3 Policy for humanitarian engagement

3.1 Norway’s humanitarian role

The Government’s goal is for Norway to be a leading political and financial partner in international humanitarian efforts and to help ensure that the international community is as well equipped as possible to meet future challenges.

Norway must be a good humanitarian donor. 1 Our principal focus is on ensuring a rapid, flexible and effective response in order to enable us to meet changing humanitarian needs in both acute and protracted crises.

The core of humanitarian assistance consists of saving individual lives, alleviating suffering and ensuring human dignity, regardless of ethic background, gender, age, religion or political affiliation. Follow-up of this humanitarian imperative is a key part of Norway’s policy of engagement.

As a political actor, Norway does not wish to be neutral, but we will respect the humanitarian organisations’ need to preserve their independence and integrity. The key to good cooperation between the Norwegian authorities and the humanitarian organisations lies at this intersection between political and humanitarian principles.

Every state is responsible for protecting and helping its own citizens when they are hit by a humanitarian crisis. This is not a matter of choice but a legal obligation under a number of international conventions. In humanitarian crises, however, the state’s ability or willingness to fulfil its obligations is often impaired. In such situations, the international community has a clear co-responsibility for providing the necessary protection or life-saving relief.

Humanitarian issues have gained an increasingly important place in international politics in recent years. Humanitarian crises are more frequently addressed by the UN Security Council. Serious abuses and violations of rights have resulted in increased focus on the protection of civilians and displaced persons, for example in Darfur, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The enormous human suffering caused by frequent natural disasters is immediately broadcast through the media.

Our engagement is not limited to safeguarding humanitarian rights and responding to humanitarian needs. Together with our partners, we wish to change the operating parameters for humanitarian efforts. The experience from both natural disasters and conflicts has shown that humanitarian efforts must be seen in a broader political context. Humanitarian crises require political solutions. However, a more broadly-based international engagement does not mean that humanitarian considerations should be subordinated to other political considerations. On the contrary, humanitarian values must always be safeguarded.

However, humanitarian aid must never be an alternative to lasting political, economic and security solutions to the problems currently facing millions of vulnerable people.

The Darfur conflict is an example of how the increasingly efficient machinery of emergency aid risks acting as a stop-gap solution to problems that require more comprehensive solutions. Norway will therefore endeavour to promote lasting solutions through diplomatic and foreign policy initiatives and not accept that humanitarian activities become an alibi disguising the powerlessness of the international community.

Our peace and reconciliation efforts, our political dialogue with affected countries, our contribution to international peace operations, our aid, efforts relating to climate change, focus on humanitarian disarmament and work to strengthen human rights are all important contributions to preventing humanitarian suffering.

The authorities, local communities and organisations in the countries most often affected by humanitarian crises are responsible for a large part of the assistance provided. It is often national and local efforts that save most lives and contribute to protection. These efforts must not be underestimated or forgotten. However, it is still Northern and Western organisations and countries that define the parameters for the international humanitarian system. It is a major international challenge to make this system more representative and better adapted to local conditions and cultures, while at the same time ensuring that the universal humanitarian principles are respected.

Photo: UNAMA

3.2 Humanitarian principles and Norwegian traditions

Civilians and those wounded in wars and conflicts have a right to protection, respect and help, regardless of which side they are on. The Geneva Conventions are the fundamental pillars of international humanitarian law, which requires countries to protect civilians, wounded and sick soldiers and prisoners against the consequences of war. These conventions have been virtually universally endorsed, and the principles also apply as international customary law, i.e. they are binding on all parties irrespective of whether they have formally endorsed them. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has been given a special mandate by the international community to protect and help people in wars and armed conflicts on the basis of humanitarian law.

The 60th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions will be marked in 2009. This is a good opportunity to turn the spotlight on humanitarian law and strengthen respect for and compliance with humanitarian principles (see Box 3.1).

The UN agencies and NGOs largely base their efforts on the humanitarian principles, although the different organisations vary greatly in terms of their mandates and approaches. They also form the basis for Norway’s humanitarian policy.

There is widespread support among Norwegians for the humanitarian principles and for Norway, as a nation with the necessary political and financial capacity, making a substantial contribution to humanitarian assistance. We have a long tradition and broad popular commitment to solidarity with repressed and impoverished people, and with refugees and internally displaced persons.

