natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
We recognise that new global threats increase the need for effective global governance mechanisms.
Vi innser at nye globale trusler øker behovet for effektive globale styringsmekanismer.
Climate change, health issues and infections, terrorism, the food crisis, migration.
Klima, helse/smitte, terrorisme, matvarekrise, migrasjon.
A challenging global reality.
Krevende global virkelighet.
The concept ”interests” encompasses all this – much to safeguard.
Omkring alt dette kretser uttrykket ”interesser” – fordi vi har mye å ivareta her.
(Slide: The High North.
(Bilde: Nordområdene.
The world seen from above)
Jordkloden sett ovenfra)
Some concrete challenges:
Noen konkrete problemstillinger:
Firstly: Let’s look at the High North again.
Først: Igjen, ta Nordområdene.
Issues relating to international law, including the Law of the Sea, new challenges, possible oil production, climate change in the Arctic, shipping routes along the Northeast and Northwest Passages.
Handler om folkerett og havrett, nye utfordringer, mulig oljeutvinning, klimautfordringer i Arktis, seilingsruter nordøst- og nordvest-passasjene.
Which rules apply.
Hvilken rett som gjelder.
Clearly shows how today’s legal order safeguards Norwegian interests.
Viser tydelig hvordan dagens rettsorden sikrer vitale norske interesser.
The Law of the Sea is key.
Havretten sentral.
Shows how Norway is using this as a basis to further develop existing regimes and thus ensure that Norwegian interests are safeguarded.
Viser hvordan Norge arbeider med dette i bunn for å videreutvikle eksisterende regimer og derigjennom sikre norske interesser.
The ministerial meeting in Greenland in May, attended by the US and Russia.
Ministermøtet på Grønland i mai, med USA og Russland.
The Arctic Ocean.
Polhavet.
The Law of the Sea.
Havretten.
Agreement.
Enighet.
The Arctic Council.
Arktis Råd.
And there is a connection between this and key aspects of an international legal order, such as international criminal law.
Og det er en sammenheng mellom dette og andre sentrale elementer i en global rettsorden, som internasjonal strafferett.
Karadzic.
Karadzic.
The major judicial processes in the Balkans, in Africa.
De store rettsoppgjørene på Balkan, Afrika.
Another factor: International legitimacy is much sought after.
Et annet forhold: Internasjonal legitimitet er en etterspurt vare.
There is a growing need to justify our foreign policy to those who have different views.
Det er økende behov for å begrunne vår utenrikspolitikk, også overfor meningsmotstandere.
As I mentioned at the beginning: It is interesting to note that Russia itself raised the issue of Georgia in the Security Council, and requested a public debate.
Som jeg nevnte i starten: Interessant å merke seg at Russland selv tok opp Georgia i Sikkerhetsrådet, og selv ba om at debatten skulle være offentlig.
They wanted international legitimacy.
De ønsket internasjonal legitimitet.
But legitimacy also depends on representativeness: The Security Council has legitimacy today, but its continued legitimacy will depend on it having a composition that reflects the balance of power in our world.
Men legitimitet avgjøres også av representativitet: Sikkerhetsrådets legitimitet er der i dag – men vil avhenge av at rådet har et medlemskap/sammensetning som gjenspeiler maktforholdene i vår verden.
The Economist’s advice to the US: better to include more countries to give the Council legitimacy, but on the other hand, even more difficult to reach consensus.
Economist’s råd til USA: Bedre med flere inne som gir rådet legitimitet – men på den annen side – enda mer krevende med konsensus.
Thirdly – I mentioned at the beginning globalisation, health challenges, climate change.
For det tredje – jeg nevnte i starten globalisering, helseutfordringer, klima.
We will not be able to solve the urgent problems of climate change unless the UN plays a central role.
Vi makter ikke å løse dagens presserende klimautfordringer uten FN i en sentral rolle.
(Slide: Humanitarian efforts.
(Bilde: Humanitær innsats.
Girl in Darfur)
Jente i Darfur)
The issue should not be finding an alternative to the UN – but building further on the UN, renewing, improving and expanding the world organisation.
Spørsmålet bør derfor ikke være å finne noe annet enn FN – men bygge videre på FN, fornye og forbedre og utvide.
And a fourth point.
Og et fjerde punkt.
Humanitarian efforts.
Humanitær innsats.
The UN as a player and as a norm-setter.
FN som aktør og normgiver.
In times of war and crisis, it is the UN that can create order in a chaotic situation with many actors.
