Mr Jan Petersen, Minister of Foreign Affairs

Norwegian perspectives on peaceful conflict resolution

Moscow State Institute for International Relations, 7 April 2005

Check against delivery

Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,

I am honoured to have the opportunity to speak to this distinguished gathering. I am of course aware that the Moscow State Institute for International Relations is one of the foremost institutions providing knowledge about Norway, not only in Russia, but worldwide. I have also been told that my colleague Sergej Lavrov not only studied politics and diplomacy – but also wrote poetry while he was here.

I am delighted to speak to you on a topic of vital importance and relevance for us all: the resolution of conflicts by peaceful means.

Norway and Russia have enjoyed peaceful and stable relations that go far back into history.

We have been neighbours for 1000 years, but have never been at war with each other.

We have been able to share a northern border, across which our peoples have met, traded and enjoyed a common cultural heritage.

The joint exhibition that my Russian colleague, Sergej Lavrov, and I opened in St Petersburg yesterday is an excellent tribute to our long-lasting bilateral relationship.

Relations between Norway and Russia have never been better or broader. Over the last decade our co-operation has extended into new areas. Whereas previously our dialogues were predominantly concerned with political, diplomatic and military issues, now the economy, energy, environment and the arts have also become central areas of co-operation.

We co-operate on removing potential sources of radioactivity from the nuclear legacy in the high north. And we co-operate on managing fragile fish stocks in the Barents Sea for future generations.

And while our governments work together to secure a clean environment and safe management of nuclear material, an increasing number of companies in our two countries are forming links through trade and investment.

This is particularly true of the oil and gas sector, where we hope to see even closer co-operation on both Norwegian and Russian offshore fields in the north in the near future.

And when we reach agreement on a maritime delimitation line in accordance with established international legal practice and principles, we will be able to expand our co-operation further to include what is currently part of the disputed area.

There is close co-operation between our universities and other educational institutions. Your university plays an important role in this co-operation through its ties to the University of Bergen and the Bodø Graduate School of Business. The aim of the co-operation with the latter is to develop internationally oriented education and research programmes on challenges in the energy sector.

I am also very happy to see Swedish friends here today. Norway and Sweden have a close partnership in the pursuit of peace in the world.

Our partnership is manifested in Norwegian and Swedish efforts in peace and reconciliation processes around the world. It is manifested in development co-operation. And our countries are staunch supporters of the United Nations as the primary forum for promoting international peace and security.

Like Norway and Sweden, Russia is also a firm supporter of the United Nations and the Security Council as the primary forum for international peace and security. Our peacekeepers have served side by side in UN operations in the Balkans, also within the framework of NATO's Partnership for Peace and the NATO-Russia co-operation.

And in the Middle East, in addition to our joint peacekeeping efforts, we are all engaged in the peace process between Palestinians and Israelis – Norway through the AHLC, Russia and Sweden as an EU member through the Quartet.

Countries like Norway can make a difference in international politics. Norway has been – and is still – involved in a number of peace processes and negotiations. Our participation takes different forms:

• It ranges from acting as official facilitator of negotiations – as in Sri Lanka and 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 for example in Sudan, as well as in Ethiopia-Eritrea, Somalia, Colombia and Guatemala.

I will make some brief, concrete comments on the situation in Sri Lanka, Sudan and the Middle East, before I turn to the more general aspects of Norwegian peace diplomacy.

Five years ago, Norway was asked by the parties in the conflict in Sri Lanka to facilitate a peace process. Of course we wanted to make a contribution.

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

Today, direct negotiations between the parties have been suspended. The uncertain political and security situation, and the parties’ need to develop confidence in one another as negotiating partners, have contributed to the delay in resuming talks.

The post-tsunami situation has created an opportunity for implementing confidence-building measures, through the ongoing work of establishing a joint mechanism for channelling funds for rebuilding the tsunami-affected areas in the north and east.

We hope an agreement on a joint mechanism will be reached shortly. The successful implementation of such a mechanism would ensure the equitable distribution of relief based on real needs and local priorities. It would also contribute greatly to creating a favourable climate for peace talks in the longer term.

