Check against delivery

Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,

It is an honour and a pleasure for me to speak here today. As you know, this conference is a joint Swedish-Norwegian project, but our neighbours have borne the brunt of the administrative burden, and they have done an excellent job. I would like to thank my colleague, Foreign Minister Laila Freivalds, for making the conference possible.

It was your predecessor – the late Anna Lindh – who suggested to me two years ago that we should organise a Swedish-Norwegian conference on peaceful conflict resolution in 2005 – which was indeed a very good idea. It is therefore partly in memory of Anna Lindh that we are gathered here, and partly to commemorate the 100 ^th> anniversary of the peaceful dissolution of the union between Norway and Sweden in 1905. – Our two countries that share values and political goals. The conference today is only one of many Norwegian-Swedish events and projects that are being held to commemorate the anniversary.

2005 is also a crucial year for the United Nations. The purpose of this conference is to contribute constructively to a substantial and much-needed reform process for the UN.

Secretary-General Kofi Annan has presented an excellent report, “In Larger Freedom”, which provides a balanced and comprehensive basis for making the necessary decisions to strengthen the UN at the Summit in September.

In order to achieve the necessary results the deliberations must not, however, be confined to New York. Our capitals must be involved at the highest political level, with determination and with ambition. This is why we are here today. I would like to suggest some topics that you may choose to concentrate on during your discussions.

The focus of the report is on the most important, the most basic issue of all: war and peace. How do we prevent war? How do we move from war to peace? How do we handle situations where there is neither war nor peace, and which can go either way?

As we commemorate the centennial anniversary of the dissolution of the union, both Norway and Sweden take great pride in the fact that not a single shot was fired.

After all, we had a 300-year history of warfare in Scandinavia that eventually came to an end after the Napoleonic wars. The Swedish-Norwegian union was established in 1814, as a result of these wars.

Norway’s declaration of independence in 1905 has been described by historians as a combination of a revolution and a coup d’état. – So how could it end as it did, in a peaceful solution, without a shot being fired?

There is a moral to this story.

International attention and comprehensive diplomatic efforts helped avoid an armed conflict between the two countries. More importantly, our countries had democracy, we had the rule of law, and we had a sound economy. There are not many examples of two countries going to war against each other when these three factors are in place.

But the most important factor of all is that conflict prevention – conflict resolution – begins in the hearts and minds of the people. It did in 1905, and it does in 2005.

For many years now, Norway has been involved in peace and reconciliation processes around the world. I believe it is relevant at this conference to make a few brief remarks about the situation in Sri Lanka, Sudan and the Middle East, and to draw some conclusions.

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

In 2002 the Sri Lankan 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.

Now the post-tsunami situation has created a new opportunity for implementing confidence-building measures, through the efforts to establish a joint mechanism for channelling funds for rebuilding the tsunami-affected areas in the north and east. 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 – to Sudan – 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 continues to be of great concern. The situation in Darfur illustrates the fact that the Sudanese crisis is complex and applies to the whole country. It cannot be fully 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 to make the peace agreement truly national. The other political parties and areas of Sudan must be included.

The second is to implement the agreement. This will require far-reaching reforms, both at the national level and in the south.

And the third is to co-ordinate and harmonise international support for the implementation of the agreement.

I welcome the co-operation we have seen between the UN, the World Bank, the IMF, the AU and major international donors like the US, the EU, the UK, Japan, and the Netherlands leading up to the peace agreement.

Right now, Norway is hosting the first international donor conference for Sudan in Oslo. 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. The tasks ahead are both numerous and daunting. We will need to support Sudan in all fields. In many parts of Sudan, particularly in the South, post-war reconstruction and rehabilitation will mean nothing less than re-building society from scratch. A staggering amount of resources is needed. Thus we cannot lean back because the peace agreement has been signed. The hard work starts now.

In the Middle East, the prospects for a resumption of the peace process are more promising than they have been for a long time. Israel’s decision to withdraw from the settlements in Gaza and four settlements on the West Bank is of great significance. If the decision is implemented, this could 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 Hamas’ decision 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 pose 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.

While important steps have been taken to bring the process back on track, there are still significant problems 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 process. A “Gaza first and Gaza last” solution will never bring peace to the Middle East. The situation in East-Jerusalem and the West Bank must therefore be at the top of the agenda in the dialogue between the international community and Israel.

The difficult economic and humanitarian situation of the Palestinian population is another threat to the process. Poverty breeds extremism, and must be dealt with. Norway has for more than a decade been heading the international donors’ efforts to support 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 convene a new meeting to review the current situation.

I believe our experience as regards Sri Lanka, Sudan and the Middle East is relevant to the topic of today’s conference and for your working group discussions.

I would particularly like to mention three points in this respect, that are based on Norway’s experience of conflict prevention and resolution:

• First of all, a concerted effort by the international community is vital. No individual country is strong enough to bring about peace on its own. The international community’s peace efforts must be co-ordinated, and they must be based on a common strategy.

• Secondly, in order to build momentum, the peace process must yield concrete improvements in people’s everyday lives. It must be backed up by humanitarian relief, reconstruction and reconciliation, that will provide a peace dividend for those affected by the conflict.

• And thirdly, state building is essential. Violent conflicts are often caused or triggered by corruption, lack of respect for human rights, a democratic deficit, and the perception that the existing administrative and political channels are illegitimate, ineffective, or inaccessible.