I krig og kriser er FN den som kan få skikk på en kaotisk situasjon med mange aktører.
The UN has unique legitimacy, a unique mandate and unique experience and expertise.
FN har både unik legitimitet, mandat og kompetanse til dette.
In many situations – Afghanistan, the Middle East/Gaza – Norway’s humanitarian support to the UN’s key efforts (UNAMA, UNRWA) constitutes important foreign policy instruments together with political and other initiatives.
I mange situasjoner – Afghanistan, Midtøsten/Gaza – er Norges humanitære støtte til FNs sentrale rolle (UNAMA, UNRWA) viktige utenrikspolitiske virkemidler sammen med politiske og andre initiativer.
The UN’s humanitarian mandate and efforts around the world are of great importance.
FNs humanitære mandat og innsats verden er av stor betydning.
And this is one of the most important areas of cooperation between Norway and the UN.
Og det er et av de viktigste samarbeidsområdene mellom Norge og FN.
This is an area where the UN is doing a good job.
Her gjør FN en god jobb.
(Slide: Afghanistan)
(Bilde: Afghanistan)
And now a few words about Afghanistan: Shows how closely the world is tied together by globalisation and geopolitical change.
Noen ord her om Afghanistan: Viser hvor tett verden er knyttet sammen av globalisering og geopolitisk endring.
By a new understanding of security policy.
Av en ny sikkerhetspolitisk forståelse.
Shows how important war and conflict “far away” are for Norwegian interests and alliances.
Viser hvor viktig krig og konflikt ”langt borte” er for norske interesser og allianser.
But how are we to solve this task?
Men hvordan løser vi oppdraget?
NATO can help to provide security, but statebuilding is not and never has been NATO’s task.
Nato kan bidra til sikkerhet – men det er ikke og var aldri Natos oppgave å bygge stater.
It is the UN that has statebuilding expertise, but it did not get started soon enough.
Det er FN som har med ekspertise på statsbygging, men kom ikke i gang med dette raskt nok.
Reconstruction.
Gjenoppbygging.
I talked about this in my lecture here in Chateau Neuf last year.
Jeg snakket om dette i foredraget mitt her i Chateau Neuf i fjor.
Afghanistan cannot be won by military means, but it can be lost by military means.
Afghanistan kan ikke vinnes militært, men kan tapes militært.
We have to find political solutions.
Må finne politiske løsninger.
Better balance between the military and civilian efforts.
Bedre balanse mellom den militære og sivile innsatsen.
The UN’s role as actor must be strengthened.
FN som aktør må styrkes.
Kai Eide.
Kai Eide.
Promote Afghan ownership.
Fremme afghansk eierskap.
Now, some more issues and dilemmas – for the debate afterwards:
Så, noen flere spørsmål og dilemmaer – for debatten nå etterpå:
(Slide: Plane dropping food)
(Bilde: Flyet som dropper mat)
Firstly: We must continue the efforts to reform the UN (and the other global and regional organisations).
For det første: Vi må fortsette arbeidet for reform av FN (og av andre globale og regionale organisasjoner).
Much good work is being done.
Mye bra arbeid gjøres.
But could the considerable resources that are at our disposal in the UN be better used in an organisation that was even more focused on reform?
Men kan vi bruke de betydelige ressursene vi disponerer i FN enda mer reformbevisst?
We must make what is good better.
Vi må gjøre det gode bedre.
We must be a “good friend” but not an “enemy of the best”.
Vi må være en ”god venn”, men ikke ”det bestes fiende”.
We must be a “critical friend”.
Vi må være en ”kritisk venn”.
We must increase our expertise.
Vi må øke vår kompetanse.
In multilateral cooperation.
I multilateralt samarbeid.
In languages.
I språk.
We must not leave the role of critic to those who want less of the UN.
Vi må ikke overlate den kritiske rollen til de som vil ha mindre FN.
We must be critical supporters of all those who want more of the UN, a better UN.
Vi må være ”kritisk støttespiller” for alle de som vil ha mer og bedre FN.
We must make a good UN better.
Vi må gjøre FN god, FN bedre.
In absolute terms, Norway is the organisation’s sixth largest financial contributor: USD 692 million or around NOK 3.6 billion.
Norge er i absolutte tall organisasjonens 6. største økonomiske bidragsyter; 692 millioner US dollar, eller om lag 3,5 milliarder kroner.
And we must not give our support to all kinds of initiatives.
Og vi må ikke bli ”honningkrukker” og ”naive støttespillere” for alle slags initiativer.
