Minister of Foreign Affairs Jan Petersen

Norwegian Security Policy following the enlargement of the EU and NATO

Oslo Military Society
4 October 2004

Check against delivery

Ladies and gentlemen,

It is a pleasure for me to address this distinguished gathering once again. Oslo Military Society is an institution rich in tradition. This yearly lecture provides a good opportunity to explore some of the most important security and foreign policy issues as well as to make a few digressions into the ongoing political debate in Norway.

Today’s security policy reality is many-faceted. It is complex and changes rapidly. The threats we are facing are manifold. The challenges are new.

Indeed, the security concept itself contains new dimensions – and it contains tragic dimensions.

Today, threats against people – indeed against states – take the shape of commuter trains carrying people to their death in Madrid, of children and teachers being killed on the first day of school in Beslan, of businessmen and women plummeting to their death in New York.

These television images stay imprinted in our minds. A new kind of uncertainty and insecurity has been created. So far no Norwegians have fallen victim to the blind, but not random, violence that terror represents. Norwegians travel a lot. Fortunately there were no Norwegians in the World Trade Center, in the Moscow theatre or at the site of the Bali bombing. But terrorism affects us. And it also affects us that Norway is once again in focus and has been specifically mentioned in an Al-Qaeda statement. International terrorism concerns Norway as well.

No democratic nation can evade its responsibility to help combat terror. And our message must be crystal clear: No goal can justify the use of terror. No cause can justify the loss of innocent lives. Terror must never prevail.

There is, however, no one single recipe for combating terror. Terrorism is a global threat. Only through resolute, concerted, co-ordinated international efforts can the fight against these new, serious security challenges succeed. And we must employ a broad range of means. Humanitarian, diplomatic, political and military measures are all necessary.

Terrorism must be combated within the framework of international law. I emphasised this in my statement to the UN General Assembly 10 days ago.

The fight against international terrorism must have the highest priority in the UN, in NATO and in the European security policy co-operation. We must be fully aware of the challenges we are facing.

The direct and immediate threat to our territory, which quite a few of us have grown up with, is today no longer present. Still, we must constantly remind ourselves that defence, security policy and alliances are necessary to prepare us for the unknown and unexpected. We may well consider ourselves privileged. We are located in a peaceful corner of Europe. Geographically we are remote from conflict areas such as the Middle East, Afghanistan and the Caucasus.

This is, of course, an indisputable blessing. At the same time it means we can easily be overlooked.

Yet although our territory is not threatened in the traditional, geographical sense, the lack of stability and security elsewhere affects us, indeed it may even threaten us. An example of this is that virtually all the heroin sold in Norway originates in Afghanistan. The heroin problem is exacerbated by the fact that the central government in Kabul is too weak to control the opium production. Another example is that nuclear waste from Russia could, if it should fall into the wrong hands, be used to make dirty bombs. A third example is human trafficking and organised crime, which are on the rise in some weak European states.

Therefore, we can best safeguard our security by being a constructive and committed player in the international arena. Let me give you some examples.

We should do this

• by actively supporting the UN, politically as well as financially,
• by facilitating and supporting peace and reconciliation processes in Sri Lanka, in Sudan and in other conflict areas,
• by promoting economic and social development through extensive development co-operation,
• by supporting the efforts of the Council of Europe and the OSCE to promote security, stability and human rights in Europe,

and not least, by participating actively in NATO and supporting the EU’s common foreign and security policy.

I have been of the opinion, and still am, that Europe’s security is best safeguarded by close co-operation with the USA. I will therefore first say a few words about our transatlantic ties, which are a mainstay of Norwegian foreign policy. The question is whether this relationship is as solid as it used to be. As we know, relationships must constantly be maintained.

Less than a month now remains until the US presidential elections. The fundamental shared values and the broad co-operation we have enjoyed with the USA through the entire post-war period are the basis of our close transatlantic ties. This is something we will continue to build on, no matter which administration is elected.

At the same time we must do our share to make the relations between Europe and North America as good and as close as possible. The historically strong ties between Europe and the USA safeguarded our own and Europe’s security and liberty through most of the twentieth century. And they will continue to be crucial to our common security in future as well.

