Minister of Foreign Affairs Jan Petersen

Oslo Military Society, 30 September 2002

Ladies and gentlemen,

It is a pleasure for me to take part in this annual meeting in the Oslo Military Society in my capacity as Minister of Foreign Affairs. This is a tradition that offers an excellent opportunity to review the most important foreign and security policy challenges facing Norway.

Currently, the most acute security policy problems are related to the uncertainty surrounding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. This uncertainty is in itself a threat to international peace and stability.

The Iraqi regime is continuing to ignore the clear and binding demands laid down by the UN. These have been set out in a number of Security Council resolutions in which the country has among other things been ordered to destroy or remove all of its weapons of mass destruction and means of delivery, or to render them harmless.

To ensure that these demands are complied with, the Security Council has also ordered Iraq to give the UN weapons inspectors full and unrestricted access. Such access will be an important means of clarifying all aspects of the situation as regards Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. The aim is to ensure that the regime in Baghdad does not have access to such weapons.

The situation is made even more serious because the regime in Baghdad has previously shown that it is willing to use such weapons to achieve its aims. Iraq has twice invaded neighbouring countries, and has killed several thousand of its own citizens and Iranian soldiers using chemical weapons. We must therefore be prepared for the fact that in certain situations, Saddam Hussein may resort to such weapons again unless his regime is prevented from doing so.

For several years, Iraq has been denying that it possesses weapons of mass destruction. However, since President Bush spoke to the UN General Assembly on 12 September, Iraq has expressed its willingness to allow the weapons inspectors to return unconditionally. The Iraqis have also said that they are now prepared to discuss practical arrangements for the resumption of inspections with the UN.

It is too early to tell whether Iraq’s unconditional consent is a sign of a real change of attitude and willingness to comply with its obligation to cooperate fully with the UN. However, all previous experience indicates that promises from Baghdad should be viewed with the greatest scepticism.

Dr Hans Blix, the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, will be discussing practical issues relating to the conduct of inspections with Iraqi representatives. This will give us an idea of whether there are actually any new signals from Baghdad.

We must be prepared for the fact that the regime in Iraq will in practice obstruct the implementation of the Security Council resolutions this time as well. This is why the new signals have met with considerable scepticism in many countries, particularly in the USA and the UK. As I have mentioned, the main demand on Iraq is the elimination of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. We have received information – from the USA and other close allies – to the effect that Iraq has access to chemical and biological weapons and that the country will soon be capable of developing nuclear weapons if the regime manages to acquire highly enriched uranium. We have also been told that Iraq has delivery systems that will enable it to attack neighbouring countries with such weapons.

The dossier published by the British Government on 24 September corroborates this information. According to the document, Iraq is constantly taking steps to conceal such weapons in the event that the inspectors should return to the country. The dossier corresponds closely with previous studies submitted by independent research institutions such as the British International Institute for Strategic Studies.

However, in spite of all this information, the only way to answer these questions with any certainty is by carrying out a full and unfettered weapons inspection in Iraq. The main challenge facing the members of the Security Council, Norway included, is how we can guarantee credible inspections.

The discussions in the Security Council so far have shown a growing recognition of the necessity of intensifying the pressure on Iraq. The debate in the General Assembly also indicates that the international community will not accept that Iraq ignores binding UN resolutions. In other words, there is broad international agreement on the Security Council’s focus on the complete elimination of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.

There also seems to be a large degree of agreement in the Security Council on the necessity of intensifying the demand that Iraq provide full and unfettered access to the weapons inspectors, that this should be set out in a new Security Council resolution, and that a clear, unambiguous time-frame be established for the inspections.

However, it is too early to say anything definite about whether the five permanent members of the Security Council will be able to reach agreement on an ultimatum to Iraq, which in turn would provide the basis for coercive measures if the demands are not complied with.

The Government is extremely concerned that efforts should be made to eliminate Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems without resorting to military action. In order to achieve this it is, in our view, necessary to specify the demands on Iraq in a new Security Council resolution that leaves absolutely no doubt that failure to comply will have serious consequences for the country. We must bear in mind that the resolution must be worded in such a way that it produces the desired effect in Baghdad. This makes it even more important for the UN Security Council to reach a consensus so that its legitimacy, credibility and authority are upheld.

Another major concern of the Government is that any reaction to Iraq must be anchored in international law. This is why we have emphasized so strongly that the matter is the province of the Security Council. We are pleased that the USA has listened to advice from Norway and other like-minded countries in this matter.

