Foreign policy address to the Storting 2026

(as delivered)

Mr President,

At the beginning of his autobiography, ‘The World of Yesterday: Memoirs of a European’, Stefan Zweig describes the era in which he grew up as the ‘golden age of security’.

He wrote the book while living in exile during World War II.

Zweig was born into a wealthy Jewish family in Vienna in 1881.

The ‘golden age’ he refers to is the period before World War I – a time of optimism and confidence about the future.

Zweig subsequently lived through World War I, the crises of the interwar years and the rise of nationalism and hatred. Europe was in the middle of World War II when he wrote the book.

The era we have grown up in, the period since World War II, has also been a golden age in many ways.

Out of the ruins left by the world wars grew a new international order.

The UN Charter and modern international law.

NATO, with its firm basis in the UN Charter’s right to self-defence.

The Council of Europe, which gave rise to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Free trade.

Economic integration in Europe.

Two main pillars have underpinned Norwegian foreign policy for 80 years: the UN and international law on the one hand, and the transatlantic alliance, with the US as the key guarantor of our security, on the other.

These two pillars are not separate and distinct; rather, they are two sides of the same coin. Ultimately, the aim is to ensure that relations between states are regulated by a set of common rules.

It is in our fundamental interests to preserve these rules. Our prosperity has grown out of our commitment to democracy, the rule of law and free trade.

Together with the rules and institutions of international law, these principles are the foundation of the liberal world order.

This world order has often been referred to as Pax Americana, because of the predominant role the US has had as security guarantor. This world order has defined our golden age.

Now, this liberal world order is under considerable pressure.

Last year, I started my foreign policy address to the Storting by saying that Norway is contending with the most serious security situation it has faced since the Second World War.

Now, one year later, I think it is safe to say that the situation has not improved.

Rather, it has become even more serious.

Does that mean that our golden age is over?

Russia’s illegal and devastating war of aggression in Ukraine continues unabated.

This weekend, we saw the start of a new major regional war in the Middle East. This is deeply worrying. I will come back to this a little later in my address.

Mr President,

A year into President Trump’s second term, we have seen a significant reorientation of US policy. The US has become more unpredictable. Over the past year, we have seen several examples of the US challenging the legal prohibition on the use of force as well as the sovereignty of other states.

It is the combination of these various factors that is making the current situation so serious.

We are living in a more dangerous, more unpredictable world. We must acknowledge this fact.

Nostalgia is not a strategy.

The world order that served us so well in the decades after the Second World War was by no means perfect. There are plenty of examples to show that the golden age we have enjoyed since the end of the Second World War has not been a golden age for everyone.

Nor is it a given that this golden age has to end as dramatically as the last one.

There are some opportunities here.

What, then, are the opportunities available to us as we consider Norwegian foreign policy in 2026?

This is what I will be talking about today.

Let me start with what is still our number one priority.

Russia’s illegal war against Ukraine is continuing at full force.

It is now 12 years since the annexation of Crimea, and four years since the full-scale invasion.

Russia is waging a war against Ukraine, but the aim is also to dismantle the security order in Europe.

Russia remains the primary threat to European security, peace and stability.

In today’s turbulent world, we need to focus on what is most important.

My first trip abroad this year was to Ukraine. There I experienced bitterly cold temperatures and Russian attacks first-hand.

It gave me a glimpse into how Russia’s war is continuing to affect the lives of millions of Ukrainians every single day.

Russia is trying to crush the Ukrainian people’s will to resist, partly by means of massive attacks on Ukraine’s energy supply. But there is nothing to indicate that Russia is succeeding in this. Quite the contrary, in fact.

Support from Norway and other allies will continue to be crucial to enable Ukraine to withstand Russia’s war of attrition.

In 2026, Norway will be providing NOK 70 billion in military support, and NOK 15 billion in civilian support to Ukraine. Our military support is being used to strengthen Ukraine’s own defence and deterrence capabilities. Energy security is a key priority of our civilian support.

I am proud and pleased, Mr President, that there is broad political agreement here in Norway on our support to Ukraine. This is a model that other countries are looking to emulate.

Norway will continue to be a reliable, long-term partner to Ukraine. And we will work tirelessly to maintain Allied and European unity on the issue of support for Ukraine.

At the same time, peace talks are now under way.

Any peace agreement must uphold Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and ability to defend itself.

