Translation from the Norwegian
Check against delivery

Foreign Minister Knut Vollebæk's Statement to the Storting on Norway's neighbouring areas, 15 May 1998

The Government will today approve the Norwegian-Russian framework agreement on nuclear safety. This is a milestone in nuclear safety cooperation with Russia and a good illustration of the new dimensions in our relations with Russia and in our cooperation with neighbouring areas.

Up to and after the end of this millennium, one of the main aims of foreign policy in European countries will be to include new countries in Western cooperation structures. The former systems in Central and Eastern Europe failed to meet the material, social and political needs of the population. The people in these countries therefore want their societies to become more like ours.

It is in the interests of Norway and the rest of Europe that our neighbouring areas in the East are functioning, viable societies. They should offer their people collectively and individually the possibility of achieving their goals and dreams in the firm conviction that a better future lies ahead, and that the rights of individual citizens will not be violated. The new peace must be secured by a close-knit system of cooperative arrangements, trade and mutual dependency.

During the Cold War, Norway had a particular responsibility for maintaining stability and détente in Northern Europe. Our policy towards our neighbouring areas today is even more ambitious. In a concerted effort with our neighbours and partners on both sides of the Atlantic, we shall apply our instruments to achieving a common goal: a Europe in peaceful cooperation from the Atlantic to the Urals. Our objective is a larger community of nations patterned on the last fifty years of cooperation west of the former Iron Curtain. It is within this context that Norway is to play a particularly active role in relation to its neighbouring areas, upon which we are dependent, and which in turn are dependent upon us.

We can and will coordinate our foreign policy and our policy instruments with those employed by the other countries in Europe, acting on their own or collectively. We therefore welcome Finland's initiative to introduce a Nordic dimension within the EU and we value the active involvement of the USA and Canada in matters concerning the Barents, Baltic Sea and Arctic regions.

And we are looking forward to the day when it will be just as natural to act and cooperate with the whole of Northern Europe, with Russia, with the Baltic countries and Poland, as we do today with the Nordic countries and the EU, and when people in our part of the world can thrive in viable democracies and sustainable economies. Democratic processes in a well-developed civil society are the best guarantee of stability, greater freedom and economic growth. Such conditions must be firmly established throughout our part of the world.

This is a prime concern in the Government's foreign policy, and all of our instruments, large or small, are part of this overall goal and the means of achieving it.

At the core of our efforts lie contacts between people, between units both large and small, between individuals, enterprises, groups, associations, municipalities, counties and other authorities.

The tasks are queuing up to be solved. The highest priority during the next few years will be given to the development of cooperation with Russia in a wide variety of fields.

The prosperity gap is a threat to the stability of our neighbouring areas. The differences between the welfare levels of different countries, as well as internally in individual countries, are so enormous that they may constitute a destabilizing force. This situation must be taken seriously.

We are all aware of how demanding the transition to democracy and the rule of law is for countries that have long existed without them. It involves nothing less than a total revision of fundamental values in these societies.

Each country must develop its own institutional framework and a constitutional state characterized by constitutional limitations on the power of the authorities, so that citizens are protected against arbitrary treatment and the misuse of power.

In the new democracies, this involves creating a civil society from scratch, where the citizens are given opportunities for co-determination and are encouraged to share responsibility through active involvement in local self-government, public institutions close to the people and non-governmental organizations.

And just as we, when this land became our own, were inspired by freedom movements elsewhere, by the French revolution and the American struggle for independence, we are ready to share our own experience of developing a modern constitutional state. We will therefore give pride of place to respect for the individual, especially for those who for so long were refused the freedom that we have now begun to take for granted.

Two days before our Constitution Day, we should think with humility of the people who only now are within reach of the promise of freedom. Thus we must consider it our duty to offer whatever support we can.

There is great potential in the close people-to-people cooperation that already exists in the Barents and Baltic Sea regions. According to a Russian proverb, "it is more useful to see something once than to hear it a hundred times." The power of example can be great. I was recently informed that Nordland County, at the request of its Russian twin county, Leningrad, has started a training programme in local democracy for Russian local politicians. After ten years of friendly contact and visits, the Russians had become convinced that the Norwegian model was worthy of imitation.

