole in the form of growing unemployment, welfare cuts and tough restructuring processes. Some countries are experiencing political instability and domestic policy constraints and – as a result – constraints in their foreign policy too. The impacts of the crisis are affecting power structures and opportunities to exert an influence and promote interests.

Interests are important for foreign policy. We have seen through history that the effectiveness of foreign policy depends on the state of the economy at home. Unless the economy is strong and stable, unless the country is innovative and dynamic enough to advance, its foreign policy footprint will also be lighter. And if an economic crisis leads to social unrest and instability, then the foreign policy foot print will be lighter still.

However, it must be pointed out that the sense of crisis in what is still regarded as the West must be seen in the context of technological and economic development, growth and optimism in countries in Asia, South America and Africa. We are seeing more clearly than ever the realities of globalisation: our mutual dependence, the way markets are interlinked, growth that is shifting to other continents, technology that is radically shortening distances. Production facilities and labour can be moved from one part of the world to another in a short space of time.

We are seeing how communication technology is fostering a globalisation of feelings and engagement. Anger and frustration can incite demonstrations at local level and in quite different geographical settings at the same time. We are witnessing a democratisation of voices and views, and a strong – albeit at times ambiguous – force for change from the bottom up is testing authoritarian regimes. We are witnessing a globalisation of expectations – expectations regarding political leadership, greater freedom and human dignity, and expectations regarding employment, health, education, welfare and general opportunities.

With this as a backdrop, we are also experiencing a shift in power. And never before have states or organisations failed to use economic and technological strength to gain greater political influence. And vice versa, when a crisis has deep and structural effects, it is harder to take strong political action.

Power also shifts when the younger generation rises up to overthrow authoritarian leaders who have failed to ensure employment, welfare, economic development, freedom or respect for fundamental human rights. Power shifts when countries with huge budget deficits have to make deep cuts in welfare services, defence spending, foreign policy initiatives and diplomatic presence. And power shifts when new growth-driven economies win new market shares and, with their greater self confidence and strength, promote their interests and their political and cultural values more actively both in international organisations and in their bilateral relations with individual countries.

Mr President,

In this address, I will examine in more detail the consequences of some of these changes for international politics, for Norwegian interests and for the opportunities and challenges that are emerging for our foreign policy. For, all in all, these times of change also offer new opportunities for Norwegian foreign policy and for safeguarding Norwegian interests, if we take an approach that is strategic, long-term and firmly based on our values.

We are, and we are seen to be, a prosperous nation in both economic and political terms. This affords opportunities, but also entails obligations.

Mr President,

The Norwegian economy is in good shape. Our situation compares very favourably with that of the countries we tend to compare ourselves with. However, we must expect the crisis to have repercussions here in Norway. We must not forget that a responsible economic policy that keeps our house in order is important in order to safeguard jobs and welfare services, and maintain a predictable foreign policy.

One of the most important tasks in foreign policy today is to make domestic policy possible. Foreign policy must foster economic growth and welfare and support the Norwegian business sector, educational and research institutions and Norwegian value creation.

I would like to highlight four aspects of the economic crisis and its impact on foreign policy priorities.

(Norway and Europe)
Firstly, the importance of taking good care of our relations with Europe.

There is currently a legitimate focus on the new markets in the South and East, and it is important that Norwegian companies take advantage of these developments. But we must also bear in mind that our most important ties are still with Europe. Norway is the EU’s fifth largest trading partner – larger than both India and Japan. The European Economic Area (EEA) market is, and will continue to be, Norway’s most important market by far. Around three-quarters of our foreign trade is with the EEA. This means that we are absolutely dependent on economic stability in Europe, and thus also on political developments in individual EU countries and in the EU as a whole.

Therefore one of our foreign policy priorities is to seek to ensure that Norwegian companies have equal, predictable and long-term framework conditions in Europe.

The crisis in the EU countries is primarily affecting government finances and putting the euro under pressure. This makes it even more important to prevent further market decline and increased protectionism. Through its active European policy, the Government will give priority to ensuring that Norwegian companies and other Norwegian actors in these markets enjoy the equal treatment and predictability that is provided for in the EEA Agreement and Norway’s other agreements with the EU.

Secondly, we must be aware of the fact that Norway too has a responsibility for helping Europe to emerge from the current crisis. I would like to mention some important contributions that we are making in this connection.

Norway’s offer to lend an additional NOK 55 billion to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as part of a broader international effort has given a strong signal and has been appreciated. The offer is subject to the Storting’s consent.

In addition, Norway also makes a considerable contribution to the EEA and Norway Grants, providing around NOK 13.7 billion for the period 2009–2014 to support welfare, civil society, democracy, the rule of law and, not least, various programme areas in the environmental protection and management sector. We have now concluded negotiations with 13 of the 15 beneficiary states. We are talking here about projects in priority sectors that are under pressure in the present economic crisis. One such sector is civil society, which will receive funding amounting to around NOK 1 billion for the current five-year period. Norway’s contribution to the EEA and Norway Grants is a clear expression of co-responsibility and solidarity.

