natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Norway will actively promote the inclusion of armed violence on the UN agenda in the upcoming review process of the Millennium Development Goals. 
Norway will actively promote the inclusion of armed violence on the UN agenda in the upcoming review process of the Millennium Development Goals.
With this is in mind, I will host a conference on armed violence here in Oslo in April together with the UNDP leader Helen Clark. 
With this is in mind, I will host a conference on armed violence here in Oslo in April together with the UNDP leader Helen Clark.
The protection of civilians has been on the UN Security Council’s agenda since the late 1990s, and a broader understanding of the issue now seems to be emerging. 
The protection of civilians has been on the UN Security Council’s agenda since the late 1990s, and a broader understanding of the issue now seems to be emerging.
We recognise the need to address the protection of civilians in a way that includes peacekeeping, the rule of law, security, development and disarmament. 
We recognise the need to address the protection of civilians in a way that includes peacekeeping, the rule of law, security, development and disarmament.
UN operations are increasingly given mandates that focus on the protection of civilians as their core task. 
UN operations are increasingly given mandates that focus on the protection of civilians as their core task.
And – interestingly – this is now at the centre of General McChrystal’s new strategy for ISAF in Afghanistan. 
And – interestingly – this is now at the centre of General McChrystal’s new strategy for ISAF in Afghanistan.
As a consequence, allied reliance on air power, which has been the primary cause of unintended civilian harm inflicted by the international forces, has been significantly reduced. 
As a consequence, allied reliance on air power, which has been the primary cause of unintended civilian harm inflicted by the international forces, has been significantly reduced.
Again, the humanitarian impulse is fully in line with the political purpose of the mission. 
Again, the humanitarian impulse is fully in line with the political purpose of the mission.
A top priority for the Norwegian Government is the urgent need – internationally - to control the flow of small arms and light weapons. 
A top priority for the Norwegian Government is the urgent need – internationally - to control the flow of small arms and light weapons.
We need to make states responsible for the trade in weapons. 
We need to make states responsible for the trade in weapons.
We must promote multilateral efforts to this end, including the role of regional institutions. 
We must promote multilateral efforts to this end, including the role of regional institutions.
And we need an Arms Trade Treaty. 
And we need an Arms Trade Treaty.
The negotiations for such an important tool will start this year and our ambitions are high. 
The negotiations for such an important tool will start this year and our ambitions are high.
With reference to the three categories of weapons I have mentioned – small arms, cluster munitions and mines – I should also underline that the full implementation of the Mine Ban Convention remains a continued priority for the Norwegian Government. 
With reference to the three categories of weapons I have mentioned – small arms, cluster munitions and mines – I should also underline that the full implementation of the Mine Ban Convention remains a continued priority for the Norwegian Government.
We hold the Presidency of the Meeting of the States Parties this year. 
We hold the Presidency of the Meeting of the States Parties this year.
Again, our goal is to keep a sharp focus on the humanitarian objectives of the Convention in terms of compliance with its obligations and realities in the field, including victim assistance. 
Again, our goal is to keep a sharp focus on the humanitarian objectives of the Convention in terms of compliance with its obligations and realities in the field, including victim assistance.
There are of course some critical differences between the nuclear disarmament agenda and the agenda that led to the ban on land mines and cluster munitions. 
There are of course some critical differences between the nuclear disarmament agenda and the agenda that led to the ban on land mines and cluster munitions.
But at the same time, there are some key, shared lessons to be learned. 
But at the same time, there are some key, shared lessons to be learned.
For example, experience from humanitarian disarmament should guide us on how to pursue and negotiate disarmament issues in general. 
For example, experience from humanitarian disarmament should guide us on how to pursue and negotiate disarmament issues in general.
And if we are to achieve results within a reasonable timeframe, we cannot allow those who want the least to set the pace. 
And if we are to achieve results within a reasonable timeframe, we cannot allow those who want the least to set the pace.
This is actually what is happening in most of the traditional negotiating bodies that were set up in the post-World War II era and during the Cold War, when the world was very different. 
This is actually what is happening in most of the traditional negotiating bodies that were set up in the post-World War II era and during the Cold War, when the world was very different.
Some maintain that consensus is vital when it comes to nuclear disarmament. 
Some maintain that consensus is vital when it comes to nuclear disarmament.
I am not fully convinced. 
I am not fully convinced.
I believe it would be possible to develop norms against the use of nuclear weapons, and even to outlaw them, without a consensus decision, and that such norms will eventually be applied globally. 
I believe it would be possible to develop norms against the use of nuclear weapons, and even to outlaw them, without a consensus decision, and that such norms will eventually be applied globally.
