By Siv Jensen, 19th May 2009
 |
"It is important for us all to share important values in difficult times. My subject today is promoting liberty and stability in the 21st Century from my party's perspective. So, a few weeks ago the Minister of Development in Management Policy stated that free-market liberalism is as dead as communism, and he said that with a huge smile on his face. I believe it's important to focus on this point in the financial crisis, especially since I don't see that we have any other alternative than a well-functioning market economy. And we need to fight to keep market liberalism as the main focus even though we have difficult times. So I strongly disagree with statements like the Minister's even though many left-wing politicians say the same thing.
I'll start by saying why I think that the core principles of classical liberal ideology are needed now more than ever. And I'll tell you why I believe Thatcherism is needed now more than ever. Earlier this week we celebrated the 30 year anniversary of Margaret Thatcher winning her first election. And it was a reason to celebrate because the task that she took upon has created some tremendous results. During the past three decades global trade has increased five times, average global income has increased by more than 50%, and hundreds of millions of people have left poverty behind. The policies of Thatcher helped break up the Soviet Empire and reverse Socialism in the West, and it didn't stop there. One of the most important moves, I believe, was her reform on housing policy here in Britain. It was genius; it was simple and it was market orientated. History has shown that individuals can make a difference and she sure did.This morning I had a meeting with a friend of mine, Sir Nigel Lawson, and I always enjoy the refreshing discussions I have with him on important political issues, especially his views on climate change. I find his ideas both refreshing and thought-provoking and I share a lot of his views on that subject. I also read his latest article in Standpoint magazine, which gave an excellent overview of Thatcher's legacy. The hallmark of a free society is individual liberty. Individual liberty is a fundamental requirement for human progress and prosperity. I believe that some principles are more important than others. I will not accept any compromise on these principles, that's why it is so important to be aware of what the idea of multiculturalism is all about. It's about compromising on certain values and principles that we cannot compromise on. I believe in a multi-ethnic society, but I do not believe in a multi-cultural society. Multiculturalism has failed. As I told you, the individual has certain rights. I believe these rights go above characteristics such as ethnicity, gender, sexual preferences, religious beliefs. Relativism when it comes to basic human rights is a dangerous fact that can have serious consequences.
Those who claim that liberalism means to accept all cultural traditions and differences have failed to understand the fundamentals of liberalism. Classical liberals will of course accept varieties in cultures and traditions, but we will never accept practices that infringe on basic human rights. The Norwegian government has completely failed to protect the basic values upon which our society is built. Our Foreign Minister, Jonas Gahr Støre, proved this during the cartoon conflicts when he managed to apologise on behalf of Norway to the Arabic media. In my view, an apology for freedom of speech should be a reason for dismissal. His behaviour was very embarrassing to many of us. I should say this too: his idea of foreign policy making is that dialogue is always the answer; never mind the question.
I believe in a foreign policy that is consistent, firm and has a long term perspective. There are many aspects that you don't negotiate on. As a classical liberal representing a classical liberal party, I oppose any discrimination based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or ethnic background. Whether it's negative or so-called "positive" differentiation, this is never the solution. One of the biggest problems with Norwegian integration policies is the naive cultural relativism. Many are afraid of addressing negative cultural aspects, and others genuinely believe that all cultural expressions are equally valuable.
Another problem is that the generous Norwegian welfare state which contributes to segregation rather than integration by making it more profitable to receive benefits than to work. In this regard, Norway and Europe should, I believe, take lessons from the United States who have had a much more successful integration policy over the last decades than we have had. One example, the Somali population is very well integrated in the US and they are not at all integrated in Norway. Now does that mean that Norway gets all the "bad" Somalis? I don't think so. This has to do with a system failure within the Norwegian approach. Immigration and integration must be approached in a stricter manner. It must be more profitable to work than to receive benefits. Or to put it another way, receiving benefits shouldn't be profitable. The labour market must be liberalised in order for immigrants to be able to enter it.
The criminal sentencing system must be stricter in order to avoid Norway becoming a safe-haven for criminals. Additionally,
criminal persons without Norwegian citizenship should be expelled from Norway. And this will contribute to avoiding the stigmatisation
of law abiding immigrants who after all make up the majority of immigrants in Norway. To learn the Norwegian language will
be essential in the integration process - the same goes for acquiring an education or a job. Multiculturalism leads to parallel
societies, and in parallel societies there will be parallel loss and laws. As a consequence, people will suffer, and those
who will suffer the most will be the immigrants themselves, especially women and children. Therefore I really question what
has been done here in Britain when it comes to allowing the establishment of Sharia council and Sharia courts. We are now
facing the same demands in Norway and it's a tough struggle to keep that from happening.