We must use our resources strategically, directing them to areas that we have identified as the most important on the basis of Norwegian interests and values.
Vi må bruke ressursene strategisk på områder som vi blinker ut, som de viktigste ut fra norske interesser og verdier.
We must ask: How does this cooperation serve our interests and values?
Vi må spørre: Hvordan tjener dette samarbeidet våre interesser og verdier?
We become actively engaged where we can, on boards and committees.
Vi engasjerer oss aktivt, der vi kan, i styrer og råd.
We insist that the UN bodies work towards the goals the world community has set – human rights, democratisation, development and timely response to climate change.
Vi insisterer på at FNs organisasjoner skal arbeide for de mål som verdenssamfunnet har vedtatt – menneskerettigheter, demokratisering, utvikling og klima.
Peacebuilding.
Fredsbygging.
Peacebuilding capacity.
Fredsbyggingskapasitet.
These are my instructions to Ministry officials who attend meetings in the UN: have a clear agenda for increasing the UN’s effectiveness and improving its ability to deliver.
Dette er instruksen til mine medarbeidere som møter FN; ha en klar dagsorden for styrket effektivitet og bedret evne til å levere.
Be a friend of the UN.
Være en venn av FN.
The reform work Prime Minister Stoltenberg helped to lead – on creating one UN – rather than many – that coordinates efforts at country level.
Reformarbeidet Stoltenberg ledet – om å sikre at det er ett FN – og ikke mange – som samordner innsatsen på landnivå.
With regard to the Security Council.
Når det gjelder Sikkerhetsrådet.
The likelihood of expansion is remote.
Muligheten for utvidelse er fjern.
Secondly: The expectations of what problems the UN (and other global organisations) can solve have gone through the ceiling since 1990.
For det andre: Forventningene til hva FN (og globale organisasjoner) skal løse av problemer, har eksplodert siden 1990.
We must be realistic and place responsibility where it is due – frequently with the states concerned and not with multilateral actors.
Vi skal være edruelige og plassere ansvar der det hører hjemme – ofte hos stater og ikke hos multilaterale aktører.
At the same time, we must expect the multilateral organisations to earn the trust and responsibility we vest in them.
Vi skal også forvente at de multilaterale organisasjonene lever opp til den tillit og det ansvar vi viser dem.
A third issue relating to both the WTO and climate change: How should we proceed to ensure that the large global apparatus in these important fields becomes more effective, democratic and legitimate at the same time?
Et tredje spørsmål, når det gjelder både WTO og klima: Hvordan gå fram for å gjøre det store globale apparatet på disse viktige områder mer effektivt, demokratisk og legitimt på samme tid?
We need creative global, national and local workshops on how climate change and trade/the WTO can be dealt with in global forums without ending in deadlock.
Vi trenger kreative, globale, nasjonale og lokale ”verksteder” på hvordan klima og handel/WTO kan håndteres i globale fora uten at alt låser seg og stopper opp.
How is this to be achieved?
Men hvordan?
Need for more flexibility.
Behov for mer fleksibilitet.
Need to accept that the major powers – the major emitters –should be given some room for manoeuvre.
Behov for å godta at stormakter – de store utslippsnasjonene – får noe spillerom.
At the same time, it’s important that small countries are given a voice.
Samtidig viktig at små stater får innpass.
Again, the issue of climate change will be the great test.
Igjen: Klimasaken blir den store testen.
It is only the UN regime that can draw all countries into the discussion and find sensible and fair ways of sharing the burdens.
Bare et FN-regime kan trekke alle med og finne fornuftig og rettferdig måte å dele byrder på.
This is a question of effectiveness, legitimacy and flexibility.
Handler om effektivitet, legitimitet, fleksibilitet.
Fourthly, look at the more informal regional and global initiatives that are emerging.
For det fjerde, se de mer uformelle, regionale og globale initiativene som vokser frem.
Often where the formal structures have become too rigid or irrelevant.
Skjer ofte der formelle strukturer blir for stive eller irrelevante.
For example: the cluster munitions process.
Eksempel: Klasevåpenprosessen.
When issues are left up in the air because no progress is being made, when they are receiving no attention at all, countries with the capacity and resources have to show willingness to take action.
Når saker blir hengende i manglende fremdrift – når noen saker ikke blir vist oppmerksomhet overhodet – da må land med kapasitet og ressurser vise vilje til å handle.
A case of both...and...
Et både – og.
