Trest

Dear readers, we have the pleasure of bringing to your notice an article contributed by Norway's Ambassador to Russia, Mr. Oyvind Nordsletten. Disagreeing in many respects with the arguments of Vice-Admiral M.V. Motsak, (1) he sets out the Norwegian position in matters of cooperation with Russia.

Norwegians and Russians have lived side by side in the North for centuries. We are neighbors not only in the strictly geographical sense, but also because the populations of our two countries are linked by strong human bonds. Many tasks we face at the present time can be successfully tackled only by joint effort. This is why it is so important that Norway and Russia cooperate within the entire spectrum of points of contact. The national interests of our countries are not always the same, and that is quite natural. Nevertheless, we are still good neighbors, who have more things in common than differences. Where our views diverge, however, we must seek to find, via a constructive dialogue, solutions benefiting both our countries.

In the light of the foregoing, the Norwegian side has expressed much interest in the article by Vice-Admiral M.V. Motsak, "Russia's National Interests in the Arctic." It addresses a number of important issues in relations between Russia and Norway and therefore one would like to comment on some of them. Let me note in so doing that we attach much importance to contacts that have taken shape between the Northern Fleet and the command of the Norwegian Armed Forces in Northern Norway.

According to Vice-Admiral Motsak, there is a number of new threats to Russia, both economic and military, that pursue the aim of bringing an enhanced pressure to bear on her and restricting the range of her actions in the northern regions. In his opinion, it is the United States and Norway that keep to this strategy in the first place. I cannot agree with that view of our bilateral relations and the reason is this.

Both during the Cold War and after its end, Norway attached much importance to keeping calm and stability in the North, declaring, in particular, that it would not allow permanent peacetime basing of foreign armed forces and deployment of nuclear weapons in its territory. Substantial unilateral restrictions were introduced, as early as the 1950s, on the military activities of the NATO allies in areas of Norway bordering on the Soviet Union. Not abolished at the present time, these restrictions have only been adjusted to the new situation that took shape following the end of the East-West confrontation. When permitting a limited and temporary presence of foreign troops in the northernmost part of Norway, Finnmark, we intended to give Russia an opportunity to take part in the exercises held there as well. The allied military activities in Finnmark are as before strictly restricted and directed mostly at training small units, primarily within the Partnership for Peace framework. The holding in Finnmark of major exercises involving NATO forces is not envisaged, because we have drawn conclusions from the large-scale political changes that took place during the last decade and decided to create definite conditions for contacts and cooperation with our neighbors. A fine form of cooperation of this kind is cooperation within the Partnership for Peace framework. Russia was repeatedly invited to take part in exercises in Northern Norway, conducted under the aegis of that program, but she never expressed a wish of this sort. We are happy that Russian observers have at last agreed this year to attend the Nordic Peace games.

The Norwegian side is also interested in intensifying bilateral military cooperation with Russia. Much has been achieved in this sense, but there is still considerable unused potential. Close cooperation in connection with the tragic loss of SSN Kursk is an example of the kind of confidence we would like to have in relations between our two countries in the military area. Personal contacts of both countries' military leaders were of decisive importance for successful cooperation in that difficult situation.

Norway attaches much importance to cooperation between Russia and NATO, and we are satisfied that in the recent period relations between the Alliance and Russia have taken on a positive hue.

Norway will not allow a kind of foreign military activities as might be perceived as provocative or capable of creating tensions in relations with our neighbors. Vice-Admiral Motsak's claims that Norway builds up its military potential in the North are at odds with the real state of affairs. First, the scale and number of exercises with an allied participation has been considerably reduced all over Norway in recent years. A reform in progress in the armed forces is also reflected on the program of exercises. These, to a greater extent than before, focus on crisis settlement and peacekeeping training. The exercises are held with a view to achieving effective coordination between different combat arms and are not directed against Russia. Most of them were within the framework of Partnership for Peace, whose aim is in many respects to draw our neighbors in civilian and military cooperation in possible peacekeeping operations. Second, the Norwegian armed forces currently go through a large-scale overhaul. Like th eir counterpart in Russia, they face a totally new set of tasks connected with their modernization, making them more flexible, and effecting considerable reductions, because defense against an invasion is receding into the background and is no longer the decisive factor where our armed forces strength is concerned. Besides, with each year Norwegian units are increasingly active in peacekeeping operations. Along with the Russian contingent, 1,200 Norwegian officers and men perform peacekeeping missions in the Balkans. One of the most important tasks of the Norwegian armed forces in future will be extending their capability to take part in international peacekeeping operations.

