Check against delivery

Ladies and gentlemen,

A hundred years ago there was a tense political situation between the two neighbours Norway and Sweden over the question of the dissolution of the union between our two countries.

There was a real threat of war. Norway and Sweden were engaged in a bilateral arms race and our national armies had been mobilised. The Danish newspaper Berlingske Tidende wrote in one of its leading articles that “... a mere spark could ignite this dangerous fire”.

But in the end we managed to avoid violence. Together we managed to arrive at a peaceful, and lasting, solution.

The Scandinavian countries are bound together by a common history and a number of foreign policy landmarks, choices and goals – not to mention the many personal bonds.

The Nordic tradition of peaceful resolution of conflicts is based on a shared set of values – human dignity, human rights and democratic ideals. We feel that we have a moral obligation to pursue peace and stability when – and where – we can. From a strategic point of view, too, we know that small countries like ours can be particularly vulnerable to insecurity and instability outside our borders. We know that promoting peace and security requires political dialogue, close multilateral co-operation and strong alliances.

Although the great majority of conflicts are internal, within states, their consequences are international. The widespread human suffering and violations of human rights and humanitarian law caused by these conflicts often have spill-over effects in the form of terrorism, migration and poverty.

The Nordic countries have played an important role in peace diplomacy;

• As members of the United Nations, we have made substantial contributions of military personnel to UN peacekeeping operations since the early days of the organisation.
• We have continued to be in the forefront of international operations ever since. Our joint multi-faceted involvement in the Balkans is a good example.
• In addition, Nordic mediators and envoys have helped to negotiate peace agreements and facilitated peace processes in several parts of the world. I am glad to see that some of them are here today.
• The mainspring of these efforts is our long-term commitment to building peace at the bilateral, regional and multilateral level.
• The Nordic countries also give high priority to international development.

The developments over the past 100 years have shown that the nation state cannot on its own deal with the many common trans-boundary challenges we face. National governance must be supplemented by, and is dependent on, binding international co-operation. This applies both to the efforts to promote peace, security and a sustainable environment, and to the fight against poverty, disease and hunger. All nations must contribute to these efforts, both within and beyond their own borders.

Peace diplomacy is one instrument in our quest for peace. But this quest is also very much about building and strengthening alliances and partnerships. It is about providing development assistance, and ensuring good governance and respect for human rights, and also about applying military means when the situation calls for it.

In Europe, there is no doubt that NATO has safeguarded peace, stability and democracy. Norway’s NATO membership is a cornerstone of our foreign and security policy. As founding members of the organisation, Norway and Denmark share similar views on the importance of transatlantic solidarity.

NATO’s rapid enlargement means that an increasing number of countries are part of the community of values on which the Alliance is built. Through its peacekeeping operations NATO has supported the forces of democracy and helped to secure peace in regions such as the Balkans and Afghanistan.

Federal Chancellor Schröder’s statement at the Munich security policy conference that NATO “is no longer the primary venue where transatlantic partners discuss and co-ordinate strategies”, gives cause for concern.

In my view we should maintain – and strengthen – NATO’s position as the primary forum for transatlantic dialogue. I believe close transatlantic co-operation is vital for meeting today’s international security threats. NATO has in the past, and since the collapse of the Soviet Union, proved to be our most effective tool in promoting peace and security. Based on the will that clearly exists both in Europe and in the USA, we should now concentrate our efforts on enhancing the co-operation within NATO. We should be willing to look at ways of using the Alliance on a broader basis – to promote peace and democracy.

Afghanistan is a concrete example of how results can be achieved through close transatlantic co-operation. And it is an example of the necessity of sometimes making use of military means to secure peace. Afghanistan has clearly demonstrated the interdependence between development and security. There can be no real development without security, and long-term security can only be achieved through development and respect for democratic values.

The NATO-led International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan (ISAF) was a decisive factor in the success of the presidential election. One of the main challenges now is to facilitate the parliamentary elections later this year. NATO must continue to help secure stability and security in the country.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Norway is, and has been, involved in a number of peace processes and negotiations.

Our participation takes different forms:

• It ranges from official facilitator of negotiations, as in Sri Lanka and in the Philippines,
• to sponsoring a back channel for secret negotiations – as was the case in the Middle East,
• to being an actor in an international coalition, as in Sudan and also in Ethiopia-Eritrea, Somalia, Colombia and Guatemala.

On the basis of our experience – how can Nordic countries best contribute? I believe one way of answering this question is by describing three different situations, where Norway is participating – or where we have been active.

In Sri Lanka, we have been facilitating the peace process between the government of Sri Lanka and the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) for the past five years.

The government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE entered into a cease-fire agreement in 2002. Three years of cease-fire is by far the longest period of cessation of hostilities since the war began in 1983, and has saved thousands of lives.