It is positive that the US is engaged in the efforts to achieve a peace agreement in Ukraine. Continued US support is vital for Ukraine in its fight to defend itself against Russian aggression.

However, only Ukraine can determine the terms of a peace agreement and how it can be given legitimacy among the Ukrainian population.

It is also vital that Europe is involved in shaping a peaceful solution. Norway has played an active role in building the new Coalition of the Willing.

Regrettably, there is little indication that Russia wants peace. The Kremlin appears to be willing to suffer heavy losses for minimal territorial gains.

At the same time, the Russian economy is struggling. The sanctions are working.

We must keep up the pressure on Russia to change its war calculus.

It is not impossible that a ceasefire will be agreed in the course of 2026.

If there is a ceasefire, we must do our part to ensure that Ukraine is not then subjected to new aggression. Lasting peace is only possible if it is backed up by credible defence and deterrence capabilities.

Norway will continue to work to strengthen the Ukrainian Armed Forces, even after a ceasefire has been achieved. We have said that we are willing to contribute to security guarantees in Ukraine once a ceasefire is in place. Prime Minister Støre and President Zelensky have recently agreed to start work on drawing up a strategic partnership agreement between Norway and Ukraine, to the mutual long-term benefit of both countries.

Mr President,

The way this war ends will cast a long shadow over post-war Europe.

We must plan now to be able to move forward with promoting reconstruction and growth in Ukraine as soon as a ceasefire is in place.

Paradoxically, in spite of all the suffering and brutality it brings, war can also act as a unifying force in a society.

When the war ends, there will be major challenges to address as we work to rebuild the country. Internal divisions in the country could flare up.

A clear plan for reconstruction and growth in Ukraine will create hope for a better future. It will also be important in terms of European security and stability.

We must assume that Russia will still be an authoritarian state with imperialist ambitions after the war has ended.

Norway pursues a consistent and predictable Russia policy. Russia must be deterred from threatening Norwegian or Allied security. At the same time, we must work, within the framework of NATO, to reduce the risk of conflict and misunderstandings.

We are strengthening our defence capability. And we are strengthening our national preparedness and resilience in order to be able to deal with new and complex threats.

Mr President,

As the war in Ukraine continues, the international agenda so far this year has been largely dominated by the US.

We are dealing with a US leadership that is challenging many of the core values we have shared in recent decades.

The shifts in policy we are seeing are also affecting established norms for relations between states and respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty.

In response, we need to stand up for our values, and speak up when we disagree. And we have done so.

We must acknowledge that our partnership with the US is becoming a different kind of partnership.

We are facing new dilemmas in our foreign policy thinking. Whereas previously we were used to viewing free trade, international law and human rights as parts of a single ‘package’, the picture is now more complex. It is no longer possible to divide up the world into those we agree with and those we disagree with.

We share fundamental security interests with the US. Our bilateral defence cooperation with the US is vital in order to safeguard Norway. And we will continue to give priority to maintaining close cooperation in this area.

NATO’s capabilities are crucial for deterrence and defence in the north. It is therefore still in the interests of both Norway and Europe to strengthen NATO, and to keep relations with the US as strong and stable as possible.

Russia’s Northern Fleet and much of Russia’s nuclear arsenal are located on the Kola Peninsula, not far from Norway. These nuclear weapons are not aimed at Norway; they are aimed at North America. For this reason, the US has a strong interest in cooperating with us in the north.

As the Prime Minister said in his security policy address to the Storting in February, this means that Norway is closely tied to the protection of the US homeland.

We must therefore take a long-term view of our cooperation with the US. We must respond wisely to the statements coming out of the US, and we must show that European unity has never been stronger.

In order to maintain a credible defence of our country and its neighbouring areas, Norway is dependent on support and reinforcements from Allies. This is particularly the case with regard to our maritime areas, but it is also true in a range of other contexts, including NATO’s collective defence of our region. It is in the long-term interests of Norway, Europe and the US to maintain close cooperation.

The US has confirmed that it stands by its obligations as a NATO member. The US nuclear security guarantee is particularly important.

At the same time, the Trump administration has created uncertainty about the US’s future role in the defence of Europe.

This is not really anything new. The US has long made it clear that Europe must shoulder greater responsibility for its conventional defence, and we are doing just that.

