Briefing on Norway’s UN policy – and other Topics

The Foreign Minister’s talking points
(Check against delivery)

Introduction

• Welcome. Good to see as many as almost 20 Ambassadors/Heads of mission to Oslo could attend.
• Very sad to hear the news about the death of the Brazilian Ambassador. Condolences to his wife and family.
• Activity during the last weeks. Returned today from Madrid. Been to Russia. Focus on the High North. Travels to India in end of March.
• Three main tracks of Norwegian foreign policy (re: my Foreign Policy Address to the Storting on 8 February):
• • Firstly, strong support for the United Nations, promote an UN-led world order based on international law. Secondly, a firm basis in the NATO alliance and a close relationship with the EU/EEA Agreement, our Nordic neighbours and our key partners on both sides of the Atlantic. Thirdly, an active quest for opportunities to promote peace and reconciliation, to combat poverty and to stand up for human rights.

Norway’s vision for the United Nations in the 21 ^st> Century

• Ever since 1945, the UN has been a vital tool for Norway in its foreign policy. We are in favour of a stronger UN.
• Our objective is to reaffirm the world organisation as the coordinator of
• • collective action
  • the principal lawmaker
  • and an effective vehicle for attaining common ends.
• The UN has to evolve and readapt to new sets of actors, new ways of communicating, and new ways of interacting in the international community.
• We remain fully committed to the UN Charter. The Charter has proved its sustainability and ability to adapt to new challenges. Any claim that the Charter lacks the necessary wording to legitimise circumvention of the standards, or the spirit, of the Charter, must be rejected.
• The Charter and its normative architecture are still considered visionary today and their potential has not yet been fully realised. Although we must preserve what we have achieved, we must continually adapt and improve it to meet the needs of a changing world.
• The advances made in recent years are indisputable:

• • The growing prominence of human rights in international politics and international law is an extremely positive development.
  • Abusive governments are no longer fully protected by state sovereignty.
  • Perpetrators of mass atrocities can no longer take immunity and impunity for granted.
• The problem is that advances tend to be reactive. It took the genocide in Rwanda to start a discussion on the collective responsibility to protect.
• We must improve security and enhance human rights by strengthening the rule of law and place it at the centre of any debate on peace and development, global trade, disarmament and non-proliferation.
• And we must seek new and stronger legal instruments to help combat terrorism and organised crime, such as human trafficking.
• Just as most democracies have created systems of redistribution within the state, and created societies based on greater justice, fairness and more equal opportunities for all, the same inspiration should underpin our approach to managing our global interdependence.
• The fight against national poverty has been won by investing in health, education and development, and the fight against global poverty must be won in the same way.
• For this to happen we need to take bold new steps

Is UN reform possible?

As I see it, the UN is struggling with at least four major challenges;

• The first is a growing tendency for member countries to take an à la carte approach to the UN.
• • States claim their rights but are often unwilling to put an equal emphasis on their duties and responsibilities.
  • They are often unwilling to compromise on their own interests, and sometimes unwilling to contribute to the common good without getting something in return.
  • We continue to see and hear about examples of states opting for unilateral approaches.
  • In their interpretation of international law, states sometimes look for loopholes rather than abiding by the standards.

• The second challenge: The tendency to protect the established order at any cost. In many ways, this is a response to the first challenge.
• • It is understandable that many developing countries are concerned, and that they wish to counter what they see as attempts to transfer functions from the General Assembly to a small circle of rich and powerful nations. We share that concern.
  • But the consequences are serious when – as it may seem that – leading developing countries oppose reform, and in fact almost oppose the very idea of a more effective UN.
  • I believe that those of us who firmly believe in a strong and vigilant United Nations should be at the forefront of reform, instead of leaving the reform agenda to those who would like to lower the UN’s ambitions.
• The third challenge follows from the second, and concerns the weaknesses in the UN administration. In my view, the UN needs organisation-wide reform:

• • If the UN is to have full credibility, it must have a transparent, effective and accountable system for managing its resources.
  • A substantial amount of Norwegian public money is channelled through the UN, including about half of our development aid. We have a responsibility to our taxpayers and to the UN to monitor the organisation in order to ensure effective and efficient management of its resources.
• The fourth challenge is that while the demand for the services of UN funds, programmes and specialised agencies is greater than ever, the UN is underfinanced and overloaded.