Maintaining the cease-fire is one of the keys to success. An independent monitoring mission has been set up to monitor the cease-fire, which is headed by Norway and includes observers from the five Nordic countries. Denmark is an important and active partner in the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission. The mission also functions as a kind of facilitator on the ground by assisting the parties to solve problems before they escalate.

Today, direct negotiations between the government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE have been suspended. The uncertain political and security situation and the parties’ need to build up confidence in one another as negotiating partners, have both contributed to the delay in resuming talks.

We are prepared to continue to work closely with the parties in Sri Lanka in order to facilitate a return to the negotiating table. In this process it is particularly important to keep the channels of communication open.

We also remain committed to assisting as a patient partner in Sri Lanka for as long as the parties wish us to do so. It is they who are responsible for keeping the cease-fire and moving the process forward.

But the contribution of international partners, like the important work done by the Danish government in development co-operation, plays a vital role in reaching a political solution.

Moving to another long-lasting internal conflict – the one in Sudan: a peace agreement was signed between the Sudan government and the SPLM guerrilla in South Sudan in Nairobi on 9 January. The event made world headlines, as it deserved to do.

The peace agreement was the result of almost three years of intensive negotiations. Sadly, it does not apply to Darfur or Eastern Sudan. Our greatest challenge now is to bring peace to the whole of Sudan. We are currently actively involved, together with the main parties, in efforts to achieve this.

The issue is also a top priority in the Security Council. We are pleased to see that Denmark, as a current member of the Council, is an active participant in these discussions.

The success of the peace process in Sudan is due mainly to the way the talks were organised. The mediation team consisted of three groups: a permanent secretariat made up of professional mediators and experts; a team of mediators from IGAD, the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development, comprising representatives from Sudan’s neighbouring countries; and – thirdly – international observers.

The format promoted a good atmosphere and mutual trust between the two parties. It led to direct talks between the leaders.

The establishment of a partnership of this kind – between the political leaders on both sides – is a key development, which will prove important in implementing the agreement. The partnership will be crucial in bringing peace to all parts of Sudan.

Norwegian participation in the peace process for Sudan was the result of many years of engagement. Norwegian NGOs have been working in Sudan since the 1960s – and so have a number of academic institutions. Since then our relations have expanded. In 1993 they reached the political level, with our first attempt to mediate between the government and the SPLM.

Norway is currently co-chair of the Sudan committee of the IGAD Partners Forum – together with Italy – and has formed an informal troika together with the US and the UK to co-ordinate the process politically. In April we will host the first donor conference on Sudan to help rebuild the war-torn country.

Turning to the situation in the Middle East: twelve years ago, after months of secret back-channel talks, mutual recognition was achieved between Israel and the PLO, and the Oslo Agreement was signed. Terje Rød-Larsen, who is with us today, has first hand experience of the process. However, the situation in the Middle East has been through many phases since the Declaration of Principles was signed in 1993.

I would therefore like to comment, very briefly, on today’s situation for the Middle East peace process.

The new momentum created at the Sharm el-Sheikh Summit between President Abbas and Prime Minister Sharon on 8 February is a very welcome development. I hope it marks the beginning of a new chapter that will lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state existing peacefully side by side with Israel.

Any use of violence would have a devastating effect in the current fragile situation. The Palestinian Authority (PA) must do its utmost to combat terrorism. And Israel must allow the Palestinian Authority time to do their job and must exercise military restraint.

It is encouraging that Israel has agreed to co-ordinate withdrawal from Gaza and parts of the West Bank with the Palestinian Authority. The international community must be resolute in insisting that the withdrawal is carried out in accordance with the Road Map. Only a concerted, targeted effort on the part of the Quartet, can give the further process the necessary momentum and legitimacy. We must look beyond the first steps towards final status negotiations, which should begin as soon as possible.

Despite the current optimism, the situation is still fragile and could easily be reversed. The international community should help the parties develop a relationship that is sufficiently robust to withstand the negative events that are bound to happen.

International assistance to Palestinian security sector reform, governance and economic development is a pre-condition for a sustainable peace agreement. The Quartet, and in particular the United States, will have a special role with regard to security sector reform. I welcome the debate recently started on the use of NATO resources in this important field. The London conference on 1 March will be a good occasion for the international community to strengthen Palestinian institutions.

The Norwegian government is prepared to help the parties take advantage of the new opportunities. We must make full use of existing mechanisms for mobilising and co-ordinating international efforts in support of the parties and the peace process. The Ad-hoc Liaison Committee (AHLC), the group of donor countries that Norway chairs, is planning a meeting early this spring. The international community needs to mobilise resources for economic development in the Palestinian territory.

People sometimes ask me: “How is it that Norway has come to play a role in peace and reconciliation processes?” – There are a number of reasons for this, and I believe that many of them explain why other Nordic countries have played, and play, a similar role – in other parts of the world.

• Generally speaking, our efforts are always part of a broader setting: Norway’s role as a peace facilitator is a continuation of our long-standing support for the UN mandate for peace and security, and of our tradition of humanitarian action and development co-operation.