Another important contribution is Norway’s role as a long-term, stable supplier of oil and gas to the European markets. The predictability this represents is of great significance. The Government attaches importance to maintaining an active energy dialogue with European countries on the development of renewables, which is currently on the EEA agenda, on the role of gas as an energy resource, and on new visions for Norwegian hydropower in the context of a broader restructuring of energy systems in Europe.

And lastly, Norway is closely involved in many European countries through the long-term investments of the Government Pension Fund – Global.

And I should also add that nearly 289 000 workers from the EEA were registered in Norway in 2011. This is an example of the way integration under the EEA Agreement offers mutual advantages and opportunities. It would not have been possible to strengthen our welfare services in the way that we have in recent years without labour migration. At the same time, Norway’s exports to the Baltic and Central European countries have increased more than our exports to the rest of the EU in the past few years.

The third aspect of the financial crisis of relevance for our foreign policy is the fact that the EU countries are developing a common foreign and security policy with a common structure (the European External Action Service). The common values and culture and the community of interests that we share with the EU countries is of vital importance for our foreign policy, economy and welfare. These countries are our closest partners and also share our views on most issues, and the European voice is an important one.

The financial crisis is having different effects in different parts of Europe. The most dramatic situation is in Greece, where the efforts to put the economy in order out after years of high debt levels and major deficits have put the national political system to the test. We are seeing how the crisis is affecting social structures in many European countries. We are seeing disturbing examples of how minorities are becoming more vulnerable. We are also seeing that income disparity in the OECD area has increased considerably in recent years at the same time as social mobility and adaptability are decreasing.

Norway is a rare exception here; there are relatively small differences in our society. We are reminded of this aspect of the Norwegian social model: the vital importance of work for all and policies that ensure equitable distribution. This is essential for our domestic policy and our ability to adapt. And thus it is also essential for foreign policy.

New developments in European cooperation have always been in response to a need for change due to internal or external factors – often economic challenges, as we saw in the 1980s. Today the EU is facing a complex set of economic problems that have to be addressed, but at the same time we are seeing less popular and political support for the new major steps towards integration that are being discussed. In several countries, the voice of EU scepticism is being heard more clearly in the context of domestic policy.

We must expect the EU countries to continue to expend considerable political energy on internal affairs, not only in terms of the individual EU countries’ response to the economic situation but also in terms of relations between these countries and the further development of EU cooperation, particularly with regard to the euro. We may see an EU that is less outward-looking in relation to its broader foreign policy.

The point I want to make is that there is every indication that economic issues will remain at the top of the international agenda for a long time to come – for those in Europe who are engaged in foreign policy as well as for others.

The various crises in Europe and the huge amount of energy leaders are expending on domestic issues and sorting out internal problems could weaken the EU’s voice and authority in important international questions. This is not good news for Norway, for the EU countries have traditionally been our closest partners in most foreign policy issues.

The US too is focusing on domestic policy due to the presidential election campaign, and because it does not have the capacity to engage all over the world. The focus today is on nation-building at home rather than nation-building in the foreign policy arena, as President Obama has put it.

All in all, this will affect the attention given to high priority foreign policy issues – truly global issues such as trade, climate change, disarmament and sustainable access to energy for all. We are experiencing greater difficulties in finding multilateral solutions and mobilising international resolve.

The G20 countries have a particular responsibility. The Mexican G20 presidency has invited the foreign ministers of the G20 countries to a conference this weekend on our main common challenges and how to address them. Norway has also been invited to this meeting and we intend to take active part.

(Norwegian business sector abroad)
The fourth aspect I wish to highlight concerns the Government’s efforts to strengthen the Norwegian Foreign Service’s capacity to promote the Norwegian business sector abroad.

 Most governments are engaged in similar efforts. Indeed, for the foreign services of many EU countries, this is becoming an increasingly important task as more foreign policy is to be pursued by the European External Action Service (EEAS), which is currently being developed in Brussels.

We are now strengthening our capacity to provide additional support for the business sector in cooperation with Innovation Norway, the Research Council of Norway and other organisations and agencies such as the Norwegian Seafood Export Council and INTSOK (Norwegian Oil and Gas Partners).

To give an illustration from one highly relevant sector, our aim is to be the world’s leading seafood nation. In 2011, Norway exported seafood for NOK 53 billion, almost 60% of which was sold to the EU. Norway has become the largest supplier of seafood to people in Europe.

 As you know, the US recently decided to lift the additional 26% duty on Norwegian salmon that it introduced more than 20 years ago. This is good news both for Norwegian salmon exports and for the otherwise excellent trade relations between Norway and the US.

We will intensify cooperation with employer and employee organisations and relevant companies. Increasing emphasis will also be given to business expertise in the Foreign Service.

An important aspect here is our focus on strengthening rules and norms for decent work and on corporate social responsibility. Both these areas are coming under pressure in the increasingly global economy, both here in Norway and abroad. We are giving priority to this work in the International Labour Organization (ILO) and in the opportunities we have to influence policy development in the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO. The fact that developing countries are showing interest in Norway’s experience in this area is also helping to put these topics on the agenda. For example, representatives of the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO) and the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise (NHO) participated in our meetings with the authorities and civil society during my visit to Myanmar in January.

