Address at the University of Vilnius

This country is building a new future and new institutions. But Lithuania is an old nation. Norwegians should never forget that, and the world should never forget that. - It is a privilege to speak here at the University of Vilnius.

We are your guest at a University founded in 1579. That is some 60 years older than the University of Harvard and 225 years older than the University of Oslo. It's reputation made Vilnius a leading academic and intellectual centre of Europe. Scholars from all over the continent came here to study, teach and seek inspiration.

An early member of the Faculty here in Vilnius was the Norwegian priest Laurentius Nicolai Norvegus, or Lars Nilssøn, who taught here four hundred years ago. He was an ardent opponent of the Lutheran reformation which had reached Norway, and he thrived here in catholic Vilnius. He died here in 1622 and is buried here on Campus.

So there are traditions in these walls, and we are not the first Norwegians to walk or talk here. But admittedly, our Nordic neigbours the Danes and the Swedes were more frequent travelers and settlers in the Baltic region. True, the Vikings plowed all the shores of the Baltic Sea, but most of them were Danes and Swedes. Few Norwegians settled here. They were mostly in transit, or transporting the goods of the Baltic trade.

Contacts between us were modest during nine-tenths of this century, mostly for reasons beyond Norwegians and Lithuanians. After the Baltic countries gained their independence in the wake of the First World War, we concluded bilateral trade agreements, of the kind so prevalent between European countries in the 1920s. Our main export consisted of fish. We imported, yes, and this speaks for the commercial instincts of the Lithuanians: timber! -which otherwise and elsewhere was a traditional Norwegian export commodity.

Lithuania came to the fore of the mind of most Norwegians after the Second World War. Since we too were occupied and engaged in the war itself, the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, the Soviet annexation, and the crushing of the Baltic states, played out as part of the darkest chapters in our common European history, when most Europeans, including us, were fighting to survive.

Norway never recognized the annexation and the occupation of Lithuania. It would have been unacceptable of us and unwise of us. A country like Norway, which for centuries had been ruled by Danish and Swedish kings - we, if any, could never accept such foreign domination against the will of a small nation. We never regarded our agreements with Lithuania as non-valid, and we were careful not to take steps in our dealing with the Soviet Union which could be construed as a de facto recognition of the Soviet rule.

Then, about five years ago, pictures of tanks, militaries, - Soviet militaries. The insistent voice of Landsbergis conveying the forces of a nation weak in arms but strong in moral. By their stubbornness and endurance, Lithuanians prevailed in their struggle for independence, and won new international acclaim, sympathy and support.

The images of "Bloody Sunday" 13 January 1991 brought a new awakening in Norway as it did throughout the world. There was a spontaneous popular reaction. A whole new popular movement grew out of the anger and sympathy triggered by Soviet uniforms were they were not welcome.

A whole world had focused on the fall of the Berlin Wall. But this - the independence of the Baltic states - was the final completion of the Cold War. At last - three small, proud nations, rebuffed by the power game of 1945, regained independence.

Today we are partners in Europe. For five years, Norway and Lithuania have reestablished direct links. People-to-people activities are flourishing. Open trade and regular bilateral relations are reaching levels which are more normal. Still, there is a great potential. The Norwegian business delegation which is here with me has expressed great optimism in the future.

A new and broad network within the framework of the Nordic-Baltic dialogue is taking shape. We are partners in the Baltic Council. Partners in the Council of Europe. Partners in Partnership for Peace. European partners.

Yes - we are European partners. Together we are building a broader, deeper and more prosperous system of security. This is the doorstep to the 21st century. This is a window of opportunity where all Lithuania's and Norway's neigbours have opted for democracy. A new interdependence is taking shape - economically, politically, environmentally and technologically.

My task here today is to share with you a Norwegian view of this historic process of European transformation. My first observation will concern the broader concept of European security. My second observation will address the future of the European welfare state - a key to Europe's future.

First - security. Europe - all countries of Europe - are building a new framework of European security. The peaceful revolutions of the East made new democracies look towards the international institutions of the West. For decades these institutions have served their members and Europe at large. But they were all shaped in the aftermath of the war - and they too are changing - as they must change to keep their vigour.

Today our challenge boils down to the following: How can we manage this process of change in a way that promotes security for all - without creating new dividing lines.

