Som framført (transkribert fra lydopptak)

Innledning

Tusen takk! – For en nordmann å komme til København – så er det alltid å komme til Kongens by. Med de nye tonene fra den danske regjeringserklæringen, tar jeg signalet om at til de danske stasjonssjefene kommer både den norske og den danske statsminister. Kanskje er vi på vei mot noe nytt og spennende?

Og vi merket oss jo at den svenske utenriksminister sa – etter at Sverige forlot fotball-VM – så ville hun ikke ha noen favoritt, i hvert fall ikke Norge. Men den erfarne diplomat Lars Løkke Rasmussen skjønte jo at dette var hans anledning, så han sa ‘Jeg velger Norge!’. Jeg kan fortelle at populariteten hans steg. – Så små er fortsatt dette lille landet i nord.

Gode venner, dette er ikke én av de totalt 588 000 ferieturer nordmenn tar til Danmark hvert år – som jeg er på i dag. Men det er meg en stor glede å være her.

Og jeg har stor respekt for danske diplomater. Dere er i Sikkerhetsrådet. Det er en nordisk visjon ved det. Dere har formannskapet nå i august.

Jeg har hatt et nært samarbeid med mange av dere. Jeg ser at Jarl er her; han var ambassadør i Oslo. Og for å ha et møte med (den daværende) opposisjonslederen, så foreslo han å møtes på ski. Det smelter jo en nordmanns hjerte. Jeg tror det var 20 kuldegrader den dagen vi gikk. Imponerende.

Louise har vært ambassadør nå og en vi har hatt gode samtaler med. Og vi ønsker velkommen til Anne som nå skal være hos oss i Oslo.

«Det er dejlig å være norsk i Danmark». Jeg tror det også er deilig å være dansk i Norge. Det er over 900 000 danske overnattinger i Norge hvert år og 50 prosent av reservasjonene på Hafjell alpinanlegg er danske. Ja, så det er litt deilig å være dansk i Norge også.

Det er deilig å være både norsk og dansk. Og så skal jeg si, kjære møteleder, at det er deilig å bli forstått. Derfor kommer jeg til å snakke på engelsk. Jeg vet at Jarl og Louise – de skjønner meg. – Men en del av dere andre, dere nikker vennlig, men forstår ikke helt.

Nordic identity

So, friends, I would like to begin with this Nordic approach, since this is on the agenda.

I would like to set the scene by saying that Norway and Denmark share a number of fundamental interests. We share culture, and I think our populations share more or less the same aspirations for their lives, for themselves and their loved ones. And in politics, domestic and international, we are – as politicians – here to serve. In short, I think we have the sense of being Nordics – it is an identity issue.

Seen from the outside, the Nordics are very much the same. When you sit in Tokyo or in New York, you would think of the Nordics as the same countries. But – 35 years as a civil servant, as a diplomat, as a foreign minister and prime minister – I discover every year: there is Nordic diversity.

Take history. Each Nordic country has their own history. It is pretty different. Take geography – fundamentally different.

Take our industry structure and the structure of how we organize our administrations. Since the Swedes are not here, we can talk about them; just think of the ‘myndighetene i Sverige’, the authority they have, beyond political control. It's amazing. Very different.

But the identity part is there, we have that in common, and I think that is important.

And right now, we are small states, and exposed, in a tougher environment. – Focusing on securing our interests, our security, our sovereignty. I know Mette (Frederiksen) is talking about that. We are talking about that together. We are protecting our land and our people and resisting pressure and intimidation, which I think is something we face at many corners.

And still, we also have this Nordic aspiration of contributing to a better world, where we can. – In areas where we may not have direct national interests, but we see that there are areas where we can make a difference. And we have that ambition.

Norway has its particular history, its particular history also with Denmark. When I became foreign minister, I entered the building and outside there is a statue of the first foreign minister of modern Norway in 1905 (Jørgen Løvland). A famous quote of him as foreign minister was that ‘the best foreign policy is to have none’ (‘vi vil ingen udenrikspolitik have’). – This was neutrality, in 1905. And one can understand why, because that was the policy of avoiding to be crushed by the big powers.

