Minister of Foreign Affairs Knut Vollebæk

Statement to the Storting on foreign and security policy

Oslo, 20 January 2000

Mr. President,

Looking back on 1999 brings some powerful impressions to mind.

In April, I stood at the border between Kosovo and Albania while an endless stream of Kosovar Albanian refugees filed by, driven from their homes by the Yugoslav authorities.

In December, on a hillside near Grozny, I met with exhausted Chechen refugees while artillery shells rained down on the suburbs only a few kilometres away.

Such experiences are a reminder that foreign policy is not merely concerned with impersonal forces. It concerns the lives of individual human beings – their needs, interests and rights. In fact it often concerns the most fundamental of all rights, the right to life. It is important that such issues are included in the international agenda.

There is no contradiction between participating actively in international cooperation and safeguarding national interests. On the contrary. Active participation in broad international cooperation is becoming increasingly necessary if we are to exert influence and safeguard our own interests. This is one of the main reasons why Norway has taken responsibility in international cooperation, and why we should continue to do so.

The aims of the Government's foreign policy are to promote Norway's interests and security, contribute towards international peace and justice and protect human rights. It is of primary interest to Norway to promote stability and predictability, particularly in the areas close to our borders.

These aims are at the core of today's statement, which focuses primarily on our chairmanship of the OSCE, our relations with Russia and the United States, developments in Europe and the need to strengthen international cooperation. When it comes to the WTO, I refer you to last year's statements to the Storting.

Mr. President,

The 1990s was the decade when conflicts in our part of the world truly began to affect our lives in earnest. The situation in the Balkans and other areas we previously regarded as remote proved to have a direct impact on Norway. Our security is inseparably bound up with security in the rest of Europe.

It is in our interests to assume responsibility for security and stability in our part of the world. The OSCE chairmanship gave us an opportunity to do this. We took responsibility in a critical period. Our chairmanship has helped to consolidate Norway's image as a reliable and credible partner.

In 1999, the OSCE was faced with some of the most serious and difficult challenges in the organization's history. In Kosovo the OSCE made an important contribution towards alleviating the suffering of the civilian population. The decision to withdraw the OSCE mission last March was a necessary one because the security situation had become increasingly untenable.

Today the OSCE is playing an important role in the demanding task of rebuilding civil society in Kosovo. However, the situation is extremely difficult. The widespread violence and crime, and the harassment to which the Serbs and other minority groups are subjected give cause for grave concern. We must face up to the fact that the situation in Kosovo may deteriorate even further before it begins to improve.

Nonetheless, some of the developments in the Balkans are promising. The parliamentary elections held in Croatia recently are a clear statement to voters and to the political leadership of other countries, not least Serbia. The new government in Croatia will be under considerable pressure to match up to expectations and produce rapid results. And here they will need our help, as well as that of other countries.

The situation in the Balkans will continue to call for considerable political, economic and military support from the international community. Norway is participating fully in these efforts. Our aim is to assist in democratization and economic development, and thereby lay a better foundation for greater stability both within and between the countries of the region.

Norway is giving priority to the work on the Stability Pact for South East Europe, which could prove to be an important stimulus to political and economic progress and help to integrate the countries of the region into Euro-Atlantic cooperation structures.

The last months of the Norwegian chairmanship of the OSCE were dominated by the war in Chechnya. In a series of meetings with the Russian foreign minister I emphasized that a permanent solution cannot be achieved by military means. The OSCE is willing to assist in the search for a political solution. So far the Russian authorities have rejected this offer, maintaining that the situation in Chechnya is an internal matter which they wish to resolve without international assistance. We must continue to press for a political solution. In the longer term, there is a possibility that the OSCE will be given a political role.

In the short term, however, we must seek to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe in connection with the fighting taking place in Grozny. When I visited Chechnya just before Christmas, I proposed a ceasefire to give the civilian population remaining in the city a chance to escape. Unfortunately this proposal is still just as relevant.

One of the main conclusions to be drawn from our chairmanship is that there is a need to enhance the OSCE's ability to engage in preventive diplomacy. This was one of our priorities during our chairmanship. My visit to Central Asia last autumn convinced me of the importance of strengthening the OSCE's ability to respond to emerging conflicts at the earliest possible stage. There is a significant danger of increased instability in the region, which could require closer OSCE involvement.

We have attached great importance to strengthening the OSCE as an organization and to enhancing its ability to respond swiftly and effectively to conflicts and crises. This is one of the main elements in the Security Pact, which was adopted at the OSCE summit in Istanbul in November.