We cannot leave it to the nuclear weapon states alone to decide when it is time for them to do away with these weapons. 
We cannot leave it to the nuclear weapon states alone to decide when it is time for them to do away with these weapons.
Their destructive power would affect us all if put to use – and their threat continue to affect us all – therefore they are everyone’s business. 
Their destructive power would affect us all if put to use – and their threat continue to affect us all – therefore they are everyone’s business.
So, taking a comprehensive and innovative disarmament approach means that we do not allow ourselves to be at the mercy of an unwilling – and often small – minority. 
So, taking a comprehensive and innovative disarmament approach means that we do not allow ourselves to be at the mercy of an unwilling – and often small – minority.
This leads to my second critique of today’s disarmament diplomacy: its frequently exclusive character. 
This leads to my second critique of today’s disarmament diplomacy: its frequently exclusive character.
The most extreme example of this is, of course, the old-fashioned approach of bilateral or trilateral negotiations. 
The most extreme example of this is, of course, the old-fashioned approach of bilateral or trilateral negotiations.
Don’t get me wrong, I sincerely hope that a follow-up to START will soon be agreed. 
Don’t get me wrong, I sincerely hope that a follow-up to START will soon be agreed.
But is it fair to let the fate of our planet be determined by a handful of countries? 
But is it fair to let the fate of our planet be determined by a handful of countries?
Furthermore, the traditional negotiating bodies are failing to include relevant stake-holders, such as civil society representatives with field experience. 
Furthermore, the traditional negotiating bodies are failing to include relevant stake-holders, such as civil society representatives with field experience.
At the other end of the spectrum, NGOs have played and continue to play a very constructive role in the Mine Ban Convention and in the Convention on Cluster Munitions. 
At the other end of the spectrum, NGOs have played and continue to play a very constructive role in the Mine Ban Convention and in the Convention on Cluster Munitions.
Unless civil society is included in the process, future arms control negotiations are in real danger of being out of touch with the concerns of people on the ground. 
Unless civil society is included in the process, future arms control negotiations are in real danger of being out of touch with the concerns of people on the ground.
A more comprehensive and innovative approach to all types of disarmament must apply also to the weapons of mass destruction. 
A more comprehensive and innovative approach to all types of disarmament must apply also to the weapons of mass destruction.
And disarmament must not be a process for the “enlightened few”, but an inclusive process, involving all relevant stakeholders. 
And disarmament must not be a process for the “enlightened few”, but an inclusive process, involving all relevant stakeholders.
We must strive for broad-based international agreements, and not allow ourselves to be blocked by those wanting the least progress. 
We must strive for broad-based international agreements, and not allow ourselves to be blocked by those wanting the least progress.
Norway has been an active player, and will continue to take initiatives in all regional and international forums, together with states that share our ambition to achieve concrete results. 
Norway has been an active player, and will continue to take initiatives in all regional and international forums, together with states that share our ambition to achieve concrete results.
Disarmament – reframing the challenge 
Disarmament – reframing the challenge
The Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Berlin, 22 June 2010 
The Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Berlin, 22. juni 2010
While NATO and the NPT are important forums, I do not believe it will be possible to reach the goal of abolishing nuclear weapons unless we engage a much broader spectrum of society, Foreign Minister Støre said in his key note address at the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung. 
While NATO and the NPT are important forums, I do not believe it will be possible to reach the goal of abolishing nuclear weapons unless we engage a much broader spectrum of society, sa utenriksminister Støre bl.a. da han innledet på møtet ved Friedrich Ebert Stiftung i Berlin.
The Minister based his address on the following points (check against delivery). 
The Minister based his address on the following points (check against delivery).
I very much appreciate being invited. 
I very much appreciate being invited.
The Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung has been pivotal in shaping German politics over the last six decades. 
The Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung has been pivotal in shaping German politics over the last six decades.
Your analyses are thorough, leading and set the agenda. 
Your analyses are thorough, leading and set the agenda.
As a student, I was greatly inspired by leaders such as Willy Brandt and Helmut Schmidt. 
As a student, I was greatly inspired by leaders such as Willy Brandt and Helmut Schmidt.
They represented social democracy and international solidarity at its best. 
They represented social democracy and international solidarity at its best.
Basic values. 
Basic values.
I became Foreign Minister in 2005 at the same time as Frank-Walter Steinmeier came into office. 
I became Foreign Minister in 2005 at the same time as Frank-Walter Steinmeier came into office.
We both shared the same perspectives on many global challenges, and I appreciated the close cooperation we had on disarmament issues. 
We both shared the same perspectives on many global challenges, and I appreciated the close cooperation we had on disarmament issues.
Among other things, we managed to bring disarmament back onto NATO’s agenda, which – in 2007 – was a rather tall order. 
