Norway’s experience from the terrorist attack 22nd of July, and how to promote openness and a culture of dialogue in preventing violent extremism

Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,

I am grateful for this opportunity to take part in the important work of UN's Counter-terrorism Implementation Task Force.

Thank you for the invitation. It is one which I inherited from my predecessor, who stepped down last month. I was then asked to take over as Minister of Justice and police, a position I also held from 1992 to 1996. I served as Minister of Defense until the change last month. So justice and anti terror was not new to me. But the situation at the time of taking over was complex, to say the least. And I will say some words on why.

A terrorist attack on innocent people is a devastating blow.

Oklahoma 1995. New York 2001. London 2005, Mumbai 2008. In the spur of a second, life ends for innocent people going about their daily lives. There are mutilations, fear, pain, anger and desperation. And there are all of us left behind mourning loved ones and remembering how they were and what they meant, and never really coming to grips with understanding what escapes logic and human reasoning.  All the big whys.   

This summer, Oslo was added to that list of places becoming victims of terrorist acts. In the afternoon of July 22, a Norwegian man in his early thirties drove his rented van up in front of the Government House in Oslo. He left the car dressed in a police uniform and was noticed by few. Everything seemed like a normal, quiet afternoon when the bomb exploded.

Eight people were killed – three of them from the Ministry of Justice. Several were severely wounded. And many of you have seen pictures of the devastations which were caused.

Then the terrorist drove 40 kilometer out of Oslo while police and ambulances where getting to work in the center of Oslo. Utøya, is a small island of some 26 acres located some 500 yards off the shore of a lake. The Island is every year the venue of the summer camp of the Labour Party’s youth movement. 700 young people were gathered there.

What had every appearance of being a police officer took the ferry  to the island. Some two hours later he had shot and killed 69 people, one by one,  most of them youth. Teenagers.

The perpetrator is a 32-year old man, born and raised in Norway; a Norwegian citizen.

He has admitted setting off the car bomb and the shooting the youngsters at Utøya.

It seems that he was alone in planning, preparing and carrying out the attacks.

These acts of terror seemed to be deliberate attacks on the Norwegian Government, the Labour party and the new generation of Norwegian politicians.

The perpetrator has stated that he wanted to attack those he deemed to be “multi-culturalists” – the political forces that allegedly allow and facilitate for an increasing Muslim population in Norway.

The terrorist underwent examination by court appointed physiatrists in the autumn.  They diagnosed him with paranoid schizophrenia concluding that he had , and during the observation. They found him to be criminally insane.

If upheld, the diagnosis means that he can not be sentenced to prison. The court case will be carried out according to plan. If considered a perpetual threat to society, he can be kept in confinement for life. This is for prosecutors  and court to decide eventually, based on medical assessment.

We are faced with questions. Could society have detected the brooding of the terrorist based on his internet activities and purchases?

Seven main areas ought to be subjects in our future political discussions.

1. We need a wide-ranging debate about the prevention of radicalization and violent extremism. We have started this debate and it must continue.

2. Before introducing new legislation we must ask if our present legislative provisions are used in a proper manner.

3. Rapid police response is crucial. The police itself is in the middle of their own  internal assessment, and a Commission, similar to the 9/11 Commission, will report next year.

4. Communication capacity is essential. This relates to physical infrastructure, number of people on duty at any given point in time. We were faced with two mega catastrophes at the same time.

5. We must secure our public buildings and at the same time balance security with the qualities of an open society.

6. Norway country of 5 million people living on a surface the size of Montana and stretched out like Chile. Coordination between the police and Armed Forces is vital when resources for preparedness and crisis management are limited. And

7. Probably most important of all: We must ensure that the victims of these heinous crimes are properly cared.

There are many victims after the terrorist attack in Norway. Direct victims and indirect victims. Direct victims who survived the shooting at the island and the bomb in Oslo and the families of the people who was killed or wounded.

And there are many indirect victims as friends, rescue personnel and the public in general. All have their needs for follow up by The Government, local communities, civil society and friends. The direct victims are provided legal assistance and adequate health care and treatment from their local communities. Many of the victims will suffer from this tragic attack for years to come and it will be a challenge for all of us to give the right support to everybody.  

We need to ask all the necessary questions regarding the entire handling of the situation.

Based on unanimous political consensus, we have established an independent 22 July Commission. It will carry out a broad evaluation of the response to the attacks in order to identify lessons learned.

The Commission will report to the Prime Minister in August 2012.

The police and the police security service are both evaluating their own handling of the attacks.

Our effort to strengthen our emergency planning and counter-terrorism policy is ongoing. We have reported to the Parliament on the follow-up of July 22. The parliament is now debating these reports. These national political processes will be ongoing all through 2012.

We have to ask ourselves: How can we prevent terror and violent extremism, while still promoting openness and a culture of dialogue?  How do we improve our ability to provide security and protection without reducing the liberty and freedom of everybody.

It is possible to impose more strict surveillance measures and establish new physical lines of protection, but it is not  a direction we want to pursue. 

A strong police and a highly competent security service shall protect the population, combat and limit threats of serious crime, as well as violence and terror.

In addition we need a broad preventive effort at an early stage, before extremist attitudes turn into violent acts.

In order to prevent violent extremism effectively, we are dependent upon the public’s trust. Trust is essential for thriving societies, for civil and economic life. Trust in the police is essential. Such trust means that people feel that there is safety for persons and property. Transparency is a key instrument in building trust in the police.

It is quite clear that potential solo terrorists – “lonely wolves” – cannot be stopped by police measures alone. Causes and opportunities for the prevention of violent extremism falls under the jurisdiction of several government departments.
Prevention must be a shared responsibility.

On this basis we presented in December 2010 a 30 point action plan to prevent radicalization and violent extremism, entitled “Collective security – a shared responsibility”.

Our basic assumption is that radicalization is an inter-sectorial challenge where broad cooperation is a key element in the preventive work.

Being close to the challenges is important for taking the right steps. There are many good local government measures aimed at crime prevention in general.
Prevention of radicalization and violent extremism should be regarded in the same context. We have to ensure that there is good cooperation between the police and local authorities. And we have to make knowledge about radicalization and violent extremism readily available to public sector personnel and the general public.

International cooperation is crucial to succeed in the fight against terror. This is the only way to deal with these challenges.
Sharing information and best practices is of utmost importance.

We appreciate the cooperation we have had with the UN Task Force and the International Peace Institute in collecting best practices in so-called “deradicalization” programs designed to persuade detainees charged with terrorist related offences in a number of countries.

The case studies from these countries will be helpful when national strsategies are developed.

I can ensure you that Norway is ready to share the lessons we have learned with the international community.

I am ready to answer questions if you have any.

Thank you for your attention.