The Security Pact will also strengthen cooperation between the OSCE and other international organizations, such as the UN, NATO, the Council of Europe and the EU. We will follow up the efforts to strengthen the OSCE's capacity for preventive diplomacy, among other things through our membership of the OSCE Troika.

Mr. President,

The situation in Russia has great significance for security and stability in Europe. Russian society is in the midst of a very difficult situation. Over the last few years, Russia has seen political turbulence, economic collapse and the disintegration of traditional social welfare structures.

Today the war in Chechnya casts a shadow over Russia's relations with the rest of Europe, the countries of the Caucasus region and the United States. Of course, Norway recognizes Russia's territorial integrity and its right to defend itself against terrorism. But we are not indifferent to its choice of method. Russia has employed massive military power, inflicting great suffering on the civilian population and creating a humanitarian crisis. This is unacceptable.

Together with the USA and a number of European countries, Norway has helped to exert pressure on Russia to end the war. However, even in this difficult period it is important to maintain a dialogue and seek to draw Russia into European processes of integration and cooperation.

Major changes are taking place in Russian politics. President Yeltsin's resignation on New Year's Eve was in accordance with the Russian constitution. The fact that there were some irregularities during the parliamentary elections on 19 December does not negate the fact that there has been progress in the democratization process in Russia. However, it is too early to judge the significance of the election results, which must also be viewed in connection with the presidential elections in March.

Economic developments in Russia give cause for concern. Nonetheless, we hope that the Russian economy will continue to be open and based on the principles of market economy. The economic reforms, however, are progressing very slowly. The figures for investment and economic growth give little cause for optimism. Social problems are growing, partly because of the steep rise in prices, the fall in real earnings and the decline in the value of the rouble. Today many Russians have great difficulty in making ends meet.

Russia itself must take responsibility for finding solutions to its problems. Russia itself must find its place and role. At the same time, it is in our interests to help Russia develop in a positive direction. There is broad international agreement, not least here in Europe, that we should all support the building of a democratic Russia.

In Norway, too, there is general political agreement on this. Russia must be drawn into broad European and international cooperation. We are actively seeking to develop cooperation with northwestern Russia, both bilaterally and together with others. We have participated in the EU's work on the northern dimension and wish to continue to be involved in this effort. The Norwegian authorities have already done a great deal here, but we can and should do more.

This is why we are now reviewing Norwegian policy towards Russia in the context of our priorities and the tools we have used to implement them. Our aim is to make a more long-term, cohesive and coordinated effort. We are also examining the Cooperation Programme for Central and Eastern Europe and the tools used to promote private sector cooperation.

We will make this review the starting point of further efforts to promote Norwegian interests in and vis-à-vis Russia, for example in connection with private sector development, the environment and resource cooperation, and to promote positive trends in this largest of our neighbouring countries.

In the light of the challenges facing Russia society, Norway's contribution will of necessity be a modest one. However, if we work together with other countries, particularly the EU member states, we should be able to make an important contribution to the integration of Russia into European and transatlantic cooperation.

Cooperation in the northern areas is an important factor in our bilateral relations with Russia. Most of our cooperation in the form of concrete projects takes place here. The delimitation of the Barents Sea continues to be the major unresolved issue. Resolution of this issue would pave the way for expanding cooperation between our two countries.

The difficulties currently being experienced by Russia have had an effect on the cooperation in the Barents region. Regional industrial cooperation, for example, is progressing slowly. Humanitarian assistance and health have had to take precedence. At the same time we have seen that the Barents cooperation has generated openness and trust, not least through people-to-people cooperation. Although we had hoped to make more progress, we have achieved results in the fields of trade, environmental protection and nuclear safety. This gives us reason to hope that we will eventually also be able to achieve better results in other areas of cooperation.

The Council of the Baltic Sea States is also an important forum for cooperation in areas adjacent to our borders. As chair of the Council, Norway has stressed the importance of improving coordination in the extensive cooperation in this region to make it more efficient. The forthcoming meeting of ministers of trade in Bergen in February and the meeting of prime ministers in Kolding in April will serve to strengthen political and economic cooperation in the region. Norwegian priorities include energy issues and cross-border people-to-people cooperation at county level.

The Barents cooperation, the Council of the Baltic Sea States, people-to-people cooperation with northwestern Russia, Nordic cooperation, the partnership between NATO and Russia and the EU's northern dimension – these are all important aspects of our policy towards Russia that must be viewed in conjunction with each other. And we are looking for ways to utilize them more fully.

