Latest news with #Stoltenberg
Daily Maverick
20-07-2025
- Business
- Daily Maverick
Norway's Stoltenberg lauds SA's meeting of G20 finance ministers and central bank governors
The Norwegian finance minister said that despite their differences, the countries around the table had been able to agree on a communique 'that sets out important principles'. South Africa's final G20 meeting of finance ministers and central bank governors was a success, said Norway's finance minister, Jens Stoltenberg. The meeting at the Zimbali beach resort north of Durban on Thursday and Friday produced the first communique of SA's G20 presidency. So far, the sherpas track of the G20 has only managed to issue 'chairpersons' statements' because they were unable to achieve consensus. Norway is not a member of the G20 but was invited by President Cyril Ramaphosa to attend all the G20 meetings as a guest. Stoltenberg, a former Norwegian prime minister and the previous secretary-general of Nato, said agreeing on a communique — despite the wide variety of countries around the table, including the European countries, the US, China and Russia, which disagreed on many issues — was good news and a recognition of South Africa's chairing of the G20. 'And despite these differences, we have been able to agree on a communique that actually sets out some important principles and charts a way forward on issues like a global minimum tax, like how to handle countries with debt problems, and to create a better framework for addressing debt problems for indebted countries, and also language on climate market and climate financing, which helps us to move that agenda forward,' Stoltenberg told Daily Maverick. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent skipped the meeting and sent a lower-ranking official, but, as Stoltenberg noted, the US was represented and endorsed the communique. Some analysts would have liked stronger language on important issues such as debt relief, climate financing and the minimum global tax. 'But in these kinds of negotiations, it is important not to make the best the enemy of the good,' said Stoltenberg. It was an achievement that, after many meetings which failed to agree on a communique, there was now an agreement, he said 'And the issues that are addressed, including debt, climate financing and minimum tax, are important issues, where we actually have taken some important steps. 'And I also think that … it is important that Africa has a central place in the communique, where the G20 countries commit to work more closely together, to also assess how these different development banks [like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund] are set up to support Africa. 'Debt relief and management of debt are, of course, important for many African countries. 'And we also looked into how we can facilitate more private investments, more trade with Africa.' Debt and taxes On a global minimum tax, the communique said the G20 countries would address concerns about the G20/OECD Pillar Two global minimum taxes 'with the shared goal of finding a balanced and practical solution that is acceptable for all'. Pillar Two sets out rules to ensure that large multinational corporations pay a minimum 15% tax on their profits in every country where they do business. The aim is to prevent such corporations from avoiding taxes by domiciling in tax havens. The G20 members also 'committed to addressing debt vulnerabilities in low- and middle-income countries in an effective, comprehensive and systematic manner'. This included reaffirming the G20's commitment to further strengthen the implementation of the G20 Common Framework, which enables debt relief and restructuring for highly indebted countries. So far, it has focused on Africa. The communique noted that the Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) — such as the World Bank and International Monetary Foundation (IMF) — were implementing the G20 MDB Roadmap and the recommendations from the Capital Adequacy Framework Report that the MDBs should more efficiently utilise their existing resources, share more risk with the private sector and utilise new instruments to increase lending capacity over the next decade. The G20 members acknowledged the 'strategic importance' of an enhanced G20 partnership with African economies, including through strengthening the G20 Compact with Africa. On climate financing, the communique noted a commitment to strengthen global sustainable financing through effective coordination among MDBs, vertical climate and environment funds (like the Global Environment Facility), which provide concessional finance to developing countries, and national development banks. The members looked forward to continued work for more effective funding of climate adaptation and addressing natural catastrophe insurance protection gaps in countries. The communique noted the potential of high-integrity, voluntary, private-sector-led carbon markets. The members reaffirmed the G20's commitment to a strong, quota-based, and adequately resourced IMF at the centre of the Global Financial Safety Net and acknowledged 'the importance of realignment in quota shares to better reflect members' relative positions in the world economy while protecting the quota shares of the poorest members'. They underscored 'the need for enhancing the representation and voice of developing countries in decision-making in MDBs and other international economic and financial institutions'. They welcomed the creation of a 