Finally, Mr President, before I move on from Europe, I would like to underling the importance of the European Convention on Human Rights for Europe’s common values. The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg was established to ensure that states fulfil their obligations. However, the Court is currently facing major challenges with a steadily rising and increasingly unmanageable caseload. It is unrealistic to expect the majority of the member countries to agree to increase the Court’s funding. At the same time, it is crucial that appropriate steps are taken to resolve the Court’s challenges in the long term. This aim is and will continue to be that it effectively promotes human rights in all the member countries of the Council of Europe. We will do what we can to ensure that it does so.

Mr President,

(Middle East, North Africa)
At the time of my foreign policy address in February last year, the world’s attention was on the popular uprisings and upheavals in the Middle East and North Africa – the Arab Spring. The situation today gives rise to both hope and concern for the future.

Economic realities are playing an important role and are driving developments here too. Dissatisfaction with the lack of development and high unemployment rates were important underlying causes of the uprisings. This again underlines how fundamental economic policy, organisation and distribution are for stability and political legitimacy.

The contrasts are great. Last year’s events made it clear that when national leaders resort to military force against their own people, they themselves end up falling from power. And if the sparks created by dissatisfaction with the economy can start a fire, there are plenty of other sparks – in the form of corruption, systematic violation of human rights, nepotism and lack of democracy – to spread it.

Mr President, what we must realise is this: we are witnessing the start of a process of change in the Middle East region – not the end. More than 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the reverberations of that historic upheaval can still be felt in Europe. Radical changes to power structures and regimes do not develop in a straight line or follow a given schedule.

How should we respond to these changes? What line should Norway take?

Our approach must be based on the principles of democracy and human rights, and support for people’s right to self determination as set out in the UN Charter. In the long term, only countries that respect fundamental human rights can contribute to a stable international legal order.

When people rise up against authoritarian leaders and demand reforms and universal rights, they should have our support. This cannot be dismissed as interference in internal affairs. At a time when the economy is global, we must underscore that these fundamental values are universal.

However, this does not mean that we should always respond or react in the same way: the circumstances and the broader context of each case as well as the underlying lines of conflict between social, political and religious groups are too different.

The use of military force by external actors is the most dramatic reaction. In most cases the use of force should only be resorted to after all other options have been exhausted.

There was an opportunity to prevent widespread atrocities against civilians in Libya through military intervention on the part of the international community. This had support in the region from the Arab League and was given the necessary green light by the UN Security Council. Norway played a part, following a longstanding position in Norwegian foreign policy of supporting the implementation of Security Council resolutions.

The most dramatic events are now being played out in Syria – a country that is a central player in relation to several power constellations in the Middle East. The internal conflict is already having reverberations in other tense situations in a region where states are still fragile. This could lead to extensive conflicts and could reshape the whole region.

There can be no doubt about the responsibility that rests with the Syrian regime for the atrocities committed against civilians, which the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has characterised as crimes against humanity. We deeply deplore and condemn these atrocities and hold the leaders in Damascus accountable for them.

The Arab League and neighbouring countries such as Turkey have sought to put an end to the atrocities against the civilian population, but the Assad regime has not given in to political pressure. The members of the UN Security Council have so far been unable to agree on a concerted response, which is highly regrettable. Now that Russia and China have vetoed the resolution on Syria in the Security Council, it is crucial that the international community maintains its commitment to finding a common, broad approach to resolving the conflict in Syria.

The Arab countries must be in the driving seat in this process. We attach great importance to how the countries in the region themselves view the situation, and particularly to the role played by the Arab League. At its meetings last weekend, it again asked for support for the Arab peace plan, requested the cooperation of the UN on a joint observer force, and demanded immediate humanitarian access to the Syrian cities that have been hardest hit.

These are all important proposals and should be considered carefully. The Government welcomes the initiative to establish a broad and inclusive group of friends to discuss solutions to the Syrian crisis. The Tunisian proposal to establish a group of friends in Tunis on 24 February could be an important step forward. It should be an inclusive group. A key topic for discussion should be the Arab peace plan for a peaceful, Syrian-led transfer of power.

Norway is following the situation in Syria closely. Our Embassy in Damascus is of great importance in this connection. It is in times of crisis that that a diplomatic presence is most necessary. The safety of the embassy staff is a high priority, and we are working closely with our Nordic neighbours in this context.

While the situation in Syria is the most dramatic, developments in Egypt – the largest country in the Arab world – are also of huge significance. A great deal is at stake here. The country’s leader has fallen from power and a new parliament has been elected, but the new regime has not yet taken shape and political tensions are growing. We should actively encourage new political groups to become engaged, and we should share our experience and make quite clear the responsibilities that universal human rights entail.

Significant tension is also building up further east in the region, in and around Iran, particularly with regard to the uncertainty about the intentions behind the country’s nuclear programme. But there are also underlying tensions within the country, where an authoritarian and brutal regime is oppressing the population. Iran’s ambitions in the region and its visible intervention in many of the region’s conflicts are making its neighbours uneasy.