We must, however, be realistic as regards what we can achieve in the short term. Cooperation with Russia is a long-term investment in good neighbourly relations and security.

Mr. President,

The year 2000 will be an exciting one for US politics. A new president is to be elected, and this is an event that not only preoccupies Americans but is also followed closely in many countries throughout the world. There is considerable interest not least in how the election and any change of course in US domestic policy will affect the USA’s international involvement.

The willingness of the USA to assume responsibility and involve itself actively throughout the world is of decisive importance. The close transatlantic cooperation on security and defence policy through NATO is vital to the security of Norway and the rest of Europe. The Alliance is the key tool for securing peace and stability on our continent. This is also in the interests of the USA.

At the same time as cooperation develops within Europe, the USA remains the only global power – in political, military, economic and cultural terms. The result of globalization is that the economy plays an increasingly important political role. The countries of Europe and the USA may adopt different approaches here, which may give rise to friction.

Political and economic cooperation in Europe is in the interests of the USA. For both the USA and Europe, the decisive factor is partnership and burden-sharing, not rivalry. In Norway’s view, it is therefore positive that the transatlantic dialogue is followed up by regular top level meetings.

This month, the USA holds the chairmanship of the UN Security Council. We have been pleased to note the intensification of US involvement in Africa, which is reflected in the efforts of the Security Council, for example in the fight against HIV/AIDS and in conflict resolution. We also welcome the extensive efforts being made by the USA to achieve a lasting peace settlement in the Middle East, where Syria has now also been drawn into the process.

Our bilateral relations are founded on close historical ties and common values. President Clinton’s visit to Oslo last year consolidated these ties and made them highly visible. New cooperation initiatives were taken. We see eye to eye on many issues. At the same time there is no reason to hide the fact that we also have our disagreements, e.g. with regard to trade issues, sanctions and capital punishment.

Norway’s cooperation with the USA spans a broad range of fields, and will continue to be important for Norwegian society in the future as well. Our partnership extends far beyond intergovernmental cooperation. The USA is Norway's sixth largest export market, while US companies account for approximately 20 per cent of investments on the Norwegian continental shelf. Norway for its part is an important supplier of petroleum to the USA.

The Government is particularly concerned to further develop bilateral and multilateral cooperation with the USA on nuclear safety and resource management in areas adjacent to our northern borders. Nuclear and environmental problems can only be solved through international efforts. The USA plays a key role in this cooperation and is also involved in the Barents Council and the Council of the Baltic Sea States.

Thus, our relations with the USA involve a number of areas of potential cooperation, and the Government will utilize this potential.

Mr. President,

The vision underlying the rebuilding of a Europe that lay in ruins after the Second World War was a more closely interwoven continent. Because of the Cold War and the division of Germany, it was impossible to follow up this vision in all parts of Europe.

As we enter the new millennium, Europe has an opportunity to realize the vision of the post-war period. The foundations have been laid for broad cooperation across previous dividing lines, on trade and the economy, development and distribution, and security and social welfare.

A number of organizations are taking part in this cooperation – the OSCE, NATO, the EU, the Council of Europe, EFTA and regional fora such as the Barents Council and the Council of the Baltic Sea States.

My statement to the Storting last year was devoted in its entirety to developments in Europe, with particular emphasis on the EU. The Government announced at the time that it would submit a White Paper to the Storting on Norway's European policy later this year.

Cooperation in Europe is characterized by development and change. Consequently, Norway's European policy also changes when its context changes, even though our institutional association with the EU through the EEA Agreement stands firm.

The process of enlargement, the implementation of EMU, reforms in cooperation in the field of justice and home affairs and developments in the security policy area all affect the future of the EU. They also affect the EEA and our own situation. The Government will discuss in more detail the various processes of change and the challenges they pose to our European policy in its White Paper.

The enlargement of the EU to include the countries of Central and Eastern Europe is an important building block in the effort to achieve a more closely integrated Europe characterized by close cooperation. The goal of the enlargement process is greater security, social and economic development and enhanced democracy in our own region and on our continent.

At the summit in Helsinki in December, the EU member states laid the groundwork for membership negotiations with all candidates from Central and Eastern Europe to begin in the course of February. All three Baltic states want to become members of the EU. Estonia started negotiations last year, and in the light of this, we are pleased to note that the foundation has now been laid for negotiations with Latvia and Lithuania, since these three countries have been working towards this end for a long time.

