Statement by Mr. Vidar Helgesen, State Secretary for Foreign Affairs

Peace and reconciliation. Norway's experience

The Indonesian – Norwegian Human Rights Dialogue Seminar on Transitional Justice and Human Rights, Jakarta, 29 April 2002

Your Excellencies,

Ladies and gentlemen,

I am very pleased to be here in Jakarta at the official launch of the dialogue on human rights between Norway and Indonesia. More than two years have passed since establishing this dialogue was first suggested, but now, finally, we are able to get off the ground.

The concept of a human rights dialogue is anything but precise. It describes a process of contact between politicians, civil servants, scholars and committed individuals on both sides. It may be carried out at seminars, conferences and bilateral political meetings, and in connection with project activities. The dialogue should be open and frank, based on a profound knowledge of international human rights norms and their implementation at the national level. The perspective is long term, the approach is pragmatic, and no aspects of human rights protection should be excluded from discussion. The dialogue requires commitment from both sides. Even though the parties may not have the same starting-points, the ultimate goal of the dialogue is clear: full implementation of internationally recognized human rights norms.

I have been asked to say a few words about peace and reconciliation processes and Norway's experience of such processes. I believe the theme of peace and reconciliation is very much related to the theme of today’s seminar. No transition is harder than that from painful conflict to peaceful co-existence, and issues of justice and human rights are at the heart of such processes.

This is particularly the case in the type of conflict that has come increasingly to the fore in recent years, in the form of civil war, armed insurrection and violent secessionist movements. During the last 10 years, every major armed conflict has originated within a state rather than between states.

Internal conflicts often turn particularly violent. In wars between states, each state takes particular care to protect its own civilians from the attacks of the other state. In such wars, the security of the state and the security of the individual tend to go hand in hand. When conflicts occur within states, the situation can be very different. Here the security of the individual can be threatened because the state is strong and wages war on its own people. But no less frequently, the individual may be under threat because the state is weak and fails to protect its civilians against armed insurrection, uncontrolled violence, or even terrorism. Moreover, internal conflicts are often related to ethnicity or religion rather than territory. When individual attributes such as religion, ethnic origins or clan, become the grounds for war, it too often follows that civilians are attacked for their religion, ethnicity or clan. Those who have a right to protection under international law are often in more danger than soldiers or guerrillas, who are protected by their weapons. The important distinction between combatants and civilians is too often blurred by the urge to demonize entire peoples and punish them collectively for the conduct of their leaders. This is what happened, for example, in the Balkans in the nineties, with people being targeted simply for being a Serb, a Croat or a Muslim.

The grim reality is that almost nine out of ten killed in armed conflict today are civilians. However, increasing international attention is being paid to the plight of civilians in war, and growing international pressure is being put on states to respect and uphold human rights. New international legal norms and mechanisms have been developed, but still the challenge remains how to ensure respect for existing norms as well as the new ones.

The new pattern of conflicts must lead to a new understanding of security. When the security of the state is threatened, not by external aggression but by internal tension, the state is faced with the dual challenge of preserving the security of the state without jeopardizing the security of its people. Therefore, today, state security can no longer be the only consideration shaping security policies. State security must protect and promote human security. For what is the purpose of state security if it leaves the population insecure?

Changes in the relationship between the state and the individual have led to changes in the relations between states too. The individual is no longer confined to the margins of international affairs. Increasingly states find that they lose legitimacy in the international community if they do not promote and protect the human rights of their citizens. This applies not least to states in transition: structural change in society is no longer an excuse for introducing disproportionate security measures against the population in the name of stability. On the contrary, human rights legislation and institutions are vital contributors to stability and security, both for the individual and for the state.

Respect for the human rights of all citizens is fundamental to the prevention of internal conflicts. Equally, ending violent internal conflicts is fundamental to the protection and promotion of human rights worldwide. Ending an internal conflict, however, is a complex task. Internal conflicts revolve around power relations. They have their winners and losers, and their conflict entrepreneurs. Usually both sides have political claims that fuel the conflict. Moreover, internal conflicts are often based on what are perceived as gross injustices or violations of rights. This often makes conflicts protracted, persistent and difficult to resolve. More often than not they are the wars that cannot be won.

The week before last I spent in Sri Lanka, where Norway has been involved in the peace efforts since 1998, when it was asked to assist the peace process as a third party. After the parliamentary election in December 2001, the newly elected Prime Minister Wickremesinghe and the LTTE asked Norway to continue to assist the process. The current peace process between the Sinhalese-dominated government and the minority Tamil rebel group LTTE grew from a recognition by both parties that the conflict, which has claimed over 60 000 lives since 1983, could not be resolved by military means.

