Fighting terror and promoting peace. The
Norwegian perspective.
Stanford University, California
14 April 2004
Check against delivery
Ladies and gentlemen,
It is a great pleasure for me to be
here today. I would like to thank the Stanford Institute for
International Studies and the European Forum for organising this
seminar.
The Stanford Institute for
International Studies is a leading institution for research on key
international issues and challenges. In Norway as elsewhere, the
Stanford faculty is known for having some of the best teachers and
researchers in their fields.
Twenty-five Stanford faculty
members have won the Nobel Prize since the university's founding.
With a current faculty numbering 17 Nobel laureates, four Pulitzer
Prize winners, and numerous other scholars of distinction, this
campus must be among the highest concentrations of "brain power" in
the world. Therefore it is a particular honour for me to be invited
to speak from this rostrum.
Today I will share with you some
thoughts on how the transatlantic community can use its common
values to counter terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction. Furthermore I will outline to you Norway’s
involvement in efforts for peace and reconciliation in different
parts of the world.
These issues may seem divergent,
but they are closely interlinked. In order to fight terror we need
to stand firm. Evil is evil – there are no excuses. We agree that
protective measures are necessary in our search for security. But,
they are not sufficient in themselves. To reign in terrorism we
need to look at what fuels extremism and hopelessness. Hence, we
have to fight for human rights and dignity, for economic
development and prosperity for all.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Norwegians have always counted the
United States as one of our closest friends. Moreover, since World
War II we have regarded the US as our strongest and most
trustworthy ally. Our deep-rooted economic, political and security
ties have been strengthened by the bonds between Norwegians and the
five or six million Americans of Norwegian descent - more
"Norwegians" than we are in Norway.
The close and warm relationship
between the US and Norway is built on the fact that we subscribe to
the same basic values. We share a clear commitment to freedom,
democracy and human rights, good governance and the rule of law,
and a market economy.
A small country like Norway can
only safeguard its security and its national interests through
multilateral co-operation. We will remain strongly committed to the
UN. And we will continue to do what we can to strengthen the
transatlantic ties - first and foremost in the North Atlantic
Alliance - NATO.
However, we are acutely aware that
these close ties cannot be taken for granted. They must be nurtured
and developed. They must be allowed to evolve and adapt to the new
era in international co-operation. The NATO engagement in
Afghanistan is a good example in this regard.
Partnership is both about giving
and taking. If we wish support from our partners, we must be
prepared to contribute in areas where they need our backing. We
must demonstrate that Norway stands ready to support its close
friends and allies, and that we are a useful and valuable
co-operation partner.
We must also be willing to make
concrete contributions to resolving the common problems we are
facing, both by providing civilian and military resources and by
showing the political will to take responsibility in an emergency.
This responsibility no longer applies only to Europe. Global
threats are accompanied by a global responsibility, also for
us.
Ladies and gentlemen,
The new threats and challenges we
are facing are many and varied. But international terrorism and the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction are the defining
threats to our security. They are by definition global threats.
The horror of weapons of mass
destruction in the hands of terrorists almost defies imagination.
We must all do our utmost to prevent this from becoming a
reality.
Failed states are a source of
regional instability and violence. We must ensure that power
vacuums are dealt with in ways that foster prosperous and
democratic societies.
Afghanistan must never again become
a haven from which terrorists can carry out their evil deeds.
A dictator must never again be
allowed to oppress the people of Iraq.
The spiral of violence in the
Middle East must be stopped.
We must help the countries in the
Balkans to stay on the road to integration into the broader
Euro-Atlantic community.
We must all play our part in
bringing the local and regional conflicts around the world to an
end.
Global partnerships and initiatives
and regional efforts must go hand in hand in our efforts to
strengthen international non-proliferation norms and regimes.
Non-proliferation can only succeed if we get all nations on board.
We need multilateral, legally binding treaties with global
reach.
Ladies and gentlemen,
In our globalised age, security is
indivisible. Regardless of whether we are a large nation or a small
one, we are all dependent on multilateral solutions in the end.
International law, the United
Nations Charter and the resolutions of the UN Security Council
should be the foundation of our efforts to achieve peace, security
and stability. We need the broadest possible coalition to
effectively address the most pressing security challenges. With its
universal membership and broad range of instruments, the UN is the
most suitable organization for concerted action by the
international community.
But, the threats and risks to
international peace and stability have changed since the UN Charter
was drafted. There is a need for reform of the UN in order to adapt
to the new situation. We look forward to the report of the High
Level Panel that the UN Secretary General has appointed to explore
how the UN could meet the new security threats and challenges.