Let me share some thoughts with you on another subject, namely the new faces of totalitarianism. It is quite natural for a
classical liberal party like the Progress Party, to be at the forefront of the fight against totalitarian forces. Classical
liberals have fought against Nazism and Communism, and we will also fight against Islamism. Islamism in its most radical form
bears a strong resemblance to fascism. The American writer Paul Berman put this right when he stated that: "totalitarianism,
of which terror is an expression is a rebellion against liberal civilisation and the liberal idea." It is an anti-liberal
rebellion which is generated by liberalism itself. Sometimes the rebellion is generated by liberalism's strengths and sometimes
by liberalism's shortcomings.
We have managed to defeat both Nazism and Communism, but totalitarianism is on the rise again, and their new face is the face of the Islamist. We know of course that there are many types of Islamism; I am talking about the radical, the militant, and the violent. The arena of the Islamists is the religion of Islam, but I must emphasise that Islam itself is not necessarily the threat. The problem is that the radicals have somewhat high jacked the religion of Islam. This is not a war on Islam, but it's a war on values, and certainly a war on ideology. I see the fight against radical Islam as one of the most important battles of our time. It's not only against something, it's a fight for something: a fight for the principles of liberty that form the basis of a well functioning and good society. It's necessary to say a few words about Israel in connection to this, and I'll use the words of Barack Obama: "If somebody was sending rockets into my house, where my two daughters were sleeping at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that. I would expect Israelis to do the same thing."
This is what Israel is doing. They are defending themselves with one aim only: to disarm Hamas, a terrorist organisation which the Norwegian government, as one of a few European governments, hasn't put on their list of terrorist organisations. Last year I personally experienced Hamas' attacks against Israeli civilians when I was visiting a very small Israeli border town. I met with the people living there and I heard their stories. It was the story of a desperate and yet very proud people who faced rocket attacks from Hamas on a daily basis - thousands of rockets; rockets that can hit anytime, anyone and anywhere. Can you imagine how it must be to live like that? I saw photos of the victims of the rockets and I was told who they were. During my visit, rockets were fired, and we had to run and hide. But I was lucky because I could just return home, safe and with no need to worry. The people living there however have to live under these conditions everyday. And I cannot understand why the western media and politicians can just turns a blind eye to all this and behave like Israel is the big aggressor and that the other side is simply fighting for its liberty. It is of course terrible to see photos of those injured and killed as a result of these conflicts. It is brutal and heartless when Hamas uses women and children as human shields, by hiding weapons and ammunition in schools, hospitals and mosques. The result is that civilians are hurt by Israeli rockets aimed at an organisation funded by Iraq, both of whom have the aim of eradicating Israel.
Sadly, the international community has overlooked Iran's support of Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist organisations operating in the region and elsewhere. Some say that Hamas came to power through democratic elections and therefore must be recognised as a legitimate political force. My response to that claim is this: democracy is a lot more than free elections. Hamas does not recognise Israel, and in their political charter, Hamas supports genocide against the Jews. How do you negotiate with someone who does not recognise our right to exist? It is hard to be tolerant with the intolerant. The media claims that the Progress Party supports a massive Israeli military operation, but we don't. Of course we want peace for both Israelis and Palestinians, and I don't support the massive use of military force. But what I do support, is Israel's right to exist and its right to defend its people.
I need to say a few words about the UN. In Norway you can hardly have a debate about the UN. If you raise a critical question about the UN you are doomed. I know that because I have tried. The Socialist Left Party stated in their manifesto that the US is now the greatest threat to world peace. They are now in government. And one of their MP's recommended that Fidel Castro be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. In Norway you can get away with criticism of the EU, WTO, NATO, the World Bank, but you must steer clear of the UN. In Norway, the UN is almost revered as something sacred, but I don't understand why. What has the UN actually done to deserve this sacred place in the Norwegian debate? Is it because of UN operations in Rwanda or Bosnia or Darfur? In Rwanda, 800,000 people were slaughtered with machetes. 2,500 UN soldiers were in place when that happened. In Bosnia, 8,000 Bosniaks were shot dead. The French General, Phillipe Morillon had just told these men that they were now under the protection of UN forces. I don't blame the UN for these massacres, but the UN hasn't played an effective role in large-scale conflicts in recent history.
