Religion has been high on the international political agenda in recent years. It has been linked to violence and we have seen conflicts following religious lines on the Balkans, in the Middle East, in Caucasus, in Asia , in Africa. We also see tension along these lines in Western Europe. There are plenty of examples of religion being associated with war and conflict all through history. But the idea of religion as a force working against peace and stability has become more prevalent during the last decade or so, and especially since September 11 ^th >.

Religion is usually not the reason or the main reason for conflict, but it is often a dimension in conflicts and is being misused for political purposes. People often express their desires, aims and anger in religious terms. Religious belief is so central to our identity that it has the power to mobilise like no other. Extremists misuse such language to justify hate and atrocities. This is a perverted use of our religions. One could say that religion is being hijacked and used to stir up unrest and promote destabilisation.

It is high time we reject the notion that religious belief and true faith in itself breeds violence. It is high time we realise that precisely the fact that if faith and religious conviction can be misused in conflict, then the same faith and religious conviction has the power to diffuse conflict. It is high time we recognise the responsibilities that lie in the fact that religion is a pillar of our societies. It must be a pillar of support for development and justice, not a stick to wield for destruction and abuse.

As Desmond Tutu once said: “If religion is considered to be part of the problem, it should also be part of the solution.” Faith can unite – instead of dividing. Religious beliefs can serve as a means of easing tension and promoting peaceful co-existence, even in societies plagued by conflict. All religions have a message of peace and respect at their core.

People talk about the steady growth of secularisation. I am not so sure about this. Faith will always be an important part of many – if not most - people’s lives globally.

There are large religious societies that are among the best-organised civil society institutions in the world. Religious communities can play vital roles in curbing the use of violence, demanding social justice and promoting peace. Religious leaders have a great responsibility. They can reach large numbers of people, and they have enormous influence in many societies.

My Government supports interreligious dialogue efforts in several conflict areas of the world. Co-operation between religious leaders and religious communities can be a powerful force for peace an reconciliation. Interfaith dialogue can be seen as a religious approach to peacebuilding. Greater harmony between religions will not in itself resolve conflicts. But it can pave the way for peaceful, durable political solutions to conflicts.

We have with us here today members of the organisation World Council of Religions from Pakistan. This Pakistani initiative to promote dialogue and understanding between Muslims and Christians and between different Muslim communities and schools of thoughts in Pakistan is very important and timely. I am sincerely impressed by your efforts.

There are several examples of religious organisations, leaders and communities playing important roles in peace and reconciliation processes. The British Quakers played a crucial role as go-betweens for the parties during the Nigerian civil war. The peacemaking role played by the Imam of Timbuktu in West and Central Africa is another example. He served as an important link and adviser to both Christian and Muslim leaders on matters relating to conflict and peace. The mediation and peacemaking undertaken by Sant'Egidio in Mozambique is a third example. Religions for Peace has also facilitated multi-religious co-operation that has helped prevent conflict and facilitated peace talks between warring parties.

Several of the peace and reconciliation processes where Norway is or has been involved have important religious dimensions. I would like to give you two examples here, Sudan and the Middle East peace process.

In Sudan, the conventional wisdom say that the conflict is between the ”Arab and Muslim North against the African and Christian South”. But the ongoing conflict in Darfur, and also in other parts of northern Sudan, clearly has shown that this is a simplification of the problem. We have to understand the current situation in Sudan within a much wider context, which involves many other issues.

Many of the political leaders in Sudan will point to political and economic marginalisation of the south, if they are asked about the reasons for the conflict. They will for instance say that the conflicts in Sudan go back much longer than 1989, when the current Islamic government took power in Khartoum. There were several important reasons why the SPLM and the Southerners revolted against the government in Bor 16 May 1983:

• 1) President Nimeiri had announced the redivision of the South, which meant the abrogation of the Addis Abeba agreement,
• 2) To stop the excavations of the Jonglei canal, which was understood as having detrimental effects for the traditional life of the Dinka,
• 3) Pres. Nimeiri’s decision to send the oil from the south directly to port Sudan without building a refinery or creating other job-generating industries in the south related to oil. These decisions came on top of others, such as full integration of the Southern army into the national army, political manoeuvring in Khartoum, which was interpreted as political marginalisation and manipulation of the south, as well as the impression in the south that this region was given a too low share of the national wealth in spite of being rich in natural resources.

These factors constituted the main reasons why the Southern government lead by Abel Alier was at the brink of declaring Unilateral Declaration of Independence already in 1980.

At the same time we should remember that President Nimeiri introduced the Islamic laws – the Sharia code – as late as in September that year, almost half a year after the Bor uprising. Although Islamic politics increasingly entered Sudanese political life at the end of the 1970s, the fight against Sharia cannot be recognised as one of the main igniting reasons for the Southern uprising. But Nimeiri’s ”September laws” of course served to increase and enhance the resistance in the South against the government in Khartoum, which up to then was characterised as ”Northern and Arab”. From then on ”Islamic” was added to the political slogans.

On the other hand: We cannot draw the conclusion that religion simply is used or abused by some groups in their struggle for control of power and resources in Sudan. Religion is a part of the conflict in Sudan, which is a country where most people are deeply religious and live by many different creeds. And religious questions are of course the most important issues in the conflict if you ask the religious leaders in Sudan today. Many of their followers will answer the same – and with some justification:

The current government in Khartoum has by many been characterised as an Islamic theocratic government, which builds its ideology on Islam, and with a political programme to create an Islamic state in Sudan and in the region. This programme is based on radical Islamic politics, often characterised here in the West as ”Islamic fundamentalism”. I do not like such types of characterisations, and will simply note that the question of the status of religion in Sudan’s constitution was one of the most difficult issues in the negotiations.

