Ladies and gentlemen,

Let me start by extending my thanks to all of you for coming to Oslo to participate in this special event for peace mediators. I feel very honoured to be hosting this dinner for the second time, and to be welcoming such distinguished guests.

Through your firm commitment to peace and reconciliation, you are making a difference for large numbers of people you couldn’t possibly know. The world community needs people like you.

------------

For centuries, politicians, diplomats and academics have been debating the idea of a just war. In 1945, after the most devastating war in history, the international community decided through the UN Charter that only threats to international peace and security could be invoked as a basis for waging a war.

Since the end of the cold war, a number of new conflicts have emerged. Most of them have not taken place between two or more states, but between states on the one hand and separatist groups of various kinds on the other. I know that the subject of non-state actors and asymmetrical warfare is one of the topics you will be discussing tomorrow, and I think this is one of the key issues affecting peace in today’s world. Intergovernmental organisations such as the UN are not necessarily adequately equipped to deal with these kinds of conflicts. We need new thinking, new concepts and new models for peace management.

This is not to underestimate in any way the UN and its continued fundamental role in matters of international peace and security. On the contrary, support for the UN has always been a vital part of Norwegian foreign policy. During the Suez crisis in 1956, Hallvard Lange, who was Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time, said in parliament:

“There are two principles for Norwegian foreign policy that will always come before all other commitments, the obligation to adhere to the Charter of the United Nations, and the obligation never to do anything that could harm the UN.”

My point is, however, that in a changing world approaches and methods for achieving peace must also change. And you, ladies and gentlemen, symbolise our hope that the violence will be terminated and eventually lead to more lasting peace in a number of current, and I am afraid, probably also future conflicts. I hope that you will bring your experience and wisdom to bear on this subject during your discussions here in Oslo.

--------------

We know that violence seldom leads to political solutions; on the contrary, it practically always makes political solutions more difficult. We must give priority to the termination of violence. Even if the peace solution is not perfect, war is always a curse. History has repeatedly reminded us of this fact, which long ago led the Roman statesman and philosopher Cicero to the following observation:

“An unjust peace is better than a just war.”

The innocent civilians who have had their lives ruined by armed conflict always stand to lose the most, no matter who wins in the end.

But the 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. Peace-making is inevitably connected to promoting fundamental values. Without respect for human dignity, reconciliation is impossible. Thus, tiresome efforts in order to promote mutual tolerance and respect are always essential to build a hope for the future.

To quote John F. Kennedy:

“Peace is a daily, a weekly, a monthly process, gradually changing opinions, slowly eroding barriers, quietly building new structures.”

In other words, peace-building requires not only experience, knowledge and skill, more than anything it requires patience, and it requires a strong will and a determination not to be thrown off track. I do hope, ladies and gentlemen, that this retreat will give you inspiration and support, and the courage to carry on with your sometimes seemingly endless mission. Thank you all for the invaluable work you do.