My point of departure is that the notion of security of the 21st century is a much broader one than in the late 1940s. We are now at a point where all of Europe must be guided by the thoughts which prevailed in the West after the Second World War: Safeguard democracy. Secure welfare. Protect human rights.

The main difference is of course the absence of an obvious outside threat. The Soviet Union is gone. Democratic Russia is our partner. There is a lot of distrust on both sides to be overcome. But look at the progress made since 1991.

Security within Western Europe was not the work of NATO. It was the work of integrationists. They saw that prosperity and mutual interdependence could be enhanced by binding together the economies which in the widest sense are embanking the Rhine and the Rhône. They saw the historical importance of coal- and ore-rich areas between France and Germany, and the smaller countries knew from experience that their fate depended on the larger countries keeping peace.

And by that same token, economic integration with the West can and will now become the predominant security policy of Lithuania, the Baltic neighbours and the new democracies. Security policy of today means first and foremost extending interdependence, the rule of law and democracy. Democracies do not go to war against each other.

Therefore, the institutions of the West are all important for security. The Council of Europe's primary historic role is to be the custodian of Western values, such as democracy, the rule of law and the primacy of human rights. There has been times when the Council of Europe attracted little attention among people at large. But this is unjustified.

To become a member of the Council of Europe is a distinction. Lithuania has already attained this distinction. Russia has achieved that distinction. All our countries are being scrutinized by The Council of Europe's Human Rights Commission and its Court.

In later years the Council has been seized with the question of minorities, immigrants, the fight against racism and xenophobia. They are all issues that are felt in our societies and which we must counter together in order to keep Europe as a refuge of enlightened diversity and tolerance. The Council of Europe gives an important contribution to our political culture and our stability as free societies. The Council has made significant contributions in helping the countries of Central and Eastern Europe to rid itself of the legacy of the past.

Lithuania's ambitions, of course go further. The European Union is by far the politically most important organization in Europe. The Union is the prime exponent of European security.

Norway is not a member of it, and I know that the countries that are now candidates for membership find that hard to understand. A majority of Norwegians opted for a continuation of Norway's arrangements of the Cold War period. At the same time, they knew that no other country in Europe has as close relations with the European Union as Norway.

We are fully integrated into the internal market through the agreement on the European Economic Area. Thereby we can thrive as equal partner in the economic life of Europe. We are also part of EU rules and cooperation in the field of labour standards and labour law, gender equality, environmental protection and science, research and education.

As non-member we are unable to directly influence Lithuanian aspirations to become a member of the EU. But together with the Nordic EU members we have made our point of view well known. We are politically supporting you to the best of our endeavors, and we note that you are at present participating at EU meetings as a candidate country where we as non-member are excluded. And we note with satisfaction that Lithuania will be on the same starting line as the other candidates when negotiations for membership begin after the intergovernmental conference.

What, eventually, will membership for Lithuania bring? New opportunities. Equal rights. Access to information. A voice. Solidarity. Partnership. It all amounts to security. The European Union is about managing new interdependence. All of Lithuania's neighbours will benefit from its future membership, and the common interest in peace and cooperation will prevail over any interest to the contrary.

Will EU membership bring prosperity? Not membership in itself. That will come as a result of the hard work of Lithuanians themselves, using the framework conditions of open economies and fair and predictable international rules.

Then there are other layers of European cooperation. We are all taking part of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. That is Europe at its largest. Then there is regional cooperation. Lithuania is gaining new identity as a part of the Nordic Baltic cooperation. Five plus three - the five Nordics and the three Baltics. What is on our agenda? People to people activities. Environment. Education. Investment. Law and order.

It all amounts to security.

In May we gather in a broader Baltic setting to address the same issues - together with Germany, Poland and democratic Russia.

Norway and Lithuania are also learning to work together in the framework of NATO and the Western European Union. These organizations are built on military security guarantees. But the main ambition of political work in Europe and across the Atlantic has always been, and will always be, to work towards a situation where those guarantees will never be tested. As all of Europe have opted for democracy, and aims to develop democracy further, the role of NATO is changing as well.

The NATO Summit in Brussels in 1994 stated a reminder, that it remains open to democratic countries. At the same time, and equally important, Partnership for Peace was established. The aim of the PfP is to make the line thinner between NATO members and non-member countries. And noone, perhaps with the exeption of Poland are more active in the PfP than Lithuania.

