Foreign Minister Jan Petersen’s statement to the Storting on foreign policy, 27 January 2004

Translation from the Norwegian

Check against delivery

Mr President,

During the Cold War era, it was relatively unproblematic for us to gain the understanding and support of our close friends and allies because of our vulnerable geographical position.

Now the situation has changed radically. We are no longer regarded as threatened, but as a privileged nation in one of the most peaceful corners of the world. The competition for the international community’s attention has become much fiercer. In a way this is fortunate.

But our need for good, responsive partners has not lessened. On the contrary, time and time again we have experienced that networking is absolutely necessary in order to gain recognition and acceptance for our views and interests. And we have also experienced the opposite, i.e. how difficult it can be to achieve good results when negotiating from a hugely inferior position.

Good contacts and a network based on shared values and interests will often determine the success of our efforts to met the challenges we are facing.

Reciprocity is one of the keys to networking. In order to maintain and strengthen our support from nations that can help us, we must be prepared to contribute in areas that are important to them. Hence, we must demonstrate that Norway is ready to support its close partners, and that we are thus a useful and valuable co-operation partner.

Our involvement in peace processes, our participation in peacekeeping and stabilisation operations, our efforts to promote human rights, our extensive humanitarian efforts and development co-operation can also be viewed in this perspective. We will be good and reliable partners for our closest partners, but we ourselves must decide where and how. Our contributions – and our strong support for the UN – reflect Norway’s determination to take responsibility and the fact that efforts to achieve a world based on binding international co-operation, international law and freedom from want and strife are clearly in our own self-interest.

Moreover, our contributions to international efforts reflect a 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.

Thus, the aim of Norwegian foreign policy is both to safeguard national interests – directly and indirectly – and to fulfil our shared political and moral obligations. The one does not exclude the other.

Our relations with the EU are an example of this. By co-operating constructively with the EU, we are helping to build peace and stability in Europe, for example by supporting economic growth, promoting social cohesion, reconstructing war-torn societies and supporting democratic reforms. By doing so, we are also investing in our own security.

At the same time our engagement is helping to lay the groundwork for a broad network in Brussels and bilateral contacts in the European capitals. Since we have chosen to remain outside the EU, we have to work even harder to safeguard our national interests.

Our contributions to the economic and social development of Europe will become even more visible in three months’ time, when we will have a new and enlarged EU and EEA. In order to retain our access to a market that will comprise an additional 75 million people on 1 May, when 10 new countries become members, we will have to contribute nearly NOK 2 billion a year to the new financial arrangements in the EEA. This is a tenfold increase in our contribution. In relation to its population, Norway will be one of the countries in Europe that provides most support to the new member states.

I have been asked whether this is money well spent.

The enlargement in itself is important for Norway. An EEA comprising an additional 75 million people will give us greater market opportunities, especially when the purchasing power of this market increases. It will also further enhance our political ties to the ten new EEA countries.

However, such large sums cannot be justified purely on commercial grounds. The political motivation is at least equally important. Norway is one of the wealthier countries in Europe. We have a clear responsibility for helping to reduce social and economic disparities in Europe. It would be irresponsible and unwise of us not to contribute to the historic process that is now taking place in our part of the world.

Mr President,

Let me continue on the subject of Europe. The EU and the NATO enlargements in 2004 will entail great changes in the foreign policy landscape.

An additional seven countries in Central and Eastern Europe are about to become our allies in NATO. Ten new countries are joining the EU and the EEA on 1 May. The EU and NATO will then comprise most of a continent that was previously divided into opposing blocs.

The referendums in the new member states have shown that there is strong popular support in Central and Eastern Europe for the foreign policy that has led to these countries joining the EU and NATO. Forced co-operation, such as that experienced by many of them in the Soviet Union or under the Warsaw Pact and COMECON, leads to oppression and inequality. The EU and NATO are organisations of free and independent states that have chosen to enter into binding co-operation because that is the best way to deal with many of today’s challenges.

An enlarged NATO and an enlarged EU will comprise countries that differ greatly from each other, both in terms of political culture and in terms of economic development. These are differences that must be reduced through co-operation and concerted effort. A great majority of the countries of Europe will in the future conduct most of their international co-operation within the EU and NATO and between the two. It is clear that this will have great significance for Norway and, not least, for how we can and should safeguard Norwegian interests.