• • There is a gap between what member countries and their citizens expect the UN to do, and the resources available to do the job.
• In this context the Secretary General’s launch of the High Level Panel on UN Reform is a very pertinent initiative.

• • The panel will propose measures aimed at strengthen management and coordination of UN’s operational activities, including considering more tightly managed entities in the field of development, humanitarian assistance and the environment.
  • Prime Minister Stoltenberg together with the prime ministers of Mozambique and Pakistan co-chairs the panel.
  • We will place great emphasis on outreach and consultation to ensure that all actors have the possibility to provide input to this process, so that the Panel’s proposals are well received and finally accepted by member states.
• The panel will report to the SG in September this year.

The Human Rights Council

• Unfortunately, the Human Rights Commission has been undermined.
• • It has lost much of its credibility.
  • A number of states are seeking membership of the Commission to protect themselves against criticism, not to strengthen the human rights agenda.
  • We must promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms.
• Norway welcomes the proposal put forward by the president of the General Assembly to establish the Human Rights Council.

• • While some of the wording is weaker than what we would have preferred, we consider it to be a reasonable and fair compromise, and believe that the proposal has the features needed to enable the future Council to deal more objectively, and credibly, with human rights violations worldwide.
• We are concerned about any further delay in creating a Human Rights Council.

Responsibility to protect

• The principle of responsibility to protect populations from mass atrocities, as stated in the World Summit Outcome Document, is clearly directed at those governments whose populations are suffering. It is also unmistakably directed at the Security Council, which has extraordinary tools at its disposal pursuant to the Charter.
• There should be no doubt that in situations of genocide, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing and war crimes, the Security Council has
• • a responsibility to act
  • without hesitation
  • and with authority and efficiency
  • in the face of threats to international peace and security.
• We would like to see the Security Council adopt a resolution that reflects the principles that should apply to the use of force as a last resort and express its intention to act in accordance with them.

Peacekeeping operations

• Norway wishes to strengthen the UN’s capacity to implement its peacekeeping mandates.

• The Government will step up Norwegian military and civilian engagement in UN-led peace operations, with a particular focus on Africa.
• • We have an on-going dialogue with the UN to that effect.
• Special attention is directed at participation in Darfur, provided there is a UN - takeover of the African Union’s mission (AMIS).

• • The decision made by the AU Peace and Security Council in Addis Abeba on Friday last week represents a significant step forward in this respect.
• We have noted that Sudan has made a UN takeover contingent on the conclusion of a peace agreement with the rebel groups in Darfur.

• • Norway will continue to support the peace process in Abuja hoping to contribute to an early finalisation of an agreement.
• The security situation in Abuja is worsening. There is urgent need to reinforce the on-going AU – led operation.
• A Norwegian military contribution to a UN – led operation in Darfur would consist of 150-200 personnel, preferably in a Nordic framework.

• • Norwegian participation would be dependent on a clear UN mandate to ensure maximum security for the forces.
• In order to implement peacekeeping mandates successfully, civilian elements in peacekeeping operations must be strengthened.

• • A well-functioning police and judiciary are conditions for lasting peace, reconciliation and development.
  • Norway will increase its contributions to civilian elements in peacekeeping, particularly to efforts that enhance the protection of women and children, and to police and judicial reform.
  • We wish to increase the number of Norwegian civilian police officers in UN-led operations.
• We will continue to stand by our long-term commitment in Afghanistan. [Re: Foreign Policy Address to the Storting on 8 February 2006].

Small arms

• The flow of illicit small arms and light weapons poses a serious threat to international peace and security.
• • Illicit small arms fuel conflicts and armed violence, which in turn impede development efforts in a number of countries.
• Norway strongly supports the 2001 UN Programme of Action Against the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons.

• • We must strengthen the development dimension of our efforts to curb the flow of small arms.
  • This summer’s Review Conference of the UN Programme in New York will provide an opportunity for us to agree on common objectives, and on a framework for cooperation, assistance and sharing of resources.
• I would like to inform you that Norway will organise an expert seminar on small arms and development in Oslo next week (22-23 March).
• In order to curb the illicit trade in small arms, legal production and trade must be better regulated and more transparent.

• • Arms brokering is typically an activity that is not often regulated by national laws. This enables unscrupulous brokers to circumvent arms embargoes and provide arms to undesirable end users.
  • Norway believes there is a need for a legally binding international instrument to regulate arms brokering. We cooperated with ECOWAS, the Nairobi Secretariat and the OSCE, on concrete projects in this field.
• We must not permit weapons to be transferred to actors who use them to violate international humanitarian law or human rights principles.