25th chair on the IMF executive board 'to enhance the voice and representation of sub-Saharan Africa'. The finance ministers and central bank governors recognised the importance of the World Trade Organization (WTO) to advance trade issues, and acknowledged the agreed-upon rules in the WTO 'as an integral part of the global trading system'. They underscored the importance of the independence of central banks. SA officials particularly welcomed the agreement on this, as well as the agreements on carbon markets and the importance of multilateral institutions like the WTO, as the Trump administration has not been enthusiastic about any of these. Historic ties Apart from attending the G20, Stoltenberg said he had visited the nearby Albert Luthuli Museum, which honours the late ANC leader who received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1961, 'from the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize Committee. 'And that demonstrated … the long and strong bond between South Africa and Norway,' he said, which was in many ways initiated by that peace prize, which inspired the anti-apartheid and solidarity movement in Norway. He noted that Norway had provided economic and other support to the ANC in exile, which created the foundation for the bonds between the two countries that have lasted until today. He said that despite Norway being a strong supporter of free trade, it had imposed sanctions on South Africa during the apartheid era 'because freedom is more important than free trade. 'And that's also the reason why we are imposing sanctions on Russia, because of the illegal invasion, blatant violation of international law, invading a neighbour, Ukraine. 'And why Norway has imposed sanctions on Israel for the illegal settlements on the West Bank … and the warfare in Gaza, violating international law. 'So we don't believe in double standards. And there's a long line, from supporting self-determination of the people of South Africa, to supporting the people of Ukraine in their right to decide their own future, and recognising Palestine as an independent state.' In his intervention in the G20 meeting, Stoltenberg said, 'We need to find the right balance between political tools — when it comes to sanctions — and ensuring free trade and open economies. 'We are concerned about increasing tariffs. We believe that increased tariffs will reduce growth and reduce our ability to foster prosperity. So … we should not misuse the idea of political tools to impose tariffs which are not needed. We believe in free trade, it's good for all of us.' Road to peace Daily Maverick asked Stoltenberg, as a former Nato secretary-general, if he saw any prospects for a peace settlement in Ukraine. 'Yes, of course,' he replied. 'But the only way to get peace is to support Ukraine, because everyone wants this war to end. At the same time, we know that the quickest way to end the war is to lose the war. But that will not bring peace, that will bring occupation. 'And occupation is not peace. So if we want peace, we have to convince [Russian] President [Vladimir] Putin that he will not achieve his goals on the battlefield. 'And the only way to get there is to provide military support to Ukraine, because the stronger Ukraine is on the battlefield, the stronger they will be around the negotiating table. 'And therefore, if we want peace, we need military support to Ukraine. And it is fundamental, not least for African countries, to uphold the right of territorial integrity. 'Russia has recognised the borders of Ukraine many times, and now they have violated the same borders by blatant violation of international law. So we cannot allow double standards. 'We need to criticise Israel's war against Gaza, and we need to be very clear on Russia's blatant violation of international law. And peace, we can get peace tomorrow if Putin stops invading a neighbour. 'If Putin stops fighting, then we have peace. If [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelensky stops fighting, then we have occupation. And occupation is not peace.' DM
CBC
27-06-2025
- Politics
- CBC
NATO's history of running hot and cold on Ukraine is running cold again
Social Sharing There was a particularly telling moment at a bygone NATO summit about four years ago, which perfectly captured the sometimes capricious way the Western military alliance regards Ukraine. The secretary general of the day, the often unflappable Jens Stoltenberg, was asked about the Eastern European country's long-standing bid to join the allies. At that point, Ukraine had been waiting more than a dozen years for admission. And much like the first signs of an approaching storm, there had been an ominous buildup of Russian forces on the border the previous spring. Stoltenberg was asked if he foresaw any scenario under which Ukraine would join NATO unchallenged by Russia. (Full disclosure: I am the one who asked the question). It was — perhaps — sadly prescient. Stoltenberg, however, waved it off. Each nation has the right to pick and choose its alliances and associations, he responded. The point — then and now — is that Ukraine had chosen. It had picked a side and charted its own course. It had thrown its lot in with allies in 2008 in the belief, perhaps misguided, that the Western promise of fairness and collective security was their future. And yet, then — as now — Ukraine was left waiting outside the door. Ukraine on the sidelines At this week's NATO summit, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy — whose every word leaders hung on during the 2022 and 2023 gatherings — was relegated to the sidelines and the dining hall as Western leaders discussed his country's fate behind closed doors. In fairness, Zelenskky did get face time with major leaders, including the American president, Donald Trump. Through that meeting, he secured additional, urgently needed U.S. Patriot missile battery systems. There was a collective guarantee of additional aid worth 35 billion euros from European allied countries. Canada — at the G7 the week before — promised an additional $4.3 billion. The summit ended with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who is rarely offside with the Trump administration these days, stating that Ukraine's path to join NATO, as declared at the 2023 Vilnius summit, is still "irreversible." Maybe he didn't get Washington's memo. It was clear the summit was tailored for Trump — a short, narrowly focused agenda aimed at getting allies to show him the money on defence spending. Ukraine was a necessary, but unpleasant, afterthought. Canada, the original sponsor of Ukraine's membership in 2008, went along — seemingly reluctantly. "We would have preferred, Canada would have preferred a special session with NATO, with Ukraine, absolutely," Prime Minister Mark Carney told journalists at the conclusion of the summit on Wednesday, While Carney said he raised several points related to Ukraine during the closed-door leaders' meeting, he clarified most of the collective agenda discussed had nothing to do with Ukraine and everything to do with the concerns of other allies. He used the Arctic as an illustration of something Zelenskyy might not care about. The prime minister's remarks shed light on what is essentially the fundamental divide between Europe and the United States (at least this iteration under the Trump administration) over Ukraine. "The U.S. does not see Ukrainian security as essential to European security, and our European allies do," former U.S. ambassador to NATO Kurt Volker told a recent panel organized by the Center for European Policy Analysis. The Europeans, he said, "feel that if Putin is allowed to prevail in Ukraine — or if Ukraine does not survive as a sovereign, independent state — they are at risk." WATCH | Ukrainian describes aftermath of bombing: 'I woke up in the rubble,' Kyiv resident says after Russian strike 3 days ago Duration 0:29 Valeriy Mankuta, a construction worker in Ukraine's capital, told journalists he was sleeping when he felt a blast, waking up in rubble with a giant slab overhead. The blast was one of many overnight, as Russia launched another barrage of strikes on Ukraine. That was implicit in Rutte's enthusiastic reassurance about Ukraine's membership bid, even though it risked the ire of Trump. "They see the need to support Ukraine as integral to our security through NATO. The U.S. simply doesn't see it that way," said Volker. The U.S. "thinks NATO is NATO. You do Article Five protection for NATO members, and the more that is done by our European allies themselves the better," he said. "And Ukraine, it's unfortunate. It's a war." Russia's red line Russian President Vladimir Putin has made Ukraine's potential membership in NATO a key red line for allies, insisting that his neighbour be barred from entering the Western alliance — forever. Trump in his pursuit of some kind of Nobel Peace Prize bought into the argument and made criticism of Moscow verboten — either at NATO or the G7. As late as a month ago, Trump's envoy to Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, said Russia's concern over the eastward enlargement of NATO was fair. Bullocks, says NATO's former secretary general Lord George Robertson. "I had nine meetings with Vladimir Putin during my time as secretary general," said Robertson, who led NATO from 1999 to 2003, as Putin came to power and the alliance began its expansion to include former Eastern Bloc countries. "At no point did he complain about NATO enlargement. Not at all." Robertson, in a recent interview with CBC News, describes Putin's NATO argument as "retroactive justification" for going to war against his neighbours (Russia also invaded Georgia in 2008). Forgotten in the wash of history, the flood of misinformation, the recent clash of egos, the rush to rearm and the massaging of policy points is an agreement signed by Putin and allied leaders — including U.S. President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Jean Chrétien — which established the now-defunct NATO-Russia Council in 2002. "Vladimir Putin put his signature on the Rome Declaration, which endorsed the NATO-Russia Founding Act (1997) and the guarantee of territorial integrity of all nations in Europe," said Robertson. "His signature is on it with mine." The date and the event is burned into his memory. "May 20, 2002, the same day that he stood beside me at the press conference and said that Ukraine is a sovereign, independent nation, a state which will make its own decisions about peace and security," Robertson said. "And now the same man says Ukraine is not a nation and somehow, violently, it has to be absorbed inside his concept of a new Russia." The former secretary general, during his interview, confessed to often carrying around a copy of the more than two-decade-old declaration in his suit pocket. The document, for Robertson, is an ever-present reminder of Putin's betrayal — perhaps even a personal keepsake of a crown achievement that history has turned to dust.