It is Iran’s responsibility to remove the uncertainty about its nuclear programme. No one contests its right to develop civilian nuclear power. However, there must be full transparency regarding its real intentions. This has not been the case, and the main responsibility lies with Iran. There are increasing indications that its leaders are taking systematic steps to develop a nuclear weapons capacity.

This is the challenge facing the international community. It is further complicated by a mutual lack of trust between Iran and much of the international community. The fact that there is virtually no meaningful dialogue gives serious cause for concern. Reactions and counter-reactions are increasing the tension; sanctions are provoking the regime to take a hard line – as illustrated by the continued development of its nuclear programme and its sabre rattling in the Strait of Hormuz – which is in turn increasing the pressure to impose new sanctions.

In this situation the door must remain open for negotiations. At the same time, the response of the international community must be consistent when binding resolutions are not complied with and confidence is undermined. This is the backdrop to the new, more stringent reactions against Iran. Norway has aligned itself with the EU sanctions regime, including the new, more stringent EU measures that were adopted on 23 January. We also support the EU line of strongly advocating negotiations. There is no military solution to the conflict over Iran’s nuclear programme.

Mr President,

(Human rights, democracy)
At a more general level, we are seeing another trend in the broader Middle-East region that requires a carefully considered response. This is the increasing importance of political Islam. When people are given the opportunity to vote, it is to the Islamic parties that the majority are now turning. The reasons for this are complex: they want better living conditions, and they are taking a stand against the former power elite. There are, of course, religious reasons, but this is also a matter of identity, respect for traditions and ordinary people’s everyday lives.

What line should we take?

We cannot dismiss a majority vote. That would betray our own democratic principles and give the impression that the West has double standards.

At the same time, we must communicate clearly the values and norms that form the basis for the international community and express clear expectations about respect for human rights and the democratic rules of play.

If the new leaders are to meet the needs of their populations, they must introduce political and economic reforms, and participate openly in regional and international cooperation.

For example, it is clear that there will be no foreign investment in these countries – which is vital for them – unless steps are taken to address corruption and arbitrariness and create a predictable framework. It is important that the World Bank, the IMF and other organisations and actors make their knowledge and expertise available in connection with these reform processes so that revenues in these countries benefit the people.

And we must engage in active dialogue with those who are coming to power. Norway already has a strong platform and a good network in this context as, over the years, we have been in contact with the civil society actors that are now rising to power in the Middle East. We will make use of this.

Taking part in a dialogue does not imply that we share their political views. But it gives us an opportunity to put across clear messages, including in situations where we do not agree. In these dialogues, we draw attention to how fundamental values in our own democratic tradition – universal human rights and a modern social model – can be used to develop democracy.

We have long traditions of supporting civil society organisations that speak out for modern, democratic rights. Examples include support for youth organisations, the media, human rights organisations, support for election preparations and education. For example, Norway’s funding through various channels for democratisation in Egypt amounts to around NOK 36 million.

We attach particular importance to protecting women’s rights. It is also crucial that requirements are set for new legislation and not least new constitutions.

The extent to which marginalised groups and individuals are protected against discrimination is the litmus test of a state’s willingness and ability to safeguard human rights. Protection of sexual minorities is one of the most obvious examples. We are putting a good deal of effort into helping to protect this vulnerable group, both in the UN and at country level, and this work will be continued in 2012.

Mr President,

Our efforts in the Middle East region are based on our long-term, broad-based commitment to promoting human rights. Norway’s priorities in 2012 are as follows:

Firstly – as I have already mentioned – supporting democracy-building, the rule of law and public participation, particularly in states in transition.

Secondly, protecting human rights defenders and freedom of expression. We will give priority to supporting spokesmen and spokeswomen who give a voice to vulnerable groups seeking to escape oppression and persecution. We see them in the media every day. All such efforts are dependent on the right to speak freely. It is essential that human rights defenders are able to do their work without restrictions, harassment or threats.

We will continue to support the training of journalists covering elections and protests in countries that have undergone major political upheavals during the past year. We support training in human rights and transitional justice after violent conflict. And we support dialogues between journalists in countries with a large Muslim population and Western countries, and between journalists in different parts of the Middle East with the aim of countering hate journalism.

Thirdly, abolition of the death penalty – an unacceptable form of punishment that violates the most fundamental right of all, the right to life.

The Government will be at the forefront of efforts to abolish the death penalty in the lead-up to the next World Congress against the Death Penalty, which will be held in Madrid in 2013. As part of a cross-regional core group of countries, we will mobilise high-level political participation, including from countries that have not abolished the death penalty. In October, Norway will assume the presidency of the Support Group for the International Commission against the Death Penalty. We will make active use of the presidency as a platform for our efforts in the time ahead, and will cooperate closely with civil society actors and NGOs. 

(The protection of minorities)
Fourthly, Mr President, the protection of minorities, which is a field that is interlinked with many other areas. Minorities are vulnerable, particularly in times of political instability and economic and social unrest. The countries of the Middle East and North Africa are not alone in having experienced this. Europe, too, has dark chapters in its history, and today we are also seeing deeply polarised societies and minorities that are under pressure.