We have seen that people at the local level in Russia and in the Baltic countries have been inspired by contact with Nordic organizations to begin voluntary work for the benefit of disabled people and other vulnerable groups. The many enthusiasts, in Norway as well as in Russia and the Baltic states, play a decisive role in building civil societies. The Government is very conscious of the importance of this contribution, and wishes to support it wherever possible.

I wish to take this opportunity to salute the many people who are involved at the local level, in municipalities and counties, for the contribution they make to the building of bridges to our neighbouring areas in the east, south and west. Nevertheless, an important role is also played by cooperation between governments, and this will be a main focus of my statement.

Norway can contribute in various ways, as we do in the cooperation that has been established with Russia in the judicial sector. We can contribute useful experience in the field of gender equality with respect to institutional development, research cooperation, working methods and networking, to mention just a few examples.

Social distress and poverty represent the greatest threat to development. We must not allow a new "Poverty Curtain" to descend on the Europe that tore down the Iron Curtain.

The social inequalities across the border between the Nordic area and Russia, and also between the Nordic area and the Baltic countries, are striking. It is imperative that people's hopes are kept alive, and that each and every individual can see a change for the better. It is the countries themselves that must take responsibility for their own future. They must create their own safety nets and their minimum standards and distribution arrangements. If young people grow up without hope in a society that fails to offer employment to those who need it, society itself is at risk.

The fact is that poverty may be a destabilizing factor in our neighbouring areas that must be taken seriously. The Government has therefore begun preliminary talks with several countries with a view to bringing about a broader international effort to alleviate the complex social situation, particularly in northwestern Russia. Under the auspices of the Nordic Council, important initiatives have been taken to set in motion social programmes targeting children and young people in the Baltic states.

Norway aims to increase its efforts to improve the health situation, particularly on the Kola Peninsula and in northwestern Russia and in this connection we are trying to mount an international operation. One argument for pursuing these efforts is that the danger of infectious diseases that we thought had been eradicated in Europe spreading to our countries from these neighbouring areas.

***

I should like now to present an evaluation of the most important cooperation mechanisms available to us in undertaking these tasks.

The years following the end of the Cold War have been marked by the development of a number of regional cooperation mechanisms in our neighbouring areas. What does this mean? Does it mean that the established organizations have failed to adapt to the new reality? No, it means that we have an organizational pattern that reflects the establishment of cross-border ties at different levels – between individuals, groups, associations, municipalities, counties, the military forces, private sector organizations, members of parliament and of course between the authorities at government level, and that these are all willing to work together, albeit at different levels, to achieve common overriding goals.

Experience from Nordic cooperation indicates that all contacts are useful for building networks, thereby ensuring peaceful coexistence and development. In cooperation with Russia and the Baltic countries, the experience that we ourselves have acquired during more than 40 years of Nordic cooperation may come in useful. And we see that others are interested in benefiting from our experience of the practical arrangement of such cooperation and of the rewards it can give in the form of increased economic growth and social development.

The cooperation between the Nordic area and the Baltic countries must be coupled with processes taking place in European and international fora. I should like for example to mention an important element of Estonia's and Latvia's ties with European cooperation structures, namely the integration process in relation to Russian-speaking citizens. Both the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe are assisting in the integration process, and Norway finances a number of measures to support this work.

A cornerstone of our policy regarding our neighbouring areas is Nordic cooperation. The character of the Nordic cooperation has of course changed now that three Nordic countries have become members of the EU. The Government aims to maintain and develop the cooperation to meet new challenges. Most of the traditional Nordic cooperation will continue independent of EU membership, and here I would like to emphasize that almost all of the day-to-day practical Nordic cooperation is of an informal nature. The Nordic representatives need no agreements or directives concerning cooperation. It is quite natural, and follows from our linguistic and cultural links, which no resolution can do away with.

The possibility of functioning jointly in international fora will be governed by the Nordic countries' different ties to Europe. This does not exclude a close coordination in substance, and these processes still take place in most areas where we previously presented a common front. We are naturally particularly concerned to encourage strong Nordic coordination, e.g. in the UN. We also see a considerable will in the other Nordic countries to continue this line. We are pleased to note that Sweden has taken the initiative to host a conference on "The Nordic Area in International Politics" in September.

The fact that three Nordic countries are now members of the EU opens up the prospect of a new generation of Nordic cooperation. We must exploit the potential that lies in the possibility of promoting traditional Nordic values directly within the EU system. Norway can also actively support the initiatives taken by the three Nordic members of the EU. Our way of working will be different, but our goal will largely coincide with the goals of our Nordic neighbours.