Europe is assuming more responsibility and is strengthening the European pillar of NATO. All NATO members have, for example, committed to allocating 5 % of GDP to defence-related expenditures.

A stronger Europe is our best security guarantee – both in terms of safeguarding our own security and in terms of maintaining US engagement in Europe.

We are giving priority to expanding and deepening our cooperation with our northern European partners. This year we will be chairing the Nordic Defence Cooperation (NORDEFCO). The Nordic and Nordic-Baltic forums are becoming increasingly important.

The Government is expanding Norwegian security and defence cooperation with key countries in our region, such as the UK, Germany, France, the Netherlands and Poland.

Partnership agreements with the UK and Germany have already been signed. We are in dialogue with France on a similar agreement. This is all part of our hedging strategy.

We see that the EU is taking greater responsibility for European security. This is helping to strengthen cooperation in NATO and between European Allies. The French President has launched an initiative aimed at forging closer European cooperation on nuclear deterrence. We stand ready to discuss these issues within the framework of the work on a partnership agreement. At the same time, I would like to make it quite clear that Norway’s policy on nuclear weapons remains firm. There are to be no nuclear weapons on Norwegian soil in peacetime.

The fact that Europe is assuming more responsibility was also a key takeaway from the Munich Security Conference two weeks ago. One year after Vice President JD Vance’s scathing attack on Europe at the 2025 conference, what we saw this year was a more united, more self-assured Europe.

Key European leaders confirmed that there is now general recognition that we are dealing with a changed US, and that Europe needs to shoulder more responsibility itself. Not just in the area of defence, but also when it comes to economic security, strategic autonomy, the rule of law, democracy and to building open, tolerant societies.

I believe the time has come to declare that the Pax Americana we grew up with is over. The US has voluntarily abdicated from its role as guarantor of the liberal world order. This does not mean the inevitable collapse of the principles it represented. These can still be saved if enough of us take responsibility.

The fact is that we are having to deal with a different US.

That said, Russia will continue to be the greatest, most long-term threat to European security. It is Russia that stands to benefit from any disagreements or divisions within the Alliance.

And it is worth remembering that there have been disagreements within the Alliance before, yet NATO has endured.

NATO has ensured our security for 77 years, and our membership of the Alliance will continue to be the cornerstone of Norway’s security policy.

Mr President,

At the beginning of this year, the issue of Greenland dominated the international agenda.

The US’s Allies in NATO were clear in their message that Greenland is a part of the Kingdom of Denmark.

The issue also showed that the other Allies were able to respond rapidly and increase their presence.

Let me reiterate once again: the future of Greenland can only be decided by the people of Greenland and Denmark.

Respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states is the very foundation of a world order based on international law.

The question of how to enhance security in the Arctic must be addressed within the framework of NATO.

Mr President,

The Arctic is ‘hot’, in both senses of the word.

International interest in the Arctic has never been greater, due both to geopolitics and the dramatic pace of climate change.

Climate change, which is taking place more rapidly in the Arctic than anywhere else in the world, remains the greatest threat in the Arctic. It is affecting conditions in the region, but also has far-reaching global consequences.

Climate change is also one of the factors contributing to the change in the security situation.

It is important to understand what Arctic security is really about.

The Arctic region itself is unlikely to be a source of a new international conflict.

But if there were to be a conflict between Russia and the West, the sea areas immediately north of Norway would be of great strategic importance from the outset.

This is why NATO has now agreed to strengthen the Allied presence in the Arctic. Norway has been working to achieve this for decades. We welcome the fact that the Arctic has moved higher up the NATO agenda.

The Cold Response military exercise starts next week. This joint exercise demonstrates NATO’s strength and unity – tens of thousands of soldiers from many different Allied countries will be taking part, including a large contingent from the US.

The High North is the Government’s most important strategic priority. Whereas other countries are only now turning their attention to the Arctic, the region has always been important for us. For Norwegians, the Arctic is not a remote place. We live and work in the Arctic. Viable local communities and strong, credible defence capabilities ensure stability and security in the north. This is even more important now than it was before.

It is therefore crucial that we are involved in shaping NATO’s Arctic agenda. We must ensure that it is firmly grounded in the realities of the region, which we know so well.