• Furthermore, there is broad political consensus in Norway on our policy of promoting peace and reconciliation. This in turn ensures consistency – we are able to keep up our commitment regardless of changing governments or political currents. Norway is a patient facilitator. This allows us to remain engaged – even at difficult stages in a peace process.
• Another reason for our role is that we give a good deal of emphasis to our co-operation with national and international NGOs. Norwegian NGOs have gained valuable experience through activities in different parts of the world for several decades. And perhaps even more important, their idealistic approach has earned them a reputation for being highly professional and dedicated to helping others. Therefore we have good networks and hands-on knowledge of the various regions – and we have been able to draw on their skills and expertise.
  A common denominator for many of the peace processes in which we have been involved has been the interaction between diplomatic and humanitarian assistance, and between government and non-state actors. This is a recipe that has proven to be quite successful.
• We are also regarded in many quarters as impartial. Norway has no colonial past, and we are usually perceived as having no hidden political or economic agendas.
• But, we cannot be successful on our own. We have to work with other international actors, both to ensure the necessary support for the processes we are involved in, and to be able to draw on resources we do not have ourselves.
• Finally, an important aspect of our involvement is that we are peace-helpers – not peace-makers. As a facilitator, we try to play our part in supporting the parties, – but at the end of the day, the will to peace must come from the parties themselves. A basic precondition for our involvement is that both parties want us to engage.

Ladies and gentlemen,

A cornerstone in all Nordic countries’ foreign policies is the internationally binding co-operation within the framework of the United Nations. We believe that in the quest for peace and security, it is essential that we pursue our goals within a strong framework of international law, the UN Charter and Security Council resolutions.

Norway welcomes the report of the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change. The UN requires substantial reforms. The authority of the Security Council is being challenged. The General Assembly has lost some of its vitality. And there are major gaps in the way UN institutions are addressing the needs of countries that risk sliding towards state collapse.

It is important that we do not allow the ongoing reform process to result in a few cosmetic changes. In my view, reform of the UN is needed in five key areas:

Firstly, the authority and efficiency of the Security Council must be ensured. We need to make the Security Council work more effectively and more pro-actively. Norway is in favour of a fairer representation of all continents on the Council. This means that the Council must be expanded. Security Council reform must not, however, be at the cost of the voices of smaller nations. Denmark’s seat in the UN Security Council puts it at the forefront of international peace efforts. Smaller nations must have that possibility also in the future.

Security Sector Reform is important, but we must not allow this issue to dominate – or deadlock – other much-needed, wide-ranging reforms.

Secondly, I fully support the strong statement by High Level Panel regarding the international responsibility to protect individuals in the event of genocide or other serious violations of international humanitarian law. When a state ignores its responsibilities towards its people, the international community must not remain inactive. We need to build greater consensus around the need for collective action. We cannot afford another Srebrenica.

Thirdly, there is an urgent need to improve our collective ability to prevent violent conflict, to negotiate effective peace agreements, and to provide assistance to peace-achieving efforts. We must focus more on the need to create key state institutions and capacities.

Fourthly, I share the view that development should be the first line of action. We need to strengthen the UN’s capacity to build lasting peace in war-torn societies. There is a UN-system gap between peace-building activities and long-term development activities. Norway has, for many years, been a strong advocate of a holistic approach – that takes account of political, security, humanitarian and development aspects of a conflict situation. Given the right mandate and organisation, the proposed Peacebuilding Commission could be a step towards this goal.

And finally, we need to strengthen international co-operation in order to prevent the proliferation and use of weapons of mass destruction, to combat terrorism and to fight organised crime. This must be based on adherence to legally binding commitments and – if necessary – the development of new ones.

Ladies and gentlemen,

At the outset I mentioned NATO’s role in maintaining peace and security.

The EU also wishes to take on greater responsibility in international issues. I applaud this development, which will in the long term result in a more even burden-sharing between Europe and the USA, and would benefit the countries on both sides of the Atlantic.

Although Norway has chosen to remain outside the EU, close co-operation in Europe is of great importance for our foreign policy.

For Norway, as for the rest of Europe, it is positive that the EU, through enlargement and treaty reform, is intensifying its efforts to promote stability, democracy and peaceful development.

The establishment of a rapid reaction force is an important means of enhancing EU support for UN crisis management operations. I believe the establishment of military forces of this kind will make it easier for the UN to intervene at an earlier stage in regional conflicts.

Norway is in the process of finalising the necessary agreements with Sweden and Finland on the establishment of a Nordic rapid reaction force.

Thus, we see that the Nordic countries’ role in peace diplomacy, in peace processes, and in security policy strategies takes many forms. We have the same high ambition. There is no doubt that the Nordic countries are putting a wholehearted effort into international peace diplomacy.

Before giving the floor to the next speaker, I would like to thank the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Danish Institute for International Studies for co-operating with the Norwegian Embassy in making this conference possible.

Thank you for your attention.