The EU is not just being enlarged geographically. The co-operation is also being broadened and deepened. Last summer the Convention on the Future of Europe put forward a draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. The objective is to simplify and streamline the EU decision-making system. The EU Summit in December failed to agree on the proposal, particularly because of dissension over voting rules. The voting power of the respective EU countries in the Council has, however, always been a difficult issue. It must be possible to explain and justify compromises to voters and national assemblies. But the EU countries’ inability to agree on such important issues was definitely a setback.

The EU is continuing its efforts to agree on a new treaty. I met my Irish colleague in Dublin just after Ireland took over the EU presidency on 1 January. He confirmed that they are seeking to move the negotiations forward and refused to accept that there was a "crisis". Even though the outcome of the process is still fairly open, we must not underestimate the EU member states’ determination to find a compromise – as they have demonstrated time and again.

The Government will follow the EU constitutional process closely. A more open, democratic EU with effective decision-making mechanisms is also in Norway’s interests.

It does not look as if the new draft provisions will in themselves pose any particular difficulties for the continuation of the current EEA co-operation if they are adopted. Nonetheless, we are facing difficult challenges in our relations with the EU.

Mr President,

There is no denying that it is becoming increasingly difficult get attention in the EU for EEA co-operation. We have to admit that the EEA is more important to us than it is to the EU. Moreover, after 1 May we will be facing a larger, more complex and increasingly self-assured EU. In order to safeguard our interests, we will have to engage in lobbying activities in the Commission, in 25 capitals rather than the current 15, and in the European Parliament. This will be a demanding task.

The forthcoming EU enlargement will weaken the influence of Norway and the other two EEA countries in relation to the EU. We number five million, and the EU will number about 450 million. We have to realise that this will make it more difficult for us to exert an influence, and to gain a hearing for our views when decisions are being made.

What is more, when EU co-operation is extended in areas in which we have little or no formal affiliation, this will reduce the value of the EEA Agreement.

As stated in the proposition to the Storting on consent to ratification of the extended EEA Agreement, which will be deliberated in the Storting this Thursday, all the parties agree that the Agreement should enter into force on the same date as EU enlargement takes effect. I have been optimistic about this, but it now seems unlikely that all the EU countries will manage to complete the necessary internal procedures in time to ratify the Agreement by 1 May.

In order to ensure that co-operation in an enlarged EU/EEA can begin on the same date the enlargement takes effect, the European Commission has proposed an exchange of letters providing for the provisional application of the EEA Enlargement Agreement. The Government is in favour of this solution provided that the Storting gives its consent to Norway’s ratifying the Agreement.

The proposition also notes that Norway will, through the two new financial arrangements in the EEA, participate in the common European effort to prepare the new member states for taking part in the enlarged Internal Market. The EEA financial mechanism is to be used among other things for environmental measures, conservation of the European cultural heritage, education, research and health. Funds provided through the additional Norwegian financial mechanism are to give priority to measures for strengthening the judiciary, regional co-operation and technical assistance related to implementation of EEA legislation.

Decisions on how to use these funds will be based on the wishes and priorities of the recipient countries. However, the Government expects that Norwegian companies and institutions will be involved when appropriate.

Norway will be making an annual contribution of some NOK 1.8 billion, which will provide significant support for economic and social development in Europe.

Mr President,

The Government will continue the dialogue and co-operation with the EU on foreign policy issues, particularly as regards the development of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), but also on the crises and conflicts in which we have been involved in finding solutions. In our view, it is essential that the ESDP is developed in close co-operation with NATO. This is important for Norway and crucial for maintaining confidence and co-operation across the Atlantic.

The EU’s new security strategy also emphasises Europe’s responsibility for contributing to security and stability in neighbouring countries. It also aims at strengthening multilateral co-operation to combat terrorism and other security threats. The broad-based approach outlined in the strategy, with an emphasis on prevention through the combined use of the EU’s many resources, corresponds largely with Norwegian policy. Given the way the development of this strategy is proceeding, it seems unlikely to create tensions in NATO. In my opinion, it will on the contrary benefit all of us.

Mr President,

The countries of the Western Balkans also have a natural place in European co-operation. The EU wishes to draw these countries more closely into EU co-operation by supporting reform processes and helping them to adapt to European standards. Croatia is the Western Balkan country that has made most progress in adapting to the EU, and it has applied for membership. If Croatia fulfils its obligations to the Yugoslavia tribunal, the path may be clear for membership negotiations. This could help to enhance stability and development both in the region and in Europe as a whole.