As international interest in and uncertainty about the Arctic grows, so does interest in Svalbard. This does not mean that Svalbard is under pressure. Svalbard is just as much part of Norway as any other area of the country. Svalbard is different from Greenland both geographically and politically, and the two cannot be compared.

Our Svalbard policy is consistent and predictable and has remained unchanged for a long time. In 2024, the Government presented a white paper on Svalbard. We are now following this up in a range of areas. We have long experience of dealing with other countries’ interest in Svalbard and the surrounding areas, and we are well equipped to tackle current challenges. 

Mr President,

We will face some tough choices in the time ahead. In this situation, safeguarding our national security and the Norwegian economy must be our top priority.

In the current global circumstances, Norway cannot afford to stand alone. We must cooperate with countries that have similar interests and goals.

This means that we must forge closer ties with the EU, and we must strengthen our cooperation with key European Allies. This cooperation is vital both for the Norwegian economy and for Norwegian security.

The EU is continuing to develop its role in international security, and is introducing new initiatives to strengthen its overall defence capability and resilience. It is in Norway’s interests that the EU succeeds, whatever one’s opinion of Norway’s association with the EU may be. The purpose of these new initiatives is not to replace NATO. The collective defence commitments, and associated plans and structures, must remain in NATO. But it is clear that the EU has a set of legal and economic instruments at its disposal that NATO does not have.

The EU is developing civilian infrastructure in order to meet the need for military mobility. The aim is to put in place simplified procedures to ensure that personnel and military equipment can be moved quickly across national borders in the event of a crisis. The EU is best placed to coordinate these efforts. 

The landscape in which we are formulating our security policy is changing. We must accept this.

The National Security Strategy, which the Government presented last year, states that Norway must seek to participate in initiatives relating to the development of Europe’s security architecture.

We participate actively in European defence cooperation and in EU defence industry programmes. We are seeking to build on this further. 

Mr President,

It is not just in the area of traditional security policy that we are having to adapt to a new reality.

The distinction between security policy and trade policy is becoming increasingly blurred.

The issue of Greenland has illustrated this once again. President Trump used the threat of tariffs as a tool to exert pressure on the countries that supported the Kingdom of Denmark. In what was a matter of security policy, countries were threatened with tariffs, i.e. instruments of trade policy. Fortunately, these threats were retracted, in part following considerable pressure from the US’s NATO Allies and the EU. Nevertheless, this illustrates the fact that it is no longer possible to view security policy and trade policy as separate from one another.

We must acknowledge that we are more alone now when it comes to trade policy. We have chosen to remain outside the EU customs union and the EU’s common trade policy.

The fact that we are now more alone was illustrated last autumn, when the EU introduced global safeguard measures on ferroalloys, which also apply to Norway.

The ‘ferroalloy case’ was also a result of the fact that the EU now needs to protect its own industry against unfair competition and global overcapacity. Norway disagreed with the EU’s decision on this matter, and worked to secure another solution, but we too recognise the underlying challenge here.

Even though the EU has made it clear that it wants to maintain the integrity of the internal market, of which Norway is a part, and even though the EU has assured us that the issue of safeguard measures on ferroalloys was a one-off case, there is no guarantee that it will not happen again.

The EU is further developing and strengthening the internal market, but also taking steps to better protect the market.

There is broad agreement in the EU that Europe must become more self-sufficient. There is agreement that action must be taken to boost European resilience across the board. These efforts are driven by increasing geopolitical tensions and the need to reduce vulnerability in supply chains and individual countries’ strategic dependencies. This is what the EU means by strategic autonomy.

The work to enhance economic security is now being given higher priority in the EU, and is an important part of these efforts.

The EU will make use of a range of different instruments. Here, we must follow developments closely to ensure that our market access under the EEA Agreement is not weakened. Given that Norway is part of the internal market, the Government considers it important to provide input on matters that affect us as early as possible.

The Government seeks active cooperation with the EU on economic security, both to strengthen Norwegian resilience and to help identify common European solutions to economic security challenges.

Norway’s economic security is inextricably linked to the EU’s economic security. That is why we are now giving priority to the work of incorporating legislation relating to economic security into the EEA Agreement, and not least to dialogue with the European Commission and with EU member states on this increasingly important area of policy.

Mr President,

The EEA Agreement has never been more important for us. We have strong ties to the European market through the EEA Agreement, but this form of association also has limits. Policy areas not covered by the Agreement are growing in importance, including for Norway.