We now see new opportunities for constructive cooperation on foreign policy in the Nordic area and Northern Europe, and with the EU. Finland has introduced the concept of "the Nordic dimension" in the EU's foreign policy. Prime Minister Lipponen's proposal has started a political process aimed at involving European countries and the EU more actively in Northern Europe. We maintain close contact with Finland and the other Nordic countries regarding these issues, and have also succeeded in attracting considerable attention in Germany and other EU countries.

The Mediterranean countries are now established members of the EU. The next process will be directed northwards and eastwards. Finland is the EU's first common border with Russia, and the aim is to develop a coherent EU policy in relation to Russia. Even though the northern dimension is primarily an EU project, the policy involves not only the Northern European EU members, but also the whole area from Iceland to northwestern Russia, as well as the USA and Canada. Finland attaches importance to coordinating the EU's involvement in the Barents Council, the Council of Baltic Sea States and the Arctic Council, and to improving coordination of the EU's assistance to Russia.

Norway has actively supported the Finnish initiative. We have co-hosted a major conference recently held in Germany with broad participation from the Nordic countries, Russia and Germany. We have a close dialogue with Finland, and particularly emphasize here the importance of including the Arctic and the Barents area in the initiative.

The Finnish initiative has been given a largely positive reception, and the EU Commission will submit a report on the northern dimension in December. There is much to indicate that, when Germany takes over the chairmanship of the EU in 1999, precisely this dimension will come into focus. Norway must exploit the opportunities this will afford to expand our bilateral ties with Germany as a part of our northern European policy in relation to neighbouring areas, and to secure satisfactory cooperation with the German authorities vis-à-vis Russia. This goal is shared in political circles in Germany, and will be taken up during the state visit in June.

It is of crucial importance that the largest member state of the EU, and the country that holds the key to the new Europe, shows a will to make a strong and constructive commitment to the Baltic Sea region, the Barents region and the entire northern dimension of EU policy. The Government wishes to engage in a broad dialogue with Germany and the rest of the EU concerning policy with regard to these areas, and will play an active role in this connection.

The Barents cooperation is especially important to us because the original initiative was a Norwegian proposal. It was launched with the aim of integrating Russia into pragmatic and down-to-earth cooperation across the former East-West divide. The initiative was innovative when it was taken a good five years ago, and as a confidence-building, unifying measure it has been an undoubted success.

The unique feature of the Barents Cooperation is that it involves both regional and central government authorities. The regional authorities have a different view of the region from central government and have given enthusiasts and experts a chance to be involved. These are the people who experience the problems and know what needs to be done. In my view the regional pillar of the Barents Cooperation has been a successful innovation.

Today hundreds of large- and small-scale projects have been started in areas such as culture, education, the living conditions of the indigenous peoples, agriculture, manufacturing, gender equality, environmental protection, health, communications and information.

Through these projects, people-to-people relations are flourishing. There is no doubt that it is in this area that the results have been greatest. These projects have brought new life to the region and increased mutual trust between the people living there.

On the other hand, it is true to say that we had hoped to see greater progress in industrial cooperation. Here there have been a number of snags.

The Government therefore intends to review the use of policy instruments in this field to see whether existing arrangements can be used more efficiently and whether there is a need for new initiatives.

I would like to emphasize, however, that in Norway it usually takes three to five years from the inception of an idea until it is realized in concrete form, and this is in a situation where there is only one set of statutes, one type of infrastructure, one language to deal with. If industrial development normally takes so long on our side of the border, it is only realistic to accept that cooperation across borders must have a rather longer period of maturation. We must not forget that 10 years ago foreign investment was prohibited in the market economies we see developing in our neighbouring areas.

The security policy and economic developments in the Barents region do not depend only on reductions in military forces, military reorganization and how we deal with environmental problems. The changes the region is undergoing influence social, industrial, cultural and political processes. It is important to clarify their long-term impact.

The Government therefore considers it important to encourage the development of research expertise in the Barents region that can provide answers to these questions. In order to implement measures we need knowledge. We have started a review of how Norwegian research expertise can be strengthened and how we can create a research network in the Barents region using tools such as modern information technology.

During its chairmanship of the Barents Council this year the Government is focusing on cooperation on specific projects and on the development of strategies for the work of the next five to ten years. These will apply to the areas of democracy and the rule of law, culture and education, living conditions and trade and industrial development.