The security architecture is changing. The organisations are becoming larger. A result of the NATO and EU enlargements is that today most European countries are members of at least one of these two organisations. Many non-member countries aspire to become members. Their ambitions may be fulfilled within few years.

From Norway’s point of view the enlargements are very welcome. They have made Europe even stronger in its defence of our shared values and common interests. Several of the new members and several of the countries that are aspiring to become members place great importance on transatlantic co-operation. This is encouraging.

A common European foreign and security policy is taking shape. The new EU Constitutional Treaty is an indication of the EU’s growing ambitions for close co-operation in this field. In my view it is fundamentally positive that the EU wishes to take greater responsibility for Europe’s security. We must not pit the EU against NATO unnecessarily. I believe there is scope both for a strong NATO and for more active European co-operation on foreign and security policy.

But for Norway as a non-member, it is vital to establish the following: NATO must remain the principal organisation for security co-operation between the USA and Europe. We must as far as possible avoid building up parallel structures and military capacities. There must also be complete openness and dialogue about the processes that are under way in the EU. The EU and NATO must never start competing with each other. Across the Atlantic there has been broad understanding of the need for, and significance of, close co-operation between NATO and the EU. This has led to the establishment of co-operation structures in the civilian and military spheres alike. We have, however, witnessed a lack of political will to make use of these structures. This has become even more difficult since the enlargement of the EU, which is something I do not intend to make a secret of.

It is clearly in Norway’s interest that NATO continues to be relevant and be the principal forum for transatlantic security, co-operation and dialogue. We must be on the watch for anything that might dilute NATO’s role. The alternative to NATO would not be the EU, the UN or other multilateral organisations, but rather a bilateralisation of our security policy.

In connection with certain unforeseen situations, we might, however, face challenges related to ad-hoc coalitions under the leadership of one or several dominating countries. We must all seek to prevent “coalitions of the willing” from being perceived as the most attractive alternative, not least from Washington’s point of view. This means that Europe will have to continue to demonstrate a will and an ability to make significant contributions to NATO.

Close transatlantic ties are crucial if we are to be able to effectively address the security policy challenges we are facing. This applies not least to the threats of international terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

An ongoing and active debate about the true “state of health” of the transatlantic co-operation is necessary. We must not come to the point where we take it for granted. We must ask ourselves what we, on either side, can do to strengthen and develop our co-operation.

Ladies and gentlemen,

A lecture such as this one also provides a good opportunity to talk about the transatlantic challenges. For I will not make any secret of the fact that I am concerned by some of the developments that have created friction across the Atlantic in recent years. Norwegian and US policies differ substantially in several areas.

This applies, for instance, to clear signs of US unilateralism in its attitude to issues such as

• the Kyoto Protocol,
• the International Criminal Court,
• the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians
• and a number of trade-related issues.

We saw the clearest signs of divergence in the question of whether or not to go to war against Saddam Hussein’s regime. Widely differing courses were adopted in the Security Council. A vast majority of the member states were in favour of the weapons inspectors continuing their work. As you will remember, Norway endorsed this position. The USA and the UK did not consider this necessary or desirable and took military action.

It is too simplistic to assert, as many do, that this constituted a division between Europe and the USA. The disagreement was within and between European countries, with the UK, Poland, Spain and Denmark as the strongest supporters of the USA’s position.

In hindsight we see clearly that the military action was based on quite insufficient intelligence material.

In foreign policy it is vital to understand one another correctly. This is especially important when opinion polls speak of faltering trust across the Atlantic. In Norway, too, we would benefit from listening more closely. Like others, we tend to hear what we want to hear.

I would like to give you an example. On Tuesday two weeks ago I sat in the UN General Assembly listening to Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s and President George W. Bush’s addresses. Mr Annan made a forceful, pertinent and thoughtful speech. His principal message was the importance of the rule of law – the necessity of complying with international law, human rights, humanitarian law and national law.

