Norway – 100 years of independence
Norwegian foreign policy and engagement in
international peace processes

Ladies and gentlemen,

I am delighted to be here at the National Press Club, which I know is an institution with a long tradition in Canberra. I feel it is particularly apt to be sharing Norway's experience of peace work with you, since this year my country is marking the centenary of our independence. One hundred years ago we had a peaceful dissolution of the union with our good neighbour Sweden. Perhaps this peaceful dissolution has inspired us to help others finding peaceful solutions to their conflicts.

A few years ago we celebrated another centenary in Oslo, that of the first Nobel Peace Prize Award. The Nobel Peace Prize is a yearly reminder of the importance of working for peace.

Both Australia and Norway know – from painful experiences during two world wars in the last century – the fundamental value of peace.

Norway and Australia also share a commitment to democratic values. Both countries have been involved in peace and reconciliation efforts and promoting human rights for several decades. We have both contributed substantially to UN peacekeeping operations. We share a common conviction that in this era of globalisation, the security and prosperity of every human being is the responsibility of all. This is reflected in my visit and in our desire to continue our co-operation and further our relations.

In spite of the long distance between us, it is a sign of the good relations between Norway and Australia that the Norwegian community now numbers around 10,000 people. Furthermore, there are more than 4300 Norwegian students at various universities here. And what is more topical than to mention here that our Norwegian-Australian co-operation in the field of education now also includes a master program in peace and conflict studies.

Ladies and gentlemen,

One of history's great men of peace, Mahatma Gandhi, once said: "It takes more courage to try and talk things through than to start a war."

When I look at the world today I see many promising developments. Democracy and peace are gaining ground. Integration between states has created mutual dependency and made wars more costly. The development of democracy has promoted peace and diminished violent conflict.

Sadly, this does not apply in every country in the world. But the nature of the threats to peace has changed. When the cold war ended a new type of conflict became increasingly evident, in the form of civil wars, armed insurrection and violent secessionist movements.

While the great majority of the present conflicts are internal, within states, their consequences are crossing borders. They are causing human suffering and violations of human rights and humanitarian law. And they often pose a threat to regional and international stability. In our world internal conflicts are a global concern.

Thus our efforts to prevent violent conflict, resolve conflict and avoid resumption of conflict must be made more systematic. And they should rest on a firm foundation of international law, the United Nations Charter and the UN Security Council. Indeed, the main purpose of the United Nations, set out in Article 1 of the Charter, is "to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace". Although the nature of the threats to peace has changed since the UN Charter was drawn up, the UN legal order is sufficiently flexible to enable the world organisation to address them. But that does not mean that there is no need to reform the UN. Substantial reform is necessary because the authority of the Security Council is being challenged. The General Assembly has lost some of its vitality. And there are gaps in the way UN institutions are addressing the needs of countries that are under stress and risk sliding towards state collapse. We must not allow the ongoing reform process to result in a few cosmetic changes.

Co-operation within the framework of the UN is a cornerstone of Norway's foreign policy, as it is for Australia. It is also the foundation of our peace efforts, since peace diplomacy is about building regional alliances and partnerships. Norway’s NATO membership is another cornerstone of our foreign and security policy. There is no doubt that NATO has safeguarded peace, stability and democracy in Europe. Although Norway is not a member of the European Union, we welcome the fact that, through enlargement and treaty reform, the EU is promoting stability, democracy and peaceful development throughout Europe.

Ladies and gentlemen,

After the end of the cold war, the two main threats to international security are proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. No cause can justify terrorism. Last Friday, on March 11, I was in Madrid to attend a conference on terrorism and to commemorate the terrible terrorist attack that happened there one year ago. We agreed that a broad approach is needed in the fight against terrorism. Among the aspects we discussed, I especially want to mention the religious dimension.

During the past 10 years religion has risen higher and higher up the international political agenda. Religion is usually not the only or not the main reason for conflict. But religion, like patriotism, can easily be misused for political purposes. People often express their desires, their goals and their anger in religious terms. But although religion seems in many conflicts to be part of the problem, we should work to actively make it a part of the solution.

Co-operation between religious leaders and religious communities can be a powerful force for peace. Greater harmony between religions will not in itself resolve conflicts. But it can pave the way for peaceful, durable political solutions to conflicts. It can foster more understanding and co-operation within a country and between countries and peoples. My government is supporting inter-religious dialogue in a number of conflict areas.

Inter-religious dialogue does not mean to renounce your own faith, but to focus on common values as a platform for better understanding and respect. Those who themselves have a religious conviction should be the first to understand and respect the religious conviction of others. I have found that we – especially in the three monotheistic religions – have common values such as human dignity (and thus human rights), the idea of peace and reconciliation. This is a good starting point for reducing and resolving conflicts.

The new security challenges and conflict patterns have made "softer" forms of conflict management more appropriate. Australia has been doing important peace work in the Asia Pacific region, particularly in East Timor and the Solomon Islands. Norway, too, has been involved in various ways – and to different degrees – in peace and reconciliation processes in different parts of the world since the early 1990s.