Norway has played an important role in developing humanitarian law and the protection it affords to civilians in armed conflicts, as most recently demonstrated in the Oslo process that led to the signing of the Convention on Cluster Munitions in 2008 (see Box 3.2). The Convention is a good example of the prevention of humanitarian disasters because it prevents the proliferation of cluster munitions to new countries and areas. It contains strong provisions on support for, and participation by, survivors and victims of cluster munitions that are rights-based and build on similar provisions of the Mine Ban Convention (1997) and the increased understanding that has developed in the last decade of the role and conditions of survivors. As in the work on the Mine Ban Convention, the humanitarian organisations have played an important role in putting this issue on the international agenda.

Anti-personnel mines were prohibited in 1997 through the Mine Ban Convention. Landmines thereby became an illegitimate and unacceptable weapon. Since the Mine Ban Convention was adopted, the use of landmines has virtually ceased, and extensive human suffering has been prevented. The Convention’s Second Review Conference will be held in Colombia, a country hard hit by landmines, at the end of 2009 under Norwegian presidency. Norway holds the presidency for the Mine Ban Convention until the next meeting of the States Parties in 2010. One key task will be to ensure that the 156 States Parties fulfil their obligations under international law, by both upholding the principle of national ownership in the affected countries and emphasising the importance of international cooperation and assistance.

Close cooperation with the ICRC and civil society, particularly the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) played a decisive role in negotiation of the Mine Ban Convention. This cooperation must continue if the intentions and obligations of the Convention are to be realised. Survivors and victims of landmines have contributed to the development of anti-mine work, which has been important in the field, while their experiences have also been important in the work on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The Mine Ban Convention is a model for other initiatives, and the implementation of the Convention will continue to set the standard and serve as a guideline for corresponding initiatives.

As regards small arms and light weapons, there is no international agreement on the prohibition or regulation of their use. Important multilateral processes include the UN small arms and light weapons programme, the Arms Trade Treaty process for the negotiation of an international standard for trade in conventional weapons, and the Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development, where Norway is a member of the core group. Norway will play an active part in the efforts to achieve international regulation of small arms and light weapons in the time ahead. We will make use of our experience of development cooperation and other humanitarian disarmament in this connection. Our starting point will be that the grave humanitarian and development consequences of handgun use can generate a new dynamic and result in progress.

The lesson from the work on the Mine Ban Convention and the Convention on Cluster Munitions is that we can achieve results if knowledge gained in the field and norm development go hand in hand. Further diplomatic initiatives and follow-up should therefore also be based on experience and knowledge gained in the field.

Non-governmental humanitarian organisations play a key role in international humanitarian efforts, and a large proportion of Norwegian humanitarian aid is channelled through such organisations. In addition to the International Red Cross movement, an extensive network of voluntary organisations has emerged. They range widely – from small development organisations to global humanitarian organisations with thousands of employees. This diversity represents a challenge as regards ensuring a coordinated effort, but it is also a strength, for example with respect to such organisations’ ability to reach the civilian population in difficult circumstances. Several of the Norwegian organisations have comparative advantages that make them key contributors to international humanitarian efforts and important partners for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Close cooperation, but also a clear division of roles, between the Norwegian authorities and Norwegian NGOs has been a precondition for the development of “the Norwegian model”. This cooperation has contributed to Norway becoming a prominent donor country and humanitarian actor with a broad international perspective. It has also contributed to several Norwegian NGOs being among the leading organisations in their field internationally. Norway has also built up a separate emergency preparedness system – NOREPS – which can help at short notice in crisis situations.

3.3 The international humanitarian system is changing

Through our partners, we try to reach individuals in order to save lives, alleviate suffering and ensure human dignity and protection in humanitarian crises. The UN system, the Red Cross Movement and NGOs constitute the core of the international humanitarian system.

As a member of, and donor to, humanitarian organisations, we wish to exercise influence in order to ensure a well-functioning global humanitarian system. Continuous humanitarian reform is therefore an important task for Norwegian humanitarian diplomacy, both in multilateral agencies and in the bilateral context.

The number of international relief agencies has multiplied in the past two decades. During the tsunami disaster in 2005, more than 250 international organisations were active in Sri Lanka and in Ache in addition to the many national and local actors. Norway expects Norwegian, international and local organisations that receive Norwegian funds to participate actively in the coordinating mechanisms organised by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in disaster areas, or coordination under the auspices of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent. National and local authorities must be involved where possible. This is decisive in order to make emergency relief work more effective and ensure that local authorities and communities are able to benefit from and take over responsibility for relief and reconstruction activities.

