Introduction by Mr. Olav Kjørven, State Secretary, Deputy Minister of International Development, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Norway

The Security – Development Nexus. Peace-building and Development Co-operation

United Nations Senior Management Seminar, Oslo, 15 June 2004

Ladies and gentlemen,

It is a pleasure and honour for me to address such an important group of people who already are or are likely to be involved in the practical challenges of multidimensional peacekeeping operations. Many of you will probably hold high level positions in such operations. You will be key persons in the joint efforts of the international community to help build lasting and sustainable peace in war-torn societies on all continents of the world.

Your two weeks programme is approaching the end and you have, I am sure, had very interesting and stimulating sessions in New York last week and in Oslo the past couple of days.

It is a challenge for me to find a niche which has not already been covered by other introductions. I can see from the programme that a long range of relevant issues have already been dealt with separately. In my introduction I will try to give you an overview of the dimensions and elements of peace-building in such a way that it may help structure your planning and implementation in the field.

Ladies and gentlemen,

I would like to start with the following words by Ralph Waldo Emerson:

"The real and lasting victories are those of peace, and not of war".

Peace is not merely the absence of war. We all know that peace is a precondition for development. And conversely, development is a precondition for lasting and sustainable peace.

Winning a war is important, but winning a peace is much more important. And often more difficult.

Development co-operation can play a key role in efforts to prevent conflict, make, keep and build peace.

But in order to be effective, we have to improve our performance and address the following five challenges:

First, we need to overcome any remaining conceptual confusions and uncertainties.

Second, we must develop national strategic frameworks for peace-building.

Third, we must apply the “aid effectiveness” agenda to our participation in peace-building.

Fourth, we must formulate peace-building intervention strategies in specific countries and regions when the need arises.

Fifth, we must clarify and intensify the roles of multilateral organisations in peace-building.

We need to overcome any remaining conceptual confusions and uncertainties

We have defined "peace-building" in accordance with the UN document An Agenda for Peace (1992) anda range of subsequent UN documents such as An Agenda for Development (1994), the supplement to An Agenda for Peace (1995), the Brahimi Report (2000), the report on Prevention of Armed Conflict (2001), SC Resolution no. 1325 on Women, Peace and Security, and the Statement by the President of the Security Council, dated 20 February 2001. The OECD/DAC guidelines on "Helping Prevent Violent Conflict" are also part of the basis for our approach to peace-building.

The overall objective of peace-building is lasting and sustainable peace. And the principal tools available to us are the various forms of development assistance. But these are not the only tools available.

Peace-building is a supplement to preventive diplomacy, peace-making and peace-keeping. These are separate concepts, but they are often closely linked in the field. Peace-building can

• help prevent violent conflict from breaking out,
• pave the way for and support peace-making processes, and
• help rebuild post-conflict societies.

In other words, peace-building is relevant in emerging, current and post-conflict situations.

Peace-building is not a defined set of activities. It encompasses measures in the context of emerging, current or post-conflict situations with the explicit purpose of promoting lasting and sustainable peace. That is to say that peace-building is defined by its context and purpose.

Peace-building does not include negotiation processes, whether or not third parties are involved, but peace-building can help pave the way for such processes and support them.

Peace-building does not encompass peacekeeping operations, but peace-building is normally an important part of the mandate of multidimensional peace operations.

We cannot reasonably claim that whatever development co-operation activities we carry out in a conflict-prone society will qualify as peace-building. Traditionally, development actors have worked around conflicts rather than in or on conflicts. At times our interventions may actually exacerbate conflict. This is, of course, unacceptable. At the very least our efforts must have no harmful effects. But normally we should have more ambitious goals than that. Our development co-operation must help prevent violent conflicts and promote peace as a basis for further development.

Peace-building differs from conventional development co-operation in that it is explicitly guided and motivated by a primary commitment to the prevention of violent conflict and the promotion of lasting and sustainable peace.

We must develop national peace-building strategic frameworks

The Norwegian government recently published a new report to our national assembly about “Our common fight against poverty ”. The report has a chapter on peace-building and development co-operation. We are also in the process of preparing a more elaborate strategic framework for the role of Norway in international efforts for peace-building and development.

We have extracted the most important elements from the UN and OECD documents and created a strategic framework which can help structure planning as well as implementation of peace-building programmes in country specific situations.

In the Statement by the President of the Security Council at the end of the debate on peace-building in 2001 – a document I can wholeheartedly recommend – peace-building is clarified as follows:

“The Security Council reaffirms that the quest for peace requires a comprehensive, concerted and determined approach that addresses the root causes of conflicts, including their economic and social dimensions”.

From this we can extract the following about peace-building:

It is the concern of the political, security as well as the development parts of the UN - and of member states.