The Russian side often criticizes us for using the Finnmark-based radar facility. The Vice-Admiral did not evade the issue either. I want to stress this: radar installations have been at Vardo since the 1960s. There is nothing fundamentally new, therefore, in the fact of radar surveillance in the region, and the stationing of Globus-2 radar does not mean a change in the Norwegian policy. Globus-2 has three objectives: reconnaissance, scientific investigations, and outer space monitoring. It is a joint Norwegian-U.S. project, but the radar facility employs only Norwegian personnel and is fully controlled by Norway. The radar will beam no data to the United States in real time mode. The use of Globus-2 is not a violation of the ABM Treaty, nor will the facility make part of a possible U.S. missile defense system, because the radar is not hooked to U.S. receivers and its technical characteristics make this kind of utilization impossible. The Norwegian Government repeatedly stated, both officially and during pol itical talks with Russia's representatives, that Norway attached much importance to the ABM Treaty and its arms control role.

As far as the EISCAT radar on Spitsbergen is concerned, which Vice-Admiral Motsak mentions in his article, it has been installed within the framework of international scientific cooperation between Norway, UK, Germany, France, Japan, Sweden, and Finland and is intended for investigation of the atmospheric processes, such as those in the ozone layer, or the Northern Lights. The radar also finds much practical use in navigation and satellite location and telecommunication system. The Spitsbergen-based SvalSat satellite station is where the Norwegian Space Exploration Center pursues space investigations. It is a land facility controlling and loading global satellite data to polar trajectories. It is utilized to obtain both meteorological and environmental data as well as other information for civilian purposes. Besides SvalSat is used for launching scientific rockets.

EISCAT and Sval Sat are purely civilian installations, with neither Norwegian nor any other military authorities participating in these projects. The Norwegian leadership watches closely their operation in order to ensure strict observance of the 1920 Spitsbergen Treaty. This kind of scientific research is pursued in an atmosphere of complete openness. Russian representatives already visited the facilities and we will welcome visits by specialists from Russia in future.

In its Spitsbergen policy, Norway, as the country possessing the sovereignty over the archipelago, is guided by the provisions of the said Spitsbergen Treaty. The Treaty guarantees the parties certain rights, including free access of their citizens to the archipelago islands, as well as the opportunity to engage in economic activities. This means that citizens of Russia can visit Spitsbergen without a visa, but if they travel there via Norway they must have a Norwegian visa. No visa is required for sea or air travel to Spitsbergen from Russia. The claim that the visa regulations are being introduced is not true to fact.

As for the economic activity in the archipelago, which at the present time is mostly represented by coal mining, there is a clash of interests observed: on the one hand, the Spitsbergen Treaty guarantees access to economic activities, but on the other it is necessary to take into account the vulnerability of the Arctic environment in the archipelago, for which Norway is responsible. In this conflict situation, as we see it, the orientation should be on protecting the environment. To be sure, to some extent this will interfere with the economic activity, but restrictions will affect not only Russian but also Norwegian companies. The Russian coal company, Trest Arktikugol, repeatedly expressed its point of view on a new Spitsbergen environmental law and those considerations were duly incorporated in the final wording of the law. Under no circumstances can it be said that the Russian activity is being impeded in Spitsbergen. On the contrary, we want to promote Norwegian-Russian cooperation in the archipelago, a nd not only in such areas as scientific investigations and tourism.