The Government endorses the EU policy aims vis-à-vis the Western Balkan countries and will continue to support the implementation of co-operation projects that will enhance their integration into both European and Euroatlantic co-operation. At the same time it is important that we shoulder our share of the responsibility for supporting local efforts to promote democratic development in the region. We must not ignore the danger signals that are still coming from this war-torn area.

Mr President,

Norway will hold the chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe from May to November this year. Norway has always given priority to the Council of Europe and actively supported it. We will continue to do so. The organisation is doing very important work in its core areas, such as the promotion of human rights, the rule of law and good governance. It is an important tool in the efforts to prevent conflicts and build democratic societies in our part of the world. But if the Council of Europe is to be able to perform its tasks as effectively as possible in the future, reforms are called for.

First of all, Norway has been actively involved in the efforts to improve the efficiency of the European Court on Human Rights. The court is one of the mainstays of European efforts to promote human rights, but during recent years it has been struggling with an explosive increase in its workload and growing capacity problems. One of our most important priorities during the Norwegian chairmanship will be to strengthen the court.

Secondly, Norway will try to gain acceptance for the need for the Council of Europe to sharpen its focus and concentrate on areas where it can do a better job than other organisations, particularly the EU and the OSCE, and where it can complement their efforts, primarily in the fields of human rights, the rule of law and democracy building. The aim must be for the organisations to complement each other, not compete with each other. This is particularly important as regards the relationship between the Council of Europe and the OSCE.

Thirdly, we want to further develop the Council of Europe’s role in conflict prevention, for example by promoting dialogue between ethnic groups and religious communities.

Mr President,

The question has been raised why this government’s political platform (the Sem declaration) contains such a clear reference to the importance of NATO and the transatlantic ties when Norway and other European countries at times disagree with the USA. But this is easily answered. Anybody who is looking for friends who agree with them all the time is looking in vain. We have a fundamental community of historical, cultural and political values across the Atlantic, which is essential for us to maintain and develop further. Therefore, I was pleased to see at the NATO ministerial meeting in December that the Alliance is in the process of putting the problems connected with the Iraq conflict behind it. We disagreed, but now we are in a new phase that is bringing us together: building a democratic Iraq. This is a demanding task, and calls for a concerted effort rather than reviving old differences. And now that the dictator is gone there is an opportunity to build a better Iraq.

At the same time, we must be aware that European views on key issues do not always coincide with American views. We are disappointed that the USA has chosen to remain outside important multilateral agreements. Here I am thinking for example of the Kyoto Protocol, the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. In the trade policy area, we also see that the USA occasionally acts unilaterally in relation to WTO rules. On the other hand, the USA accepted these multinational rules when it accepted the WTO’s ruling in the recent steel case.

Norway believes that it is vital to strengthen the transatlantic ties in the years ahead. The new security threats, such as international terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, call for a common approach on both sides of the Atlantic.

NATO heads of state and government will come together in Istanbul on 28 and 29 June. At the summit they will draw up the political framework for the work of the Alliance in the years ahead. A key topic will be NATO’s continued involvement in Afghanistan. I would not exclude the possibility that the USA and other close allies may request a role for NATO in Iraq that goes beyond the support the Alliance is currently providing in the Polish-led sector. If this happens, I will of course discuss the matter with the Storting.

However, the Americans did not propose a stronger role for NATO in Iraq at the ministerial meeting in December. On the other hand, it was significant that European countries that have assumed substantial responsibility in Iraq, such as Poland, Spain and Italy, put considerable emphasis on this. In the light of these and the new American signals, we expect that this will be a topic of discussion in the run-up to and during the NATO summit in Istanbul in June. At that point we will be closer to the time when an Iraqi government will be taking over, which will an important juncture for Iraq. This will make it even clearer that decisions must not be made with an eye to old differences, but on the basis of Iraq’s future needs.

Norway expects that the decisions necessary for the EU to take over the NATO-led operation in Bosnia-Herzegovina will also be taken at the Istanbul summit. It would be best if this could be done at a NATO-EU summit held in combination with the Istanbul summit. Efforts are being made to arrange this, and if they are successful, it will be a powerful manifestation of the fundamental co-operation that has been established between the two organisations.