While looking forward, the Panel should also draw on experiences
from earlier activities. The UN cannot afford repeating the
mistakes of its Bosnia operations in the 1990s. We cannot afford
another Srebrenica.
Norway has consistently worked to
strengthen the role and authority of the UN Security Council in its
efforts to counter international terrorism and to halt the spread
of the most destructive weapons.
In the Security Council the US has
proposed a new resolution requiring all states to criminalise the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The proposed
resolution also requires all states to adopt strict export controls
and to secure all sensitive material within their borders. Norway
fully supports the US initiative.
The UN should play a prominent role
in issues relating to compliance and verification. We must close
any loopholes that allow nations to carry out clandestine nuclear
weapon programmes.
This means that we must strengthen
the global non-proliferation treaties and regimes. These treaties
must be made binding on all parties. The Nuclear Non-proliferation
Treaty has been the cornerstone of our collective security for more
than 30 years. We must not allow it to be weakened.
We are also concerned about Iran’s
nuclear programme. Moreover, we regret that the country has not yet
provided the International Atomic Energy Agency with full
information on its past and current nuclear programme. We maintain
that Iran must co-operate fully and unconditionally with the IAEA.
This will require diplomatic efforts.
On a more positive note, the case
of Libya shows that diplomacy works – given the right
circumstances.
The Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban
Treaty must enter into force as soon as possible. We would like to
see Washington change its current position on this treaty. The US
must maintain its moratorium on nuclear testing.
We are also concerned that the
development of new types of nuclear weapons, such as "mini nukes",
may result in pressure for renewed tests.
The uncovering of the extensive
network of Pakistan’s nuclear expert, Dr. Khan, has demonstrated
that the spread of nuclear weapons is a real and present danger.
This has truly been a wake-up call to anyone who may have doubted
the magnitude and scale of this threat. The international web of
middlemen has fed the nuclear programmes of Iran, Libya and North
Korea – all countries of great concern in the context of
proliferation.
Securing universal adherence to and
full compliance with treaties aimed at preventing the spread of
weapons of mass destruction
must be a top priority.
At the same time, it is evident
that the global treaties are not sufficient. They must be
complemented by initiatives such as President Bush’s Proliferation
Security Initiative. This initiative is aimed at the interdiction
of shipments of prohibited technologies and components for WMD
programmes.
Norway is taking an active part in
the Proliferation Security Initiative. We are making every effort
to ensure that our law enforcement and military personnel receive
the training and skills required to participate in interdiction
activities and exercises. As a significant flag state, we are doing
our part to prevent Norwegian-registered ships from being misused
for proliferation purposes.
We urge the US to ratify the Law of
the Sea Convention. That would add legal clarity and strengthen
President Bush’s initiative. A predictable legal framework for
issues such as maritime interdiction operations would help increase
the support for the Proliferation Security Initiative from
countries that do not participate today.
The Initiative fills a gap in our
toolbox of non-proliferation measures. At the same time
irreversible reductions in existing stockpiles of nuclear weapons
are needed. Such reductions would be the best guarantee that
weapons do not fall into the wrong hands.
We are also concerned about the way
weapons are being stored in some countries. Inadequate security and
safety measures with regard to nuclear installations and
radioactive material are a constant worry.
Therefore, we particularly welcome
President Bush’s announcement in February of increased support for
the Nunn-Lugar Threat Reduction Programme. This programme is
crucial to our efforts to dismantle weapons of mass destruction in
the former Soviet Union. It has clearly been instrumental in
raising international awareness of the dangers posed by the
existence of vast stocks of such weapons. We consider the
Nunn-Lugar programme to be a vital contribution to the G8 Global
Partnership against proliferation of WMD.
Norway was the first country
outside the G8 to play an active part in the Global Partnership,
which has a strong focus on north-western Russia. The Kola
Peninsula, just on the other side of our border with Russia in the
north, has the world’s largest concentration of nuclear
installations. Many of them represent a proliferation risk.
There have already been thefts from
lighthouse lanterns powered by highly radioactive strontium
batteries. This is a cause for concern with regard to dirty bombs.
So far the thieves have contented themselves with precious metals.
Will they go for the radioactive batteries next time?
Norway’s current priorities on
nuclear safety projects in north-western Russia include dismantling
of nuclear submarines – the dismantling of the first two subs is
now in the final stage. It also includes clean up of the Northern
Fleet’s storage site at Andreyev Bay, and the safe removal of
strontium batteries from lighthouses.
The strong involvement of the US
and the EU in these clean-up activities is greatly appreciated. If
we all remain committed to this important task, there is hope that
the nuclear safety and security problems in north-western Russia
can be solved during the next decade.
