First, let me on behalf of the Norwegian Government congratulate President Iglesias and the Inter-American Development Bank for placing ethics explicitly on the development agenda and for the leadership that you, President Iglesias, have so clearly demonstrated. There have been several opportunities over the last few years for Norway and the IADB together to explore the ethical challenges we all face at national and international level. It is because of this dialogue that we are partners at this event.

The Norwegian Government believes that a globalised world needs governance based on global ethics. And we are convinced that national and local development cannot be divorced from ethics. Whether we are talking about civil society and empowerment, corporate social responsibility or good governance, we are operating with norms about what constitutes "good". Even so, we are constantly compromising in the choice between what is good and what is expedient.

The world is becoming more and more complex. Ours is an era of contradictions, of unification and fragmentation, disintegration and integration, exclusion and interdependence. We no longer have a single model for what is right, just and good. The complexities of "pick and choose" reality tend to mask both the ethical imperatives and the compromises we make. In addition, a globalised economy and globalised relationships poses new challenges to accountability. It becomes increasingly difficult to work out who is accountable to whom and for what. It becomes harder to see which direction to move in. The risk is that we hide behind the complexities and choose what is convenient. The need for better instruments to navigate with and better ways to discern good policies is obvious.

Therefore we come here with high expectations. Because we need help from each other, both to formulate clearer and more relevant questions and to risk exposing the dilemmas we face. We need to be more daring in terms of the depth of the challenges. Where there is common agreement about what is right and useful, it is not the ethical basis that is the issue but the willingness to act accordingly. Many times, however, the issue is not so clear-cut. What may be good for some may exclude others. What may appear good and useful in the short term may have serious consequences in a longer term perspective, and vice versa. We need to be better prepared for policy dialogue and public debate on the ethical aspects when faced with difficult choices.

In spite of our scientific, technological and economic advances, it was not the triumphant victory of development that we celebrated at the turn of the millennium. Rather, we became more aware of the vulnerability of mankind. The vulnerability of relationships and social structures. The vulnerability of nature and ecosystems. The vulnerability of economies and states.

Perhaps it was a similar realisation of vulnerability after the last world war that led the generation before us to develop the human rights instruments, possibly the most remarkable achievement of the last century. It was felt to be imperative to protect the weakest from power that oppresses and excludes. To put human dignity and worth at the centre of human relationships. Affirming the right of each person to participate in their community and to earn a livelihood.

This is ethics made relevant and applicable to development. So far, in spite of its limitations, this ethical system is the best we have in terms of a common global frame of reference. The problem is that we have not taken in the full consequences of its imperatives and its utility. We can seek sophistication and perfection. Explore and deepen our value base through religious, philosophical or sociological reflection and analysis. Still, we already have concrete basic signposts that can guide our choice of policies and actions and for which we can be held accountable, both nationally and internationally.

The right to development is not abstract jargon or an unattainable goal. It is basic to the challenge of dealing with the vulnerability of which we all are a part. Systems and structures that maintain inequity, poverty and powerlessness increase our common vulnerability. The painful reality is that we do not seem to know how to overcome the barriers we ourselves have created. Yet other advances that mankind has made have taught us that if a thing is regarded as urgent and important for enough people, it can be done. Our discussions on ethics and development should help generate such a momentum.

The right to development is also a challenge to the industrialised countries, including those that have adopted the Nordic welfare model, in the sense that it centres on participation and empowerment and involves the social, cultural and spiritual aspects of development alongside the economic one. The Norwegian welfare state was created in the 1950s and 1960s, based on a successful partnership between enlightened social democracy, a new breed of macroeconomists, and cooperative business leaders. The vision was a society of material wellbeing and equality. We have come a long way. But now there are clear signs of a society in distress, of weakening social cohesion and loss of a collective, shared purpose.

In this situation an attempt is being made in Norway to put human values and ethical reflection back on the social agenda through a Commission on Human Values, made up of a broad range of individuals from very different walks of life. Its role is not to prescribe but to listen, stimulate and facilitate. The commission has had a difficult and controversial life. However, it has provided some new opportunities for ordinary citizens to engage in public ethical reflection and debate. Its problem has been to overcome the silence from the media and find ways to stimulate debate linked to concrete policy development and choices that involve more than the few.

Ethics and morality are not limited to the individual and private space, they must also be an ongoing concern in the public space. Governments have a moral responsibility to guide development towards what is just and equitable. The private sector has a responsibility to act in ways that are just, fair and conducive to people’s participation. Citizens and social institutions have a moral responsibility to hold governments and the private sector accountable for their actions, to uphold and nurture values, or to question their relevance. We must continue to look for mechanisms and processes that inform, question, and deepen and broaden the dialogue about how basic values are translated into daily life decisions and actions at all levels of society. This should not only be an elitist exercise or one limited to certain interest groups.

We live in times when the boundary between the national and the international arenas is much less distinct than before. And the boundary between the public sector and the private sector is also changing rapidly. As politicians we have been accustomed to setting the public agenda and to a lesser extent attempting to regulate the private sector agenda. In the future we must have a deeper understanding of the changing interface between the two, and be prepared to engage in a dialogue on this and on the ethical issues arising in this connection. The partnership between governments and development institutions, for example, needs to face up to this challenge.

Facing the ethical challenge also means facing dilemmas where there are competing interests. At the international level this applies to the trading system, environmental challenges, the management of water and energy resources, and access to drugs and other benefits in the category of global public goods. A search for answers has started, in the wake of growing economic interdependence between nations, growing pains in the natural systems that we all depend on, and increased vulnerability that military defence systems cannot protect us from.

The biggest ethical problem in all of this is still the fact that the most marginal and most vulnerable of all groups are being pushed further and further towards the edge of existence. Putting equity, inclusion and participation at the top of our common agenda is the strongest ethical imperative in development. Only if we recognise our own vulnerability and our interdependence will we be able to make the necessary changes that this imperative demands of us. This brings us to another concept that is critical to this debate: reconciliation. Reconciliation requires a process of constructing a shared truth about our vulnerability and the way we render people vulnerable. And taking that truth seriously as we build nations and relationships in the global community. In this context solidarity takes on a new meaning. In this context we can hold on to hope.

I trust that this meeting will help us give that hope a chance to grow stronger.

Thank you.