It is a great contrast to today, because in our times and this government –and I think in politics today – it is about having an active foreign policy and an active development policy. – To be able to safeguard these interests.

So, there is a long journey from newly independent Norway in 1905, a poor country, to where we are today and who we are today.

Nordic cooperation projects

I would like to touch on this, because I think if we're going to do more Nordic together, let's find out where we have comparative advantages to do so. We have to get it right.

The big question has often been asked; can the Nordic circle be the solution to this challenge? After 1945, Nordic politicians thought that it could be the answer to defence, to currency and to market. It all failed.

Today, we have currency, but it is at a European level. Today, we have a common market, but that is the European market. You are an EU member. We are in the EEA. And security has always ended up to be a euro-atlantic issue.

In some areas were we able to move ahead. – That was in culture, labour market and passports. We had passport free travel in our region in the 1950s. It's a sad sign of our times today, that you have to show your passport when you come by ferry from Copenhagen to Oslo. But that's the reality.

So, the question is: You are in the EU, we are in the EEA, we are both in NATO, we are both in the UN; so, what do we do as Nordics inside these structures? We face similar challenges from complex geopolitics.

There are wars going on in Ukraine and Iran. And your Prime Minister and I work closely on Ukraine – both of us. We experience ‘weaponization’ of trade. We experience pressure on the rule-based order. And we face all the global challenges – from climate, AI, arms race and a very unpredictable ally across the Atlantic.

So, where is Norway heading – on these themes? Let me answer that question by reflecting on the following: There are three issues, areas or topics, where Norway is often particularly asked to share our opinions – because we have a special background to do so: On energy, on Russia, and on the Arctic. I experience that when I travel in Europe, across the Atlantic and all the way to Asia.

Energy

So – first on energy.

It's important to do so here in Copenhagen because I read Danish papers. I read all these allegations about how can we tolerate that Norway is becoming rich on the backbone of a war going on in Europe?

Let me just run it through with you: You found oil before we did. You made your choice in the early 1960s to set that out to a private company, and you taxed it pretty much like you tax the industry.

We did a different thing. We came in in 1970. We took state control. We established Statoil. And we taxed them very heavily, we still do – 78%. And in the beginning, this was a major area of deficits and investments – and, you know, preparing for trying to break even.

And in 1996, the first sovereign wealth fund was created, and the first dollar was set aside. The idea was that we are transferring values from under the seabed to the bank. – And we decided this rule that we would not touch that fund. It would be for eternity and for common generations. So, we're only allowed to consider using 3% of the returns (‘the fiscal rule’), only 3%. And in my government's time, we have been up to 2.6-2.7%. So, this is how it is running.

For a small state with large resources, you have to reign that in. But it gives us a responsibility as a rich country. That's why we are still at 1% of GDP to ODA, development support.

And that's why, last year and this year, we allocated 85 billion kroner to Ukraine. We're about to settle next year on a similar level. That's the highest rate per GDP, and the second nation after Germany, at the time being. And it should be like that.

But I would just like to mention – and I think pragmatic Danes can understand: If we were to say; that these prices went up for a certain period because of the war in Ukraine – and then you had to take part of your dividend and give it to Ukraine. If we were to reflect like this, what about Iran? Prices have gone up because of US attacks on Iran. Should we then say, well, a certain proportion of what is coming into that fund now should be given to the Kurds in Iran, or others?

So, what we have to do, I believe, is to be transparent when prices are going up and when they're going down, and we're managing this in a responsible way. And there were times, you know – I think in the 1970s, I remember; voices were saying that we should support Israel by selling cheap oil to Israel. Or in the early 1990s, we should sell cheap gas to the newly independent Baltic states.

I think that the only thing a country can do – is to say; we will sell at market prices, but then we will support through another channel, which is political cooperation and investments.