We can see, Mr President, that the gap between EU membership and membership of the EEA Agreement is becoming clearer. The main reason for this is not the relationship between the EU and the EEA EFTA countries, but the fact that the EU is expanding its cooperation in response to changes in the world.

For Norway, it is now important to avoid a situation where the instruments the EU is using to protect its own industry and strengthen its economic security create barriers for our participation in the internal market.

It is a difficult set of circumstances.

It is vitally important to ensure that Norwegian companies continue to have access to the internal market. It is therefore essential that we keep our own house in order too.

We must remember that the EEA Agreement is not a menu that we can pick and choose from, but a binding agreement under international law. It guarantees important rights for us as individuals and for our companies, but it also entails a number of obligations.

When we wish for ‘something more’ in our cooperation with the EU, we must keep in mind that there is someone sitting on the other side of the table. In order to gain something from the EU, we are expected to fulfil our part of the agreement.

Our relationship with the EU is robust enough to withstand challenges that arise.

But as in all relationships, both parties have to put in the effort.

We are therefore investing in our relationship with the EU.

We are not doing this to be ‘nice’ to the EU, or to avoid being unpopular in Brussels.

We are doing this to protect our own fundamental economic and security interests.

It is one of the most important steps we can take to safeguard Norway in today’s turbulent world.

The Government’s efforts in this area are based on Norway’s current form of association with the EU. We will work hard to safeguard Norwegian interests within this framework.

Mr President,

I am aware that people in various quarters are claiming that international law is now dead.

I reject this in the strongest terms.

While it is true that news reports are full of serious violations of international law, it remains the case that the great majority of countries actually abide by international law.

Here, I would like to hold up Ukraine as an example. Despite the extremely difficult situation the country is contending with, Ukraine goes to great lengths to ensure that its own forces comply with international humanitarian law. It deserves credit for this.

The issue of Greenland also shows that it pays off to stand up for international law. I was pleased to see the US’s NATO Allies speak up so clearly in defence of the Kingdom of Denmark’s right to sovereignty over Greenland and the right of Greenlanders to self-determination.

It is increasingly important to resist the trend of large states believing that they can simply disregard international law and act on the basis that ‘might makes right’. We must speak out against statements and actions that undermine respect for international law, whatever the situation. And when countries that we consider partners commit violations of international law, they must face rebuke like anyone else.

We have condemned Russia’s illegal war of aggression against Ukraine from the outset. But the political cost has been limited because we have done so together with a large number of like-minded countries.

We have also been clear in our criticism of Israel’s violations of international law in Gaza.

Similarly, we have been unambiguous in stating that the US’s intervention in Venezuela and the attacks on Iran did not comply with international law.

On the issue of Greenland, many countries voiced clear criticism of the violations of international law involved. It is natural to respond firmly when this is happening in a neighbouring area.

But that is not enough. If a rule is to be respected by all, it must apply everywhere, at all times.

Our consistency in criticising violations of international law gives our message greater impact on the Greenland issue as well.

Using double standards only serves to undermine your arguments.

Maintaining a principled defence of international law builds foreign policy capital for Norway. It is a strategic choice that proves its value over time. And it gives us greater credibility.

Mr President,

This weekend we awoke to the news of a new, large-scale war in the Middle East. I believe, unfortunately, that we must be prepared for the fact that the scope and intensity of this war could surpass other conflicts we have experienced in recent years. There could also be major repercussions for the global economy.

The war started on Saturday morning with Israeli-US attacks on Iran’s top leadership, command structure and military capabilities. Soon afterwards, Iran began a series of counterattacks extending to a number of countries that had nothing to do with the attack on Iran. At least 14 countries are now directly involved.

The attack on Iran has no basis in international law. There is no right under international law to go to war for regime change. Nor did this attack meet the strict requirements needed to qualify as a pre-emptive attack.

Iran’s attacks on cities and civilian infrastructure in other countries of the region by far exceed what is justified under the right to self-defence, and therefore represent a clear violation of international law. These attacks are completely unacceptable.

It is important to be clear on both counts.

The Iranian regime is a brutal, oppressive regime that has used extensive violence against its own population and has supported terrorist groups in other countries. Iranian missile and drone production has long been a source of significant instability in the region.