In November 2011, I announced that we would launch a project to strengthen protection of minorities. This entails an intensification of the work we are already doing – both in multilateral organisations and through awareness raising and other measures at country level. This is necessary. In our contact with political movements in Egypt, for example, we have raised the situation of the Coptic minority both with the authorities and with the Muslim Brotherhood, which recently won the election.

Last week I had my first meeting with organisations in Norway that are engaged in this work and was given valuable input on how we can proceed with the project. I very much appreciate their commitment.

In planning this work, we must bear in mind that minorities are not a homogeneous category. We will focus on those areas where the challenges are particularly great and where there is broad engagement in Norway.

The protection of religious or belief minorities is one such area. Many people in Norway are concerned about the situation of Christian minorities in the Middle East and in countries such as Pakistan. The Government, too, is concerned about the situation of Christians in these turbulent times. We are worried about the fact that many Christians who have lived in the Middle East for generations now feel compelled to emigrate from the region.

However, the Christians are not the only ones who are encountering difficulties. Every day there are reports of violent clashes between Muslim groups, such as the Sunnis and Shias in Iraq. The Baha’i of Iran and the Ahmadiyans in countries such as Pakistan and Indonesia are other examples of religious groups that are that are in a difficult situation.

In our efforts to protect minorities, we must take care not to put them in even greater jeopardy by drawing attention to their situation and defining them as a group. Our focus should be to promote the development of states governed by the rule of law that ensure respect for the human rights of all people, both the majority population and minority groups.

Minorities are under pressure in most of the regions of the world, including Europe. This may be because of religion or belief, ethnic affinity, gender identity or other, more complex factors. We are seeking to gain greater insight into the historical background, local knowledge and the skills needed in order to make a useful contribution. Organisations such as the UN, the OSCE and the Council of Europe are central arenas for following up this work.

The UN Human Rights Council is about to begin its second round of Universal Periodic Reviews. We will take up the situation of religious minorities in certain countries both in this process and in our general statements when the situation in various countries is discussed in the Council. Our diplomatic and consular missions are charting the situation of minorities in the respective countries, which will be used as a basis for defining our role and the measures we intend to implement in cooperation with Norwegian and international organisations and educational and research institutions.

Mr President,

(Middle East)
Before leaving the subject of the Middle East, I would like to say a few words about what is probably the most central conflict in the region – that between Israel and the Palestinians.

The news is not encouraging. The situation seems to be even more deadlocked and, if anything, it seems to be characterised more by deeper internal divisions within both parties than any form of rapprochement between them. The core of the conflict remains unchanged, and the occupation continues and is being reinforced by an expansive settlement policy and measures to drive Palestinians from their land. At the same time, the Palestinians remain divided. There have been various signs of reconciliation, but it seems that there is still a long way to go.

Last year the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee for Assistance to the Palestinians (AHLC), which is chaired by Norway, concluded that the Palestinian Authority is above the threshold for a functioning state. Robust Palestinian institutions are now delivering public services that are on a par with those provided by comparable institutions in other countries. Thus, despite the fact that there are still a number of unresolved issues, Palestine fulfils key criteria for becoming an independent state.

Norway supported the Palestinians’ legitimate right to bring its case before the UN in autumn 2011, and is ready to recognise an independent Palestinian state. In the Government’s view, the basis for recognition must be its ability to function as a state. We underscore, as does the Palestinian leadership under President Abbas, that outstanding issues must be resolved through negotiations. It is urgent for the parties to start negotiations. The very vision of a two-state solution is now in danger. Both the Palestinians and the Israelis are losing any hope of peace because of the lack of progress. This is bolstering extremist forces on both sides. Although the international community must continue to play a clear role, it is the parties themselves that have the primary responsibility. Norway will continue to support all efforts to bring the process forward in the coming months.

The Palestinian Authority is facing major challenges. The economic barriers created by the occupation are still in place and donor funding is declining. An economic crisis could endanger the Palestinian Authority’s existence, which would hit the people of Gaza particularly hard.

As chair of the AHLC, Norway will assist the Palestinian Authority as it continues its state-building project. Norway will co-chair the next donor conference, which will be held in Brussels in one month’s time, together with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Catherine Ashton.

Palestinian reconciliation is a necessary precondition for a viable Palestinian state and a lasting peace. This is President Abbas’ aim. There must be no doubt that he is negotiating on behalf of all the Palestinian people. We expect any Palestinian government to respect previously concluded agreements, including the Oslo Accords, that require the parties to seek a peaceful solution to the conflict and recognise the state of Israel.

Mr President,

(Myanmar)
I would now like to turn eastwards to the Indian Ocean area, which, according to US writer Robert Kaplan, will be the centre of global change and international politics in the coming decades. There is now reason to hope that a brighter future is within reach for Myanmar, or Burma, which – with its long coastline and strategic location between India, China and Thailand – is an important country in this region.

The country has undergone remarkable changes, in a short space of time and in part unexpectedly. The release of several hundred political prisoners, Aung San Suu Kyi’s release from house arrest, her and the National League for Democracy’s decision to stand in the by-election in April, the clear steps towards freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and freedom of association, the revision of labour legislation in accordance with ILO requirements – all this adds up to unprecedented progress. So, we might add, do the ceasefires in several of the current and protracted conflicts with ethnic groups in the country.