The Istanbul summit will also mark the integration of NATO’s seven new member countries into the Alliance, which means that the major dividing lines in Europe have now definitively been eliminated. Relations with the partner countries are also expected to be strengthened given the interest these countries are showing in closer co-operation with NATO.

Mr President,

NATO’s new Secretary General has stated that the primary focus for the Alliance at the moment should be on Afghanistan. This coincides with what I said in my statement to the Storting just before Christmas. NATO’s leadership role in the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) will be vital for the further stabilisation of Afghanistan, and will have considerable influence on the way NATO co-operation develops. Hence, it will be important for NATO’s credibility. The situation in Afghanistan is difficult, and it will take time to resolve it.

The date of 4 January, when the grand assembly, or Loya Jirga, agreed on the new Afghan constitution, was a milestone in the country’s history. The constitution strengthens the rights of both women and ethnic minorities. At the same time, however, the process leading up to its adoption revealed major political, ethnic and religious differences.

The Norwegian guard and security company that was deployed to protect the Loya Jirga meeting helped to maintain security during the assembly. There can be no doubt that we made an important decision, and the right one, in deploying the company. The company will now continue its mission in other capacities until summer 2004.

In my statement to the Storting on 17 December, I mentioned the plans for the gradual extension of ISAF’s area of operations in Afghanistan, and emphasised the importance of the Provincial Reconstruction Teams. I also said that Norway is prepared to take part in one of these teams in co-operation with other Nordic countries and the UK. Discussions on these plans are under way, with a view to deploying a team this year.

In addition, the government has decided to offer the Afghan authorities up to ten police instructors to participate in training Afghan civil and border police in 2004. This will be done in co-operation with Germany, which is responsible for the international co-ordination of the efforts to build up the justice sector in the country.

The tasks ahead of us in Afghanistan are many and complex. They will require a long-term, purposeful effort on the part of the international community. The government is prepared to contribute to this in co-operation with like-minded countries.

Mr President,

The developments in Iraq and in Afghanistan cannot be considered in isolation from the situation in the region as a whole, especially the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. It is therefore highly regrettable that it appears to be extremely difficult to achieve any progress in the peace process. The lack of trust between the parties is being compounded by terrorist acts and military action. There appears to be a lack of the will required to achieve the goal set by the international community: two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace, with safe, secure borders.

But in my view the goal can be reached if the parties implement measures that will improve security and restore confidence. The Palestinians must show the willingness and ability to take active steps to combat the terror that is being perpetrated by extremist Palestinian organisations. Israel, for its part, must remove settlement outposts and halt the extension of existing settlements and the building of new ones.

No responsible country would dispute Israel’s right to defend itself. But it is equally clear that the Israelis must refrain from the use of force that is out of proportion to the threat facing the country and its citizens. In this connection I would emphasise that in the government’s view the route chosen for Israel’s separation barrier is in conflict with international law. The barrier will be a serious impediment to all attempts to restore confidence between the parties. I am afraid that it may create a new situation on the ground and thus make it even more difficult to arrive at a two-state solution.

The international community, for its part, must make use of all the means at its disposal to support the peace efforts. The members of the Quartet – the UN, the EU, Russia, and especially the USA – have a heavy responsibility here. But at the end of the day it is the Israelis and the Palestinians themselves who must take the necessary steps to bring the peace process back on track.

What can Norway do here? We must support those forces on both sides that want the negotiations to be resumed as soon as possible. An example is the architects of the Geneva Initiative, who are visiting Oslo today. Even though the situation has reached a deadlock, we must not forget that most people on both sides are in favour of the immediate resumption of the negotiations and a two-state solution.

Another important task is to prevent the Palestinian Authority from being weakened further, and to alleviate the difficult economic and social situation of the Palestinians. Norway is a major contributor to the Palestinian Authority, and the government is planning to continue its allocations to various economic support schemes.

The continued existence of the Palestinian Authority is a fundamental condition for achieving a two-state solution. To ensure this, Norway, as the chair, convened a meeting of the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee for the Palestinians (AHLC) in Rome last month. The fact that the meeting was attended by my colleagues from Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and the EU Presidency, together with the President of the World Bank, shows that we are not alone in taking the situation seriously.