It is imperative to prevent Iran from having the opportunity to develop nuclear weapons. It is therefore highly regrettable that the negotiations between the US and Iran on a new nuclear agreement did not lead to a diplomatic solution.

Many Iranians, both in Iran and here in Norway, are sincerely hoping for a better future for the Iranian people. I understand that very well.

But as history has shown, air attacks rarely lead to regime change. I am concerned that this may become a long and bloody war that engulfs the entire region.

Mr President,

Norway will not be taking part in this war.

This does not mean that Norwegian interests are unaffected.

Thousands of Norwegians are currently in countries that are affected by this conflict. The Foreign Ministry has established a crisis response team to assist Norwegians in the region who need help.

The impacts of this war also extend to Norwegian business and industry, especially shipping. We are in close contact with the industries concerned.

How the war develops, and what happens with Iran, will have major consequences for the countries in the region.

In Syria, 15 months have now passed since the Assad regime fell. Almost 14 years of civil war are over. With the fall of Assad, Iran’s influence in Syria was greatly reduced. The situation in Syria is fragile and demonstrates the difficulty of transitioning from civil war to unified governance. Where possible, we are providing humanitarian, reconstruction and political assistance.

Mr President,

Once again, we see Palestine receding from the world’s attention.

Right now, I am particularly worried about the situation in the West Bank. Israel is unilaterally changing the status of the occupied areas in violation of both international law and agreements previously signed by Israel. Palestinians are being driven out of their homes by settler violence and military actions.

Norway has recognised Palestine as a state. Palestinian ownership and participation are essential if there is to be progress. This is why what is now going on in the West Bank is especially serious.

In Gaza, a fragile peace is in place. The humanitarian situation remains precarious.

President Trump has established his Board of Peace. This instrument challenges both a number of international legal principles and the role of the United Nations. Norway cannot therefore join the Board of Peace. Most other European countries have adopted a similar line.

Despite this, we are in dialogue with the US on how we can contribute to the implementation of the 20-point plan for Gaza. This plan has created a new dynamic.

Our efforts must be designed to make both the reconstruction of Gaza and the emergence of a unified, independent Palestinian state possible.

Mr President,

The world’s worst humanitarian crisis is now taking place in Sudan. Yet the conflict there is often overlooked.

The war has raged for almost three years. The country is in danger of falling apart. The scale of human suffering is enormous and hard to comprehend. The attacks in al-Fashir, the capital of the Darfur region, are comparable to the genocide in Rwanda.

Norway is continuing its active peace diplomacy in Sudan. We are working along three tracks: to achieve a halt in the hostilities, promote an inclusive political process and secure humanitarian access throughout the country.

Our active peace diplomacy reinforces our humanitarian diplomacy, and vice versa.

Mr President,

Farther to the east, we see Asia emerging as one of the world’s most dynamic regions.

The EU and other Western countries are increasingly turning their eyes to Asia. Norway is no exception. Sixty per cent of the world’s population lives in Asia. India and China each have a larger population than all Western countries combined.

How to deal with China is one of the most important questions of our time.

Many global issues quite simply cannot be resolved without the involvement of China.

China is the largest global actor in goods trading, climate efforts, green investment and research. China is a world leader in the development of tomorrow’s technologies – such as quantum technology, 6G and biotechnology.

We cooperate with China where it is in our interest. At the same time, China poses a growing security threat. For reasons of national security, we will therefore increase our vigilance in our dealings with China and Chinese actors.

We also disagree with China on a number of key issues, including human rights and the importance of democracy and protection of minorities to promoting national welfare.

In our dialogue with China, we stress that its support for Russia – both political support and the extensive supply of materiel and technology – is helping to prolong the war in Ukraine. Strengthening Russia’s military capability is clearly at odds with European security interests.

This illustrates once again that we are living in a more fragmented world. Countries cannot be easily divided into separate categories. Free trade, international law and human rights are no longer necessarily parts of a single package.

And the divisions cut across geographical boundaries.

Mr President,

India, South-East Asia and East Asia are dynamic, innovation-driven regions with economic growth and that offer significant opportunities for Norwegian actors.

Last year, Norway entered into free-trade agreements through EFTA with India, Malaysia and Thailand. This year we are working to finalise a free-trade agreement with Vietnam. ASEAN is Norway’s fifth largest trade partner.