Unlike the situation in the Arab world, the process in Myanmar was started at the top, by the Government that succeeded the military regime, which – though it is a civilian government – is largely led by former military officers.

What is the reason for this?

Again, I believe the explanation lies in the economic realities. It is clear that a military-led government that is subject to international sanctions cannot meet the population’s needs. It was simply not a sustainable regime. The changes in Myanmar differ from those brought about by the uprisings in the Middle East. Yet the progress achieved is just as fragile; there are counterforces and there may be setbacks along the way.

This is precisely why it is right to become engaged – at least for those who can make a difference. And I believe we can. Until recently, Norway was the only Western country to make a political-level visit to Myanmar. Norway has played a leading role in mobilising international engagement, at the same time as we have coordinated our actions with those of our closest partners, particularly the EU and the US. We have also had a close dialogue with several Asian countries.

Norway now has the confidence of the Government of Myanmar. We also have the confidence of and close contact with a number of pro-democracy groups in the country. This was confirmed during my visit in January. We have stressed the importance of encouraging the reforms and the clear steps towards democracy. On 14 January this year, the Government decided that it would no longer urge Norwegians and Norwegian companies to refrain from trade and investment in Myanmar. This was an exclusively Norwegian policy that was introduced in 1997. We believe that the Norwegian business sector can make a positive contribution to the country’s economic development, but we assume that ethical standards will be adhered to.  

The European sanctions are still in force. The prospects of their being lifted should encourage the authorities to continue their reforms, and particularly to ensure that the by-election in April is free and fair. If they succeed in this, the sanctions should be eased or lifted. This seems to be the prevailing attitude in the EU and the US.

Norway will, at the request of the Government of Myanmar and the opposition, help the Government to gain access to relevant expertise and knowledge in the policy areas where this is lacking. Norway will also continue to actively support the process of reconciliation with the ethnic groups.

A ceasefire is all well and good, but it is just a first step. The next stages will be even more demanding. There is still a great need for justice and reconciliation. People must see that peace pays, and that their lives improve. Norway has experience in this area. And we will find suitable ways of contributing.

We have also raised the question of how the international donor community can best organise its efforts to ensure effective assistance to Myanmar and the reform forces, and prevent chaos when the various donor organisations and foreign companies and interests begin to make their presence felt.

The Arab Spring and the easing of the situation in Myanmar have given Norway new opportunities to contribute to peace and reconciliation. The trust and networks built up over a number of years have given us knowledge of the political landscape and opportunities to support specific projects designed to promote democracy, reform and bridge-building.

Mr President,

(China)
In my foreign policy address last year, I talked about the state of our political relations with China after the award of the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize. The Chinese Government virtually froze political ties with Norway, and our relations with China still bear the marks of this. Our overall trade with China increased in 2011, but parts of our export industry are experiencing problems in their trade with China.   

As I have said previously, the current state of our political relations is not normal and this needs to be addressed. Norway regrets the situation. We are well aware of the Chinese Government’s views on both the peace prize award and the recipient and have taken note of this. We are interested in moving forward, together with the Chinese Government. We hope that we will not see a similar situation arising in the future. There is great potential for cooperation between our countries in many areas. Our aim is to revive our cooperation with China in arenas where we have enjoyed such cooperation previously.

For example, the Government is looking forward to a constructive political dialogue on Arctic issues and other important issues of interest to both our countries. Norway continues to support China’s application for permanent observer status on the Arctic Council. We hope to have a dialogue with China on this issue, as we have with other candidate countries.

We have reached out a hand and we stress that both countries share responsibility for moving forward in mutual respect and to our mutual benefit. This policy remains unchanged. And we are prepared to take our share of the responsibility for this.

Mr President,

(Afghanistan)
I will address the Storting on the situation in Afghanistan and Norway’s engagement there in late May or early June. Today I will briefly present a general overview and update.

Armed attacks are still being made. Security continues to be a critical factor. Afghan politics continues to be marked by major tensions as are relations between Afghanistan and the rest of the world.

However, there are signs of stronger focus on political solutions. The conflict cannot be resolved by military means. A political solution must be found.

The most notable development is the progress being made in political contacts with the Taliban. It seems likely that the Taliban will establish an office in Qatar to facilitate contact and talks between the Afghan authorities and the international community. This will probably pave the way for direct peace talks with the Taliban. It remains to be seen how this is to be done and what the substance of the talks will be.

The Government is pleased to see that the need for a political solution has been recognised. At the same time we must be realistic and not overly ambitious. A political solution can only be found if all ethnic groups, civil society and Afghan women are included in the process. An inclusive process is essential for building confidence between factions, which are often suspicious of each other, and for ensuring that interests across previous dividing lines are safeguarded. We will do what we can to support such a process.

Future peace talks will only succeed if the Afghans have ownership of the process. But we must also face the fact that the international community and neighbouring countries will have to be involved in some way. It is particularly important that Pakistan and Iran play a constructive and supportive role. However, no country is entitled to veto a political course chosen by the Afghans. This has happened too many times throughout history. It must not happen again.