We will also make use of the chairmanship period to involve more international players in cooperation in the North. The problems are so great that international coordination is needed if we are to be successful. The participation of the USA and Canada as observers in the Barents Council and the trilateral environmental cooperation between Norway, Russia and the USA have also given the Barents cooperation a transatlantic dimension, which has given it more weight internationally. In addition we are making efforts to include the European Commission and a number of EU countries in the cooperation, and the signals we have received from the Commission are positive.

The Baltic Sea region is one of the most dynamic in Europe, with great potential for growth. It has a population of 50-60 million, and eight of the countries in the region are either member states of the EU or applicants for membership. Poland will become a member of NATO next year. More than any other region in Europe, the Baltic Sea region is marked by the effects of the former East-West divide. In terms of both security policy and economic policy, the region acts as a political barometer , which will indicate whether we are succeeding in our efforts to create a new security architecture for Europe.

The institutional mechanisms are already in place in the Council of the Baltic Sea States. The challenge now is to make it a more operative body. In this connection, we should be able to make use of the experience gained in the Barents Council. Norway will submit a more formal proposal along these lines in the near future.

Norway intends to assume the chairmanship of the Council of the Baltic Sea States in 1999-2000. This is an indication of the importance the Government attaches to the Council. Important priority areas are environmental protection and efforts to combat organized crime. We wish to assist in developing cross-border regional cooperation between Estonia, Latvia and Russia. In this way, we can help to put cooperation within the framework of the Council of the Baltic Sea States into practice in a way that encourages Russia to play a more active role.

Poland is an important participant in the Baltic Sea cooperation, both because of its size (with a population of 40 million) and because of its rapidly growing economy. In the next few years, Poland will become an even more important partner in Norwegian policy as regards our neighbouring areas, particularly when we become partners in NATO. We already have close political ties with Poland through our cooperation in the OSCE troika, currently chaired by Poland, and in the event of Poland becoming a member of the EU, we will have common interests as future partners in the EEA cooperation.

The establishment of the Arctic Council in 1996 was an important step forward in a historic process, where rapid changes have taken place in recent years. Within the Arctic Council, which comprises the countries round the Arctic Circle, and where the USA and Canada also participate, we will develop specific plans for projects that take into special account the interests of the indigenous peoples of the region. We will draw on the experience of the individual Arctic countries, and improve the overall implementation of the plans.

In Arctic regions, the promotion of sustainable development in a broad sense is a priority task. The cooperation reflects the fact that the Arctic is a neighbouring area not only of the Nordic countries and Russia, but also of North America. For centuries, people living in the far North have been dependent on existence in harmony with nature. It is therefore of vital importance that the indigenous peoples are permanently represented on the Council.

The Nordic Council and the Arctic parliamentary conferences have been a driving force behind the establishment of the Arctic Council. Parliamentary vigilance will continue to be important as the Council enters on more substantive work. The final document from the Third Arctic Parliamentary Conference recently held in Siberia emphasizes the expectations of the parliamentarians. In my opinion, the document should constitute a framework for the Council's further efforts.

Research-based knowledge is an important precondition for ensuring that activity in Arctic regions does not inflict irreparable damage on this vulnerable environment. Svalbard is the northernmost part of Norway and, internationally speaking, the most accessible part of the Arctic region. Norway wishes to exploit the possibilities that this gives us to further develop the international cooperation with the parties to the Treaty concerning Spitsbergen, particularly in the field of Arctic research. In the correspondence between Prime Ministers Bondevik and Blair at the beginning of this year concerning increased Norwegian-British cooperation, research cooperation on Svalbard is referred to as a separate item. Norway regards such cooperation as being an extension of its Svalbard policy, emphasizing the maintenance of Norwegian settlements on the basis of industrial and research activities.

Cooperation in the North Sea region is such a natural part of our international reality that we are in danger of forgetting it when renewed attention is required in the East. The fact is that this cooperation takes place at a very high political, technological and administrative level in almost every field, and may serve as an example for the future Baltic Sea cooperation.

Practical cooperation around the North Sea basin is undoubtedly better developed than for any similar area of sea. A number of organizations are active in the region. The North Sea Commission is responsible for cooperation between 35 counties in six countries, with a total population of 40 million. The objective of this cooperation is to develop and promote the region as a centre of economic activity in Europe.