The conflict has its origin in the Tamil minority’s strong feeling of being discriminated against by a Sinhalese state ever since independence in 1948, and the decision by Tamil leaders to take up arms in the early 1980s. Now both parties have made it clear that they are ready for painful compromises in the pursuit of peace. Following several efforts at a peaceful settlement over the last 20 years, they have also agreed to request a third-party facilitator.

Why is Norway involved? And what is our role?

It was the parties that agreed to ask Norway, and we are not entirely sure of the reason. What is clear is that in Sri Lanka Norway has had long-standing development cooperation with the government. Our reputation in connection with peace processes in the Middle East and Guatemala might have played a role. The Norwegian team spent a long time building contacts and relations of trust with decision-makers on both sides. Norway’s role is to assist the parties in their efforts to reach a political solution. We do not go beyond the tasks that the parties ask us to assume. Concretely, a significant part of Norway’s efforts are focused on facilitating understanding between the parties: we help the parties communicate with each other in order to minimize misunderstandings; we clarify the implications of media reports for the parties; and we help bridge the gap between the positions of the parties.

Broad support from the public and from the political opposition is a key condition for success. Both the LTTE and the government require popular support to sustain the process. The parties themselves take primary responsibility for ensuring the dissemination of information to the public, including those groups and individuals that are working against the process.

In recent months we have seen significant progress. A cease-fire agreement between the government and the LTTE came into force on 23 February. The agreement is intended to lay the foundation for direct negotiations, which will be held in Thailand. The parties appear to be fulfilling the agreement both in terms of military measures and with respect to confidence-building measures to improve living conditions for the local populations. Norway is heading an international observer mission consisting of Norwegian, Finnish and Swedish observers, which is monitoring the cease-fire.

At present, Norway is assisting the parties with the practical preparations for direct negotiations in Thailand. We are supporting the preparations through discussions with the parties on the framework for negotiations. I was in Sri Lanka in mid-April for such discussions with the Prime Minister, the President and the LTTE leadership. There has been amazing progress in a short time. I even think that the process might be moving too fast. Norway has encouraged the parties to allow time for decisions from the top to be implemented on the ground. We seek to contribute to realistic public expectations regarding the speed of the process. The chances of peace may be the best in years, but a key condition for success is the willingness of the parties to further the process and to implement their agreements.

At present there appears to be strong public, political and international support for the process. The clear victory of the governing coalition in local elections in March was interpreted by most Sri Lankans primarily as a sign of popular support for the cease-fire agreement and the continuation of the peace process. President Kumaratunga, representing the largest opposition party, has expressed support for the peace process under the new government. In a lecture in India last week, she addressed the root causes of the ethnic conflict and the approach needed to resolve it. She outlined the vision of welding together “separate sets of aspirations into one collective, national dream, composed of the multi-faceted aspirations of each community, living freely and proudly with its own separate identity, which could co-exist symbiotically with the other entities, to compose a harmonious and united entirety – the Nation-State, a strong and stable one.”

Public support in Sri Lanka needs to be matched by international support for the process. The Norwegian Government works internationally to mobilize development assistance, including reconstruction and reconciliation efforts. It is important for the sustainability of the process that the entire population can experience the economic benefits of peace. Reconstruction and development must take place in all parts of Sri Lanka.

While Sri Lanka is very much on our mind these days, Norway is engaged in various ways in a number of other conflicts as well. What lessons have we learned? What are the fundamental prerequisites for resolving internal conflicts?

In trying to outline some general tendencies, it is important not to forget that the causes of violent conflict are complex and vary from country to country. Countries have different historical legacies and geographical features. They are at different stages of economic development. They have different public policies, different degrees of international exposure and different patterns of internal interaction.

The fundamental requirement is that the parties to a conflict recognize that there might be solutions other than military action. There must be some acknowledgement that it is possible to relate to the other party as something more and different than an enemy. Once the parties realize that the other party is not entirely evil, or that not all individuals on the other side are motivated by malevolence, the process of de-demonizing the other party is under way. There is an opportunity to build confidence, step by step.

Popular support is important. Not only for the government, but for the liberation or guerrilla movements as well. Even a self-proclaimed guerrilla leader needs some sort of legitimacy. Public pressure for peace can have an impact. Once a real peace process starts, maintaining such popular pressure is important – particularly when painful compromises and hard choices have to be made.