Ladies and gentlemen,
I am convinced that strong
transatlantic ties will be as vital in meeting the most pressing
threats of the 21st century as they were in meeting the challenges
of the past.
The US and Europe may differ in
their strategic outlook, size and resources, but we share the same
basic goals. Let us never forget that the member states of the
North Atlantic Alliance have been standing shoulder to shoulder for
more than fifty years in pursuit of a single common aim –
safeguarding our way of life.
Transatlantic tensions are nothing
new. We have seen them before. Kyoto, the International Criminal
Court and the Test Ban Treaty are just a few of the most recent
examples.
Today’s situation, however, is
cause for greater concern. The differences of opinion across the
Atlantic are greater in number than before, and they go deeper. And
they reflect very divergent attitudes to international
co-operation.
However, the differences over Iraq
between members of the Western Alliance are now largely behind us.
I am confident that the NATO summit in June in Istanbul will
confirm the strength of our transatlantic ties.
In order to meet the security
threats of the 21
st> century, NATO has embarked on the most
far-reaching transformation in its history. The latest round of
NATO enlargement took place only a few weeks ago. The seven new
members have already demonstrated their willingness and ability to
contribute in important ways. We have witnessed this in the Balkans
and most recently in Afghanistan.
The Alliance has taken on a heavy
responsibility in Afghanistan, through its leadership of the
International Security and Assistance Force - ISAF. This is the
first time NATO is involved outside the Euro-Atlantic area. In this
sense Afghanistan is a credibility test – and it is a tough one.
NATO simply cannot afford to fail. It will also have a significant
impact on the further development of NATO, as we must be prepared
for a long-lasting engagement. Therefore, Afghanistan must be a top
priority for the Alliance.
Afghanistan
is at a critical juncture. The
difficult security situation and the drug-related economy pose a
significant threat to the political and economic development of the
entire region. The elections next September will be a milestone, as
they provide an opportunity to form a fully representative
government in Kabul. ISAF must, to the extent possible, contribute
to providing the necessary security for carrying out the
elections.
Norway is committed to a broad and
long-term engagement in Afghanistan. Our military contribution to
ISAF will continue. As part of this, we will participate in the
Provincial Reconstruction Teams that will be established outside
Kabul this year.
This month we will also be sending
a group of police instructors to Afghanistan, who will assist in
building up and training an Afghan police and border police
force.
We have recently upgraded
Afghanistan’s status to be one of our designated partner countries
in development co-operation. This means an increase in long-term
development assistance to the country. Our political commitment to
Afghanistan clearly is for the long haul.
There is an important lesson here:
"There is no development and reconstruction without security, and
there is no security without development and reconstruction." To my
mind, the case of Afghanistan clearly shows that, in certain
situations, the use of military means is indispensable for building
peace and stability.
NATO may also be called upon to
take on a stronger role in the stabilization of Iraq. As in
Afghanistan, improved security is the key. The events over the last
days clearly have displayed the difficulties facing the coalition
forces in Iraq. There is, however, no alternative to continue
working for a secure and democratic Iraq. Norway is currently
participating in the stabilization force. We believe that the UN
should also play a more prominent role in Iraq. Only the UN can
give the political process the necessary legitimacy.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Most of the security problems we
faced in the past had their roots on the European continent. Today
the roots of the most pressing threats to our security are found in
what is increasingly referred to as the Greater Middle East.
There is a need for democratic
reforms in this area. Reform efforts will no doubt be met with
resistance by many. There is no lack of skeptical voices. In order
to move the process forward, we must now demonstrate inclusiveness
and work to generate the ownership of the countries concerned. I am
convinced that support for reform is stronger than ever – and
growing.
In view of the recent developments
in the Middle East there is an urgent need for concerted action.
The international community must make use of all the instruments at
its disposal to support the peace efforts between Israel and the
Palestinians. The members of the Quartet - the UN, the EU, Russia
and particularly the US – carry a special responsibility in this
regard.
It now remains to be seen how the
Israeli initiative to withdraw from the Gaza-strip will affect the
situation. This initiative should be seen as a part of President
Bush’s two State vision, and be based on the Road Map. The
Palestinians will have to be brought in as real partners. And, a
solution for the West-Bank should be part of a negotiated final
settlement of the conflict. If requested by the parties, NATO
should also be prepared to consider a role for securing a peace
agreement.
A solution to the conflict between
the Israelis and the Palestinians would have a huge positive impact
on other problems in the region. On the other hand, resolving other
problems in this part of the world is not necessarily dependent on
a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Over the past decade Norway has
gained valuable experience as a facilitator of peace processes all
over the world. In addition to its role in the Oslo peace accords,
Norway has been involved in peace facilitation in places like Latin
America, the Balkans, the Horn of Africa, and currently in Sri
Lanka, as well as elsewhere in Asia.