Straits Times
04-06-2025
- Business
- Straits Times
Norway lawmakers oppose blanket ban by wealth fund on companies in Israeli-occupied areas
FILE PHOTO: A Jewish settler walks past Israeli settlement construction sites around Givat Zeev and Ramat Givat Zeev in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, near Jerusalem June 30, 2020. REUTERS/Ammar Awad/File Photo FILE PHOTO: A view of the Israeli settlement Ofra near Palestinian town of Turmus Ayya where Israeli settlers torched houses, in the Israeli-occupied West Bank June 23, 2023. REUTERS/Ammar Awad/File Photo FILE PHOTO: Svein Richard Brandtzaeg, head of the Council on Ethics for the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund, poses for a picture in Oslo, Norway, on March 19, 2024. REUTERS/Gwladys Fouche/File Photo FILE PHOTO: A view of new buildings around the Israeli settlement Talmon B near the Palestinian town of Mazraa Al-Qibleyeh near Ramallah, in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, November 20, 2024. REUTERS/Mohammed Torokman/File Photo OSLO - Norway's parliament on Wednesday rejected a proposal to have the country's $1.9 trillion sovereign wealth fund, the world's largest, divest from all companies with activities in the occupied Palestinian territories. The minority Labour government has for months been resisting pressure from pro-Palestinian campaigners to instruct the fund to divest from all firms with ties to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and parliament had been expected to vote against. "We have an established ethical regime for the fund," Finance Minister Jens Stoltenberg told the chamber earlier in the day, during a debate on several aspects of the way the fund is run. "We divest from the companies that contribute to Israel's breach of international law, but we do not divest from all companies that are present on the ground." Lawmaker Ingrid Fiskaa from the small Socialist Left opposition party told the chamber: "Without Norwegian oil fund money, it would be more difficult for Israeli authorities to demolish the homes of Palestinian families." The United Nations' special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese, wrote to Stoltenberg to alert him to what she called the "structural entanglement of Israeli corporations ... in the machinery of the occupation both in the West Bank, including east Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, and the violence that sustains it". "International corporations benefiting from (the Norwegian fund's) investments are critical components of the infrastructure sustaining the economy of the occupation," she wrote, in a letter dated May 20. Stoltenberg replied that the government was "confident that the investments do not violate Norway's obligations under international law". He noted that the fund follows ethical guidelines set by parliament, and that compliance is monitored by a separate body. That watchdog has over the past year recommended divestments from Israeli petrol station chain Paz and telecoms company Bezeq and is looking at more potential divestments in Israel. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Yahoo
04-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Norway lawmakers to oppose blocking wealth fund investment in firms in Israeli-occupied areas
By Gwladys Fouche OSLO (Reuters) -Lawmakers were on Wednesday debating whether Norway's $1.9 trillion sovereign wealth fund, the world's largest, should divest from all companies with activities in the occupied Palestinian territories. A formal vote was expected around 3 p.m. Parliament was expected to reject a wholesale boycott. The minority Labour government has for months been resisting pressure from pro-Palestinian campaigners to instruct the fund to divest from all firms with ties to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. "We have an established ethical regime for the fund," Finance Minister Jens Stoltenberg told the chamber in a debate on several aspects of the way the fund is run. "We divest from the companies that contribute to Israel's breach of international law, but we do not divest from all companies that are present on the ground." Lawmaker Ingrid Fiskaa from the small Socialist Left opposition party told the chamber: "Without Norwegian