With all the extensive cooperation programmes, with Russian and American soldiers working together in the field in the former Yugoslavia under NATO and UN auspices, with Baltic countries engaging in peace-keeping operations, we have a truly different world.

The process of NATO enlargement will take time and it should be managed carefully. We do not want to create new dividing lines. The goal is security - not confrontation.

At the same time we say: No doors are closing. No outside country will have the possibility to veto NATOs own decisions. They are taken by consensus among its current members. NATO is doing its utmost to cooperate more closely with Russia. Not only must we not isolate Russia. We must work with Russia - we are working with Russia. Expanding cooperation with Russia. Holding joint maneuvers with Russia. And Russia must cooperate with us. It is not helpful when the Duma entertains the idea of restoring the Soviet Union. President Yeltsin himself has put the recent statement into the right perspective.

After the war, western organizations, including NATO, helped us to build prosperous civil societies by creating the stability and security needed for people to work and save, for business to trade and invest, and for countries to pursue sound economic policies. This was the stability which each and every country needed for civilian life to prosper.

In most western countries, the last half century has been one of political struggle and debate between social democratic parties on the one side and conservative, christian-democratic parties on the other. I will make my second main point about the future of the European welfare state with eyes shaded by the political complextion I represent. Social democratic parties have formed the government in the Nordic countries through extended periods and have to a very large extent shaped our countries.

The welfare state is now being challenged all over Europe. Competition from other continents, the costs of social security schemes, and demographic developments have fueled a debate about the welfare state and its future.

Just as many countries now have a window of opportunity to become part of an international community conducive to growth and prosperity, a window of opportunity also emerges to build truly equitable, secure societies.

Experience support the view that an effective welfare state and an effective public sector, not only create just and equitable societies, which unleashes the potential of the people and provide security. Welfare states also have a competitive advantage. At present economic performance shows: Those countries in Europe which have the best developed public sectors, the most stringent environmental rules and social security schemes are also performing best economically.

The Nordic countries have traditionally endeavored to find a workable compromise between capital and labour within the framework of representative democracy. The role of the government has been to ensure equitable participation in decision-making, equitable redistributive policies, equitable taxation schemes and equitable participation in society. The means have been to promote education, gender equality, and the rights of the disabled.

And education, as wide as possible access to education, and a high level of general education for everybody is essential for securing equal opportunity, equitable societies, and economic growth. Today, we in Norway measure our national wealth in a way which says that 70 per cent of our national resources are the resources inherent in our people. 7 per cent are natural resources.

Knowledge is an infinite resource. There is more than enough for everybody - if learning is made avaialable to all and not only the few.

The strength of an economy depends on an equal spreading of a high level of education. The private sector and the market cannot handle this alone. Fostering academic elites yields much less if there are large groups with little or no competence at all. Education is a basic public good and should be a basic public service.

The messages coming from the World Bank and the Internatonal Monetary Fund in the 1990's sound different from the messages of the 1980's. Today's message puts a prime emphasis on the human factor - on education and training. In order to succeed, emerging economies need a strong and performant public sector as a solid backbone of the national economy.

In my country we are presently completely reforming education. We are venturing further into the concept of life-long-learning, knowing that much of our technology will be redundant 20 years from now, but most of the work force will still be working.

We believe that modern governance and government must aim at distributing not only political power, but also economic power. It must stand for the distribution of power in society for the sake of the individual, and it must empower the individual to take part in and enrich the political process.

Norway has been fortunate to develop under relatively stable and secure outside conditions. We have come were we are through decades of reform. And reform we must. There are still so many unmet needs and unsolved issues.

The market forces are today working in most parts of the world. But remember, however good the market forces are at allocating financial resources and creating wealth, the market forces alone can never create just and equitable societies or assert the larger vision that only people working politically can have of their own future.

Lithuania is in the process of recapturing decades of lost opportunities. From what I have seen and heard you are determined to catch up within as short a time span as possible. You can and must succeed in this, and Norway and other countries have declared their readiness, as it is our duty, to work with you, offering assistance, support, trading opportunities and and international environment condusive to prosperity. But at the end of the day, we all live and thrive by the work of each other. The greates recources you posess are those of your own people.

---