STATEMENT ON NEW SECURITY POLICY FRAMEWORK
JAN PETERSEN, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

NORWAY MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

September 30, 2002

Ladies and gentlemen,

It is a pleasure for me to take part in this annual meeting in the Oslo Military Society in my capacity as Minister of Foreign Affairs. This is a tradition that offers an excellent opportunity to review the most important foreign and security policy challenges facing Norway.

Currently, the most acute security policy problems are related to the uncertainty surrounding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. This uncertainty is in itself a threat to international peace and stability.

The Iraqi regime is continuing to ignore the clear and binding demands laid down by the UN. These have been set out in a number of Security Council resolutions in which the country has among other things been ordered to destroy or remove all of its weapons of mass destruction and means of delivery, or to render them harmless.

To ensure that these demands are complied with, the Security Council has also ordered Iraq to give the UN weapons inspectors full and unrestricted access. Such access will be an important means of clarifying all aspects of the situation as regards Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. The aim is to ensure that the regime in Baghdad does not have access to such weapons.

The situation is made even more serious because the regime in Baghdad has previously shown that it is willing to use such weapons to achieve its aims. Iraq has twice invaded neighbouring countries, and has killed several thousand of its own citizens and Iranian soldiers using chemical weapons. We must therefore be prepared for the fact that in certain situations, Saddam Hussein may resort to such weapons again unless his regime is prevented from doing so.

For several years, Iraq has been denying that it possesses weapons of mass destruction. However, since President Bush spoke to the UN General Assembly on 12 September, Iraq has expressed its willingness to allow the weapons inspectors to return unconditionally. The Iraqis have also said that they are now prepared to discuss practical arrangements for the resumption of inspections with the UN.

It is too early to tell whether Iraq’s unconditional consent is a sign of a real change of attitude and willingness to comply with its obligation to cooperate fully with the UN. However, all previous experience indicates that promises from Baghdad should be viewed with the greatest scepticism.

Dr Hans Blix, the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, will be discussing practical issues relating to the conduct of inspections with Iraqi representatives. This will give us an idea of whether there are actually any new signals from Baghdad.

We must be prepared for the fact that the regime in Iraq will in practice obstruct the implementation of the Security Council resolutions this time as well. This is why the new signals have met with considerable scepticism in many countries, particularly in the USA and the UK. As I have mentioned, the main demand on Iraq is the elimination of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. We have received information – from the USA and other close allies – to the effect that Iraq has access to chemical and biological weapons and that the country will soon be capable of developing nuclear weapons if the regime manages to acquire highly enriched uranium. We have also been told that Iraq has delivery systems that will enable it to attack neighbouring countries with such weapons.

The dossier published by the British Government on 24 September corroborates this information. According to the document, Iraq is constantly taking steps to conceal such weapons in the event that the inspectors should return to the country. The dossier corresponds closely with previous studies submitted by independent research institutions such as the British International Institute for Strategic Studies.

However, in spite of all this information, the only way to answer these questions with any certainty is by carrying out a full and unfettered weapons inspection in Iraq. The main challenge facing the members of the Security Council, Norway included, is how we can guarantee credible inspections.

The discussions in the Security Council so far have shown a growing recognition of the necessity of intensifying the pressure on Iraq. The debate in the General Assembly also indicates that the international community will not accept that Iraq ignores binding UN resolutions. In other words, there is broad international agreement on the Security Council’s focus on the complete elimination of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.

There also seems to be a large degree of agreement in the Security Council on the necessity of intensifying the demand that Iraq provide full and unfettered access to the weapons inspectors, that this should be set out in a new Security Council resolution, and that a clear, unambiguous time-frame be established for the inspections.

However, it is too early to say anything definite about whether the five permanent members of the Security Council will be able to reach agreement on an ultimatum to Iraq, which in turn would provide the basis for coercive measures if the demands are not complied with.

The Government is extremely concerned that efforts should be made to eliminate Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems without resorting to military action. In order to achieve this it is, in our view, necessary to specify the demands on Iraq in a new Security Council resolution that leaves absolutely no doubt that failure to comply will have serious consequences for the country. We must bear in mind that the resolution must be worded in such a way that it produces the desired effect in Baghdad. This makes it even more important for the UN Security Council to reach a consensus so that its legitimacy, credibility and authority are upheld.

Another major concern of the Government is that any reaction to Iraq must be anchored in international law. This is why we have emphasized so strongly that the matter is the province of the Security Council. We are pleased that the USA has listened to advice from Norway and other like-minded countries in this matter.

A number of binding instruments have been established under international law to prevent the proliferation of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. Many of these non-proliferation regimes have gained almost universal adherence, which is a precondition for preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

Unfortunately, certain states have chosen to remain outside the international non-proliferation regimes. Norway has been actively seeking to get these countries to undertake their international obligations in this area for a long time. We will, of course, continue these efforts.

We are also aware that terrorist groups have tried to procure both nuclear weapons and chemical and biological warfare agents. And we know that al Qaida has tested chemical weapons on humans and animals.

The terrorist attacks on the USA last September showed in a particularly gruesome way that ruthless terrorists are willing to use any means to achieve their aims. Therefore, the thought of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of these groups is a frightening one.

This is the basis on which we must view the USA’s new security policy strategy, which sets out guidelines and perspectives for the USA’s approach to present security challenges. The strategy is an overall framework for US foreign and defence policy and is largely based on the perspective President Bush outlined in his State of the Union address in January, in which the fight against international terrorism had a central place.

Norway will now study the new strategy more closely. However, I hasten to say that the most difficult issue will without question be the issue of the preventive use of military force. In such a context, Norway attaches decisive importance to the rules of international law, and our aim is to promote an international legal order. It is important to be on guard against the effects of precedent, so that the preventive use of military force is not abused.

According to the strategy, the USA intends to work with the broadest possible coalition. The USA will use NATO, but presupposes that the alliance is capable of responding to a threat at short notice and anywhere in the world that a NATO country is threatened.

This is the background to the US proposal to establish a new, agile military response force for NATO. It is important that NATO is given the capability to act rapidly and effectively in the event of a crisis. It is also important that NATO continues to be the central forum for discussing the security and defence policy challenges facing the member countries. Therefore, we will participate actively in further allied consultations on this issue.

There is no conflict between EU plans to develop a separate reaction force and US proposals for creating a new rapid response force in NATO. The two forces will draw on the same national resources and will supplement each other.

We must strengthen NATO’s capability to defend the member countries against chemical, biological and nuclear attacks. At the same time, the NATO countries must be enabled to protect their own military forces and civilian populations.

. . .

The global coalition in the fight against terrorism is a clear manifestation of the US desire for broad-based international cooperation. This same desire is now also evident with regard to the situation in Iraq.

Our community of interest with the USA is based on values that are fundamental to both our societies. This firm foundation allows us to put forward clear Norwegian viewpoints in matters where our views differ. The Kyoto Protocol, trade policy issues and the International Criminal Court are examples of this. Most recently we have expressed to the Americans our positive attitude towards the ICC and made it clear that we cannot enter into agreements that could undermine the Court.

In other words, we are not trying to conceal the fact that "transatlantic tensions" do exist and that an open dialogue is important when there is disagreement. At the same time, we must recognize that as the world’s dominant major power, the USA defines its international interests differently and more broadly than Norway does. Therefore it is important for us to seek common solutions that also include the USA. We all know how much an international agreement is strengthened by US adherence.

. . .