The Secretary-General criticised the treatment of the prisoners in Abu Ghraib. But he also criticised, and devoted ample time to, the terrorism directed against the civilian population in Iraq as well as the situation in Darfur, Uganda, Beslan, Israel and the Palestinian Area. President Bush spoke about Iraq, but basically he made a general speech about values in which he defended the USA’s fight against international terrorism.

In Norway, we heard what we wanted to hear. We saw headlines such as: “Bush and Annan bicker over Iraq” or, to give another example: “Bush hits back at Annan for Iraq criticism”. The whole perspective of both speeches was lost.

The questions I was asked were along the same lines: “What do you think of Annan reprimanding George W. Bush?” The desire to see Annan confront Bush was so strong, so intense, that Nettavisen even invented its own quotation: “‘President George W. Bush and his administration show disrespect for law and order,’ says Annan.”

Kofi Annan never said that.

My answer to the Norwegian press was: “Yes, Annan’s address contained attacks on the USA, but I perceived his speech first and foremost as clear criticism of all states that do not comply with international rules.”

That put Aftenposten on the warpath: It wrote that I was “weak” in my support of Annan. But I was there, at the UN General Assembly, unlike the disapproving author of the Aftenposten editorial.

Perhaps we should try to resist the temptation to place everything in a “for-or-against-Bush” framework. Both Annan’s and Bush’s speeches contained many other perspectives that are worth thinking about.

Since the Iraq crisis there has fortunately been a desire on both sides of the Atlantic, and internally in Europe, to put the immediate differences over the Iraq crisis behind us. Both the USA and Europe wish to reach a common political understanding on the challenges we are all facing.

We witnessed such a common political stance at the NATO summit in Istanbul, at the EU-USA summit in Ireland and at the 60 ^th> anniversary of the invasion in Normandy in June. But the Iraq war has inflicted wounds that are still not fully healed.

The USA is the world’s only superpower. Thus Washington’s attitude to the UN Security Council and to the legitimate use of military force has a major impact on international politics.

I dare say a number of European countries – including Norway – would most definitely appreciate it if the USA would listen more to others, particularly to the opinion of the international community as expressed through the UN. In my view that would strengthen both the USA’s own case and our ability to deal with problems together.

The transatlantic dialogue must be real. There must be willingness on both sides to listen to each other’s points of view and take them into account before making decisions. Consultations conducted without genuine content are of little value.

Here the USA and Europe have a shared responsibility. We must listen to each other and find common solutions based on genuine agreement. Only through solutions that are democratically rooted on either side can we address the threats we are facing. Precisely this has been a hallmark of the close transatlantic co-operation. This is what has made this alliance so strong, so effective for many years.

Maintaining a solid transatlantic dialogue benefits all of us. It is too late to insist on dialogue once a critical situation has arisen. It is during conflicts and in crisis situations that long-established co-operation yields returns, among others in the form of security.

I wish the USA and other close allies considered it in their interests to use NATO as a forum for more issues. There may be various reasons why this is not the case.

• Firstly, the leading countries have considerable bilateral contacts. Presumably many consultations take place in more restricted fora.
• Secondly, the EU is in the process of intensifying its foreign and security policy co-operation.
• Thirdly, there is little political will to make use of the co-operation mechanisms that have been established between NATO and the EU.
• Fourthly, the EU and the USA regularly discuss security and foreign policy issues.

We must deal actively with this situation, both within the Alliance and directly vis-à-vis the USA and the EU.

Experience has shown that we can maximise our influence by contributing civilian and military resources that are in demand and where we have special expertise.

This applies not least to NATO, where we have a long tradition of contributing highly qualified personnel supported by modern and effective equipment. Many of you present here this evening have broad experience and considerable expertise in precisely this.

In my opinion we should, both in Europe and in the USA, be wary of stereotyping each other.

For instance, there is a widespread misconception in Norwegian politics that the USA is exclusively using military measures in the fight against terrorism, whereas Europe itself is employing a wide range of means. I was confronted with an example of this quite recently in a debate on terrorism in the Holmgang debate programme on TV2.