Today, Norway is providing 30% of Europe's gas, 40% of UK’s gas. Our Statkraft company is the leading renewable energy company in Europe.

And we are, as you know, working on our grid. We are working on new renewables, which I think the next big chapter will be offshore wind. You are developing this in shallow waters, where you can have it permanent on the seabed. We are trying to venture into the floating mills, because we have deeper waters; technologically challenging.

But if you think about the world; as if you can really do that and deliver that technology, there will be a huge opportunity to develop renewable energy around the world.

So, the energy will stay, as I discussed with the president of the European Commission; she is saying that we are going through a renewable transition in Europe. We support that. We know that our ‘oil and gas age’ will be a transition – downwards, because the resource base will go down. But – as she is saying – while we do that, in the next two or three decades, we need the stability from reliable Norwegian gas delivery.

And we need to develop the technology of carbon capture and storage, which we do – and you do. So that you can use the gas without emissions. So, this I think, is a major thing for us on policy, on industrial policy, and how we can contribute in the bigger European setting.

Russia and security

Second, on Russia, and this, I think, is a very important issue to remind ourselves that geography is coming back with a ‘vengeance’. Geopolitics is really about geography. So, where you are, what you see, depends on where you sit, or the other way around.

Observing the world from a Danish perspective – with your history and geography – is different from sitting and doing so in Oslo. Think about that for a short while.

Historically, the big challenge for Denmark was Germany. Until you found peace and agreements and cooperation and EU and NATO – with Germany. We don't choose our geography. We are bound by the fact that we have 200 kilometres of common land border with Russia and huge ocean areas. So, Russia is a defining dimension of our identity. Finland has 1300 kilometres common border.

So that's why we can never take our eyes off Russia and how and where they develop. And I remember, after 1990, how many countries did take their eyes off Russia. And for good reasons, because there were other areas too.

We can never do that. In 1990, there were 5,000 border crossings at our common border with Russia in the north; in 2013 – 300,000. Now, we are down to 70,000 because there are basically almost no relations.

I remember – I told the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, who was my negotiating partner on the delimitation of the Arctic Sea. I said, Sergei, ‘Russia is almost a normal country’. And he was a bit upset about that. And I said, ‘we don’t know, because you are in transition. It's hard to tell where you're going to land’.

And it is amazing that this regime, which is waging war, you know, promoting terror on other people, harassing in a totalitarian style their own people. – It's the same people who we dealt with then.

I negotiated with Sergei Lavrov, the limitation in the sea in the North, we had 170,000 km² disputed area, and we were able in 2010, after 40 years of negotiations, to reach the limitation line that divided this area, 50/50, split in two.

And the line was drawn according to the most modern principles of the Law of the Sea. And I remember the Financial Times wrote that ‘this is also Russia’. And we were hopeful; that two years after the attack on Georgia, could this perhaps just be another route?

It didn't turn out that way, so we cannot take our eyes off them. Our policy is based on what we call deterrence and reassurance. Reassurance is not about being soft. It's about being predictable and long-term.

And in that picture, we say – to the US, our closest ally; we are 100 kilometres from the world's largest nuclear arsenal. And that's why I found it important to be early in the Oval Office and tell President Trump across the table that these weapons, Mr. President, they are not directed against me, but against you.

And that's why – following this understanding – that this is US homeland security, I think, ‘the American deep state’ in a positive sense, their CIA, their defence, they understand. I did not test whether he understood, but I made the point that, you know, this is why we have a very, very deep cooperation with the US, especially in the North, especially on intelligence, especially on what goes on under water.

And it is a very strong trilateral dimension to that also – with the UK. And I believe that it also brings Norway and Finland close, because – again – we can never take our eyes off Russia. This is where we have our land borders and Russia are reconstituting the Leningrad military district, which will be up along our borders. And we are following that very, very closely.