Fifthly: We should intensify our dialogue and cooperation with the “new superpowers”.
For det femte: Vi bør intensivere vår dialog og samarbeid med ”de nye stormaktene”.
We should seek a common understanding of norms and rules in global governance, in global organisations.
Vi bør søke felles forståelse av normer og spilleregler i global styring, i globale organisasjoner.
Together with like-minded countries, we must intensify our efforts to convince the “new superpowers” of the importance of a norms-based and effective global system of multilateral institutions.
Sammen med likesinnede land må vi intensivere arbeidet for å overbevise ”nye stormakter” om betydningen av et normbasert og effektivt globalt system av multilaterale institusjoner.
The Nordic countries a separate circle, including various groupings of Nordic countries.
Og Norden en egen krets, eller grupper av nordiske land.
And in a world such as ours, we must be realistic and accept that conflicts of interest are not something that you can organise your way out of in international organisations.
Og i en verden som vår: Vi må realistisk akseptere at interessemotsetninger ikke er noe man kan organisere seg bort fra i internasjonale organisasjoner.
Increasing global conflicts of interest will affect the UN’s ability to act.
Økende globale interessekonflikter vil ramme FNs evne til å handle.
At the same time, polarisation makes this global arena for negotiation more important than ever.
Samtidig: Polarisering gjør den globale forhandlingsarenaen FN viktigere enn noensinne.
In the 1980s and 1990s, Norway and the other Nordic countries took the initiative for a review of the UN’s development activities.
På 1980- og 90-tallet tok Norge og de nordiske landene initiativ til gjennomganger av FNs utviklingsaktiviteter.
This idea matured over time, and most of the conclusions reached are to be found in the reforms adopted by the General Assembly in 2006 and 2007.
Ideene modnet over tid og de fleste er å finne i de reformvedtakene som ble gjort av FNs generalforsamling i 2006 og 2007.
Perhaps one of the Nordic countries can again take the initiative to lead the way in the reform efforts in the UN’s many and important areas of responsibility?
Kanskje kan de at de nordiske land igjen tar initiativ til å gå foran i reformarbeidet på FNs mange og viktige ansvarsområder?
(Slide: the UN flag)
(Bilde: FN-flagget)
Important that the UN is not met with unrealistic expectations or given impossible tasks.
Viktig at ikke FN pålesses urealistiske forventninger og umulige oppgaver.
We must be realistic about what we ask the UN to do.
Vi må være realistiske i hva vi ber FN om å gjøre.
The UN can’t do everything.
FN kan ikke gjøre ”alt”.
In some areas it is powerless, but in others – for example the humanitarian area – it can achieve a great deal.
På noen områder står organisasjonen maktesløs – men, for eksempel, på det humanitære området kan FN gjøre mye.
Here the organisation has won respect, and to a large extent has the capacity to take a global leadership role.
Her nyter organisasjonen respekt og har i stor grad kapasitet til å ta globalt lederskap.
The UN will never be better than what we make it.
FN blir ikke bedre enn det vi gjør organisasjonen til.
Vision and goal: Norway must be “impatient” with regard to achieving a more effective UN and a stronger world order.
Visjon og mål: Norge skal være ”utålmodig” på vegne av et mer effektivt FN og en styrket verdensorden.
For there is no alternative to the UN.
For det finnes ingen alternativer til FN.
We must oppose the concept of a “league of democracies” (McCain) as a kind of alternative to the UN.
Ta oppgjør med idéen om ”en allianse av demokratier” (McCain) som et slags alternativ til FN.
This is a bad idea.
Det er en dårlig idé.
Which countries are to be called democracies?
Hvem skal kalles demokratier?
What definition is to be used?
Hvilken definisjon skal brukes?
More than ever do we need the UN and related forums where everyone takes part and communication is kept open.
Mer enn noen gang trenger vi FN og relaterte fora hvor alle deltar og kommunikasjonen holdes i gang.
Because if we build an “Alliance of the West”, we will soon meet an “Alliance of the Rest”.
For hvis vi bygger en slags "Alliance of the West" vil vi snart møte en "Alliance of the Rest".
And do we want that?
Og ønsker vi det?
The UN is irreplaceable.
FN er uerstattelig.
And a global league of democracies is no alternative.
Og en global demokratiallianse er intet alternativ.
We need the UN, and the world needs the UN.
Vi trenger FN og verden trenger FN.
The UN is our most important tool to create a better world.
FN er vårt viktigste virkemiddel for å skape en bedre verden.
But this requires hard work.