oil fund money, it would be more difficult for Israeli authorities to demolish the homes of Palestinian families." The United Nations' special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese, wrote to Stoltenberg to alert him to what she called the "structural entanglement of Israeli corporations ... in the machinery of the occupation both in the West Bank, including east Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, and the violence that sustains it". "International corporations benefiting from (the Norwegian fund's) investments are critical components of the infrastructure sustaining the economy of the occupation," she wrote, in a letter dated May 20. Stoltenberg replied that the government was "confident that the investments do not violate Norway's obligations under international law". He noted that the fund follows ethical guidelines set by parliament, and that compliance is monitored by a separate body. That watchdog has over the past year recommended divestments from Israeli petrol station chain Paz and telecoms company Bezeq and is looking at more potential divestments in Israel.
Straits Times
04-06-2025
- Business
- Straits Times
Norway lawmakers to oppose blocking wealth fund investment in firms in Israeli-occupied areas
FILE PHOTO: A Jewish settler walks past Israeli settlement construction sites around Givat Zeev and Ramat Givat Zeev in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, near Jerusalem June 30, 2020. REUTERS/Ammar Awad/File Photo FILE PHOTO: A view of the Israeli settlement Ofra near Palestinian town of Turmus Ayya where Israeli settlers torched houses, in the Israeli-occupied West Bank June 23, 2023. REUTERS/Ammar Awad/File Photo FILE PHOTO: Svein Richard Brandtzaeg, head of the Council on Ethics for the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund, poses for a picture in Oslo, Norway, on March 19, 2024. REUTERS/Gwladys Fouche/File Photo FILE PHOTO: A view of new buildings around the Israeli settlement Talmon B near the Palestinian town of Mazraa Al-Qibleyeh near Ramallah, in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, November 20, 2024. REUTERS/Mohammed Torokman/File Photo OSLO - Lawmakers were on Wednesday debating whether Norway's $1.9 trillion sovereign wealth fund, the world's largest, should divest from all companies with activities in the occupied Palestinian territories. A formal vote was expected around 3 p.m. Parliament was expected to reject a wholesale boycott. The minority Labour government has for months been resisting pressure from pro-Palestinian campaigners to instruct the fund to divest from all firms with ties to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. "We have an established ethical regime for the fund," Finance Minister Jens Stoltenberg told the chamber in a debate on several aspects of the way the fund is run. "We divest from the companies that contribute to Israel's breach of international law, but we do not divest from all companies that are present on the ground." Lawmaker Ingrid Fiskaa from the small Socialist Left opposition party told the chamber: "Without Norwegian oil fund money, it would be more difficult for Israeli authorities to demolish the homes of Palestinian families." The United Nations' special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese, wrote to Stoltenberg to alert him to what she called the "structural entanglement of Israeli corporations ... in the machinery of the occupation both in the West Bank, including east Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, and the violence that sustains it". "International corporations benefiting from (the Norwegian fund's) investments are critical components of the infrastructure sustaining the economy of the occupation," she wrote, in a letter dated May 20. Stoltenberg replied that the government was "confident that the investments do not violate Norway's obligations under international law". He noted that the fund follows ethical guidelines set by parliament, and that compliance is monitored by a separate body. That watchdog has over the past year recommended divestments from Israeli petrol station chain Paz and telecoms company Bezeq and is looking at more potential divestments in Israel. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