The road to membership is, however, a long and difficult one. The applicant countries are very different from each other and will most likely accede at different times. All of them are facing great challenges. Enlargement will also entail considerable challenges for the EU. There are strong voices advocating a further deepening of cooperation before the next enlargement takes place. Others call for just the opposite. There are also considerable economic challenges ahead.

However, there is no doubt that security and social and economic stability in more of Europe would also be of great importance to Norway. Consequently, it is in our own interests that the enlargement process progresses without creating new, undesirable dividing lines. The Government wants Norway to be actively involved in this by utilizing the tools and opportunities available to us in our bilateral cooperation with the applicant countries and in international organizations. By being involved in this process, we are safeguarding Norwegian interests while at the same time making our contribution to the development of Europe.

The decision made at the Helsinki summit to grant Turkey the status of candidate country must be said to be historic. It may prove to be of great importance, both for developments in Turkey itself and for relations between Turkey and the rest of Europe. Turkey itself has the main responsibility for its own development. It has a long way to go, particularly as regards human rights and democracy.

Norway has in recent years given priority to developing our dialogue and cooperation with Turkey in a broad range of fields, such as security policy, democracy and human rights, the economy and social development, and energy and trade policy issues. The foundation has also been laid for greater breadth and intensity in the EU's dialogue and cooperation with Turkey. There is cause to welcome this turn of events. Greater economic and social development, and thus greater stability in this part of Europe, will benefit our whole continent.

The EU enlargement process is now entering a more intensive phase in which negotiations on complex and comprehensive areas will be commenced with some of the applicant countries. Several of these areas involve important interests for Norway and our EFTA partners in the EEA.

An enlargement of the EU will mean an enlargement of the EEA. The Government is following the enlargement process closely, both in general terms and as regards specific factors that will affect Norwegian interests in an enlarged internal market. We have a regular dialogue and exchange of information with the Commission and the member states through the cooperation structures of the EEA. We have also intensified our direct dialogue and contact with the applicant countries as regards their priorities in the negotiations.

We are now making a systematic effort to identify Norwegian interests in various industrial sectors, not least in the fisheries sector. In this process we will benefit greatly from the knowledge and insight of the social partners and a number of other communities and institutions.

Mr. President,

At its summit in Helsinki, the EU took an important step towards enhancing security and defence policy cooperation and improving Europe’s capacity for crisis management (ESDP). The aim is that by the end of March this year the EU will provisionally establish new bodies for crisis management in Europe – a political and security policy committee, a military committee and a military staff. A military force numbering 50,000 to 60,000 men is to be established by 2003. After this, the EU will be able to launch its own crisis-management operations in accordance with the UN Charter.

The EU Summit in Helsinki emphasized that NATO will continue to form the basis for the collective security of the member countries and to play a major role in crisis management.

The institutional cooperation between the EU and NATO is being further developed simultaneously with the process taking place in the EU. The aim here is mutual consultation, cooperation and transparency.

The Government welcomes this. In our view, enhancing Europe’s crisis-management capability will enhance our common security. This is precisely why we wish to make our contribution, and to take our share of the responsibility and risk.

The Helsinki summit was not the final destination, but the first stop in a process. The work on establishing the necessary structures will be continued during the Portuguese and French presidencies. Practical follow-up and implementation may take longer. New procedures for practical cooperation are to be established and forces are to be coordinated.

What will this mean for European and transatlantic cooperation? What will it mean for Norway’s foreign and security policy situation?

One of the main challenges will be to preserve and strengthen the transatlantic ties, based on a new burden-sharing whereby Europe takes a greater share of the responsibility for security in our part of the world. We will seek to ensure that the new structures that are now being developed will help to strengthen the bonds between Europe and the USA.

Defence and security policy developments in Europe show considerable dynamism. The process that is now under way may mean that the EU will eventually extend its security and foreign policy cooperation to include more than what are known as Petersberg operations, i.e. the use of military resources for crisis management, peacekeeping operations and humanitarian efforts.

This development may lead to the EU member states discussing important issues among themselves and to their increasingly presenting coordinated positions within the Alliance. This would obviously have a considerable effect on Norwegian interests.

This may have an impact on one of the mainstays of Norwegian security policy: the central role played by NATO in all matters affecting the security of the member countries. The Government is seeking to ensure that the solutions and forms of cooperation now being developed do not undermine NATO’s position as the central forum for discussing foreign and security policy issues.