We see much prospect for cooperation with Russia in the area of oil and gas exploration and production in the Barents Sea and on the coast. As far as the North maritime expanses are concerned, the situation is this: Norway and Russia have not yet reached an agreement on the delimitation of the continental shelf and economic zones in the Barents Sea. Pertinent negotiations have been conducted since the 1970s and made much headway, but they are not yet completed. Nevertheless, both sides are interested in coming to a mutually acceptable solution and our contacts are of a positive nature. When we come to terms on a demarcation line in the sea, there will be opportunities for oil and gas exploration in what is today a disputed territory. An agreement is yet to be reached, but Norway and Russia have developed a common understanding of the necessity of displaying restraint with regard to geological prospecting in the disputed area.

Vice-Admiral Motsak believes the oil resources of the North and the Norwegian Seas will be practically depleted by the year 2010. This is not so. True enough, oil production is expected to scale down on the Norwegian continental shelf within the next ten years, but there are still considerable recoverable reserves. Only 22% of the total oil reserves was produced here by the start of 2001. Gas production will grow too. It is wrong to say, therefore, that Norway is forced to step up oil and gas exploration and production in the Barents Sea for economic considerations. At the present time, the Norwegian authorities do not allow geological prospecting in a vast stretch of the Barents Sea, particularly north of the Bear Island: market forecasts, vagueness of exploration results, and vulnerability of the environment in these territories call into question its economic expedience.

Vice-Admiral Motsak's article says that the Norwegian authorities have practiced in recent years more frequent inspections of Russian fishing vessels in areas, where fishery is under the Norwegian jurisdiction, to wit, in the Norwegian economic zone, the fishery conservation zone round Spitsbergen, and the fishery zone round Jan Mayen. The purpose of those inspections is detecting unauthorized catches no matter who commits infractions--Norwegian, Russian or other vessels. The reason for the inspections is that Norway bears responsibility for maintaining an optimal and stable fishery extraction in the Barents and the Norwegian Seas. The Norwegian authorities keep to an important principle: inspections as well as possible punishment orders must not be of discriminatory nature. True, Russian boats are now visited more often than before, but so are Norwegian boats and vessels of other countries.

Norway and Russia face important tasks in the area of control of combined Norwegian-Russian fish reserves. Each year, a joint Norwegian-Russian commission for fisheries discusses the related matters. The Norwegian side regards commission work as an example of industrial policy cooperation, based on the principle of sustained use of important marine resources. The cooperation in the fishery control area has been carried out during several decades and embraces, among other things, imposition of general quotas and development of control and fishery investigation systems. The Norwegian authorities attach much importance to cooperation in fishery investigations and create all conditions for Russian research ships to sail unimpeded. However, Norwegian research ships have seen their chances of making similar voyages to the Russian economic zone severely restricted since 1996, something that considerably complicates scientists' work to evaluate as best as possible our combined fish reserves and the administrative ef forts to impose general catch quotas. It is hard to understand why the Russian side does not display as much openness in our respect as we display toward it.

All-out cooperation with the Russian neighbor and partner has been and will remain a priority for the Norwegian Government. We have drawn up a specialized strategy for further progress in our relations in all relevant areas, which has been given a positive reception in the Russian political circles. Our relations go beyond the ambit of purely bilateral relations and are increasingly regional: Barents Cooperation, Baltic States Cooperation, and other multilateral contacts. Under no circumstances do we wish to or can oust Russia from the areas, where she has legitimate national interests. On the contrary, we are seeking to develop equivalent and mutually beneficial cooperation between the two neighboring countries, which know well and respect each other. That is why it is so important not to allow the prejudices of years past to influence the perception of our present-day intentions.

We must see each other as countries, which, despite their different historical evolution and belonging to different political blocs during the greater part of the 20th century, have much scope for joint work in such important areas as health, environmental protection, control of fish resources, energy, education and culture, safety at sea, and many others. We attach much importance to the expansion of confidence and contacts between the military authorities of our countries, not in the least with the Northern Fleet.

Each of the sides may get a view, which is not always in accord with the tendency for cooperation and integration characterizing present-day European policies. This is why openness and contacts are so important. For Norway, which is in contact with its great neighbor, Russia, both at sea and on land, this is the basis of our relations for decades to come.

NOTES:

(1.) See: M.V. Motsak, "Russia's National Interests in the Arctic," Military Thought, No. 6, 2000.

COPYRIGHT 2001 East View Publications
COPYRIGHT 2002 Gale Group