This is not the case. The USA is the principal driving force in efforts to stem the flow of money to international terrorism. This is being done by actively implementing the UN conventions in this field. The USA also contributes considerable funds for poverty eradication and reconstruction in Afghanistan and Iraq. Far more than European countries.

The USA also realises that at times it is advantageous to support other countries’ initiatives instead of itself taking an active leading role. Thus we have its support in our peace facilitation efforts in Sri Lanka.

The issue that is considered to most clearly point up the difference between Europe and the USA today is the question of what constitutes legitimate use of military force. Most European countries, including Norway, attach decisive importance to having a UN Security Council mandate in order to implement international measures. The USA has both stated and demonstrated that it does not consider this decisive.

As I mentioned earlier, on this point I clearly disagree with the prevailing US attitude. Except in cases where the right to self-defence is exercised, military action must be authorised by the UN Security Council. Let me stress this point. Any military action must be authorised by the UN Security Council.

Like many other European countries, Norway considered that there was insufficient basis in international law for military action against Iraq. The USA chose to disregard the UN and to initiate a military operation without clear authorisation from the Security Council.

In order for the Security Council to play a role, real co-operation between the Council members must be ensured. The fact is that the Security Council has been unable to act in a number of critical situations.

The way the unrest in the Balkans in the 1990s was dealt with is an example of this. The massacre in Srebrenica in 1995, where over 7 000 persons were killed in what was supposed to be a UN safe haven, was an utter disgrace. Moreover, the Security Council’s mandate for the action in connection with Kosovo was not as clear as might have been desired. But today there are few who deplore the USA’s willingness to act in the Balkans.

The UN will never be more effective than its member countries make it. Last year Kofi Annan took an important initiative when he appointed a panel of experts to make recommendations for how the UN can better address new and existing challenges to peace and security. Norway has consistently supported this initiative.

It is essential that the panel of experts come up with recommendations on conflict prevention, and that they are subsequently studied and followed up. The UN must be enabled to more effectively address conflicts at an early stage. Norway attaches great importance to this agenda.

I am, however, afraid that ahead of the presentation of the panel’s recommendations, many countries are creating excessive expectations regarding a major reform of the Security Council. Do not misunderstand me; Security Council reform is necessary and important. But this issue could easily become so all-consuming that it overshadows other vital issues, such as the question of the UN’s ability to intervene in conflicts at an early stage. Here, in part, lies the key to our ability to collectively address new security threats.

I would like to say a few more words about the situation in Iraq. Let me remind you of a few things: Norway did not support the military operation against Iraq. In our view it did not have a sufficient mandate from the UN Security Council. Nor did Norway participate in this phase.

A number of mistakes have been made. In particular, the treatment of the prisoners in Abu Ghraib was outrageous and detrimental. Far too many former members of the Baath party have been excluded from participating in society, and it was unwise to disband the Iraqi army and the Iraqi police.

The excesses that have been committed, and the misjudgements that have been made, have made the reconstruction of Iraq even more difficult.

The situation in Iraq is far from encouraging.

The security situation is extremely grave, and marked by increasing violence in the Sunni triangle around Baghdad. Several countries are now urging their nationals to leave Iraq because of the risk of being kidnapped. The pictures we are seeing on our television screens, of hostages kept behind bars, are horrifying.

Another problem is the political process, which is very fragile. The insurgents’ aim seems to be to ensure that the elections in January are put off. And this brings us to the crux of the matter. Everything possible must be done to ensure that the elections are held according to plan. The UN must be given an opportunity to facilitate the elections, so that the democratic political process can move forward – in the right direction.

It is vital that the process leading up to the elections in January goes well. One of the many meetings I had during the UN General Assembly in New York was with Iraq’s foreign minister, Mr Zebari. He emphasised strongly that the elections are essential in order to give the future Iraqi leadership greater legitimacy, and that this is the only way progress can be made in Iraq.

Given the difficulty of the situation, the international community is faced with the following choice: shall we do what we can to ensure the success of Prime Minister Allawi’s government, or shall we content ourselves with making doom-laden prophesies and offering advice from the safety of the sidelines?