Men det handler om hardt arbeid.
In 1955, US Republican Senator Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. (and US delegate to the UN) put it like this: “This organization is created to prevent you from going to hell.
Den amerikanske republikanske senator Henry Cabot Lodge jr (og USAs FN-delegat) som i 1955 sa det slik: ”This organization is not created to take you to heaven.
It isn’t created to take you to heaven!”
It is created to keep you from going to hell!”
We must take good care of this organisation.
En slik organisasjon bør vi ta godt vare på!
Towards a new world order?
Mot en ny verdensorden?
Statement at 40th Anniversary of Norwegian–Vietnamese relations
Markering av 40 års diplomatiske relasjoner Norge-Vietnam
Oslo, 1 November 2011
Oslo, 1. november 2011
- There are close bilateral relations between our countries, and these ties are becoming more closely woven and more colourful – in a number of sectors: trade and commerce, energy and the management of natural resources, higher education and research, the environment, and not least culture, the Foreign Minister said.
- There are close bilateral relations between our countries, and these ties are becoming more closely woven and more colourful – in a number of sectors: trade and commerce, energy and the management of natural resources, higher education and research, the environment, and not least culture, sa utenriksministeren blant annet.
Deputy Minister Bui Thanh Son, Ambassador Ta Van Thong,
Deputy Minister Bui Thanh Son, Ambassador Ta Van Thong,
Dear friends and all of you who are contributing to the good relations between Norway and Vietnam,
Dear friends and all of you who are contributing to the good relations between Norway and Vietnam,
It gives me great pleasure to be here (although, unfortunately, I will have to leave early) for this celebration of 40 years of diplomatic relations between Norway and Vietnam.
It gives me great pleasure to be here (although, unfortunately, I will have to leave early) for this celebration of 40 years of diplomatic relations between Norway and Vietnam.
Many people say that 40 is no age at all.
Many people say that 40 is no age at all.
But for young states – in nations with longstanding traditions though – it can be considered a very good age indeed.
But for young states – in nations with longstanding traditions though – it can be considered a very good age indeed.
There are close bilateral relations between our countries, and these ties are becoming more closely woven and more colourful - in a number of sectors: trade and commerce, energy and the management of natural resources, higher education and research, the environment, and not least culture.
There are close bilateral relations between our countries, and these ties are becoming more closely woven and more colourful - in a number of sectors: trade and commerce, energy and the management of natural resources, higher education and research, the environment, and not least culture.
Just to mention a few.
Just to mention a few.
We also meet every year for bilateral political consultations, where a number of issues of common interest – both bilateral and international – are broadly discussed.
We also meet every year for bilateral political consultations, where a number of issues of common interest – both bilateral and international – are broadly discussed.
In addition, we have a separate annual human rights dialogue, which includes exchange of information and viewpoints, and frank, direct discussions of human rights issues and challenges – including in areas where our views may diverge.
In addition, we have a separate annual human rights dialogue, which includes exchange of information and viewpoints, and frank, direct discussions of human rights issues and challenges – including in areas where our views may diverge.
In the field of cultural cooperation – which is a major chapter in itself – I would particularly like to highlight the very successful project Transposition.
In the field of cultural cooperation – which is a major chapter in itself – I would particularly like to highlight the very successful project Transposition.
This multiyear project is funded by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and it is a co-operation between 12 academies of music in Norway and Vietnam, with the goal of strengthening both our cultural ties and Vietnamese artistic expertise in the field of classical music.
This multiyear project is funded by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and it is a co-operation between 12 academies of music in Norway and Vietnam, with the goal of strengthening both our cultural ties and Vietnamese artistic expertise in the field of classical music.
The Norwegian Embassy in Hanoi, in close co-operation with the Music Information Centre Norway, which has administrative responsibility for the project, is arranging concerts in Hanoi Opera House and in Ho Chi Minh City Opera House later this month.
The Norwegian Embassy in Hanoi, in close co-operation with the Music Information Centre Norway, which has administrative responsibility for the project, is arranging concerts in Hanoi Opera House and in Ho Chi Minh City Opera House later this month.
These will feature two very promising young violinists, Do Phuong Nhi and Ludvig Gudim, under the direction of the Norwegian conductor Alf Richard Kraggerud.
These will feature two very promising young violinists, Do Phuong Nhi and Ludvig Gudim, under the direction of the Norwegian conductor Alf Richard Kraggerud.
Both these concerts are already sold out by the way.
Both these concerts are already sold out by the way.