Norway will also continue to cooperate actively with the Afghan authorities on strengthening regional cooperation. The first seeds were sown at the Istanbul Conference last November, and the initiative will be followed up at the Ministerial Conference in Kabul in June. Stronger regional cooperation would help to stabilise Afghanistan.

During the International Afghanistan Conference in Bonn in December, I had a meeting with the Afghan Women’s Network. I pledged that Norway will continue to support them actively in their efforts to gain their rights and take their rightful place in Afghan society. We have an ongoing, constructive dialogue with the network to determine what form of support will have the best effect. This work also builds on experience gained from our follow up of UN Security Council resolution 1325 (2000) on women, peace and security, which is a major, high-priority area in Norwegian foreign policy.

As regards our military engagement in Afghanistan, we are in the process of transferring responsibility for security to the Afghan Government in a proper and orderly manner. This is in keeping with the decision taken at the NATO summit in Lisbon in December 2010 to withdraw the last of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2014. This is in keeping with the Afghan Government’s wishes.

Here, too, the keyword is Afghan ownership – ownership that entails responsibility for stabilising the country, facilitating political dialogue and furthering social and economic development. The transfer of security responsibility to the Afghan security forces is going according to plan. Our own plan is that the last of the Norwegian forces should be out of Faryab province by summer 2013.

The Afghan security forces – the army and the police – have been built up with international assistance, which will have to be continued if the forces are to be maintained. Norway is prepared to take its share of this responsibility. However, the current plans, for a force numbering more than 350 000 personnel, seem overly ambitious. The focus must be on quality rather than quantity.

The question of continuing financial support to the Afghan security forces will be one of the main topics at the NATO summit in Chicago in May. At the Bonn Conference in December, 85 countries confirmed that they would continue to take part in the civilian effort, even after ISAF has been withdrawn. In other words, Afghanistan will not be left on its own when the ISAF operation has been completed. This was an important political signal to the Afghan Government and our partners.

The political signals from Bonn on future financial support will be concretised at the donor conference scheduled to be held in Tokyo in July. I will revert to the focus and scale of this support in my address to the Storting on Afghanistan in late May/early June. 

Mr President,

(NATO, the US)
In January I had talks with my US counterpart and other political figures, as well as a number of representatives of the research and technology community and the business sector. The purpose of these talks was to strengthen the close ties between Norway and the US. The visit of the King and Queen also made an important contribution in this respect last autumn.

One of the themes we discussed was security and NATO. The NATO summit in Chicago in May will draw up the political framework for the work of the Alliance in the years ahead. The backdrop to the summit is the serious economic situation faced by many of our Allies. The majority of them are now making considerable cuts in their defence budgets. The US alone, which bears about 75% of NATO’s defence costs, intends to reduce defence spending by USD 487 billion over the next decade. This is happening at a time when defence budgets are being increased significantly in countries such as Russia and China. 

Thus, the impact of the global financial crisis on Allies’ defence budgets will directly affect NATO, as will the recent US decision to reduce its permanent force in Europe and the shift in US attention towards Asia.

Mr President,

It is understandable that the US is shifting its security policy focus towards the East. There is no reason to view these changes as dramatic. The transatlantic ties are rock solid and have linked the US and Europe closely in a community of interests and values for many decades. And this continues to be the case, and – with continued efforts by both parties – we hope it will remain so.

After having adopted the new Strategic Concept, members of the NATO community are now drawing up proposals for changes to the Alliance’s chain of command and operational capability to modernise NATO cooperation and make it more effective. This will entail decisions to link what are known as the partner countries even more closely to NATO. Norway supports this. We also support closer contact with organisations like the African Union and the Arab League, which would represent an added dimension to the cooperation NATO already has with the UN and the EU.

As set out in the Government’s policy platform, it would be a step in the right direction if NATO could agree on a doctrine that puts less emphasis on nuclear deterrence. It is encouraging to see that there are an increasing number of NATO countries that share Norway’s aim of eliminating all short-range nuclear weapons in Europe.

The challenge here is that the country that has by far the largest arsenals of such weapons is Russia, and so far Russia has not been willing to reduce or eliminate them. As a first step, we are seeking to put in place mechanisms and guidelines that promote greater transparency, which in turn can pave the way for future reductions.

This, Mr President, is an ambitious agenda. But then we do not expect all these aims to be achieved before the summit in Chicago in May. The Government would like to see the summit chart a course towards less reliance on nuclear weapons for our further efforts along these tracks. We and other Allies are striving for a world free of nuclear weapons, which was also President Obama’s starting point in his much-quoted speech in Prague in April 2010.

Mr President,

(The Western Balkans)
Despite the considerable progress that has been made in the Western Balkans, it is still an area of Europe that is marked by tension and, in places, internal unrest. This too is an area where NATO has been engaged. I am thinking primarily of the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the fragile relations between Serbia and Kosovo.

Norway recognised Kosovo as an independent state at an early stage, and we are currently closely engaged in civil society efforts in the country. We also have a close political dialogue with Kosovo. Prime Minister Thaci visited Norway just before Christmas with a view to further strengthening the ties and cooperation between us. 