Among other things, we managed to bring disarmament back onto NATO’s agenda, which – in 2007 – was a rather tall order.
This morning I had a good meeting with Guido Westerwelle, and I am glad that our close cooperation continues. 
This morning I had a good meeting with Guido Westerwelle, and I am glad that our close cooperation continues.
This brings me to today’s topic: disarmament as a global challenge. 
This brings me to today’s topic: disarmament as a global challenge.
For me the very notion of disarmament represents more than anything an opportunity to enhance security. 
For me the very notion of disarmament represents more than anything an opportunity to enhance security.
And enhancing security is all about credibility and relevance: We must make the best use of the opportunities at hand, in order to reduce armament levels, and in order to eliminate weapons that weaken security rather than strengthen it. 
And enhancing security is all about credibility and relevance: We must make the best use of the opportunities at hand, in order to reduce armament levels, and in order to eliminate weapons that weaken security rather than strengthen it.
In my view: All countries have a responsibility to forge an international environment that is conducive for disarmament. 
In my view: All countries have a responsibility to forge an international environment that is conducive for disarmament.
There is no good reason to let the disarmament agenda be dominated by a handful of countries, or to let those who want to achieve the least set the pace. 
There is no good reason to let the disarmament agenda be dominated by a handful of countries, or to let those who want to achieve the least set the pace.
Unfortunately, this is precisely how the institutionalised intergovernmental disarmament agenda has been working. 
Unfortunately, this is precisely how the institutionalised intergovernmental disarmament agenda has been working.
For nearly 15 years, the Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament (CD) has delivered nothing at all of practical value. 
For nearly 15 years, the Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament (CD) has delivered nothing at all of practical value.
If this situation continues, we should reconsider whether the current CD (as well as other intergovernmental disarmament institutions) is the best response we can come up with to today’s challenges. 
If this situation continues, we should reconsider whether the current CD (as well as other intergovernmental disarmament institutions) is the best response we can come up with to today’s challenges.
For one thing, we know that there are alternative approaches: 
For one thing, we know that there are alternative approaches:
Firstly. 
Firstly.
In the field of humanitarian disarmament, multilateralism has been working: We must learn from the experiences from the Mine Ban Convention and the Cluster Munitions Convention. 
In the field of humanitarian disarmament, multilateralism has been working: We must learn from the experiences from the Mine Ban Convention and the Cluster Munitions Convention.
Secondly. 
Secondly.
A renewed intergovernmental machinery is needed. 
A renewed intergovernmental machinery is needed.
This should: o be inclusive and open for all interested states; o be much more transparent, and open for active participation of civil society (and other relevant actors); o have a clear orientation towards practical on-the-ground impact; and most of all o be structured so that the spoilers cannot set the agenda. 
This should: o be inclusive and open for all interested states; o be much more transparent, and open for active participation of civil society (and other relevant actors); o have a clear orientation towards practical on-the-ground impact; and most of all o be structured so that the spoilers cannot set the agenda.
Now, these points should be taken into account when we consider how to make use of the window of opportunity we now have - so we can move closer to a world free from nuclear weapons. 
Now, these points should be taken into account when we consider how to make use of the window of opportunity we now have - so we can move closer to a world free from nuclear weapons.
The window is open, but could shut again, just as the optimism of the 1990s was followed by some very difficult years. 
The window is open, but could shut again, just as the optimism of the 1990s was followed by some very difficult years.
Let me illustrate this by focusing on three main areas or arenas: o First: the NPT and the nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime. o Second: the role of NATO. o Third: the concept of humanitarian disarmament. 
Let me illustrate this by focusing on three main areas or arenas: o First: the NPT and the nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime. o Second: the role of NATO. o Third: the concept of humanitarian disarmament.
First: my views on a very topical issue – the NPT. 
First: my views on a very topical issue – the NPT.
For nearly ten years, we have been accustomed to bad news when it came to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. 
For nearly ten years, we have been accustomed to bad news when it came to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.
Many factors contributed to a deep sense of pessimism, and many of them are still valid: o North Korea’s announcement in 2003 of its withdrawal from the NPT created a genuine fear that other countries would follow suit. 
Many factors contributed to a deep sense of pessimism, and many of them are still valid: o North Korea’s announcement in 2003 of its withdrawal from the NPT created a genuine fear that other countries would follow suit.
North Korea’s behaviour, building up its nuclear capacities and its possible international proliferation activities, is a grave challenge in itself. o Iran’s blatant refusal to comply with clear and legitimate demands by the international community has raised questions about how we can deal effectively with potential breakouts from the non-proliferation regime. 