For Norway, this is about tailoring our defence to the fact that we have Russia as a neighbour. All the countries in the Nordic region have tailored their defence structures on other dimensions, on having international operations. We have also participated in Afghanistan and elsewhere, but we can never take our eyes off our own realities.

And I think – what NATO has done over the last years, you know – it came to a point where NATO officers knew more about the mountains in Afghanistan than the fjords of my country. Attention is brought back to some of the core functions of the Alliance, which is happening now.

So, for us, it is really about our own defence. It's about deepening our defence with the Nordics. I think we have done some major decisions now – to ask our defence structures to cooperate towards 2030 – to really be coherent together.

We are working very deeply with Denmark. We are united in Norfolk in the NATO command, for the first time. We have all five Nordic countries with Sweden and Finland in that command. – Very important. We have the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF), where the Nordics, UK, Netherlands and the Baltics are together.

And Norway is participating in the industrial defence programs of the European Union. And we have a security arrangement in our cooperation with the EU.

In addition to that, we are in my government conducting what we call ‘the hedging strategy’, which is to say that the European structure of NATO is not going to be ‘outside NATO’. It has to be a strong Europe inside NATO. And that's why we have to build those structures in a way that keeps the UK involved. If you take UK, US, Canada, Turkey, Norway, non-EU members of NATO, that is 80% of the defence capacity of NATO. So, we have to work in that direction.

We are deepening our relations with the UK, with a special defence agreement, which is based on the fact that Norway will buy our frigates from the UK, which in general will mean a fusion with our neighbours. They will be similar. And it means that we can operate theirs, they can operate ours, and in a time of crisis we can merge them together, both industrially and tactically.

And we will be buying and developing together new submarines with Germany. So that's another ‘hedging agreement’ that we have made with them. We have also concluded a similar agreement with France. We will also take part in the dialogue on the nuclear dimension with the French, and we are about to finalize our agreements with Poland and Canada.

Canada will come into our Nordic framework. I'm sure I will be visiting Prime Minister Carney in a few weeks, and we are clearly moving in that direction. The clearest sign is that Canada is joining the Norwegian-German submarine cooperation. They will buy 12 of the same submarines, that is important.

And we are together strong on supporting Ukraine. I intend to sign together with the Ukrainian president an agreement on strategic partnership, between Norway and Ukraine, and I think Denmark is experiencing the same thing. We still support Ukraine, but now it is more of a balanced relationship because there is a lot we can benefit from their horrific experience.

The Arctic

So – that being said, on Russia and the defining dimension it has on our policy, I will end on the Arctic.

When we came in government in 2005, with me as Foreign Minister, we said that the High North is the strategic priority of Norway. And since then, it has been like that, for Jens Stoltenberg’s government, for Erna Solberg's government and for my government. It's a priority in our foreign and security policy.

What is it all about? It's about managing that Russian dimension, which is shifting. It's about being ahead on ideas as the rest of the world discovers the Arctic – be it China, Japan, India, European countries.

It is going to become an area because the ice is melting; you can sail from Rotterdam to Japan using 40% shorter time by going the North-Eastern route than going the other route. This is going to happen in one way or another. So, we have to be ahead of ideas.

How do we manage? The defence reinforcement which we now do – is based on unanimity in our Parliament. It has a strong northern, Arctic dimension. A lot of the defence and the navy and air capacity will be northern bound.

And that's why we also bring many more of our foreign colleagues on visits to give them security briefs in the High North on their travels. As with Mark Rütte’s first travel. And a few months ago, I had a visit with Chancellor Merz and Prime Minister Carney with me to Andøya. It is not a typical place for a German Chancellor to go. That was his first visit, but this was about space and Arctic and how to explore the opportunities.

And we are also working on – and let me end on this – on this fundamental principle of arguing that the Arctic is not a ‘terra nullius’ when it comes to international law. – And I can remember, in 2007-2008, with (Foreign Minister) Per Stig Møller, we worked to anchor the Ilulissat declaration. Yes, you should go and find it, because it's an important declaration, signed by both Russia and the US, at that time. The US has not accepted the international Law of the sea, but they signed an agreement which is based on the Law of the sea.