At the meeting it was decided to establish a special trust fund for budget support, where the payments are to be conditional on concrete progress in the financial reforms. The government is planning to channel part of our contributions through the fund. As chair of the AHLC, I will make an active effort to mobilise support to the fund from other donors.

At the meeting we also discussed the obstacles and the increase in costs that the Palestinians meet as a result of the Israeli closure policy. Once again, I raised the issue of how important it is to alter this policy with the Israelis.

The Israeli Foreign Minister, Silvan Shalom, presented what he called a "positive agenda" at the meeting. He said that if it is implemented, this will alleviate the economic and social situation of the Palestinians. So far we have not seen any evidence of such an agenda being implemented.

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. In this connection, the positive developments we have seen in Libya and Iran as regards weapons of mass destruction should be noted.

The UNDP Human Development Reports for 2002 and 2003 highlighted one of the many challenges that need to be dealt with in the region: the lack of dynamism in many Arab countries. Even though these countries have abundant natural resources, large parts of the region suffer from growing poverty, inequitable distribution of resources and a democratic deficit. The reports reflect the same point as was made by the UAE minister of higher education in The Washington Post earlier this month, "Arabs want the same things most people do: freedom, justice and equality. But their political regimes often deny these basic rights because they fear being held accountable."

This challenge has not been systematically analysed in the West either. It is to be hoped that the dialogues that are now taking place in various contexts will lead to more politically-oriented action.

Mr President,

The peace negotiations between the Sudanese authorities and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) show that the parties are taking responsibility for putting an end to 20 years of civil war and suffering for the Sudanese people.

We regret the fact that the goal of the negotiations was not quite reached before the decision yesterday to adjourn them. Nevertheless, the peace process has made good progress since the parties started direct negotiations in September 2003. The agreements on security and military arrangements and on wealth sharing in the interim period confirm the parties’ determination to reach a final peace agreement.

We hope that the break in the negotiations will be short-lived, and are keeping in contact with the parties to persuade them to resume the negotiations as soon as possible. We also hope that the parties will make use of the break to make preparatory contacts with a view to rapid resolution of the outstanding issues. These include the status of the three disputed areas in the border region between the north and south of the country: the Nuba mountains, the Southern Blue Nile and Abyei. The parties also have to reach agreement on the last outstanding issues as regards the division of political power during the six-year interim period. Once these issues have been resolved, the parties will be able to sign a framework agreement that will be the last decisive step towards peace in Sudan. We hope and believe that this will take place no later than February.

The parties must agree on various practical matters relating to the implementation of a peace agreement, including ceasefire arrangements. It will therefore probably be several months before the final peace agreement can be signed.

The international community has made an important contribution to the efforts to reach the war-affected population of Sudan. The efforts of NGOs such as Norwegian Church Aid and Norwegian People’s Aid have been particularly valuable. International IGO efforts have also played an important role in the peace process in Sudan. The regional organisation the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), under Kenya’s leadership, has been a prime mover and facilitator of the negotiations. Norway, together with the USA, the UK, Italy, the UN and the African Union, has co-operated closely with IGAD and the parties. Nevertheless, the parties themselves have been in charge of the negotiations. This is important in terms of getting them to take responsibility for implementation of the peace agreement.

The implementation of the peace agreement will require a long-term international commitment in Sudan.

I would like to emphasise that the agreement will only be the first step towards normalising the situation in the country. The peace agreement must be secured by broad-based international efforts. Under the auspices of the IGAD Partners Forum, Norway and Italy are in charge of preparing for such efforts, and will host a donor conference in Norway when a peace agreement has been signed.

Norway’s role in the negotiations entails a commitment, and the government is prepared to live up to this. If a peace agreement is achieved in Sudan the government will give favourable consideration to participation by Norwegian personnel in a UN-led force when the need and funding for such a force has been clarified.

Mr President,

It is now almost two years since Norway helped to broker a ceasefire in Sri Lanka between the Government and the Tamil Tigers, or LTTE. This is the longest ceasefire since the civil war started more than 20 years ago. The success of this ceasefire is to a large degree thanks to the work of the Sri Lankan Monitoring Mission, where the Nordic countries are providing observers to monitor compliance with the ceasefire agreement. After a six-month break in the negotiations, the way was clear last autumn to resume the negotiations between the parties with a view to establishing an interim administration for the traditionally Tamil-dominated areas.