A number of binding instruments have been established under international law to prevent the proliferation of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. Many of these non-proliferation regimes have gained almost universal adherence, which is a precondition for preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

Unfortunately, certain states have chosen to remain outside the international non-proliferation regimes. Norway has been actively seeking to get these countries to undertake their international obligations in this area for a long time. We will, of course, continue these efforts.

We are also aware that terrorist groups have tried to procure both nuclear weapons and chemical and biological warfare agents. And we know that al Qaida has tested chemical weapons on humans and animals.

The terrorist attacks on the USA last September showed in a particularly gruesome way that ruthless terrorists are willing to use any means to achieve their aims. Therefore, the thought of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of these groups is a frightening one.

This is the basis on which we must view the USA’s new security policy strategy, which sets out guidelines and perspectives for the USA’s approach to present security challenges. The strategy is an overall framework for US foreign and defence policy and is largely based on the perspective President Bush outlined in his State of the Union address in January, in which the fight against international terrorism had a central place.

Norway will now study the new strategy more closely. However, I hasten to say that the most difficult issue will without question be the issue of the preventive use of military force. In such a context, Norway attaches decisive importance to the rules of international law, and our aim is to promote an international legal order. It is important to be on guard against the effects of precedent, so that the preventive use of military force is not abused.

According to the strategy, the USA intends to work with the broadest possible coalition. The USA will use NATO, but presupposes that the alliance is capable of responding to a threat at short notice and anywhere in the world that a NATO country is threatened.

This is the background to the US proposal to establish a new, agile military response force for NATO. It is important that NATO is given the capability to act rapidly and effectively in the event of a crisis. It is also important that NATO continues to be the central forum for discussing the security and defence policy challenges facing the member countries. Therefore, we will participate actively in further allied consultations on this issue.

There is no conflict between EU plans to develop a separate reaction force and US proposals for creating a new rapid response force in NATO. The two forces will draw on the same national resources and will supplement each other.

We must strengthen NATO’s capability to defend the member countries against chemical, biological and nuclear attacks. At the same time, the NATO countries must be enabled to protect their own military forces and civilian populations.

These main challenges will be the focus of attention at the NATO Summit in Prague in November. The Summit will also give a clear, unambiguous signal that the European allies possess the necessary will and capability to live up to their alliance obligations.

A better military burden-sharing between the USA and Europe is an important condition for maintaining strong transatlantic ties. This is in all our interests.

An enlarged NATO will make us even better equipped to meet the new challenges. The enlargement is important and well-founded. The addition of new member countries will enhance European security, both politically and militarily. The final decision on enlargement will be taken at the Prague Summit, but what is envisaged is an enlargement by as many as seven new NATO countries.

We have been actively promoting a broad enlargement of NATO for a long time, and are therefore very pleased with the way the situation is developing.

We will now propose an arrangement where each of the current member countries assumes responsibility for one of the countries invited to the Prague Summit, with a view to integrating them as quickly as possible into NATO cooperation. This would also be in close keeping with the support we have given the Baltic countries in the development of their national defence forces.

The importance of NATO solidarity was clearly underscored last autumn in the alliance’s decision to invoke Article 5. The broad allied participation in the military operations in Afghanistan is another important testimony to this.

Norway must continue to be willing to take our share of responsibility in the fight against terrorism. We will therefore continue to participate in the international coalition.

The deployment of six Norwegian fighter aircraft as from tomorrow is a concrete manifestation of this. The Norwegian aircraft will operate under Norwegian command and in accordance with our obligations under international law. The use of the planes will be subject to Norwegian guidelines. This involves clear limitations as regards both the choice of military targets and the use of ammunition.

The military operations in Afghanistan are firmly anchored in the rules of international law concerning individual and collective self-defence. The military presence will continue to be important as a stabilizing factor in the country as well. It is generally agreed that a stable security situation is essential to enable the civilian government to rebuild Afghan society.

Our military participation in the US-led operation in Afghanistan has been, and is, appreciated. The Norwegian personnel participating in the ISAF and Enduring Freedom are doing a very good job and have impressed the allies with their efforts. They merit unreserved praise for this. Last week a campaign was launched in this country criticizing the resources used by Norway for safeguarding security in Afghanistan compared with those we use on humanitarian measures and reconstruction. This is based on a misunderstanding. On the contrary, a stable security situation, in which Enduring Freedom and the ISAF play central roles, is necessary in order to provide effective assistance to Afghanistan. Our participation in the UN-supported military operations is therefore an important contribution to efforts to create better lives for the people of Afghanistan. This is also the purpose of the international Afghanistan Support Group, which we are chairing this year.