North Korea’s behaviour, building up its nuclear capacities and its possible international proliferation activities, is a grave challenge in itself. o Iran’s blatant refusal to comply with clear and legitimate demands by the international community has raised questions about how we can deal effectively with potential breakouts from the non-proliferation regime.
It is further cause for concern that these two proliferation challenges (and possibly others, like Syria) have emerged at a time when we are seeing what has been described as a civilian “nuclear renaissance”. 
It is further cause for concern that these two proliferation challenges (and possibly others, like Syria) have emerged at a time when we are seeing what has been described as a civilian “nuclear renaissance”.
We may like it or not, but it is expected that more countries, particularly in the South, will develop nuclear energy in the decades to come. 
We may like it or not, but it is expected that more countries, particularly in the South, will develop nuclear energy in the decades to come.
This is already happening on a large scale in countries such as China. 
This is already happening on a large scale in countries such as China.
Partly, of course, in response to the legitimate need for energy sources to fuel economic growth. 
Partly, of course, in response to the legitimate need for energy sources to fuel economic growth.
But we should not overlook the challenge represented by sensitive technologies being made more widely available worldwide. 
But we should not overlook the challenge represented by sensitive technologies being made more widely available worldwide.
Alongside the proliferation challenges, it is also a fact that many countries, especially those in the Non-aligned Movement (NAM), find that nuclear weapons states have not delivered on their disarmament pledges. 
Alongside the proliferation challenges, it is also a fact that many countries, especially those in the Non-aligned Movement (NAM), find that nuclear weapons states have not delivered on their disarmament pledges.
To understand this, we should take a closer look at the NPT and its history. 
To understand this, we should take a closer look at the NPT and its history.
The NPT was negotiated in 1968 and entered into force in 1970. 
The NPT was negotiated in 1968 and entered into force in 1970.
Its underlying principle is that countries that did not already possess nuclear arms would pledge not to acquire such weapons, provided that they were ensured the right to nuclear energy for peaceful uses, and that nuclear weapons states committed themselves to nuclear disarmament and the eventual elimination of their nuclear weapons. 
Its underlying principle is that countries that did not already possess nuclear arms would pledge not to acquire such weapons, provided that they were ensured the right to nuclear energy for peaceful uses, and that nuclear weapons states committed themselves to nuclear disarmament and the eventual elimination of their nuclear weapons.
The NPT is a product of the Cold War. 
The NPT is a product of the Cold War.
Today, it is highly unlikely that an agreement would be reached under which five states are given the exclusive right to possess a particular weapon such as the nuclear bomb. 
Today, it is highly unlikely that an agreement would be reached under which five states are given the exclusive right to possess a particular weapon such as the nuclear bomb.
Many of us remember the freeze movement in the 1980s, the peace camps and massive demonstrations against the deployment of new US nuclear weapons in Western Europe to counter the Soviet SS20 missiles. 
Many of us remember the freeze movement in the 1980s, the peace camps and massive demonstrations against the deployment of new US nuclear weapons in Western Europe to counter the Soviet SS20 missiles.
The NPT was originally given a duration of 25 years. 
The NPT was originally given a duration of 25 years.
When the question of extension came up in 1995, the world had changed dramatically. 
When the question of extension came up in 1995, the world had changed dramatically.
While nuclear deterrence could have been justified during the East–West confrontation, it was harder to explain why certain states were still to maintain large stockpiles of nuclear arms in the absence of any obvious enemy. 
While nuclear deterrence could have been justified during the East–West confrontation, it was harder to explain why certain states were still to maintain large stockpiles of nuclear arms in the absence of any obvious enemy.
In short, the credibility and relevance of nuclear weapons were questioned in a way never done before. 
In short, the credibility and relevance of nuclear weapons were questioned in a way never done before.
In 1995 the NPT was extended indefinitely, with the following provisions: o that nuclear weapons states committed themselves to disarmament with a view to elimination of their arsenals; o that nuclear weapons states gave guarantees that – under specific conditions – they would not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states; o and that the international community would aim to set up a zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. 
In 1995 the NPT was extended indefinitely, with the following provisions: o that nuclear weapons states committed themselves to disarmament with a view to elimination of their arsenals; o that nuclear weapons states gave guarantees that – under specific conditions – they would not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states; o and that the international community would aim to set up a zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East.
The last of these was essential for securing the continued support of Arab states to the NPT regime. 
The last of these was essential for securing the continued support of Arab states to the NPT regime.
These disarmament commitments were further elaborated by the 2000 NPT Review Conference, through the adoption of 13 practical nuclear disarmament steps. 
These disarmament commitments were further elaborated by the 2000 NPT Review Conference, through the adoption of 13 practical nuclear disarmament steps.