I believe we must dare to state the question unambiguously: what would be in our best interests and what would not – that Prime Minister Allawi and his government succeed? There are many vague and unclear views on this issue, including in Norwegian politics. Again, the Norwegian press is unsparing in its criticism. In the 28 September issue of Dagbladet, one of our otherwise best commentators interpreted my desire to focus on what we ought to do now as meaning that we should not have any more debate on the reasons for the war or the course of events since it began. I have nothing against this; what I do object strongly to is that it allows us to avoid the question of what we ought to do in the present situation. The government’s attitude on this issue is very clear, and is in line with what the UN expressly stated in Security Council resolution 1546, that the Iraqi Interim Government must have the support of the international community. Our contribution to Iraq is evidence of such support.

We must move forward and tackle the challenges that the Iraqi people and the international community are facing today. These challenges are formidable. But although the situation is difficult, it is not without opportunities. Iraq can become a democracy. This is why we must do more than merely comment on the situation.

Norway is making a contribution in both military and humanitarian terms. Norway’s military contribution to the Iraq Stabilisation Force has been the most controversial foreign policy issue in Norway over the last year.

I would like to make it clear that we are in Iraq because we want to make an active contribution to the development of a peaceful, democratic Iraq. This is the basis of our Iraq policy.

In resolution 1483, the Security Council appeals to Member States to contribute to conditions of stability and security in Iraq. This is why Norway deployed an engineer corps to Iraq in summer 2003. The corps returned to Norway in July, and we currently have a small number of field officers in the country. We have also decided to assist in the training of Iraqi security and police forces.

The engineer corps did a very good job in Iraq. I am sure that many of you here tonight have been involved in these operations, either directly or indirectly. I think a little extra praise is called for here.

The engineer corps was deployed to Iraq to carry out humanitarian tasks, and they fulfilled their mandate in a commendable way. Their achievement deserves full recognition from us all, whatever our personal views on the legal grounds for going to war with Iraq. There has been a tendency in the Norwegian debate to cast doubt on the performance of these officers and soldiers, a tendency I strongly deplore.

This applies particularly to the debate on whether or not they were providing humanitarian assistance. I have visited these Norwegian soldiers. While the debate was raging here at home, they were building bridges, clearing explosives, and repairing water supply systems. I do not think they were in any doubt about whether what they were doing was humanitarian assistance.

The reason we sent military personnel to do this work was because they are able to defend themselves.

The challenges in today’s Iraq call for a concerted international effort. Only by joining forces can we lay the foundation for political and economic development based on human dignity.

In this situation, improving security is vital. We therefore support NATO’s decision to assist the Interim Government in the training of Iraqi security forces. NATO’s decision is based on Security Council Resolution 1546, which expressly requests Member States to provide such assistance, and on a direct request from the Interim Government itself.

Why is this so important? Because it is essential for the further development of the country that the Iraqis themselves are able to safeguard their own security. NATO is currently planning to establish a training centre in Iraq for this purpose, and some of the Alliance’s training facilities outside Iraq will also be utilised. NATO headquarters in Jåttå will be playing a role in this connection.

The first NATO forces could be in place in Iraq this month, and they must be given the protection they need to carry out their assignment. Preparations for this are currently under way in the Alliance.

Ladies and gentlemen,

I would also like to say a few words about several other foreign and security policy issues, particularly the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. This conflict is explosive, and extremely destructive. Not only is it causing the Israelis and Palestinians great suffering. It poses, and will continue to pose, a grave threat to peace, stability and security, not only in the Middle East but throughout the world.

During the past few days we have witnessed a serious escalation of the conflict. More than 60 Palestinians, most of them civilians, have been killed in Israeli operations in north Gaza.

Even though Israel has a legitimate right to self-defence, Israeli measures must be commensurate with the actual threat and must be in accordance with international law. At the same time, the Palestinian Authority must take full control of the same area and prevent any missiles being fired at Israel from it.

As I see it, the situation is deadlocked. Every day there are new developments on the ground that impede a two-state solution. In spite of strong protests from the international community, Israel has continued to build the security barrier on occupied Palestinian land.