The agreement with India is a milestone in Norwegian trade relations. India is an enormous market with major opportunities. Norway has technology and capital, and India provides Norwegian companies with opportunities to scale up their operations.

In January, the EU entered into its own free-trade agreement with India. It was described by President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen as ‘the mother of all trade deals’.

The figures speak for themselves: the agreement between the EU and India creates a free-trade market of two billion people and encompasses a quarter of the global economy.

Norway is also cooperating more and more closely with ASEAN, which is now our fifth largest trade partner, after the EU, the UK, China and the US. The ASEAN countries are undergoing rapid economic growth, they offer an abundance of green business opportunities, and their strategic importance is on the rise.

European and Asian security are closely linked. Cooperation between NATO and its partners in the Pacific – Japan, South Korea, New Zealand and Australia – is therefore important for Norway.

We have had a strategic partnership with Japan since 2023, and we have a shared ambition with South Korea to establish a similar partnership.

In a world of great powers, it is essential that the vast majority of medium-sized countries stand together. The examples I have just cited show that this is exactly what we are doing.

Mr President,

For a small, open economy like Norway’s, a well-functioning global trading system is becoming increasingly important.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) remains the foundation for much of the world’s trade. But it is not adapted well enough to the realities of today.

The WTO must be able to resolve disagreements between countries and ensure fair competition. The organisation now requires unanimity in all decision-making. We need a more flexible approach.

Reform of the WTO is therefore an important priority for Norway.

Later this month, I will be travelling to Cameroon to take part in the 14th WTO Ministerial Conference.

Norway is heavily involved in the negotiations that are taking place.

Our goal is to create a basis that will enable the WTO to again become a stabilising force in trade policy.

In my address to the Storting last year, I said that the UN was experiencing its worst crisis ever.

The UN Secretary-General’s response to the financial and political crisis the organisation is contending with has been to launch the UN80 Initiative.

The initiative is intended to bring about an ambitious, system-wide reform of the UN.

The UN must become more focused. The UN must return to its core mandate and the three pillars on which it was built: the prohibition on the use of armed force against other countries, respect for human rights across the world and agreement on cooperating to address common challenges.

These principles are just as important today.

It is the organisational structure of the UN that needs changing.

Successful reform will require broad support among the member countries.

Norway is working with a large group of countries from around the world to identify necessary compromises. My impression is that all regions recognise the benefits of a well-functioning UN, even if – or possibly especially when – the system is under severe pressure.

We must ask ourselves: in these turbulent times that we are living in, can Norway and the world get by without a global meeting place such as the UN?

My answer is no. And precisely because of our belief in the UN, we must equip it to respond to today’s complex global challenges.

Mr President,

The great power rivalry we are currently seeing is partly a race for technology.

Technology is no longer just a basis for economic growth. It has direct implications for security policy, trade policy, our core values and national sovereignty.

The race is not only about being first. It is about control of the value chain, from critical minerals to AI models. Raw materials and technology are an integral part of geopolitical competition.

New alliances are being formed around technology and raw materials. The logic is that dependency is a source of vulnerability.

Europe is far ahead when it comes to technology regulation, but we lack the major players that can drive technological innovation. We need to have both. The Government wants Norway to take an active role in ensuring that we do.

Norway cannot achieve digital sovereignty on its own. We will therefore work closely with northern European countries, the EU and other partners to ensure freedom of action, common standards and better alternatives.

Winning the AI race will require bright minds, microchips and not least a great deal of energy. Bright minds can be found everywhere, but China is the country that is way out in front on renewable energy.

China is investing massively in renewable energy – more, in fact, than all other countries put together. As these investments flow into large solar power plants and wind farms, renewable energy will quickly outcompete other forms of energy on price. This could put China in a leadership position.

If the US continues to insist on a future bound to fossil fuels, it risks shooting itself in the foot in the AI competition.

These perspectives are important to consider when Norwegians and other Europeans think about technological development.

Artificial intelligence is creating not only significant opportunities but also new vulnerabilities.

Our democracy, based on the rule of law and human rights, is a vital element in our defence against attacks by authoritarian forces.

External threats such as hybrid warfare and disinformation campaigns undermine trust in society and increase polarisation. The goal of those responsible is to spread instability and chaos.

Europe now faces major internal challenges: democratic backsliding, attacks on the rule of law and declining confidence in our institutions. We are seeing a backlash against important gender-equality gains.