In the short term it will be important to ensure that sound cooperation arrangements are established between NATO and the EU when the latter establishes its temporary structures in March. On the one hand, these structures must safeguard the need for efficiency and the sound utilization of resources. On the other, they must ensure sufficient openness and transparency between the two organizations and between them and the individual member states. The meeting of NATO foreign ministers in December illustrated that there is broad agreement on this within the Alliance.

The other key issue for us is to ensure that Norway and the other allied non-EU countries attain a satisfactory form of association with the new structures now being established in the EU. This process is being given top priority by the Government. The Storting has been kept continuously informed of the positions and proposals we have drawn up and of our view of the results of the Helsinki summit. The Government is now in regular contact with major EU countries, including the country holding the presidency, for the purpose of elaborating Norwegian views and explaining how we might contribute. As regards our association with the new, temporary structures, it is important to ensure that our interests are safeguarded in the best possible way.

At the meeting of NATO foreign ministers in December there was broad support for our views. Several nations stressed the need to be closely associated with EU structures right from the beginning of the transitional period in March. They also urged that the European NATO countries outside the EU be drawn into dialogue, consultations and cooperation with the EU.

We have already made important contributions to European crisis management. Examples of this are the efforts of Norwegian military and civilian personnel in conflict areas such as Bosnia and Kosovo. Over 1,200 Norwegian women and men are currently serving in KFOR in Kosovo. At the same time, a large number are engaged in the civil part of the peace process, through both the OSCE and the UN, and through the major efforts being made by humanitarian organizations.

We must enhance our ability to participate in international operations if we are to be able to assume our share of the responsibility in the future. Here we are facing a major national challenge. We are in the process of adapting our defence more closely to international operations. In a White Paper to the Storting on this subject (Report No. 38 (1998-99)), the Government has set out concrete proposals that will enable Norway to draw on an emergency force of up to 3,500 personnel from all services within a few years. This would mean a significant reduction in reaction time as compared with today. This force would constitute a valuable contribution to crisis management within both NATO and EU frameworks. Norway is also prepared to make these forces available for operations led by the EU. As I have already mentioned, we are proceeding on the assumption that we will be able to agree on satisfactory arrangements for our participation in this area.

Mr. President,

The EEA Agreement safeguards important interests in our relations with the EU and its member states. With certain exceptions, the agreement ensures Norwegian business and industry equal access to the internal market.

Cooperation in the EEA is dynamic. New EC legislation is to be continuously incorporated in the EEA in the areas where this is relevant for cooperation. This is a demanding form of cooperation. It requires that we assess as early as possible the consequences of new legislation that is being developed in the EU, and that we seek to influence it so that it accords with our needs and interests. This requires that we are able as early as possible in the process to gain information and insight, and devise a strategy and exert influence accordingly. This calls for systematic and coordinated efforts on many different levels.

Not all matters involved in the EEA cooperation are easy to deal with from a Norwegian point of view. Nor are they for the EU member states. The challenge is to find solutions that can be accepted by all countries and that are based on respect for national assessments and priorities.

As I pointed out in last year’s statement on Europe, our right to refuse to implement EC directives has been negotiated so that it can be exercised. The exercise of this right must be considered in relation to the individual case, and we must consider the tools we employ in relation to the result we wish to achieve. We also have considerations to safeguard in relation to Iceland and Liechtenstein.

Matters that appear to be difficult for one or more countries often give rise to further discussions and processes in the member states. This often provides new opportunities for influencing processes and spheres of responsibility of particular importance for Norwegian interests. The Government makes active use of these opportunities. We have noted with interest the EU Commission’s White Paper on Food Safety and the views that are expressed there.

In the time ahead, Norway will be faced with a number of EEA matters that will pose problems. The Directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions opens up the possibility of giving the same access to the patenting of inventions involving biological material as is available for inventions involving other types of material. This has a bearing on important questions of principle and ethics as well as on our obligations under, for example, the Convention on Biological Diversity. It is still not clear whether the Patent Directive by virtue of its substance falls within the scope of the EEA Agreement.

The Government is now seeking actively to promote Norwegian views on these issues. As you know, the Netherlands has brought the matter before the EC Court of Justice, and wishes to have the directive ruled invalid. Norway and Italy have supported parts of the arguments submitted in court by the Netherlands. The question of incorporation of the directive into the EEA Agreement has not so far been raised by the EU.