So, for us, this is not a legal ‘empty space’. And that is why our position on Greenland and on how you handle it in the kingdom and how we stand up to those forces – and that particular force who wants to infringe these rights – is so fundamental, not only for that specific topic, but again, because managing the Arctic and its natural resources, its climate challenges, its security challenges – it has to be based on this.

More Nordic cooperation

Okay, so energy, Russia and the Arctic. I will end by saying – yes, we should do more together, but let's do it in the right areas where we really can do things together – and not waste our resources.

I proposed, some years ago, that the Nordics, together as a group, should aspire to be a member of the G20, and if we did, we would be number 11. I think it really would have made sense. In my Prime Minister time we have been partner country in G20 two times – under South Africa and under Brazil. We will also in some way be going to the US’ G20 summit now in December.

It would have been far stronger if we did it as a Nordic group. But – here again, you are in the EU, we are not. And I think; let's see what are the opportunities where we don't weaken other interests.

Now, a few points where I think we really can do more:

One is to shape this Northern European security and defence structure inside NATO – based also on cooperation in the EU structures, and based on cooperation with the UK, and the northern countries. We hear from the German Chancellor and the Canadian Prime Minister saying that ‘we are also Nordics’, ‘we are looking north’. And I think it was the outgoing British Defence Minister who said – he reminded me that during the Cold War, the threat from the Soviet Union, and so the British focus, was Hannover, that's where they had their strategic focus, if it were to be an attack to Europe. Now the focus is north of the Shetland Islands.

So, friends, this is in our waters. It's a maritime dimension of it. It is the challenge of the free sailing routes and so on. So, here I think, you know, the Nordics being in the same command, having a Nordic defence agreement, Norway and Denmark working close together, we have to really put our thinking into how we build this European dimension of defence.

The second element is on climate and green transition. There are a few issues which are promising – when, in 2022, we chaired the Nordic cooperation, and we had a Prime Minister meeting, and Mette (Frederiksen) and I were there, where we tasked our ocean research people to work on Skagerrak and the sanity of the waters around there. And these researchers tell me that this has been very fruitful. They have moved ahead. There are huge EU programs on this now.

So, I think – on our near waters we can do things together. And the issue, for example, of carbon capture and storage, I believe also Denmark has come strongly there. We have to work on that in our own economy, but also take that technology out. It's good for our businesses and it is also absolutely fundamental to reach our climate objectives.

And we can take important climate issues out there to the international climate debate, for example, rainforest preservation, which is by far the most effective climate change mitigation measure that countries like Norway and Denmark could promote.

The third point – it is the Arctic obviously – to set the agenda; it requires close exchanges, protect the legal framework, coordinate well, and stand up to those who try to infringe on us.

And I also believe, although it is so extraordinarily global in nature, that on issues like artificial intelligence, quantum technology, and how we deal with that, as societies. We will never make the big difference in innovation or technology, but we will be leading nations in the application of it.

And that's why the main theme we are going to have among the prime ministers today will be protection of children against social media, internet, all around us. That will be the theme among Nordic prime ministers.

I think that's very appropriate because we can work on that together. I am promoting a proposal of a law to have a 16 years age limit to access certain social media, and we will discuss that.

The bottom line is that to achieve this, among Nordics, among Norway and Denmark, we have to be lucid and make our efforts where we can make a difference.

It will require common will. And let me just end on this. I think the Nordics is a useful ‘hedge’ for all. Sometimes the Nordic is off the agenda, but during those years we should not take our eyes away from it because it becomes very useful when it's on the agenda.

And that's why, for example, when we gathered around Mette’s dinner table, Swedish Prime Minister, Finnish president, and I, back in January 2025, I think that made an impression. That picture went around the world saying, ‘oh, the Nordics, are they talking about Greenland?’ But we cannot between the dinners be off that agenda. We have to update each other and be tactically smart. – Thank you!