Propaganda campaigns involving repeated rhetorical attacks on Europe – whether from east or west – are intended to reinforce these tendencies. Nationalistic and authoritarian movements undermine democracy and accepted rules and norms.

If we are to defend our values against these threats, we must cooperate closely and build democratic resilience. The EU has put forward a number of initiatives to defend democracy in Europe.

The Council of Europe is now working with its partners on a New Democratic Pact whose purpose is to make our democracies more robust against external attacks.

And we are developing new, innovative ways to involve younger generations in democratic renewal and foster their belief in democratic institutions.

In the years ahead, Norway will be the largest donor of funding for civil society organisations in 15 of the EU’s member countries – through the EEA and Norway Grants scheme. We also actively support the efforts to combat disinformation. These are vital contributions to addressing one of the most critical challenges we are facing in our work to defend democracy in Europe.

Mr President,

As I near the end of my address, let me remind everyone that the greatest challenge confronting the eight billion people on our planet is the climate and nature crisis.

In the years to come, we will see this crisis play out in multiple related ways: climate change, environmental degradation and loss of biodiversity, pollution and sea-level rise. These emergencies will be mutually reinforcing, and will threaten human welfare, food security and economic stability.

That is why this issue was at the top of the global political agenda for so long.

I only wish it still was. Instead, we now have to spend huge amounts of time and resources dealing with conflicts between countries – conflicts that could have been avoided.

Norway will continue to give priority to international efforts to address climate change and environmental issues – but we must acknowledge that this, too, has become more difficult.

That does not make it any less important. Efforts to tackle the climate and nature crisis will continue to be a key focus area for us.

Mr President,

The foreign policy landscape I have outlined today is bleak.

‘The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born: now is the time of monsters.’

These words were written by the Italian thinker Antonio Gramsci nearly 100 years ago, from one of Mussolini’s prison cells.

He describes the experience of living in the 1930s – a time of transition, insecurity and the collapse of old hegemonies. By ‘monsters’ he meant political, social and ideological dangers, including the forces of extremism. These forces gain strength when societal structures are crumbling.

There are several aspects of Gramsci’s description that we can recognise from our own time. But an important difference between the 1930s and today is that we actually know how the 1930s turned out.

And we never want to go back to that again.

We must realise what it means to live in a new time.

Not new in the sense that the principles sustaining our world order have all vanished.

But new in the sense that it’s up to us – the great majority in the world – to stand up for these principles. We must find new ways to defend them against the challenges of our time.

This will take maturity and honesty, and no doubt a framework of ‘values-based realism’, as Finnish President Alexander Stubb has called it.

Realism in the sense of understanding the world as it really is. And values-based in the sense of having a set of guiding principles that we consistently stand up for.

In this address I have pointed to a number of areas where Norway can play a constructive role, and perhaps nudge the world in a slightly better direction.

It has often been said that Norwegian foreign policy ‘will remain unchanged’. It is a phrase I have been cautious about using – because the world is changing so fast.

Yes, the underlying principles – democracy, the rule of law, international law – will remain unchanged.

But what we actually do through our foreign policy must be continually updated to meet the challenges before us.

So, we must set clear priorities.

The Government is working every day to keep Norwegian jobs and Norwegian businesses secure.

This requires effective cooperation with the rest of Europe, participation in the internal market and rules-based global trade.

And we are hard at work ensuring security for the country as a whole. Foreign policy is what makes domestic policy possible. All our other forms of welfare are dependent on Norway being safe and secure.

In 2026, we must do the following:

• We must give our full and unconditional support to Ukraine so that it can win the war against Russia.
• We must help to ensure that NATO remains credible and relevant.
• We must do our part to strengthen European unity and our community of shared interests and values, and cooperate more closely with the EU and other European countries in areas where it is in our interest to do so. We must clear away the obstacles to closer cooperation. And we must fulfil our obligations under the EEA Agreement.
• We must be consistent in our defence of democracy, the rule of law and international law. We must promote rules-based global trade. And we must help to create broader alliances. This will serve our interests.

By itself, Norway is a small country.

But when we cooperate with like-minded countries, in Europe and the rest of the world, our combined strength is considerable.

We may have come to the end of the ‘golden age of security’ that we grew up in.

But the world of tomorrow is still in the melting pot.

What it will look like is up to us.