• It requires a comprehensive, concerted and determined approach. Uncoordinated, ad hoc, short term engagements will not yield the desired results.
• It must address the root causes of conflicts.
• It is multidimensional.

The way I see it, peace-building has three equally important and mutually reinforcing dimensions:

1. security,
2. political development, and
3. socio-economic development.

Our peace-building interventions must encompass all three dimensions at the same time. A sequential approach will normally not be recommendable.

The security dimension

The security dimension encompasses security for the country and the personal security of its inhabitants. The four elements to be considered are:

• Disarmament, demobilisation, and reintegration of ex-combatants into the local community. This may include special programmes for women and children.
• Humanitarian mine action includes mine clearing, stockpile destruction, support to victims of landmines, and awareness programmes.
• Improving control of small arms and light weapons includes measures to prevent misuse and illegal trade, providing incentives to hand in weapons, and dealing with the underlying causes of the demand for such weapons.
• Security system reform (SSR) emphasises the importance of civilian control, transparency and accountability as regards the military, the police, the justice sector and the penal services. This is necessary in order to adapt the military and civilian security forces to peace rather than war. The OECD/DAC has produced a document on Security System Reform and Governance: Policy and Good Practice. This document was endorsed by the High Level Meeting in April and the Council of the OECD in May 2004. It is an excellent basis for the international community's involvement in SSR and should be studied thoroughly by anybody involved in efforts to promote peace.

Security and development are inextricably linked. We see this very clearly in many countries, not least in Afghanistan and Iraq. Very little – if any - success can be expected as regards political and socio-economic development unless the security situation is conducive.

The political dimension

Some of the underlying or triggering causes of violent conflict are illegitimate or weak institutions, corruption, insufficient respect for human rights, a democratic deficit, and the perception that the administrative and political channels are not adequate or that they are unavailable.

In order to promote peace, we have to address these underlying or triggering causes of conflict.

• Support for political and administrative authorities and structures may be necessary in a transitional period in order to help strengthen the position of regimes. This may also include support for the transformation of guerrilla movements into political parties. Such support can help build competence and capacity for national ownership of peace-building.
• Lasting and sustainable peace depends not only on the commitment of political leaders, but also on social acceptance of peace in the population. Peace-building requires reconciliation and the promotion of non-violent conflict resolution at all levels of society: the military, political, religious and business leadership, the middle level and the grass roots level. Reconciliation can be promoted through dialogue and targeted projects, but it must also be an integral part of all elements of peace-building.
• Equally important is assistance to institutions and processes that promote good governance, democracy and human rights. Activities may include support for election processes, constitutional bodies, legal reform and monitoring of the human rights situation. Key objectives are accountability, transparency, equality, and the fight against corruption and discrimination. This may in turn increase the government’s credibility, legitimacy and stability.
• Support to governments must be balanced by support for the peace-oriented elements of civil society, including the media. NGOs in the North can help foster a vibrant civil society in the South which in turn can assist in service delivery, engage in advocacy, and help promote reconciliation. Civil society organisations can also help empower various groups so that they make effective use of democratic, non-violent conflict resolution mechanisms.
• Although extremely sensitive, the issue of legal action and truth commissions must be addressed. An appropriate balance needs to be found between truth, justice, punishment, reconciliation and impunity. This is certainly not easy, but nevertheless necessary.

The social and economic dimension

Some of the underlying causes or triggers of conflict are increasing socio-economic differences, unequal distribution of benefits, marginalisation of vulnerable groups or geographical regions, and relative deprivation. Others are competition for limited natural resources, such as water and arable land, and environmental degradation. In addition, conflicts may be fuelled by competition for valuable and easily tradable natural resources, such as diamonds, oil and metals. Efforts to build peace must address these fundamental or triggering causes of conflict.

• A pressing challenge in post-conflict situations is the repatriation and reintegration of refugees and internally displaced persons. It is important that lasting solutions are found, and that refugees and internally displaced persons are given legal, physical and material support so that they can be reintegrated into society as productive citizens. Measures for refugees and IDPs should be coordinated with those for the reintegration of ex-combatants.
• In post-conflict situations infrastructure and important government functions may have to be built or rebuilt. The population will recognise and appreciate the initial peace dividend when roads and buildings are repaired, when electricity and telecommunications are restored, when shelters are provided, and when schools and health clinics are available to all.
• However, efforts to promote lasting and sustainable peace must encompass not only quick impact projects, but also long-term development programmes for high-quality and accessible education and health services for everyone. It is particularly important to reach out to children and youth – the leaders of tomorrow.
• Last, but not least, peace-building also includes measures to stimulate productive sector development, employment, trade and investment. This can be achieved by legal and economic reforms, institutional co-operation and technical co-operation on resource management. Important initiatives have been taken to make extractive industries more transparent and accountable, and to promote corporate social responsibility. Other measures may facilitate access and formalise the right to land, capital and credit.