Disarmament and non-proliferation

• Global and legally binding treaties on non-proliferation and disarmament have set fundamental norms against the spread of weapons of mass destruction. These norms are increasingly being challenged.
• The unsuccessful review conference for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) last spring, and the failure of the UN Summit in September to send a clear message on disarmament and non-proliferation, give little cause for optimism. At a time when proliferation challenges abound, we are struggling to move the disarmament and non-proliferation agenda forward.
• This is why Norway took the initiative, together with the UK, Australia, Indonesia, South Africa, Chile and Romania, to identify concrete steps that we hope will create positive momentum.
• • We consider it vital that progress is achieved in all three pillars of the treaty:
  • • Disarmament
    • non-proliferation
    • and peaceful uses.
• We want to use our position on the Board of the IAEA to strengthen the agency’s capacity for carrying out its verification tasks under the NPT. We will continue to work for full implementation of safeguards agreements, and for the additional protocol to become the verification norm.
• It is essential that we deal with the proliferation challenges posed by Iran and the DPRK. We have consistently advocated negotiated outcomes that accommodate the non-proliferation concerns of the international community with the right to peaceful uses in accordance with the NPT.
• We want to find a solution to the questions related to Iran’s nuclear programme through multilateralism.

• • Norway has consistently advocated a diplomatic solution within the framework of the IAEA.
  • Teheran must understand that bringing the matter to the attention of the UN Security Council does not mean that all prospects of finding a political solution within the IAEA have been exhausted.
  • Iran must respond in a constructive manner to the demands put forward by the international community.
• Together with the other nations of the seven-country group, we will work to strengthen the capacity of the UN to fully implement Security Council resolution 1540 on the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
• We will continue our efforts to revitalise the role of the UN General Assembly in disarmament and non-proliferation matters.

A few words on WTO – issues

• The WTO Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong in December showed that the negotiations are moving forward. Some modest progress was made. But just as important was the fact that ministers from 149 countries were able to reach agreement.
• • This proves that this multilateral negotiation system is still intact.
  • The alternative to multilateral agreements negotiated through the WTO is a plethora of bilateral agreements or no agreements at all.
  • Either of these would be likely to result in the domination of the weak by the strong, and the developing countries would not improve their market access.
• In Hong Kong, agreement was reached

• • on eliminating all export subsidies by the end of 2013.
  • It was agreed that the industrialised countries, and those developing countries that are in a position to do so, will grant quota- and duty-free access for most goods from the least developed countries.
  • As you know, Norway has already done this.
• The developing countries also gained acceptance for their demand that market access for their agricultural and industrial goods should be a key element of the Development Round, and that the level of ambition for agricultural products and industrial products, including fish, should be comparatively high.

• The Ministerial Conference strengthened the impression that although the developing countries are not a homogeneous group, they are able to rally behind common demands at important junctures.
• • We have not seen this before in international negotiations
• Developing countries are demanding their fair share of world trade, particularly in the field of agriculture. The same countries now hold the key to agreement in more and more areas.
• Improved market access is a positive and equitable development, and one the Government welcomes and intends to promote, as we did in Hong Kong.

Sri Lanka Peace Process

• It was very encouraging that the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE met in Geneva three weeks ago for discussions on how to strengthen the implementation of the Ceasefire Agreement.
• We strongly welcome the parties’ renewed commitment to upholding the Ceasefire Agreement, including to bringing an end to political motivated killings. The statement by both parties also re-confirmed their commitment to fully cooperating with the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (SLMM) in its task of monitoring the Ceasefire Agreement. This, too, was very encouraging.
• The main priority now is for the two parties to implement these commitments and prepare for the next meeting in Geneva on 19-21 April to discuss in greater detail how to further strengthen the implementation of the Ceasefire Agreement.
• We are hopeful that the parties will, through these talks on the Ceasefire Agreement, build confidence, and that it will also be possible to resume political talks on possible solutions to the 23-year-long conflict in the near future so that the peace process can be brought back on track [towards a sustainable solution that is acceptable to all the people of Sri Lanka].

Conclusion

• Other issues: Ibsen 2006. One important project – among others – in Egypt in the Autumn.