I appreciate the Israelis’ concern about the security situation. The security barrier could help to prevent a terrorist attack. But we cannot accept the building of such a wall on occupied land. The guiding principle must be that any measures against terrorism must be in accordance with international law.

The Israeli Government’s decision to build an additional 2300 new housing units in the settlements on the West Bank is also cause for great concern.

The expansion of Israeli settlements on occupied land is in violation of international law and the Roadmap for Peace, which Israel has undertaken to comply with.

The tendencies we have seen to give these new settlements political recognition must not be allowed to prevail. On this issue Norwegian views are in keeping with those of the EU.

The Palestinian situation does not give cause for optimism either. The Palestinian leadership is characterised today by internal strife and an inability to act.

The Palestinian Authority also has obligations under the Roadmap for Peace. They must do more to combat terrorism and to promote economic and political reforms.

Although the restructuring of the 16 security organisations into three services was a step in the right direction, there is reason to fear that these are just superficial changes. Two of the three forces still report to President Arafat rather than to the Interior Minister, as required by the Roadmap and the international community.

President Arafat and the Palestinian Authority are the Palestinians’ lawfully elected representatives. It is therefore totally unacceptable for the Israeli Government to announce at regular intervals that Israel can remove Arafat whenever it decides to. However, as the supreme leader, Arafat bears a considerable share of the responsibility for the Palestinian Authority’s inability to act and its failure to put necessary reforms in place.

Now it is important that elections are held in the Palestinian Area in order to enhance the legitimacy of the Palestinian leadership. The local elections shall, according to plan, be followed by parliamentary and presidential elections. This process has our full support.

Prime Minister Sharon’s plan to withdraw from the settlements in Gaza and four settlements on the West Bank could, however, help to reverse the negative trend. This is contingent on the withdrawal being carried out in accordance with the Roadmap, so that it is the first step towards a two-state solution. If the withdrawal should stop at Gaza and the four settlements in the north, we could end up with an entity that is not sustainable and that would thus be a constant source of unrest.

This means among other things that the settlers from Gaza must not be transferred to the West Bank. The withdrawal must be co-ordinated with the Palestinian Authority, and issues such as the final borders and the refugees’ fate must be decided in final status negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

It is essential that the withdrawal is carried out in a way that contributes to economic growth and political stability in Gaza. The World Bank has pointed out that of itself, Israel’s Disengagement Plan will have very little impact on the Palestinian economy and Palestinian livelihoods. If implementation of the plan is to have a positive effect, a radical easing of internal closures throughout the West Bank is called for. The external borders of the Palestinian Area must be opened to trade with Jordan and Egypt. And a reasonable flow of Palestinian labour into Israel must be sustained. A new, efficient border cargo regime must be introduced. Another key issue is how the settlement assets should be transferred to the Palestinians.

As chairman of the international group of donor countries to the Palestinian Authority, the AHLC, I note that it is becoming increasingly difficult to mobilise the donor countries. The question is being asked why the international community should bear the costs of the Israeli occupation, and this is a legitimate question.

-----

There also continues to be a need for extensive international engagement in the Western Balkans. There is still a great deal of work to be done before we can claim success. We are a long way from reaching our goal of stable, well functioning democratic societies where all ethnic groups can feel safe. We are facing a number of problems connected for example with weak government institutions, economic recession, organised crime and irresponsible political leadership.

Some of these problems may have developed because international attention has been focused on other problem areas for the past three years, such as Afghanistan and Iraq. If the Balkan region is to develop in the direction of stability and genuine democracy, we must support the forces for reform, particularly those that recognise that the solution lies in ethnic diversity.

I visited the area a few weeks ago in my capacity as Chairman of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. It struck me that, although some progress has been made, a great deal remains to be done, particularly in terms of promoting economic development and building viable political structures.

In Bosnia and Herzegovina, we are now on the right track thanks to the close co-operation between NATO, the EU and the OSCE. In Sarajevo I noted in my talks with both international and Bosnian representatives that there was a widespread positive attitude towards developments in the country . There is consensus in Bosnia and Herzegovina on the goal of Euroatlantic integration. The EU’s Stabilisation and Integration process is helping to strengthen the reform effort, and is contributing to stabilisation and development in the country. Nonetheless, significant challenges remain. The country is still prevented from becoming a member of the Partnership for Peace, the PfP, by the Bosnian-Serb authorities’ failure to co-operate with the Yugoslavia Tribunal.