Norway’s engagement in Sri Lanka shows many aspects of our approach to peace work. For the past five years Norway has been facilitating talks between the government of Sri Lanka and the Tamil Tigers. Both parties recognised that the conflict cannot be resolved by military means. Norway's role has been, not to impose a solution on them, but to assist them in their efforts to reach a political solution.

The 2002 cease-fire agreement has saved thousands of lives, and together with development assistance from the international community, it has given the people of Sri Lanka a real peace dividend. The destruction caused by the tsunamis can never be fully repaired, but we are doing our utmost to support reconstruction in the affected areas.

The peace talks in Sri Lanka are now on hold due to various internal developments. Real, home-grown peace takes time to establish. Norway is prepared for the peace process to be a long one. We remain committed to assisting the parties as long as they request it, as a patient partner.

At the request of both parties, Norway has also acted as facilitator for the peace process between the government and the National Democratic Front in the Philippines since 2001. Several rounds of negotiations have been held. One of the concrete results of these is a Joint Monitoring Committee for the monitoring of human rights violations.

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

The peace agreement was the result of almost three years of intensive negotiations. The greatest challenge now is to bring peace to the whole of Sudan, as the peace agreement does not apply to Darfur and Eastern Sudan. Norway is currently actively involved, together with the main parties and other governments, in efforts to achieve this. The establishment of a partnership between the political leaders on both sides was a vital step towards reaching an agreement. The partnership will prove important in the challenging time ahead when the agreement must be implemented. It will also be crucial in bringing peace to all parts of Sudan.

Our participation in the peace process for Sudan was the result of a longstanding 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 Norway's 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 in order to help rebuild this war-torn country.

The armed conflict in Guatemala had been going on since 1960, when a major earthquake struck in 1976, drawing international attention. When the belligerents started to consider the possibility of a negotiated solution in the late 1980s, Norway was seen as a viable facilitator due to its reputation as an independent and trustworthy international actor with no colonial past and a good humanitarian record. Norway took an initiative that resulted in an agreement in Oslo in 1990 on the format of a peace dialogue. In 1992 Norway was invited to participate in a formal group of friends together with Spain, Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela and the US.

The Guatemalan peace agreement was signed in December 1996. This was not, however, the end of the peace process. The implementation of the peace accords and the efforts to change attitudes in Guatemalan society have been time-consuming and difficult. Norway has been trying to bolster this process, and more than USD 100 million has been invested in peace and development-related co-operation projects during these years.

I would also like to mention the Middle East peace process. Twelve years ago, after months of secret back channel talks, mutual recognition was achieved between Israel and the PLO, resulting in the Oslo Agreement. However, the Palestinians and the Israelis have travelled a thorny path since the Declaration of Principles was signed in 1993.

I visited Israel and Palestinians Area a few weeks ago. The new momentum created at the Sharm el-Sheikh summit between President Abbas and Prime Minister Sharon in February is a very welcome development. I hope it will mark the beginning of a new chapter that will lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state living peacefully side by side with Israel.

Now the international community must help the parties to make use of this historic opportunity to reach a peaceful solution. We must be resolute in insisting that Israeli withdrawal is carried out in accordance with the Road Map. We must be equally resolute in insisting that the Palestinians fulfil their obligations and stop the use of terror. 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.

Ladies and gentlemen,

The examples of Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Sudan, Guatemala and the Middle East show that Norway’s participation in peace processes takes different forms.

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

People sometimes ask me: “How did Norway come to play a role in peace and reconciliation processes?” There are a number of reasons for this.

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 humanitarian action and development co-operation.

Often we support other leading actors. But in certain cases – often through personal connections or even by chance – Norway does take a leading role. This always happens at the request of the parties to the conflict.

Furthermore, there are domestic policy factors that make our contribution possible. 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.

Therefore we are able to make a long-term contribution: Norway is a patient facilitator. This allows us to remain engaged – even at difficult stages in a peace process.

The broad domestic political backing also means that there are financial and human resources available for peace and reconciliation processes. And we are able to use them in a flexible way. This enables us to become engaged quickly.

Another reason for Norway’s role is that we give a good deal of emphasis to our co-operation with Norwegian and international NGOs. In many cases Norwegian NGOs have been our point of entry into peace and reconciliation processes. This was the case in Guatemala and in Sudan. Norwegian NGOs had also been present for a long time in the Middle East and Sri Lanka. The extensive networks that Norwegian NGOs have built up through decades of humanitarian work abroad have given us access to areas where official Norwegian representatives have had little or no presence, and we have been able to draw on their skills and expertise.

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.

Being a small country it is possible for us to be discreet, which can be a crucial factor in some processes.

Finally, an important aspect of our work is that Norwegian diplomats are peace-helpers – not peacemakers. At the end of the day, the will to peace must come from the parties themselves. As a facilitator, Norway tries to support the parties – but it takes a genuine will on their part to reach a negotiated solution.

Ladies and gentlemen,

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. We also need binding international co-operation. This applies both to the promotion of peace, security and a sustainable environment, and to the fight against poverty, disease and hunger. Every nation must contribute to these efforts, both within and beyond its 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, ensuring good governance and promoting respect for human rights.

Peace and development must have a real, tangible effect on the daily life of every individual. Above all, peace must be sought because every member of the human family has the right to live a life of dignity and security.

That is our challenge. That is our common task.

Thank you for your attention.