Norway has helped to initiate several important humanitarian reforms. Our goal is to improve financing, strengthen coordination and rationalise the division of labour between humanitarian actors. Norway wants humanitarian efforts to be better adapted to the new global challenges. We are concerned with ensuring that the humanitarian efforts are more broadly supported, less dominated by Western countries and better adapted to the needs and rights of people affected by crises.

The international community is still struggling to invest enough in preventive measures and to ensure good transitions from crisis situation to long-term development. Different policy instruments must be seen in an overall perspective, but we must abandon the notion that efforts of different kinds must automatically take place in chronological stages. In complex humanitarian crises, we must be prepared to provide different forms of assistance simultaneously, and long-term, sustainable development must be planned as early as possible in major, acute crises.

In most cases, the humanitarian efforts can and should be based on local resources. The continued strengthening of international humanitarian efforts must not take place at the expense of the development of local capacity for preparedness and response, but must underpin and supplement it, insofar as this is in accordance with fundamental humanitarian principles.

Source OCHA"s Financial Tracking System (FTS)

Source OCHA"s Financial Tracking System (FTS)

3.4 Humanitarian principles under pressure

In many conflicts today, humanitarian activities take place alongside peace and reconciliation efforts, development assistance, international policing activities and military peace operations. One of the greatest challenges in such situations is to provide coherent, well-coordinated assistance while safeguarding humanitarian principles (see Box 3.1).

There are many good reasons why humanitarian aid must be viewed in close conjunction with other types of aid. It is important, nonetheless, to insist on maintaining the unique character of humanitarian assistance.

The UN agencies, the Red Cross movement and other organisations base their humanitarian activities on the principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence. The need to defend these principles in complex crises involving many different actors is often referred to as ensuring a “humanitarian space”.

The concept is closely linked to the ability of and possibilities for civil humanitarian organisations to gain access to vulnerable population groups in demanding security situations. Often, the sole source of security and access for civil humanitarian actors lies in their being regarded as neutral by various armed groups and the local population. They will therefore need to distance themselves from other activities, both various forms of political and peace-building engagement and international military operations.

The need to keep civilian and military efforts separate is a frequent focus in this discussion, for example in Afghanistan. But the grey areas between humanitarian aid, development assistance, political and diplomatic efforts and other forms of civil assistance mean that it is not always easy to draw clear boundaries around this humanitarian space. More debate is required about where the dividing line should be drawn with respect to independence and neutrality and who is entitled to invoke the humanitarian principles. Are development assistance and peace and reconciliation efforts also included? Where does the dividing line go in such case? How can the goal of stronger national ownership of humanitarian assistance be reconciled with these principles? Here, there are no simple solutions. The answers to these questions may depend on the situation to a certain extent.

Photo: ICRC

This challenge must be taken seriously, however. A great effort is required from the international community in order to strengthen respect for humanitarian law and secure unlimited access for the humanitarian organisations to population groups in need. The “global war on terror” has contributed to weakening the universal application of the humanitarian principles and respect for human rights in several countries. It allows little room for a neutral humanitarian space. Humanitarian organisations’ access to the civilian population has become more difficult.

Undemocratic regimes, parties to conflicts and hostilities continue to block life-saving help for millions of vulnerable people. Together with the UN and like-minded countries, the Government wishes to continue Norway’s endeavours to ensure that all civilian populations and groups in need have access to help. The international community has an obligation to help and protect, while those in power and armed groups have an obligation to facilitate humanitarian relief.

International military forces often engage in various types of aid and reconstruction efforts. The motives for this can be varied and complex: they may motivated by a desire to satisfy public opinion back home, to meet genuine needs and requests from the civilian population or to win the support of the civilian population for their presence. In extreme cases, situations can also arise where, pursuant to the Geneva Conventions, military forces are obliged to help civilians.

However, efforts of this type have often resulted in an unfortunate confusion of roles between civil and military actors that makes it difficult for the population to distinguish between the political, military and humanitarian actors. Playing the role of armed soldier the one moment and aid worker the next can create confusion, among both the civilian population and combatants. This increases the risk of attacks on humanitarian aid workers and undermines the humanitarian space. Consequently, stronger compliance with the UN-based guidelines for humanitarian-military collaboration is necessary.

In Norway’s view, there must be a coherent approach to the various types of initiatives involved in international peace operations and other peace-building efforts, an approach that is based on a clear division of roles between humanitarian organisations, other civil actors and military forces. At the same time, however, there are no easy answers to the many dilemmas that arise at the interface between the different types of assistance.