In this region, we ourselves are a party to some of the most advanced international agreements that exist through cooperation agreements at official and company level for the extraction and transport of petroleum, which are studied with great interest by other countries, including Russia.

The close regional cooperation that has been established for example around the North Sea and in the Barents region means that such regions are well equipped to take part in the EU INTERREG programmes. The purpose of Norwegian participation in these programmes is to provide a better framework for production and employment in the border regions. Norway contributes substantial funds to these programmes to ensure that it has access to specific projects.

I believe that the traditional cooperation structures in our neighbouring regions, together with those that have recently been established, provide the arenas necessary to safeguard Norwegian interests. The challenge now is to make use of the structures that are available, to give the formal frameworks substance, and to broaden and increase the effectiveness of cooperation. We make the most of our own resources when we coordinate our efforts with those of other countries in the region that share our priorities. We can achieve this through active diplomacy in relation to our neighbouring areas as a vital element of the Government's European policy.

The Storting is familiar with the Central and Eastern European Cooperation Programme, which was established in the early 1990s in the context of the time. A great deal has changed in just a few years in our neighbouring areas. It is therefore natural to make a complete review of the use of economic instruments. We have now gained valuable experience, and I think it is right that we thoroughly examine the economic instruments available to us, and determine which measures have the greatest impact. In the budget bill for 1999, the Government will describe the changes it considers necessary to ensure that we use the available resources as efficiently as possible.

I would also like to emphasize that our efforts in our neighbouring areas can and should be coordinated with the multilateral efforts to promote social reform and combat poverty under the auspices of organizations such as the UNDP, the OECD, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the World Bank. In addition to this, there are European cooperation programmes such as PHARE. Coordination with these types of institutions which have sufficient expertise and financial resources will also enable us to optimize the use of our own resources.

***

I have briefly discussed the overall objectives of the Government's neighbouring areas policy and the institutions we have at our disposal. Next, I would like to turn to some specific issues in the fields of environmental protection, energy and natural resource management.

The environment must be a consideration in all aspects of our neighbouring areas policy. Nuclear safety cooperation with Russia is in a category of its own, and I shall return to this later.

Both the Baltic Sea and the North Sea are surrounded by industrial countries that generate emissions to both air and water. In the Baltic Sea cooperation, environmental measures must be given especially high priority, particularly along parts of the coast where there are run-down, highly polluting industrial installations.

The North Sea is a good model for future Baltic Sea cooperation in this field. We have established very advanced cooperation mechanisms that ensure monitoring and control of the environment. However, there is still much to be done. Land-based discharges constitute approximately 90 per cent of marine pollution and must be further reduced.

Through their work in the North Sea Commission, politicians and authorities in the region have done much to increase vigilance with respect to environmental problems in the North Sea. I will take the initiative to ensure that the countries represented in the North Sea Commission (besides Norway, they are Denmark, Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom), are invited to participate at government level in celebrating the Commission's 10-year anniversary in the year 2000. Here we should aim to focus attention on environmental cooperation. A suitable venue would be the Hanseatic town of Bergen, which has been nominated European City of Culture in the same year.

Since 1992, Norway has had an environmental cooperation agreement with Russia. The agreement is an important contribution to cooperation in the Barents Region and the Arctic. The Government will develop this cooperation further. The marine environment in the north is one of the cleanest in the world, but it is vulnerable and increasingly threatened by organic chemicals and other pollutants, chiefly from sources outside the area.

One of the greatest environmental challenges in the North is the plan for large-scale development of energy resources in the Barents Sea, where weather conditions are often extreme. Norway, the USA and Russia are cooperating on the development of environmental regulations for these activities on the Russian continental shelf. Russia must become involved in binding international cooperation on pollution of the northern seas by acceding to the Oslo and Paris Conventions (OSPAR) for the protection of the marine environment of the Northeast Atlantic. We have discussed the issue of accession to the convention with the Russian environmental authorities, and intend to follow this up further.

As regards other forms of industrial pollution, Norway has initiated projects to increase general awareness of the harmful effects of emissions from Russian companies and to help in reducing these emissions. The cleaner production programme is an extremely successful example, and now involves 100 Russian companies and is training 350 engineers at a number of locations in northwestern Russia. Results in the form of reduced emissions and appreciable cost reductions for the companies involved have resulted in growing Russian interest in the programme. However, it is disappointing that the Russians have still not drawn up plans for environmentally sound operation of the nickel works at Pechenga. We are giving this matter our full attention.