The global coalition in the fight against terrorism is a clear manifestation of the US desire for broad-based international cooperation. This same desire is now also evident with regard to the situation in Iraq.

Our community of interest with the USA is based on values that are fundamental to both our societies. This firm foundation allows us to put forward clear Norwegian viewpoints in matters where our views differ. The Kyoto Protocol, trade policy issues and the International Criminal Court are examples of this. Most recently we have expressed to the Americans our positive attitude towards the ICC and made it clear that we cannot enter into agreements that could undermine the Court.

In other words, we are not trying to conceal the fact that "transatlantic tensions" do exist and that an open dialogue is important when there is disagreement. At the same time, we must recognize that as the world’s dominant major power, the USA defines its international interests differently and more broadly than Norway does. Therefore it is important for us to seek common solutions that also include the USA. We all know how much an international agreement is strengthened by US adherence.

Continuing our strong transatlantic ties is in all of our interests. Norway is concerned that these ties should continue to be reflected in the NATO command structure in the future as well. We are therefore seeking actively to maintain a strategic NATO command on US soil which has a direct link to the USA’s own chain of command. I am pleased that the views of the European allies on this matter seem to be acceptable to the US authorities.

We are also pursuing an active dialogue with several of our allies with a view to maintaining a NATO presence at Jåtta. The outcome of the current discussions on this question is uncertain. There is still hope that our views will win acceptance. However, we must be prepared for the fact that Jåtta could be given different allied tasks from those it has today.

A more equal burden-sharing between the USA and Europe would be an important means of strengthening the ties across the Atlantic. It is important and only right that Europe assumes a greater share of responsibility for its own security. This is also the reason why we wish to participate actively in the development of a separate European security and defence policy. We are already doing so by contributing civilian and military personnel to EU crisis management operations.

We are also concerned about finding a solution to the issues that are outstanding between the EU and NATO. Close and lasting cooperation between these two organizations is necessary not only in order to improve the international crisis management capability, but also in order to strengthen the ties across the Atlantic. We must by all means keep the EU and NATO from going their separate ways with regard to security and defence.

Having said this, I must stress that the major security threats facing us today must primarily be combated by other than military means. We must do what we can to prevent crises before they erupt. Our active involvement in the OSCE is an important element in this respect.

A more conscious use of economic tools combined with diplomatic activity is also necessary. Norway and the EU are doing more in this area than others are, and we can make an even greater contribution by being more conscious of the way we use the various measures.

The EU, too, is facing profound changes. The Danish presidency has proposed an ambitious time frame according to which the EU will be enlarged to include 10 new member states by 2004.

We welcome and actively support this development. At the same time, of course, it poses new challenges, which we will have to deal with within the framework the Government’s Sem declaration.

EU and NATO enlargement are processes of a historic dimension. Who would have believed that several former Warsaw Pact countries would be members of NATO and the EU only ten years after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Or that new, comprehensive forms of cooperation would be established on the European continent. The enlargement will also have positive consequences for us in the form of an expanded area of stability and the greater significance that will be attributed to the transatlantic ties.

The events of the past year have been an eye-opener for many of us as regards the importance of standing united in the face of common threats. A new relationship between the USA and Russia and a new NATO-Russia Council are two of the results. This dimension of the transatlantic ties also provides us with new opportunities, not least as regards getting the nuclear and environmental problems in the north on the agenda in forums where both USA and Russia participate.

The NATO-Russia Council is a manifestation of our mutual interest in broad, binding foreign and security policy cooperation. We must now continue to build on the foundation that has been laid in order to achieve rapid, concrete results.

We ourselves see great potential in the nuclear safety field. The new Council should draw up measures that will prevent nuclear materials from falling into the hands of international terrorist organizations. This would be an important, concrete step in our concerted efforts to fight international terrorism and to promote non-proliferation.

We hope that it will be possible to achieve rapid results in this area in close cooperation with Russia and our allies.

We also hope, of course, that the increasingly close cooperation between NATO and Russia will help to further our own bilateral relations with Russia. Today there is close and frequent contact between Norway and Russia in most areas of society.