In the Machakos Protocol of 20 July 2002 the two negotiating parties, the government in Khartoum, lead by the National Islamic Front, and the secular SPLM in the south, took a pragmatic stand on the status of religion in Sudan. Whereas the Southern population was granted the full right of self-determination and in the future would be ruled by a secular constitution, the Northern Sudan would be allowed to keep its Islamic laws ”according to tradition”. The parties also recognised the international conventions on Human Rights to respect fully people’s rights to worship their own believes and religions. Thus both Muslims and Christians and other religious groups were granted and garantied full respect and protection by the protocol. These provisions have now been made an integral part of the new Interim constitution in Sudan.

One important question remained unresolved in the Machakos protocol: that of the status of religion in the capital of the new Sudan. Nothing is said about the capital in the protocol, and in theory a new capital may be built at the border between the north and the south. However, all the parties quickly realised that Khartoum would remain as the future capital of Sudan, thus placing the new unity capital within the ”Sharia zone” in the north. This created a problem at the end of the negotiations. In fact the status of religion in the capital was so difficult to resolve that it was postponed to become the last question in the political negotiations – apart from the technical questions related to the cease-fire and implementation issues.

The Southern side argued that they wanted to see a neutral zone in the capital, which thus would be open for all citizens of different religions. If the laws of the capital, on the other hand, would be based on Sharia many southerners and Christians would not feel at home there. This could subsequently lead to the situation where most southerners would vote for secession at the referendum after six years, they said.

The government side argued that Khartoum, according to the Machakos protocol, lies within the northern region and has been an Islamic city for centuries. The Southern demand for a ”Sharia free” capital was regarded as a provocation by the northern delegation. They further argued that the full respect and guarantees of all religions are granted all over Sudan in the Machakos protocol. Sudan was a Christian state for more than one thousand years up to 1450 AD, and many of the Christian churches still exist in northern Sudan. They are respected and given the opportunity to thrive within the local communities in the north, they said.

The Southern side at the end gave in, and the two sides agreed that the main point is to respect religious freedoms and tolerance of other creeds. The government was ready to grant special guarantees for non-Muslims in the whole of the northern Sudan in the new national constitution, which now has been realised this spring. In stead of talking about a ”Sharia free” or ”religious free” capital or area, we should rather describe it as an area ”full of Sharia and full of Christian faith and full of religions living side by side and in mutual respect”.

To a large extent, it will rather be the political practise of the new unity government in Sudan that will decide the future situation of the different religions in Sudan – rather than the legalistic basis of the constitution. The new Sudanese constitution is open for all religions, and is dependent – as in all other countries – on the ability and will of the political leaders to allow for an open space for different religious practises.

This situation therefore calls for political leaders in Sudan that can lead the nation based on a modern statesmanship. Such political leaders will gain the respect by all Sudanese – and in the international community. Our political dialogue with the Sudanese leaders will therefore include such vital issues as the need for religious tolerance and respect. A dialogue between religious leaders of different creeds – the inter-faith dialogue – in Sudan will be vital in this situation.

Religion is also one important dimension in the Middle East conflict. Another dimension is the territorial dimension, and many regard the fight of two peoples over the same territory as the most important aspect of the conflict. But still, religious arguments are often heard, mainly because the three monoteistic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are connected to the land in different ways, and particularly to the city of Jerusalem, which has great symbolic significance to all three religions.

In the last years, the importance of the religious dimension in the Middle East has increased, not least because the groups which are most strongly opposed to the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians and want to destroy it, have a religious background. Extremist jews were behind the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin and the massacre on 29 praying moslems in the Mosque of Abraham in Hebron, and the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, has been behind most of the suicide attacks against Israelis.

The increased importance of the religious groups on both sides has influenced the political climate in the region in general. Religion has contributed to a higher level of polarisation, both within the two societies and between them. Focus on differences instead of similarities and common interests, makes the conflict more difficult to solve. Consequently, it is important to find solutions which are acceptable also to the religious groups, to make a peace agreement more solid.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is also a major source of mistrust and confrontation between the Muslim world and the West in general. The conflict is deeply symbolic. Many countries, groups and individuals identify themselves with one or the other of the parties or religious groups. And each side is feeding on its prejudices about the other . A peaceful settlement to this conflict is probably the single issue that would do most to improve Muslim-Western relations.

Since the signing of the Oslo-agreement, the Norwegian government has supported projects with the intention of building confidence and trust between the parties. Among others we have supported a project which aims at engaging leaders from the three different religions in dialogue with each other. However, we often experience that the forces which divide, that is the conflict over territory, are stronger than the forces which unite. A successfull dialogue between religious leaders can be important as support to the peace process, but cannot replace a solution to the core problems of the conflict.

In general it is important that dialogue between religions must be combined with a broad political dialogue and a focus on global economic co-operation. We must not neglect to address the political, social and economic conditions that foster the spread of extremism and conflict. Poverty, injustice and lack of political freedom generate frustration and hopelessness. Denying people their civil liberties causes resentment. Slow economic growth combined with demographic pressure results in high unemployment. Large social disparities, together with suppression of dissent, forces public debate underground. Any or all of these situations are a fertile breeding ground for conflict. And we also seem to forget that termination of violence is only a first step. The cumbersome process of building sustainable political solutions – which take account of human rights and democracy – is in many cases the hardest part.

To deal with this challenge we must put human dignity and human rights at the centre. These are values that in one way or another are at the core of the various world religions. These are values that must guide our common efforts to promote peace. All religions have a message of peace and respect at their core.

I hope this conference can help us understanding under what conditions religion is misused to fuel conflicts, and how we can make faith an instrument for peace, tolerance and development.

Thank you for your attention.