Energy is inextricably linked with the environment. The enormous energy resources in our neighbouring areas also demonstrate the importance of orderly cooperation with our neighbours. I have already mentioned the very advanced cooperation that has been developed in the North Sea. In recent years, we have managed to reduce the costs and environmental stresses of petroleum activities. The technology we have developed will undoubtedly be of interest to other countries and companies, both in economic and in environmental terms. Parts of the western Nordic region may also prove to be of interest in relation to petroleum and gas activities, and this sector offers further opportunities for cooperation with our west Nordic neighbours as a continuation of a 1000-year long tradition of cooperation.

Russia's petroleum reserves are among the largest in the world. The opening of Russia to the west gives Norway a historic opportunity to develop energy ties with this country. Russia is also a potentially important market for the Norwegian petroleum industry, and the expertise we have gained on our own continental shelf and from cooperation with neighbouring North Sea countries may be of benefit to the Russian offshore industry. The chief problem today is the inadequate legislative framework for foreign participation in petroleum activities.

Norway and Russia compete to a certain extent on the European gas markets. However, we have a joint interest in establishing favourable conditions for the long-term, stable development of these markets. Both Norway and Russia will benefit if gas gains an even more prominent position in European energy supplies, replacing other, more polluting fossil fuels.

The Government gives priority to making Russia a partner in international energy issues. The G8 ministerial meeting in Moscow on 1 April this year marked the importance of Russia's role in international energy cooperation. It is important to integrate Russia into all aspects of international economic relations as an equal cooperation partner. Such cooperation will also be important for Russia because of the decisive role played by the energy sector in the reform processes, and because Russia needs very considerable investments as a basis for more sustainable development.

In the Baltic countries and Poland, the energy sector plays a decisive role in the consolidation of a market economy. Last spring, on Norway's initiative, the Nordic Prime Ministers adopted the Bergen declaration concerning cooperation on the development of sustainable energy supplies in the Baltic Sea region. At the meeting of the Council of the Baltic Sea States in Riga last winter, Prime Minister Bondevik invited energy ministers in the Baltic Sea Region to a meeting in Norway to discuss the proposal further. The meeting will take place in Oslo in November. The topics for the meeting will be the increased use of renewable energy resources and development of the gas and electricity networks. There is no lack of energy sources in the Baltic Sea area. The problems derive from the fact that the energy production and transmission are extremely inefficient and polluting. This is an area where Norway has expertise to offer. The degree to which we will be involved depends among other things on political decisions in neighbouring countries.

Petroleum extraction in our neighbouring areas is as new a branch of resource management as fisheries is an old one. Norway thus has a particularly great responsibility for the management of vital resources. In order to safeguard marine resources for the future, we have developed a number of cooperation mechanisms in our neighbouring areas, but many issues remain to be dealt with. In general, cooperation between Norway and Russia on the management of fisheries resources has in many ways been more successful than cooperation with our western neighbours.

Our extensive fisheries cooperation with Russia has functioned well for 40 years. However, in recent years, new procedures and new players on the Russian side have led to difficulties in the area of research cooperation. Whereas Russian research expeditions in the Norwegian zone have been carried out as usual, Norway has experienced difficulties in carrying out expeditions in the Russian zone. It is a reminder of times gone by when two countries like Norway and Russia are not able to carry out crucial research without such difficulties arising, and we will follow this up by speaking plainly to the Russian authorities. The great advantage of having good relations is that it is possible to discuss problems openly.

We view our fisheries relations with Russia in a long-term perspective. We must seek to exploit and develop the existing potential for practical and commercial cooperation. For Russia, the damage caused to the fish processing industry by difficulties in landing catches in Russian ports is a serious problem. Even though this has meant that Norwegian companies for the time being have been able to take advantage of Russian catches, Norwegian processing of Russian fish can hardly be viewed as a solution in the long term. On the other hand, the loss of the Russian catches may have a negative effect on the processing industry in northern Norway. The challenge facing both of our countries is to show foresight and to give priority to forms of cooperation that can contribute to a more balanced development, which also includes our participation in reconstructing the Russian fishing industry. A possible option is Norwegian investment in Russian fish processing. The Government is attempting to pave the way for private sector involvement by softening the conditions for export credit. It will be up to Norwegian companies to exploit this opportunity.