We see this comprehensive framework with its three dimensions as a useful, general approach to peace-building, - an approach which has to be tailored to each specific country or regional setting. It is obvious that foreign policy, security policy and development co-operation must go hand in hand in order to maximise the impact of our efforts to promote lasing and sustainable peace.

We must apply the “aid effectiveness” agenda to our participation in peace-building

We must not only do the right things, but we must also do things right.

The international deliberations on aid effectiveness, harmonisation and alignment are as relevant to our involvement in countries affected by conflict as in any other country. But the aid effectiveness agenda is even more difficult to implement in emerging, current or post-conflict situations.

The primary responsibility for peace rests with the conflicting parties. But the international community has a critical role to play in building competence, capacity, institutions and processes for non-violent conflict resolution.

Peace-building interventions by the international community should be based on a common platform. If we do not have this platform, we risk being left, again and again, with a plethora of uncoordinated ad hoc projects with less than optimal effect and efficiency. Such ad hoc projects also place an unacceptably demanding administrative burden on fragile administrative set-ups.

A common platform can be built on a poverty reduction strategy paper or other planning documents of the countries concerned, if they have been able to develop such planning documents. If they have not, we may assist them in doing so.

Whatever is the case, it will require that all actors - multilateral organisations, bilateral donors, civil society and the private sector - submit to the co-ordination of interventions and harmonisation of procedures.

As a basis for the common platform we need a conflict analysis and a needs assessment. Unless the real nature of the problem is understood, the efforts to find a solution are likely to end in failure.

Another aspect of good donor practices is to promote and support the effective participation of the right groups and people in important processes.

The UN Security Council highlighted the importance of gender perspectives in conflict prevention and resolution, peacekeeping and peace-building in resolution 1325 on Women peace and security.

We must find better ways of involving women, to ensure their participation and address their interests and needs. Women are still scarce around negotiating tables, in constitution-making bodies, and in political councils. And peace-building programmes are rarely tailored to women. Efforts to build peace are unlikely to succeed if women do not play - or are allowed to play - their rightful part. Gender perspectives must be addressed at all stages and at all levels in planning, implementation and evaluation, in conflict prevention, and at every rung of the ladder to peace. Much more needs to be done here.

Poor donor performance is very costly. We may try hard, but our efforts may not yield the desired results. According to the World Bank, too often too much assistance comes in too fast in post-conflict situations. This is often followed by a rapid decline in funds and a vacuum before long-term assistance is initiated.

This vacuum can easily be filled with violence. Assistance is often negligible during the most critical period. And the critical period is not the first year, it is the first ten years after conflict, with the greatest challenges surfacing some 3 to 5 years after initial peace. Insufficient and inappropriate follow-up in post-conflict situations increases the likelihood that violence will recur. Assistance may fuel warring parties rather than promote stability and peace. This is a problem that we have to take much more seriously.

In order to help bridge the gap between humanitarian assistance and long term development co-operation, my government has established a budget allocation for transitional assistance. This was established in 2002, and is mainly used for peace-building purposes, in particular to promote viable political and administrative structures, democracy and respect for human rights. But certainly, country specific and regional allocations as well as other global allocations are being used for peace-building, too.

Norway wants to be a competent, consistent and reliable partner: impatient for results, but persevering during the time it takes to reach a sustainable peace. We can act quickly and flexibly, but we maintain a long-term perspective. In order to be effective and efficient, we must be more strategic - together with the entire donor community.

We must formulate peace-building intervention strategies in specific countries and regions when the need arises.

There is, of course, no one-size-fits-all in peace-building. I see the elements of peace-building as a painter’s colours, the elements can be mixed in many different ways. The mix will vary, but in most cases virtually every element has to be included. The elements complement and strengthen each other. The selection of elements, the sequencing, the timing and the magnitude will differ, but all three dimensions and all the elements have to be addressed in order to make a coherent whole. If not, peace is likely to be short-lived.

All too many countries around the world are in a looming, current or post-conflict situation. Peace-building is relevant to all of them. Time does not allow me to elaborate, so let me merely enumerate some of the countries where peace-building is important and where Norway is involved:

Angola, Ethiopia-Eritrea, Sudan, Malawi, Mozambik, Uganda, Guatemala, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Timor Leste, Nepal and Iraq.

Let me, however elaborate a little on three countries where Norway has been - and still is - involved in efforts to promote peace:

As you may know, Norway was one of the members of the group of friends of the peace process in Guatemala. We facilitated certain parts of the negotiations and several of the peace accords were signed in Oslo. An interesting partnership was established with the UN taking a lead role through UNDP in the implementation and through MINUGUA in verification of the accords. Bilateral donors contributed substantially in financing the implementation of the peace accords. A "dialogue group" consisting of the core bilateral and multilateral donors has been an important sounding board for the government of Guatemala and for coordination of development co-operation and political initiatives. Through this coordinating body the international community could tailor its programmes to support the implementation of vital areas of the peace accords not yet sufficiently addressed by the government.