Turning to Africa, the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement by the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) in Nairobi three months ago was a historic event. The agreement marks the end of the conflict between Southern and Northern Sudan. This has been one of Africa’s longest and bloodiest civil wars.

However, the conflict in Darfur has not yet been resolved, and remains a subject of great concern. The situation in Darfur illustrates the fact that the Sudanese crisis is complex and applies to the whole country. It cannot fully be understood in terms of North versus South, Arab versus African or Muslim versus Christian.

The solution lies in a new form of state building, based on devolution and the sharing of power and wealth. The peace agreement is a blueprint for such a solution.

We are faced with three types of challenges in Sudan now:

• The first is making the Comprehensive Peace Agreement truly national. The other political parties and areas of Sudan must be included.
• The second is implementing the peace agreement. This will require wide-reaching reforms, both at the national level and in the south.
• And the third is co-ordination and harmonisation of international support for the implementation of the peace agreement.

Norwegian participation in the peace process for Sudan has followed many years of engagement in the country. Norwegian NGOs have been working in Sudan since the 1960s. Since then our relations have expanded into the political field, and in 1993 we made our first attempt to mediate between the government and the SPLM.

Norway is currently co-chair, together with Italy, of the Sudan committee of the IGAD Partners Forum, and has formed an informal troika with the US and the UK to co-ordinate the process politically.

We will host the first international donor conference for Sudan in Oslo next week. Wide support for Sudan must be secured in order to sustain peace and development for the whole of the country in the years to come.

In the Middle East, the prospects for a resumption of the peace process are more promising than in a long time. Israel’s decision to withdraw from the settlements in Gaza and four settlements on the West Bank is of key importance. If implemented, this can be a major step towards bringing the peace process back on track. But the international community must be resolute in insisting that the withdrawal is carried out in accordance with the Road Map.

The understanding reached in Egypt last month, between the Palestinian Authority (PA) and a majority of the Palestinian militant organisations, first and foremost Hamas, is another important step. So is the decision of Hamas to take part in local and parliamentary elections. The PA must continue to press for an end to Palestinian militant extremism. Only political solutions can bring peace to the Middle East. The terrorist infrastructure must be dismantled, and all weapons collected.

Domestic considerations and the opposition on both sides represent enormous challenges to the respective governments. Those who wish to derail or stop the process are still too numerous. It is now important that the parties refrain from actions for short-term political gain at the expense of long term progress in the peace process.

The international community must seize the new opportunity and support the parties in their efforts to revitalise the peace process. A concerted, targeted effort on the part of the Quartet will be essential to give the process further momentum. Here, Russia, along with its Quartet partners, the US, the UN and the EU, has a decisive role to play.

While important steps have been taken to bring the process back on track, significant problems remain in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The construction of the wall on occupied Palestinian land and the expansion of settlements may jeopardise the two-state solution. The construction must stop before it undermines the progress. A ‘Gaza first and Gaza last’- solution will never bring peace to the Middle East. The development in East-Jerusalem and the West Bank must therefore be on top of the agenda in the dialogue between the international community and Israel.

The difficult economic and humanitarian situation for the Palestinian population represents another threat to the process. Poverty breeds extremism, and must therefore be dealt with.

Norway has for more than a decade been heading the international donors’ efforts directed at supporting the Palestinian community. These efforts have been an essential part of the thrust for a peaceful solution to the conflict. In my capacity as chair of the group of donors, I will shortly call for a new meeting to review the current situation.

People sometimes ask me how Norway has come to play a role in peace and reconciliation processes.

• Generally speaking, our efforts are always part of a broader setting: Norway’s role as a peace facilitator follows on from our long-standing support for the UN mandate for peace and security. It builds on our tradition of humanitarian action and development co-operation.
• We tend to support other leading actors rather than serve as the leading actor ourselves. But in certain cases Norway does take a leading role. This is always at the request of the parties involved in the conflict.
• Norway is a patient facilitator. There is broad political consensus in Norway on our policy of promoting peace and reconciliation. One example is our engagement in Sri Lanka, which has been maintained by three different Ministers of Foreign Affairs – from three different parties.
• Another important factor is the importance we attach to co-operation with national and international NGOs. Norwegian NGOs have gained valuable experience through their activities in different parts of the world over several decades. The NGOs have valuable networks and hands-on knowledge of the various regions, and we have been able to draw on the skills and expertise of these organisations.
• An important factor is that we are regarded in many quarters as impartial. Norway has no colonial past, and we are usually perceived as having no hidden political or economic agendas.
• Because we cannot achieve success on our own, we work together with other international actors. This means that we can draw on resources we do not have ourselves, and ensures the necessary support for the processes we are involved in.
• Finally, an important aspect of our involvement is that we are peace-helpers – not peace-makers. As a facilitator, we try to do what we can in supporting the parties – but at the end of the day, the will to bring about peace must come from the parties themselves.