Via the fisheries cooperation with the EU, we manage common resources in the North Sea. In recent years, a stricter management regime has strengthened fish stocks. This is positive, but there is still room for further measures to promote robust and coherent management of the resources. Through the North Sea process, the cooperation also includes strategies for coordination of fisheries and environmental issues in the management of the North Sea.

We have experienced a number of problems in our fisheries relations with Iceland in recent years. These must not be allowed to develop further. The Government regrets that two countries as close to each other as Norway and Iceland should have problems of this kind. We are interested in close cooperation with Iceland on development of the fisheries industry and in other sectors as well.

As we all know, the Loophole issue represents a special challenge in our relations with Iceland. We wish to negotiate a solution as soon as possible. Our close cooperation with Russia has been an advantage in this respect. Following a Norwegian initiative, a trilateral Norwegian-Icelandic-Russian process is now under way with a view to clarifying whether there is a basis for resuming negotiations. I discussed this matter with my Icelandic colleague during my visit to Iceland at the beginning of April.

The Government wishes our cooperation with Iceland to be given a broader base. Our cultural ties are strong. In spite of this, we must not take them for granted, but must develop them further. I have already discussed the possibility of developing broader foreign policy cooperation with Iceland, e.g. in connection with peacekeeping. This will be followed up.

There is also good potential for developing the practical and economic connections with the Faeroe Islands and Greenland. We have, for example, a sound basis in the established north Atlantic cooperation - NORA - where Greenland, the Faeroes, Iceland and Norway are working to develop economic activity in areas such as marine resources and the marine environment.

Relations with Russia belong to the core of Norwegian foreign policy. The topics discussed above illustrate this very clearly. Our cooperation with Russia has flourished and gained new and broader substance in the last ten years. Norway's Russia policy forms part of a broad-based international push to assist Russia in its positive path of development and help it to consolidate the progress it has made. This will encourage more stable political development.

The Government's overall goal for its Russia policy is to help Russia to become a partner in European and global cooperation. At the same time we will further develop our ties with Russia and safeguard our national interests.

The general picture of our bilateral relations is one of stability and a joint willingness to find solutions to problems. This has resulted in greater mutual confidence, and our relations are both friendly and pragmatic. The forthcoming state visit to Russia will help to consolidate these ties.

Norway is making great efforts to find solutions to unresolved issues. This applies primarily to the delimitation problem in the Barents Sea, cooperation on fisheries research, conditions for the development of industrial cooperation and the establishment of simpler border crossing and customs routines. The Russians seem in general willing to find solutions, but the decision-making process is complicated by an unclear division of responsibility between regional and central government authorities and between civilian and military authorities. However, unsolved problems must not prevent us from acknowledging that we have made a great deal of progress and that developments are going in the right direction.

Cooperation to improve nuclear safety in the North is a priority area. Nuclear relics from the Cold War and unsafe operative nuclear installations represent a threat not only to the Russian population but also to Norway.

We now have a good overview of the problems and plans for specific measures have long been ready. Norway has been a prime mover in mobilizing international support for Russian efforts in this area, and the depth of our cooperation with the Russians on nuclear safety has contributed to our success in this respect. The USA and the EU are now taking an active part in this work.

As I mentioned at the beginning of this speech, the Government will today approve the Norwegian-Russian framework agreement on nuclear safety. It is scheduled to be signed during the state visit to Russia later this month. This is a milestone in nuclear safety cooperation with Russia and will make a crucial contribution to greater security in Russia and adjacent areas. The agreement will result in projects to an amount of NOK 200 to 250 million over a period of three to four years, and will also be a model for cooperation between other countries and Russia in this field.

We are pleased to note that Russia has taken the initiative for joint efforts to clean up Andreyev Bay. Next week Norwegian, British and Russian experts will be meeting in Murmansk to discuss the organizational, technical and financial framework for the project. We regard the progress made here as encouraging, and assume that the question of the experts' direct access to the facilities will be satisfactorily solved.

Russia is now taking the initiative to coordinate the major tasks in the field of nuclear safety. Norway has encouraged this process; these efforts will be followed up and the Government intends to take the initiative for an international legal and organizational framework to ensure the implementation of large-scale joint projects. An international plan of action is being developed, where Norway is playing a central role.