The situation in Kosovo and Serbia-Montenegro is far less encouraging.

Serbia and Montenegro is wracked by internal unrest and a strong polarisation between reform and Euroatlantic-oriented forces on the one hand and extreme nationalists who are opposed to reform on the other. This has among other things led to stagnation in the reform process and slowed down economic development. Serbia and Montenegro will not be qualified for membership of the PfP until it demonstrates greater willingness to co-operate in practical terms with the Yugoslavia Tribunal.

Kosovo has a long way to go, as so amply demonstrated by the unrest in March. This has once again alerted the international community to the problems we are facing in this area. So far the massive international presence on the ground has given the impression that Kosovo was much higher on the international agenda that has actually been the case.

Kosovo’s efforts to meet international standards will be assessed in June next year. Regardless of the result of this assessment, the Kosovar-Albanian majority are of the view that it should be the starting point for discussing Kosovo’s independence. However, both the Serb minority and the authorities in Belgrade feel that there must be a solution that does not involve an independent Kosovo. These problems will come to a head next summer, and the international community will have to be prepared to deal with them.

The unrest in March revealed poor co-ordination between the various international actors. It will be important to develop a coherent international approach in connection with the status negotiations scheduled for next year. Both the UN and the EU now realise this. I hope it will be possible. Here I would like to call your attention to the report on Kosovo prepared by Ambassador Kai Eide at the request of the UN Secretary-General. It gives a good idea of the challenges we are facing, and provides a useful basis for further efforts. He will surely talk about the report in his lecture to the Oslo Military Society later this autumn.

The NATO-led military force will continue to be vital for stability in Kosovo. Thus, KFOR will also stay there for a long time to come.

The same applies to Norway’s contributions. The Norwegian helicopter unit we now have in Kosovo is clear proof that, like our allies, we are prepared to contribute for as long as necessary.

I would like to pay tribute to the Norwegian KFOR force for the excellent way in which it helped to subdue the unrest in March. It has also received much praise from NATO’s civilian and military leaders. Praise which was well deserved.

The EU will take over the leadership of the military operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina from NATO at the beginning of next year. This will be the EU’s largest military operation ever, and reflects the Union’s will to take responsibility. Norway supports this transfer of authority and will contribute militarily to the new EU operation.

In this way we will also be contributing to more balanced transatlantic ties, which is in the interests of both Europe and the USA.

Plans are currently under way in the EU to further develop the common security and foreign policy. The political and military structures are now by and large in place. The main task that remains is to obtain military resources and plan the operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is scheduled to start at the beginning of next year.

Recently, a great deal of attention has been focused on the EU’s efforts to establish combat groups. They are intended among other things to support UN operations, especially in Africa.

The EU hopes in this way to help strengthen the UN’s crisis-management capability.

I am interested and pleased to see that a number of EU countries want Norway to be involved in this. A former chairman of the Conservative Party must be permitted to say that given our active support for EU ambitions in the security and defence policy area, we should generally respond favourably to this kind of request.

Participation in EU combat groups would be in keeping with our desire to contribute to the development of EU defence and security policy. The government will not, however, be able to make a final decision on this until we have a better idea of what kind of forces and tasks are involved. The government will, of course, consult the Storting in this matter.

-----

I began my lecture by saying that Norway is located in a peaceful corner of Europe. This is a privileged position, but a position that carries obligations. It entails a special responsibility. Defending ourselves against threats such as international terrorism concerns us just as much it concerns the countries and innocent people who are directly affected.

We need close transatlantic co-operation, we need protection and security in Iraq, we need to get closer to a solution to the Middle East conflict, and we need to see more progress in the West Balkans.

Today the key to close transatlantic relations lies not only in the USA and Europe, but in the efforts being made all over the world to deal with the challenges to global and regional security.