We have often been asked why Norway
has become so involved in international peace and reconciliation
processes. I would like to emphasize three factors in
particular.
First, Norway’s role as a peace
facilitator is in many ways a continuation of our long-standing
commitment to peace through humanitarian action and development
co-operation. Most Norwegians share the conviction that if we can
help other people to achieve a more secure, more decent life, we
quite simply have an obligation to do so. Sixty thousand people
have been killed in the conflict in Sri Lanka. If Norway’s efforts
can make a difference to the situation there, that is of course a
good enough reason to be involved.
Second, as a small country with
no colonial past and few vested interests, we are considered a
neutral and impartial broker. We have no second agendas.
Third, our government co-operates
closely with Norwegian non-governmental organizations. Norwegian
NGOs have gained valuable experience through activities in
different parts of the world for several decades. And perhaps even
more important, their idealistic approach has earned them a
reputation as highly professional and dedicated to helping others.
Therefore we have good networks and hands-on knowledge of the
various regions.
A common denominator for many of
the peace processes in which we have been involved has been the
interaction between diplomatic and humanitarian assistance, and
between government and non-state actors. This is a recipe that has
proven to be quite successful.
Let me give you a few concrete
examples. For the past five years Norway has been involved in
facilitating talks between the conflicting parties in Sri Lanka.
The government of Sri Lanka and the Tamil Tigers have been at war
for at least 20 years. Our role has been to assist the parties in
their efforts to reach a political solution, not to impose a
solution on them.
The peace process has made
substantial progress since the two parties entered into a
cease-fire agreement in February 2002. The parties have agreed on
the basic principles of a political solution, and are now working
on the practical details.
Two years of cease-fire, and active
involvement from donors, have given the people of Sri Lanka a real
peace dividend. They clearly do not want renewed hostilities. This
shows the importance of backing peace-efforts with development
assistance and financial contributions.
Peace facilitation is, however, a
cumbersome process that requires patience. Maintaining the
cease-fire is part of the key to success. Therefore an independent
monitoring mission has been established. The Sri Lanka Monitoring
Mission is led by Norway and includes observers from the five
Nordic countries. The aim of this mission is to make independent
rulings on alleged violations of the cease-fire. These monitoring
activities help build trust between the parties.
Just to underline my point that
patience may be the most important ingredient of a successful
process, the peace talks are now on hold due to various internal
developments. However, all parties have expressed their willingness
to restart talks following the parliamentary elections that were
held on the 2
nd> of April. The parties hope to resume talks on an
interim arrangement, while continuing their search for a lasting
settlement.
We are also involved in the peace
process in Sudan, which grew out of our long-standing humanitarian
assistance to the country and the work of Norwegian NGOs in this
region. This engagement brought us in contact with both parties to
the conflict, which goes back 20 years. In facilitating
communication between the parties, Norway was gradually trusted as
an "honest broker". In September last year the parties agreed on
the principles for resolving the sensitive issues related to
security arrangements for a peace agreement. In February this year
peace talks were resumed and the parties are now in the final
stages of the talks.
Peace in Sudan would end one of
Africa’s longest lasting conflicts. Two million people have been
killed and more than four million have become refugees over the
last twenty years. A peace agreement is long overdue, both for the
people of Sudan and for the region as a whole. Putting an end to
the human suffering will, however, require broad international
engagement; also after a peace agreement has been signed. Economic
development will be vital for sustaining peace and stability.
Norway has therefore offered to host a donor conference once a
peace agreement is signed.
It is important to keep in mind
that successful mediation is only possible if both parties have a
genuine will for peace. Success as a mediator also requires that we
have a clear notion of our own role, and a clear notion of the role
of other international actors. We need to take a common approach
and act in a mutually supportive way. And last but not least, it is
important to remember that every conflict has its own dynamics. The
role of third-party facilitator needs to be carefully tailored to
the situation at hand, and based on close dialogue with the parties
concerned.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Our fight against international
terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and
our efforts to put an end to ethnic and regional conflicts, will
only succeed if longstanding allies and friends pool their
resources and pursue the same objectives. We must make full use of
the UN, NATO, the EU and other international organizations in
meeting these threats.
We may not see eye to eye on every
issue. But at the end of the day, I believe there is a profound
recognition on both sides of the Atlantic that we need each other,
and that we share a common future.
Thank you for your attention. Now I
will be happy to take your comments and questions.