And what about the UN Human Rights Council? It's like the "Abuses Club", with members like China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia in the Council. The whole concept of the Council becomes absurd. Today the UN has 192 member countries, and 103 of these of these belong to the categories unfree or partly unfree according to analysis by the Freedom House. My point is that the UN needs to be reformed, and led back to its origins. We all remember the latest UN conference where the hate-preacher himself President Ahmadinejad was given a microphone by the UN to spread his message of hate and division against the West and against Israel. This underlines my point. When I met with Tzipi Livni last year, she asked if people in the West really believed Iran would cancel its weapon programme and stop their hostile behaviour. She didn't think so, and nor do I. The question is, do you? It's not the quest to liberate the Palestinians that fuels the Iranian hate-machine, it's the Islamist ideology. This ideology must be defeated.
Now let me turn to Russia. Russia is not the Soviet Union, but while some things have changed since the Cold War days, others have remained the same. Russia is on the move again and we have seen it on many occasions lately, for example during its conflict with Georgia. The area of greatest strategic importance to Norway is the High North area. Norway is the only neighbouring country that has not been at war with Russia. We share quite good relations with our great neighbour. But it is important to note several points. The Russians are now rebuilding their military capacities, and from time to time they let us know exactly where we stand by flying their bombers over our skies. Russia is awakened again. Many countries depend on Russia for their energy deliverance. With the conflict in Georgia, Russia showed the world that it would react to events on its doorstep and how extremely fragile is energy supply to Europe and how dependent we all are on Russia. With the further expansion of NATO, the tensions could deepen. In some way or another we have to deal with these issues. The Progress Party will keep NATO as the cornerstone of Norway's defence policy. But it is necessary to start a new debate on security and defence policy in Norway. In our view, the security and defence policy should be based on our national and strategic interests. It is estimated that 25% of remaining petroleum resources in the world is located in the High North. That means that the High North area will be one of the world's dominating energy provinces, and in that area we have unresolved issues with Russia that have been outstanding for many decades. We are no closer to a solution yet.
After the Cold War, NATO supply areas and US troops were stationed very close by. But, understandably, that has all gone now because strategic priorities have changed. The US, NATO and Europe neglected energy security. There are other ways to supply energy other than through the Caspian Sea. We already have the infrastructure, with pipes already running to Britain and other European countries. We need to connect our existing pipelines to the northern parts of Norway. The sea is open without any potential threats. Environmental pressure from different quarters is opposed to this, but oil and gas energy is greener than coal. You can't replace everything with green energy over night. We have mutual interests in this area. And that's why we need to be more focussed on this issue now.
Norway can provide Europe with energy supply and security, even through an environmental approach, because we have the means to do it: the resources, the money and the technology. The question is do we have the political will to do it? That remains to be seen. I think Europe actually needs to put more pressure on Norway to increase production, but the present government hasn't made any new decisions for the oil and gas industry so far. All decisions have been impeded by divisions in government parties, which will only contribute to the energy supply and demand imbalance in Europe and the world. This was a huge debate before the financial crisis came along. We all talked about the upcoming energy crisis in the world: the fact that 1.3 billion people around the globe did not have electricity on their homes. With increased welfare in emerging economies like China and India, there will be an increased demand for energy supply. And who's going to provide this supply? And what kind of energy do we want to supply to the world? We have the potential to increase our hydroelectric output enormously, but no one has made any decisions in these areas yet.
Norwegians have no desire to join the EU. I don't know why. We already have virtual membership, only we don't make decisions, we just abide by them. We implement all the directives, but we are unable to influence them. Despite the financial crisis and rising unemployment around the world, Norway has an unemployment rate of only 3%. This is rising, but it's still lower than any other country. We have huge budgetary surpluses and a strong economy. The general feeling is that we are simply better of as we are, but we all agree that the decision will be determined by a referendum: the debate is very open. Personally I am not so sure that membership is the way forward. I dislike the increasing bureaucracy, which is something I am fighting in my own country. The Union needs to slow down and re-evaluate its focus areas after its rapid and recent expansion.
Norway itself is small, it cannot engage with all world affairs. We need to focus on our core concerns. In our eagerness to
serve the world, we overlook more pressing domestic interests. We should take care of our own security and business interests.
We should be involved with important international issues like human rights and disaster relief, but we need to consolidate
our aims and our global commitment.
My final remarks to you are that it is in Europe's interest to support Norway on the issues in the High North, because together
we can work towards a mutually beneficial resolution. We can safely provide clean and stable energy to Europe with will benefit
business and people. And I think I'll close my remarks on that note. Thank you."