But while the peace process between the parties was making progress, disagreement arose between the Prime Minister and the President on who was to control the peace process and the military forces. Norway has made it clear that we cannot facilitate the resumption of negotiations until the Sri Lankan government clarifies the division of responsibilities. We have noted that there is still disagreement, and that there is little to suggest that the President and the Prime Minister will reach agreement in the foreseeable future.

In this situation Norway is giving priority to assisting the authorities and the LTTE by ensuring that the ceasefire is still being respected. I am pleased to note that the President, the Prime Minister and the LTTE are still explicitly expressing their full support for the ceasefire and the Nordic observers, who are under Norwegian leadership. It is also worth noting that there have been no serious breaches of the ceasefire in the last few months. Nevertheless, there are grounds for concern that it may gradually be weakened if a long period of time goes by with no prospects of further negotiations.

It is also important to encourage both the authorities and the LTTE to continue their efforts to resolve the economic and social issues they are concerned about. Norway will, in close contact with all the parties, other governments and international organisations, seek to assist them in this. We are also prepared to facilitate formal negotiations again whenever the parties request us to do so.

Mr President,

It is perhaps not always immediately obvious that Norway has a national interest in all the areas where we are engaged. But this certainly does not apply to the broad co-operation we have established with Russia in many different fields. Our regional and local co-operation is especially extensive in the northern areas. We are taking advantage of our chairmanship of the Barents Euro-Arctic Council, which lasts until autumn 2005, to enhance the breadth and diversity of the co-operation in the north.

The Plan of Action for Nuclear Safety Issues, our project co-operation with Russia and the Investment Fund for Northwestern Russia are our most important national tools for dealing with the challenges in the Barents Region. The government is also co-operating actively with Russia in the Arctic Council, the Council of the Baltic Sea States, the Adjacent Areas programme of the Nordic Council of Ministers and the EU’s Northern Dimension.

The parliamentary elections in Russia last month confirmed the widespread and lasting popularity of President Putin and his programme for reform, stability and co-operation with the West. There is every reason to believe that President Putin will use the political room for manoeuvre that the election has given him to continue the economic reforms and the close co-operation with Western countries. At the same time, we must follow closely how these opportunities are used as regards the development of civil society, freedom of expression and democratic rights.

Norway will continue its efforts to develop its good relations with Russia, and will build further on the firm foundation that has been established over the last few years. We have everything to gain from binding co-operation with the Russians in all areas of common interest.

In particular, the government will continue to co-operate actively with Russia on nuclear safety in Norway’s neighbouring areas. This co-operation has had good results, but it also poses a number of dilemmas.

We are facing major challenges in this field. In Norway’s neighbouring areas there are several nuclear power plants, a large number of decommissioned nuclear submarines, storage facilities containing considerable amounts of spent reactor fuel, and both solid and liquid radioactive waste. Along the coast of the Kola Peninsula there are a hundred or so lighthouse lanterns which run on unsafe and highly radioactive power sources. We are facing environmental and security threats that it is very much in our own interests to deal with.

The Russian authorities are giving priority to this work, but they are dependent on external help. Ever since we began our co-operation with Russia we have sought to promote stronger and broader international engagement in this field. A legal framework is now in place, the Support Fund of the Northern Dimension Environmental Partnership is operational, and the G 8 countries have joined together to raise USD 20 billion to destroy weapons of mass destruction and dispose safely of weapons materials in the former Soviet Union.

Norway is involved in all of these efforts, including the G 8 co-operation. Russia and the G 8 countries are giving high priority to the dismantling of decommissioned submarines, and so are we. We are taking part in setting priorities and drawing up guidelines for the practical work, including requirements for environmental impact assessment of individual projects.

There are many reasons for the nuclear problems in Russia. One is that the Russian inspection authorities are too weak. One of our priorities is therefore to help to strengthen these authorities.

We need to know more about Russia’s handling of spent nuclear submarine fuel, especially about the environmental impact of reprocessing spent reactor fuel and of the various alternatives that exist.

Storage is one alternative. But it will take a long time to develop the necessary storage capacity. Some experts believe it could take as long as ten years. But we cannot shelve our nuclear safety efforts until this problem has been solved. That would increase the danger of releases of radioactivity and accidents and heighten the risk of radioactive material falling into the wrong hands. Therefore, we must both continue our nuclear safety co-operation with Russia and work on finding alternatives to reprocessing.