I am determined that we should do what we can in connection with President Putin’s forthcoming visit to further develop our bilateral relations. The talks I will be having this Thursday with my Russian colleague, Foreign Minister Ivanov, will provide a good opportunity to discuss issues of importance to Norwegian-Russian relations.

In connection with President Putin’s visit, Norway hopes to arrive at concrete decisions in a number of fields, such as trade and industry, energy and resource management. We also see considerable potential for strengthening our cooperation in the field of the environment and nuclear safety. There are substantial challenges in this field in northwestern Russia, which call for a broad international commitment. A clarification of the outstanding issues in this area would be in the interests not only of Norway and Russian, but also of the international community in general.

It is therefore important to conclude the necessary agreements so that private companies can be brought into the clean-up effort. This is why I have raised the question of finding a solution to the so-called MNEPR agreement with Secretary of State Powell. I will also take up this matter in my talks with Foreign Minister Ivanov later this week.

In certain areas, however, the Russians seem to be less flexible than previously. I’m thinking particularly of cooperation on fisheries research, where Norwegian scientists are no longer allowed the freedom of movement in the Russian economic zone that is necessary in order to maintain the research activity that is fundamental to our common management of the fish resources. Russia has also questioned certain features of the way Norwegian authority is exercised on Svalbard and certain aspects of our military activities in Finnmark.

Norway will continue to deal with such views in an open, predictable and firm manner.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Every day we see examples of the way the distinction between regional conflicts and global challenges is being erased. It is important, not least in the fight against international terrorism, to focus on conditions that foster religious fanaticism, extremism and terrorism – particularly in failed states or states whose survival is threatened. Our humanitarian aid and development assistance and our active efforts to promote peace and reconciliation, human rights and democratization are important contributions in this respect. Common to all of these challenges is that they can only be met through binding international cooperation.

It is important for me to emphasize the multilateral framework for our foreign and security policy. Since we are a small country, it is clearly in our interest to promote binding intergovernmental cooperation based on strong multilateral institutions. At the regional level, NATO, the EU and the OSCE are the most important institutions. Many of the issues of significance for us and the areas adjacent to our borders are dealt with in these organizations. We must therefore participate actively in forums where we are a member, and cooperate as closely as possible with the EU on issues that are important for us and for developments in Europe in general. Globally, the UN is the major actor and is therefore unique.

Efforts to promote international peace and security and a sound international legal order must be based primarily on UN cooperation. Thus, I am pleased to note that in many areas the UN has been given an increasingly important role since the end of the Cold War. This trend has accelerated since the terrorist attacks on 11 September last year.

We are nearing the end of our two-year term on the UN Security Council, which will be up at the turn of the year. During these two years the Council has had to take a position on a number of very difficult issues, such as the conflict in the Middle East, Afghanistan, the conflicts on the Horn of Africa and the fight against international terrorism.

We have participated actively and constructively and have gained acceptance for many of our views and positions. This is yet another proof that small countries, too, have a role to play.

The UN will continue to be one of the cornerstones of our foreign policy. And we will continue to pursue an active UN policy despite the fact that our term on the Security Council will soon be over.

We will also keep up our global commitment to peace and conflict resolution. The recent progress in Sri Lanka demonstrates that we can play a decisive role in the resolution of protracted conflicts.

And we will keep up our commitment in the Middle East. The chairmanship of the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee for Assistance to the Palestinians entails a great responsibility. In this capacity we are taking part in the Task Force on Palestinian Reform. We hope that developments following Security Council resolution 1435, which Norway helped actively to draft last weekend, and Israeli withdrawal from Ramallah will facilitate efforts to get the political process back on track.

We will continue our broad-based international commitment both because it is appropriate and because it is important. And because it serves our security policy interests to do so. Efforts to promote peace and reconciliation are not only important in themselves. They also give us an influence we wouldn’t otherwise have had. Norway is sought after as a cooperation partner because we do a job that attracts attention. This enables us to expand the networks that are so important in foreign policy, and to ensure that our voice is heard in other issues as well.

The coalition against international terrorism has demonstrated the importance of international cooperation that cuts across alliances and regional organizations. It is also important that we continue to build on this foundation.

Many of the most difficult challenges we are facing are global in nature and therefore call for a global response. We have the best chance of succeeding if we stand united. As Minister of Foreign Affairs I will do what I can to ensure that Norway continues to take its share of responsibility for meeting these challenges.