These factors go a long way in explaining how Norway may have come to play such a role. To the question of why we choose to do so, the main answer is that, like many others, we feel we have a moral obligation to contribute to the peaceful resolution of conflicts around the world.

But it is not altruism alone that drives us. Although we are situated in the rather peaceful corner of far north, contributing to peace in other parts of the world is in our own interests.

Today there are fewer conflicts between countries. However the new security order that followed the end of the cold war has led to an intensification of internal conflicts and greater international focus on these conflicts.

Globalisation has proved to be a double-edged sword. On the one hand it has had the positive effect of bringing the countries of the world closer together through the flow of trade, investments, information and ideas. – Giving an enormous number of new opportunities for co-operation and for joint endeavours.

On the other hand, instability and insecurity also flow freely through the system. The effects of internal conflicts spread beyond the immediate site of the conflict through migration, disease, environmental degradation, international organised crime and terrorism.

The fundamental principles of human rights, international humanitarian law and each individual’s right to freedom are the first casualties in armed conflicts. These principles are a cornerstone of our own societies.

To sum up: internal conflicts have become a global concern.

Peace diplomacy is one instrument in our quest for peace. But the quest for peace is also very much a question of building and strengthening alliances, like security and defence alliances, and partnerships. It involves public diplomacy, providing development assistance, and ensuring good governance and respect for human rights.

It may also mean using military means, when the situation calls for it.

Afghanistan is a concrete example of the necessity of being prepared to use military means to secure peace. The International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, ISAF, was a decisive factor in the success of the presidential election. One of the main tasks now is to facilitate the parliamentary elections later this year.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation must, therefore, continue to help ensure stability and security in the country. This is the main reason why ISAF’s reach is to be gradually extended to more provinces in the course of this year. Norway will continue to make a substantial contribution to this NATO-led operation.

A small country like Norway can only safeguard its security and its national interests through multilateral co-operation. We seek multilateral solutions wherever possible, and we will remain strongly committed to the United Nations.

Also our participation in NATO is a cornerstone for Norwegian security. The transatlantic ties are vital for global security, for countering international terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The co-operation between NATO and Russia is also crucial in this regard.

Although Norway has chosen to remain outside the European Union, unlike Sweden, close co-operation in Europe is of great importance for our foreign policy – as well as to our home affairs. The EU plays a significant role in ensuring peace, security and democracy in the whole of Europe – as we saw Ukraine. We therefore work closely with the EU not only on economic issues, but also when it comes to European security and defence policy.

This year, we mark the 100 ^th> anniversary of Norway’s full independence, following the dissolution of the Swedish-Norwegian Union in 1905.

In commemoration of this – and in order to focus on the good, relations to our Swedish and Russian neighbours – we have launched an international centennial programme, presenting a contemporary, multi-faceted view of Norway.

More specifically, the centennial programme will focus on Norway as:

• a partner in peace and development,
• a nation managing its rich natural resources,
• A modern, culturally diversified and innovative knowledge-based society.

Today’s seminar is one of many events commemorating the co-operation between our countries that will take place during 2005. Other arrangements here in Moscow, St Petersburg and Murmansk will reflect the wide range of cultural, economic and political bonds that bind our nations together today.

Russia was in fact the very first country to recognise Norway when we joined the international community 100 years ago.

When we take stock of Norway’s 100 years as a sovereign state, in modern time, it is not our independence that emerges as the dominant feature; it is our dependence on other members of the community of states. Therefore 2005 marks 100 years of close ties with key partner countries, and Norway’s participation in the international community.

Thank youl