Guatemala is one of those countries where long-lasting development co-operation through a Norwegian NGO helped pave the way for Norway's official involvement in the peace process. Development co-operation also supported the peace process itself as well as the implementation of the ambitious peace accords. Efforts made during the peace-making helped facilitate the consolidation and nation-building process that followed.

Our engagement in Sri Lanka started with humanitarian assistance which quickly evolved into development co-operation. In 1998 we revised our guidelines for development co-operation with Sri Lanka to focus on paving the way for and supporting a negotiated solution to the conflict. Since February 2000 Norway has been assisting the parties in their efforts to reach a political solution, as a facilitator to the peace process.

It is essential for the donor community to co-operate with the parties in building competence, capacity, institutions and processes for lasting and sustainable peace. Some measures can be implemented in the absence of the final peace agreement, others will have to wait until a peace agreement has been signed. Whatever is the case, it is important that the people experience a tangible peace dividend. It turn, this is likely to bolster support for a peaceful, negotiated solution to the conflict. This illustrates how important it is to forge close links between peace processes and peace-building, and between foreign policy and development co-operation.

Since the Norwegian Minister for International Development is particularly involved in the efforts to bring peace to Sudan and since important agreements have recently been signed by the parties to the conflict, we feel a special responsibility to be constructive partners in peace-building in that country.

In the case of Sudan the peace talks have gone hand-in-hand with international preparations for broad-based post-conflict support. This effort is being intensified as the parties approach a peace agreement. Making peace, although extremely difficult and time consuming, could well be the easy part. The real test will come during the six-year interim period when the agreement shall be implemented. Rebuilding a country torn by conflicts over so many years is an enormous challenge to both the parties and the international community. In less than six years there must be tangible results and the fabric of the Sudanese society must be sufficiently restored for the people of Sudan to see that peace pays and unity works.

We have a golden opportunity to do the right things right. And Sudan as well as the international community need a success story in peace-building.

We also explore how we can expand our co-operation on conflict prevention and peace-building in Africa with African organisations. The African Union needs help with capacity building. The Union has ambitious plans to become an influential player in conflict prevention and resolution, and in good governance and human rights. Some of the sub-regional organisations like ECOWAS and SADC also have such plans. They need our support and co-operation.

We must clarify and intensify the roles of multilateral organisations

The UN has a central role to play in the international efforts for peace-building - both in normative and policy development, as well as through concerted and cross-cutting actions in the field.

Norway's involvement in peace-building is to a large extent through multilateral organisations and NGOs. We are committed to strengthening international peace-building efforts. Norway strongly supports the UNSG reform agenda. I believe that the sharing of resources, joint use of personnel, joint planning and common trust funds hold great potential for effective and efficient peace-building.

I am pleased to see consensus between the political, humanitarian and development arms of the UN as reflected in the Report of the UNDG/ECHA Working Group on Transition Issues – the so called Bellamy report. I welcome the conceptual clarifications.

I fully support the recommendation that the UN should continue to engage donors in a dialogue on what the “good donorship” agenda and the UN’s work on transition mean to each other in practice.

I also welcome the initiative to build stronger links between the political and operational arms of the UN in the field of conflict prevention at country level.

The UNDP is interested in consultations with major donors on the way forward as regards the role of the UNDP in post-conflict situations. Norway is prepared to participate in a Donor Reference Group.

More needs to be done as regards co-ordination within the UN system and co-ordination and co-operation between the UN and the International Financing Institutions (IFIs).

We have over the past years witnessed an increase in the peace-building efforts of the World Bank, the regional development banks and the IMF.

The UN and the IFIs have mutually reinforcing strengths and roles in peace-building. We need to draw lessons from negative and positive experiences. I doubt the feasibility of a once-and-for-all global “division of labour” between the UN and the IFIs. Norway is considering how to facilitate UN-IFIs co-operation, and I hope that relevant institutions can become partners in this.

Many of you usually wear military uniforms.Many have a military background. Your mission is to help promote peace.

I believe you agree with the World Bank that “war retards development, but development retards war”.

When you engage in multidimensional peace operations, I challenge you to stay focused on the ultimate purpose of the operation you are involved in: Peace. Lasting peace. Sustainable peace.

Mahatma Gandhi said it like this:

“I will give you a talisman. Whenever you are in doubt or when the self becomes too much with you, apply the following test:

Recall the face of the poorest and the weak man whom you may have seen and ask yourself if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him. Will he gain anything by it? Will it restore him to a control over his own life and destiny? In other words, will it lead to Swaraj for the hungry and spiritually starving millions?

Then you will find your doubts and your self melting away”.