Our friendly relations with Serbia date back a long way. We have close ties with the Serbian authorities at various levels, and our cooperation in the field of justice and home affairs, defence and a number of other sectors is continually deepening. Serbia’s reforms in many areas have prepared the country for closer EU integration.

We look forward to the day when Serbia and Kosovo resolve their differences, which relate in particular to the needs of the Serb-dominated population of northern Kosovo, and how these can best be met. This issue can only be resolved if both countries are actively engaged, and the international community takes responsibility and supports initiatives that are conducive to a stable solution that paves the way for development and further EU integration for both parties.

Given Norway’s close ties with Serbia and Kosovo, we are prepared to do what we can to help bring this political process forward.  

Mr President,

(The High North, Russia)
I would like to conclude my address by turning to the north. In November 2011, the Government presented a white paper on its High North policy entitled The High North. Vision and policy instruments. Last week the Storting held hearings on issues raised in the white paper, and I am looking forward to the debate on this important topic in this chamber in April.

On behalf of the Government, I would like to commend the Storting for its strong engagement in the regional cooperation forums that are concerned with the High North. This gives Norway a stronger voice and is an example of a long-standing Norwegian tradition of cooperation in areas where we have common aims and strategies. 

One of the visions presented in the white paper is the development of a new European energy province in the north. This is a vision that can be realised due to the new petroleum discoveries that have been made and the clarification of the delimitation line between Norway and Russia in the treaty to which the Storting gave its consent to ratification one year ago. We see a growing optimism about the future in the north.  

Many of the new opportunities that are emerging can be realised by cooperating closely with Russia. We give priority to solutions that serve the interests of both countries. Our close cooperation at many levels is illustrated by the fact that the number of border crossings at Storskog increased from around 8 000 in 1990 to 107 000 in 2005 and to almost 195 000 in 2011, when a new monthly record was set in December 2011, with 22 700 people crossing the Norwegian–Russian border there. These figures speak for themselves, Mr President.

The Government is following developments in Russia closely. We value and support the all the close contacts that have been established between Norwegian and Russian actors in civil society, various organisations, the cultural sector, academia, public institutions and other forums. There are more points of contact than ever before. We are cooperating in an increasing number of areas. And when differences do arise, we are able to find solutions.

We hope that these contacts will be expanded and that we will be able to further enhance our knowledge of Russia. With this in view, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is establishing a broad-based research programme on Russia under the Research Council of Norway, which will provide us with valuable insight over the next five years. 

Since the parliamentary election in December, we have witnessed a political awakening among the Russian middle class, which I believe is healthy for Russian society. The political leadership will have to take this into account. The presidential election, which will be held in a few weeks’ time, will be an important indicator of the direction the country will take. Elections are the litmus test of a democracy, as I said earlier in this address.

However, the report prepared by OSCE and Council of Europe election observers in December pointed out a number of shortcomings. We expect – as do the Russia people – that the presidential election will be carried out in accordance with Russia’s international obligations.

As a close partner of Russia, we are actively following developments in the country; we support positive trends and speak up if we see any negative trends. Given the current political turbulence in the country, and the shifts in the global balance of power, it is important that we continue to pursue our long-term policy of engagement. This is the only way we can influence our cooperation with Russia in a way that safeguards our interests. We will be predictable, recognisable and unambiguous in our dealings with our Russian counterparts.  

 Mr President,

During Norway’s chairmanship of the Barents Euro-Arctic Council, which runs until October 2013, our main focus will be on business development and natural resources. Efforts to deal with the environmental problems in northwestern Russia will be intensified, and an Action Plan on Climate Change in the Barents Euro-Arctic Region will be developed, which will focus on adaptation. The people-to-people contact will be continued and we will give higher priority to cooperation between indigenous peoples. This is also important with regard to democracy and human rights in Russia. Next year a meeting of prime ministers will be held to mark the 20th anniversary of the Barents Cooperation and take stock of its achievements.

The Arctic Council, which is another important body, will follow up the Arctic Search and Rescue Agreement, which was concluded in 2011, with a new agreement – this time on oil spill preparedness and response. High priority will be given to adaptation to climate change, and to improving coordination of the Council’s activities, for example by establishing a permanent secretariat in Tromsø.

Norway holds the presidency of the Nordic Council of Ministers in 2012, where one of the main focus areas will be the challenges facing the Nordic welfare states. The work of revitalising the Council of Ministers and making it more effective will continue throughout the year. The increased interest in closer cooperation in the Nordic region provides a good starting point for the Norwegian presidency. In this respect, Thorvald Stoltenberg’s 2009 report is an important source of inspiration. Even closer cooperation between the Nordic foreign services and the sharing of diplomatic and consular premises are at the top of the agenda now. The plan is that, in the course the year, a decision will be taken on a number of locations where we could go further with our plans for establishing joint Nordic embassies.

We also cooperate on public security, including in the area of cyber security. The establishment of a Nordic network against cyber attacks would be an important step towards translating the Nordic declaration of solidarity into concrete measures.

Mr President,

2012 promises to be an active year for Norwegian foreign policy. The effectiveness of our foreign policy is enhanced by the ongoing dialogue we enjoy with the Storting on political values, priorities and aims. I am therefore looking forward to the forthcoming debate on this foreign policy address.