Why does Norway want to become a member of the Security Council? We strongly believe that Norway has something to contribute to the United Nations. For many years we have been strongly engaged in offering development aid, supporting the U.N. and different U.N. agencies. We give 0.9 percent of our GDP in development assistance–around $1.2 billion annually–and we are an important contributor to several of the U.N. agencies. In addition, we have been for many years contributing much to U.N. peace-keeping activities–and we would like to improve and enhance U.N. peace-keeping capacity. For many years, Norway has also played an important role in initiating different peace processes. Many people know about our role in the Middle East–the Oslo Channel–but we also have played a role in Sri Lanka, Colombia, Guatemala and other places in the world. So we think that we will have something to contribute. In addition, we strongly believe in the principle of rotation: the last time Norway was in the Security Council was in 1979, which is more than 20 years ago–and if there is to be any meaning in the idea of rotation among the nonpermanent members, it’s Norway’s turn now to have one of the seats in the Security Council.

What is your enhanced agenda for the U.N. system if Norway becomes a member of the Security Council? The added value we can bring is our long experience in the different fields, which are important for the U.N. We have long experience and engagement in development questions and, of course, we will bring our best people, all our experience and our financial resources to try to support the U.N. in its work to fight poverty, to fight against diseases, to fight HIV/AIDS. We have close cooperation with a lot of developing countries when it comes to the question of health. There is also our experience in peace-keeping and in the question of mediating conflicts. So I think that with a closer relationship through the Security Council, we can more easily use our resources. You don’t come to the Security Council with a big, long agenda of your own.

Where do you see peace-keeping going from here? We strongly believe in the idea of preventing conflicts but also in healing conflicts. It is important not to forget to heal conflicts in order to avoid old conflicts from recurring. In many parts of the world, we have not been clever enough in healing them–and thereby we have laid the ground for new conflicts.

Are there any new initiatives on conflict resolution and healing that Norway would like be able to propose? There are many good ideas in the Lakdar Brahimi Report on peace-keeping that was presented to the Millennium Summit at the U.N. recently, the Brahimi Report. We shall look to how we can develop the ideas that were put forward in that report. We should expand the capacity of the U.N.–and also the capacity of the U.N. to act rapidly and to have access to permanent forces. Or at least, dedicated forces which they can draw on short notice so peace-keeping forces can be on site quickly without waiting too much on decision making, financing and so on in the U.N. or in the different member countries.

You already have a Norwegian as Director General of the World Health Organization [former Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland]. There is considerable talk that a Norwegian candidate seems to have a strong chance to become the next U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees [a post that Prime Minister Stoltenberg’s father, Thalvor, once held], and now the Security Council campaign. There is a perception that perhaps Norway is trying to grab too much of the U.N. cake. Your response? The position of WHO director general is elected by a board and they elect the person they think is the best person. It’s not a country but it is a person that is elected to be the director general of the WHO by the board of the WHO. The High Commissioner for Refugees is appointed by the Secretary General, and again it is a question of which person one believes is the best person–but it is the Secretary General who decides.

There is a sense that Norway’s influence in the international arena is far more disproportionate to its demography [population: 4.7 million]. Both Ireland and Italy are also strong contenders for the two seats that are available in the Security Council. How do you assess the situation? I am arguing in favor of Norway, not against the others, and there are two seats and there are three candidates. So for us it has been important not to have a campaign against the other candidates but to explain why Norway should be a member of the Security Council.

How much of your international outlook is likely to be vulnerable to the domestic political situation in Norway, where your Labour Party is currently at the lowest point ever in popularity, and with elections scheduled for September 2001? Of course, every government is vulnerable to domestic issues or changes in popular support. But it is not opinion polls that decide, it’s elections, and we have experienced through both the last elections–in 1993 and 1997–that we have had rather bad opinion polls before the elections but we were able to achieve good results in the real elections. In addition to that, there is a rather broad agreement–except for the Progress Party–that Norway should maintain and even increase our international commitment, take on added international responsibility. For instance, there is a very broad support among the Norwegian parties–except again for the Progress Party–in favor of giving development aid in the magnitude we do. Of course, every government lives a dangerous life but the idea of taking international responsibility–and contributing to the U.N. especially–is strongly rooted in Norway.

Are you reasonably satisfied with the reforms the U.N. system has undertaken? We always have sided with Secretary General Kofi Annan, and we strongly support the Secretary General in his work because we believe that he has done a very important job in modernizing and reforming the U.N. The recent Millennium Summit, and the Millennium Report, were really important steps forward for the U.N. being able to put important issues on the agenda. Our wish for the U.N. is to have a stronger and more efficient organization because we strongly believe that now we have a global economy, we have a lot of global challenges which cannot be met by national states alone. We need strong international organizations to handle international common challenges, the environment, the fight against poverty and other issues of the same kind. Therefore, we would like to see a stronger and more efficient UN in the future. And we have also been open for discussing a reform of the Security Council so that the Security Council to a larger extent than today can reflect the realities of the world today and not the world of 1945.