International support is also important to underpin the popular support. A peace process is doomed to fail if regional or other influential powers do not lend their political support to the process. Financial support is equally essential. Humanitarian assistance and aid for reconstruction and development can produce tangible benefits for the population, thus demonstrating that peace pays off. Whenever possible, outside assistance during a conflict must plan for and include initiatives that promote reconciliation. Furthermore, the assistance must cover political and security issues, and support political initiatives for peace in a way that recognizes and enhances local and/or regional ownership of political processes.

One way of ensuring international support is by involving a neutral third party. Needless to say, this is only useful if both parties agree, and the role of such a third party must be well defined. Most importantly, no third party can bring peace to a country. Only the parties to the conflict can do that.

In addition to Sri Lanka, Norway has been actively involved as a facilitator in connection with a number of internal armed conflicts around the world. A few have been brought to a conclusion, while others are still going on. Norway has served as a facilitator in the internal conflicts in Guatemala, Mali and the Palestinian territories as well as Sri Lanka. However, we are also involved in a number of negotiating processes where the prospects for a peaceful solution are still bleak. These conflicts show no signs of being resolved by themselves. There is a lack of confidence between the contending parties. However, as long as the parties want our presence and participation in the processes, we will continue to contribute what we can. At present, relations between the parties in the Middle East are at a historical low. Withdrawing from the process is not an option, however. Even though Norway has no political weight that would make the parties act more constructively, we believe we can still play a significant role. Last week, the Norwegian Government convened a meeting of the donor countries for the Palestinian territories. The participants pledged USD 1.2 billion to humanitarian assistance and to the rebuilding of the Palestinian Authority. In so doing, they sent a clear message to Israel that it needs a Palestinian negotiating partner in order for a political process to recommence. An effective Palestinian Authority is important for the security of Israelis and Palestinians alike.

I have already pointed out that no two conflicts are the same, and there are also different kinds of peace and reconciliation processes. Some are public, some are secret. Some require involvement at political level, some take place at civil society level. Some seek specific solutions, some simply aim to keep a dialogue going.

Differences aside, there are many common features in the Norwegian involvement in the various peace processes.

• In most cases the involvement started through the long-term commitment of a Norwegian non-governmental organization or collaboration between academic institutions.
• The solution was achieved by the parties directly involved. Norway played the role of facilitator, and did not take part in the negotiations as such.
• Norwegian humanitarian assistance contributed to confidence-building processes and reconciliation between the parties.
• The support offered by neutral outsiders helped to strengthen the parties' conviction that a negotiated solution was possible.
• It is our experience that secrecy and discretion are often a prerequisite for success.

I believe Norway's humanitarian involvement in many conflict-ridden regions has given us credibility as a neutral go-between. Our role is also made possible by the fact that Norway is a small country with no colonial past and no vested interests. Furthermore, we have a level of political stability and consensus that enables us to participate in such processes without regard to which government is in power in Norway. Because of this, we can be a patient partner and have a long-term perspective on our involvement.

We also pay attention to the fact that each and every conflict has its specific dynamics, and this highlights the need for in-depth knowledge and analysis of the political dynamics of the country. Building good networks on all sides is critical. So is a certain amount of patience; conflict resolution takes a long-term perspective and sustained and adequate coordination.

Before concluding, I have been asked why Norway is so heavily involved in attempts to facilitate reconciliation around the world. The answer is twofold. First, even a small nation like Norway, situated on the northern edge of Europe, benefits from peace and stability in remote countries in Africa, Asia and America. It serves our security interests and contributes to our economic stability. It reduces the pressure of refugees at our borders. And it ensures a smoother international economic exchange, which is beneficial for us all.

More broadly, as a small country we are committed to an international order based on peace, the rule of law, democracy and human rights. Helping to promote these ideals internationally is ultimately in the interest of any small country – and in the wider interest of the security of all states and individual human beings.

As a relatively rich country, we are a fairly large provider of humanitarian assistance and development aid internationally. This results from a desire to help alleviate human suffering and promote human security. But as I have said previously, it is not enough to contribute financially. Economic assistance can never replace political solutions to conflicts that are by nature political. If we can help not only economically, but politically too, we support the very same objectives that we are pursuing with our humanitarian assistance, development cooperation, or human rights dialogues.

I believe this is appropriate to the foreign policy of a small country in the age we live in. In the global village, the security and prosperity of each human being is a responsibility for all. As a very small country, we cannot be the policeman of that global village. We cannot be the fire-brigade. But we can be a kind of social worker, providing some assistance in certain situations and in certain regions. We feel that being given the opportunity to play such a role is a privilege. Observing the results of such efforts is a rewarding experience.

Thank you.