Far too often hostilities flair up again after a peace agreement has been signed. Far too often fragile states end up collapsing. Lasting and sustainable peace depends on the existence of legitimate national authorities, adequate security, an equitable distribution of benefits and burdens, and the opportunity for ordinary people to take part in political processes.

Ladies and gentlemen,

The goal of the founders of the United Nations was to safeguard future generations from the scourge of war, to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights and the dignity of the human being, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for international law can be upheld.

This is still our goal. This is the role of the UN. Our objective now is to modernise and reform the UN, in order to make it an effective vehicle for attaining this goal. How can we do this? I will make five main points in this respect:

• Firstly, the authority and effectiveness of the Security Council must be ensured.

The UN Charter fully empowers the Security Council to address the wide range of threats facing states. We need a Security Council with greater capacity and willingness to act in the face of such threats. This is what matters most.

The Security Council should also be expanded. Norway has, however, some concerns as regards both expansion models referred to in the Secretary-General’s report. We have doubts about the viability of the new regional election groups that form the basis for both models, which will make it much more difficult for smaller countries to be elected, even countries that contribute substantially to the UN.

The proposed Model A and Model B have one thing in common: they will create many new problems and resolve very few. The issue of Security Council expansion could perhaps be dealt with in a separate process, perhaps in several stages. We cannot allow the issue of Security Council expansion to dominate or deadlock other much-needed, wide-ranging reforms.

• My second point is that development should be the first line of action.

Conflict occurs when human dignity is put under pressure. Long-term stability can only be achieved if we address the challenges to human dignity: lack of security, lack of access to food, lack of health care and education, absence of political, civil, cultural, economic and social rights. These are development issues, and they are security issues.

• Thirdly, we must improve our assistance to countries in transition from war to peace.

The international community must agree on a more consistent approach to peacebuilding. The proposal to establish a new Peacebuilding Commission could be a step in the right direction. The mandate, organisation and function of such a commission must, however, be clarified.

We also support the proposal to establish a Peacebuilding Support Office to ensure more coherent planning and operational peacebuilding capacities within the UN. It is, however, important that the operational functions of the support office should have priority over secretariat services for the Peacebuilding Commission. We look forward to further proposals from the Secretary-General in this respect.

The current discrepancy between what the members of the UN task the organisation to do, and what they contribute financially, needs to be addressed. Increasingly complex peacekeeping mandates need to be matched by increased funding, ideally in the form of assessed contributions, or at least more predictably than today. The proposal for a peacebuilding fund will assist in this respect if it is properly mandated, widely supported and given the necessary resources.

• Fourthly, the United Nations must not fail to protect innocent civilians.

When a state ignores its responsibilities towards its people, the international community must not remain inactive. The international community has a responsibility to use diplomatic, humanitarian and, if need be, coercive means to protect the human rights of civilian populations.

We therefore endorse the Secretary General’s appeal to make the principle of ”responsibility to protect” a norm for our collective actions in cases of genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.

We need to build greater consensus around the need for enforcement action.

But we must not forget that we also have a duty to use all other means to prevent the escalation of violence and atrocities, and thus avoid the need for military intervention.

Unfortunately, there is a fundamental gap between the expectation of credible UN action on human rights on the one hand and the capacity of the current system on the other.

We welcome the Secretary General’s proposals to elevate the status of human rights and the intention to enable a permanent body to more effectively address evolving human rights situations. We have, however, noted the mixed reception of the proposal to establish a Human Rights Council with limited membership.

There are many who would subscribe to the notion of a smaller, permanent, action-oriented council equipped to deal with human rights challenges, not least those that could lead to armed conflict. – But is this what we would get with the proposed model? Many of the UN’s deficiencies stem from political controversies surrounding human rights; they are not purely organisational.

There is a clear need to develop this idea further before we conclude that such a council is preferable to a Human Rights Commission with universal membership – which is what we have advocated.

• My fifth point and final point is that we need to strengthen international co-operation on security in the broadest sense.

International peace will also depend on our ability to prevent the proliferation and use of weapons of mass destruction, and to combat terrorism and organised crime. This must be based on the fulfilment of legally binding commitments and – if necessary – the development of new ones.

Let me conclude my address by returning to one very basic issue – or rather question – who are the victims of conflict?

• The first victim is the protection that civilians are entitled to in accordance with their human rights, international humanitarian law and the right of every individual to basic freedoms.

• The second victim is international stability. – Because conflicts are contagious, conflicts spread, and so conflicts affect us all, directly or indirectly, through migration, environmental degradation, international organised crime and global terrorism.

In a sense, in a globalised world we are all victims. It is, of course, in our own interest to pool our resources and pursue the same objectives in a common fight against the global threats that stem from weak and fragile states suffering from conflict.

We must intensify and target our efforts. We must be more systematic, more strategic and more resolute.

The UN Summit this September will be an event of critical importance. Whatever we do, we must not allow the well-prepared reform process to result in nothing but a few cosmetic changes. If this happens we will do an enormous disservice to the United Nations – and to ourselves.

I am sure this conference will produce relevant and fruitful discussions and proposals – that can be used in dealing with the many future challenges facing the United Nations.

Thank you.