An important aspect of the cooperation on nuclear safety is that it also involves the military authorities. Through the Arctic Military Environmental Cooperation (AMEC ), cooperation on environmental issues has been started between Norwegian, Russian and American defence authorities. One important project is the development of a special transport and storage cask for spent nuclear fuel.

On the basis of the expanded security concept, the challenge for our neighbouring areas policy is to build up a network of cooperation that together form what might be called a security dimension. The new feature of our security policy approach to Russia is that it is based on the same approach that has made war impossible in Western Europe. We are seeking to create such a strong community of interests that we all have everything to lose and nothing to gain by threatening others.

Although there is no military threat to this area today, I would like to emphasize how important it is that NATO cooperation is a cornerstone of all our policy. NATO is still the core and the guarantor of our own and Europe's security. Norway's contribution to its own and Europe's security is dependent on the maintenance of a credible military defence with adequate resources to carry out the tasks assigned to it.

Norway wishes to give momentum to security policy integration in Europe, and the Government attaches decisive importance to the decision at the Madrid Summit that NATO's door will remain open.

Parallel with the enlargement process NATO must develop its cooperation with its partner countries, especially Russia. The NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council is beginning to find its form, but the substance of the Council's work must gradually be extended, and Norway is working to this end. Practical cooperation in the military field must be intensified, and an active programme of exercises involving Russia within the context of the Partnership for Peace (PfP) cooperation is an essential confidence-building measure. Norway is seeking to involve the Russian defence establishment in close cooperation, together with our NATO allies and other Nordic countries. The Government considers it important that the forthcoming reciprocal liaison arrangements between the military headquarters should be expanded to include Leningrad military district and the Northern Fleet.

The Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) is potentially a very useful forum, and the Government considers it important to give the Council substance. Obvious tasks for the Council include cooperation on peacekeeping operations, crisis management and civilian preparedness.

The Baltic countries wish to be members of NATO, and the Government will actively promote this. We realize that NATO membership for the Baltic countries presents us with important choices. Today there are a number of initiatives for confidence-building measures in the Baltic Sea region. Norway is working to promote confidence and cooperation in this region. The US security charter with the Baltic countries is a positive development, and we have noted with satisfaction that Germany, France, Sweden and Finland are interested in confidence-building measures. It is important that these initiatives are coordinated, and we consider the OSCE and the EAPC to be the most relevant fora in this respect. At the same time we are concerned that this type of initiative does not undermine the real possibility of NATO membership for the Baltic countries.

Baltic security can best be ensured by building a network of overlapping fora and structures which must of course focus on the Baltic countries' own needs and desires. Together with the other Nordic countries Norway has a wide-ranging involvement in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and has concluded framework agreements with these three countries on defence-related cooperation.

Western coordination of defence assistance is organized through the BALTSEA cooperation, which includes the establishment of a peacekeeping battalion, a naval squadron, a regional air surveillance system and a Baltic staff college. It is satisfactory to note that the Baltic peacekeeping battalion will soon be able to participate in peacekeeping operations. The Government will follow up this important work.

The positive changes in Europe during the last few years have meant that expanded defence policy cooperation has become a new dimension in Nordic cooperation. Within the PfP, Finland and Sweden are active participants in a comprehensive military cooperation and training programme intended to increase the total capacity for crisis management and peace support operations. Thus all the Nordic countries, including Iceland, are invited to take part in the PfP-inspired exercise BARENTS PEACE in Finnmark in 1999. The Government is interested in strengthening the Nordic-Baltic defence cooperation.

There is now greater room for joint Nordic efforts within a broader Euro-Atlantic framework. We must make use of this. A good example of such joint efforts is the Nordic-Baltic-Polish brigade in SFOR, which includes soldiers from all the Nordic countries together with soldiers from the former Warsaw Pact area in one common unit under US command in a NATO force in which Russia also participates.

***

In 1948, when the Iron Curtain descended across Europe, the British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevan was asked about his vision of the future. He answered that he wanted to be able to go down to Victoria Station and buy himself a ticket to anywhere in the world. An absurd thought in 1948, but a dream that is becoming reality today, fifty years later. We have a vision of such freedom as the basis of our neighbouring areas policy. It is a policy for peace and a policy for development that we envisage as one step towards a civil society of a kind we hope eventually to see throughout the world. We cannot allow ourselves to have a lesser ambition than this.