As regards the three directives relating to food additives, Norway has said that we can accept them provided that we can maintain the current national provisions concerning certain of the substances. As you know, the Commission rejected a petition concerning this in November last year. Sweden and Denmark have experienced similar rejections. Denmark has decided to bring the substance of the Commission’s decision before the EC Court. The Government is currently considering whether Norway should make use of its right to make its views known through a statement before the court.

For a long time, the Government has been making an active effort to promote Norwegian views on these directives. Assessments of the risks associated with certain of the substances are being discussed by experts in several EU member states as well as in Norway. A report from consumer organizations in five EU countries, for example, shows the content of nitrosamines in meat products to be generally much higher than what is considered to be the acceptable daily intake. According to our information, Denmark will use this report in its case before the EC Court.

The Government has now requested updated expert advice in the light of the Commission’s rejection in November last year and new technical information, including the consumer report I mentioned. Before the additives issue is dealt with by the EEA Joint Committee, it will be submitted to the Storting as a separate matter.

Mr. President

The practical cooperation on Schengen in the Mixed Committee comprising Norway, Iceland and the EU is now well under way, but its final form has not yet crystallized. The Government has been concerned to ensure that Norway and Iceland are also allowed to participate in EU discussions on Schengen-related issues on the broadest possible basis.

As regards the date for full participation in Schengen by the Nordic countries, this will probably be sometime during the first quarter of 2001, and not in autumn 2000, as originally planned. This is clear from the EU plan for reviewing the Nordic countries’ preparations. The Norwegian preparations will proceed according to the original plan. The Minister of Justice will return to the Storting with more detailed information on this subject.

Mr. President,

War and conflict have marked the start of the 21st century. The need for closer international cooperation is greater than ever. It is therefore essential to help strengthen the role and legitimacy of the UN and the Security Council in their efforts to ensure international peace, stability and security and the use of force.

Norway is a candidate for a seat on the Security Council for the period 2001–2002. This is a natural follow-up of our country’s willingness to assume responsibility in a broad international context. It is important to emphasize that membership of the Security Council is not a goal in itself, but a means of promoting important foreign policy interests and views.

Our candidature must be viewed in connection with our human rights, peace and mediation efforts, for example, in the Middle East, Guatemala, Sudan and Sri Lanka. A seat on the Security Council would give us a new platform for these efforts. We view it as especially important to follow up the work on international crisis management, human rights and humanitarian issues. Through our OSCE chairmanship, we have gained experience that would be useful in the Security Council. We have something of value to contribute.

In Kosovo and in the Balkans, we have worked to bring about constructive cooperation between the UN, the OSCE and the EU. Such coordination of resources, organizations and personnel has proved important, but also extremely demanding. Experience so far has shown that there is still much work to be done to further develop the cooperation models and ensure a rational division of responsibility and labour between the various parties. We wish to draw on this experience in other parts of the world as well. We will therefore take the initiative to discuss the cooperation between the UN and regional organizations such as the OSCE, ASEAN, the OAU and the OAS in connection with crisis management and preventive diplomacy.

Norway also attaches importance to continuing the reform of the UN system. The efforts of the past few years under the leadership of Secretary-General Kofi Annan have resulted in a more closely coordinated and efficient organization. However, there is still a long way to go before the goal is achieved. At the very least, all member countries must pay their contributions, so that the organization has the necessary resources to carry out the tasks it is assigned.

Prior to the UN General Assembly in the autumn, a summit meeting will be held at the level of heads of state and government, the so-called Millennium Assembly. It will consider the future role of the UN. The Secretary-General has proposed that the summit should focus on the three pillars of the UN Charter: peace and disarmament, development and human rights.

Norway has supported this proposal because we share the Secretary-General’s aspiration to make the UN a leading organization in all of these areas. This would also be the point of departure for our work in the Security Council.

Mr. President,

The Millennium Assembly will provide an opportunity for the international community to unite on a new agenda for dealing with the main challenges of international politics. This agenda must not simply consist of fine phrases; it must lead to specific results that are relevant to people’s everyday lives, and to their fundamental needs and security.

What is needed is concrete and coordinated action to meet the challenges connected with poverty, development, peace and stability. My recent visit to Asia was a reminder of this.

We will shoulder our share of the responsibility for this. Only through a broad international involvement will we attain the international influence needed to safeguard our own interests. And only thus will we be able to help to ensure that the coming year leaves us with fewer of the powerful impressions that were far too numerous last year.