We are now dealing more actively with these issues, both bilaterally vis-à-vis the Russian authorities and in international co-operation fora. Moreover, the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, as the Norwegian expert body in this field, has been given an even more central role in the implementation of the Plan of Action for Nuclear Safety Issues.

The government will discuss these issues further in a white paper on Norwegian northern areas policy to be published before the summer.

Mr President,

I would like to end my statement by saying a few words on the status of the WTO negotiations. In my statement to the Storting on 13 June last year, I explained why the WTO is so important to Norway. I emphasised that it is a priority for Norway to seek to ensure that the WTO can continue to play a central role in international trade policy. A stable and predictable framework for world trade is essential for ensuring economic growth and greater prosperity, both here at home and in the rest of the world.

The government therefore regrets the fact that last year’s ministerial conference in Cancún was not able to agree on the political decisions that are needed to move the negotiations forward in a constructive and balanced way. The government will do what it can to ensure that real negotiations can be resumed as soon as possible.

However, the failure to reach agreement has not created a mood of crisis in the WTO. The attitude is pragmatic, and there is general agreement that more time is needed.

I took part in an informal ministerial meeting on the WTO in Davos last Friday. This meeting, and other talks I have had since Cancún, have confirmed that we have been through a period of reflection, and that the focus is once again on how we can make progress. An initiative proposed by US Trade Representative Bob Zoellick was favourably received, and there is now a willingness in several quarters to find solutions. In Davos, the central questions around the table were how WTO member states can show flexibility, and how we can restart the real negotiating process.

The ministerial meeting in Hong Kong towards the end of 2004 could be the next milestone. But this will require WTO members to put their flexibility and willingness to compromise into practice.

Mr President,

In my view there is no doubt that it is the small and medium-sized countries that have most to lose from the lack of progress in the WTO negotiations. Large countries are better able to arrive at bilateral or regional solutions where they have decisive influence. An indefinite halt in the negotiations, accompanied by the expansion of bilateral and regional free trade agreements or similar arrangements, would be an extremely undesirable situation.

Unfortunately, there are already signs that this is happening. The USA is in the process of negotiating with Australia and several countries in Latin America and Asia. Australia, New Zealand and Japan, which were previously strongly opposed to such agreements, are drawing up agreements with the USA and their neighbours in Asia.

In spite of all the assurances that agreements will be in line with WTO rules and will support the multilateral trading system, there is little doubt that in this situation it is the strongest who will prevail. Small countries such as Norway, and the developing countries to an even greater degree, may well have to stand by and watch the large countries acquiring market access and other advantages for their goods and services in attractive markets.

How can this trend be avoided? What is needed to bring the negotiations back on track? The meeting in Cancún and more recent consultations illustrate what I have emphasised on a number of occasions: agriculture is and will continue to be the most important and the most difficult topic in the negotiations. The Doha round will stand or fall by agriculture. The focus will be on real concessions from all parties, and not only the concessions that are easy to make.

I will go into more detail on this topic in my answer during the interpellation debate later today. For the moment, I would just like to emphasise that both a short- and a long-term strategy for moving the negotiations forward will require all countries, including Norway, to adjust their positions.

The government will of course continue its active efforts to achieve its priority goals in all areas of the negotiations. At the same time we must seek to ensure that an overall outcome is achieved that everyone can live with. I won’t deny that this may involve difficult choices. But given the long-term importance of the trading system for stability, economic growth and prosperity, the government is determined that Norway will not stand in the way of solutions that will bring the Doha round safely into port, but on the contrary will actively seek such solutions.

I will inform the Storting further about the Doha-round as and when it is necessary.

Mr President,

In my statement today, I have tried to show the value of solidarity and the costs of trying to stand alone, and to demonstrate that Norway must make an international contribution in order for its voice to be heard.

I opened by emphasising our need for partners, on the principle that we help ourselves when we help our friends. Some people may say that "friends" is not strictly speaking a relevant concept in foreign policy. I can understand this: we can hardly expect other countries to relinquish their national needs and interests just for our sake.

But there is one thing I am sure of: if we do not make use of our resources to do as we would be done by, we will not gain the solidarity of those with whom we have common interests and who can help us to realise our foreign policy objectives.