Interpellation from Member of the Storting Finn Martin Vallersnes to the Minister of Foreign Affairs on terrorism

Interpellation from Member of the Storting Finn Martin Vallersnes to the Minister of Foreign Affairs:

Since 11 September 2001, the fight against terrorism has become a major theme in international politics. Considerable resources are used to fight terrorists, prevent new acts of terrorism, track down networks and cut off funding. However, in order to fight terrorism, it is necessary to identify its causes. An analysis of the West’s conduct in the Middle East during the past hundred years could shed light on the causes of the underlying anti-Western sentiment that in part explains what is nurturing terrorism. Are we and our allies in Europe and the US prepared to carry out such analyses, acknowledge the findings, and take them as a basis for the formulation of new policies?

 
Answer by Minister of Foreign Affairs Jonas Gahr Støre:

In my manuscript I had commended the interpellator for his question, but I would like to add that his statement was also extremely interesting. I would venture to say that I believe there are many more who would have found this debate interesting, because the questions raised by the interpellator are very important ones, and I think his approach provided a good starting point.

The interpellator is right in saying that the fight against terrorism is not just a matter of fighting terrorists and their actions. We must also seek to understand why they resort to violence. We need to understand what is nurturing terrorism, and we need strategies that translate this understanding into action.

I would, however, like to establish a few basic premises for the analysis Mr Vallersnes is calling for.

First, terror is not an ideology. Terror is a violent tool that affects innocent people and spreads fear. Terror can therefore never be tolerated or excused. There is broad agreement on this in the UN.

Second, one of the fundamental responsibilities of the state is to safeguard the security of its citizens. When someone tries to strike at our society using terror, the state has an obligation to protect us, if necessary by military means. And it is our responsibility to take a precautionary approach. Protection is also about prevention, both in our own country and at the international level.

I want to be clear on the following point: if we embark on an analysis of the causes of terrorism, this is not a concession to relativism or in any way an attempt to excuse or legitimise the use of such means. The purpose of an analysis of the causes of terrorism is to provide answers as to how we can best prevent terrorism. Such an analysis should – as Vallersnes wisely points out in his question – provide us with a better basis for formulating our policy.

There are signs that these days policies are being formulated on the basis of stereotypes. The idea of the “clash of civilisations” illustrates one aspect of this tendency: the image of good versus evil, of “us” against “them”. In my view, the idea of a confrontation between cultures is mostly based on gross simplifications. No one has just one identity. And our values and standards are and should be firmly rooted in the principles of universal human rights and human equality.

Other countries will have to speak for themselves. I will attempt to avoid making any judgement on the approach taken by other countries. But it is important, as a matter of principle, to analyse the causes here, because the approach taken to this major issue should be based on knowledge. Western countries’ conduct in the Middle East, aimed at furthering their interests in the region, is often cited as particularly relevant in explaining the roots of terrorism, not least because much of the terrorism of our times has originated in the Middle East. Another important cause is the economic, social and political marginalisation that feeds religious fanaticism.

We should probably take an even longer perspective. Vallersnes’ perspective – looking 80 years back in time – was interesting. The writer Amin Malouf has argued that the strained relations between the Arab world and the West are not just a result of colonial times. He vividly describes the crusades as one of history’s great humiliations, and how this is still shaping Arab attitudes to the West. As an aside, let me mention that there are borders from the times of the crusades that still have great symbolic and political significance in the Balkans. This picture was reinforced in colonial times. It has been claimed that the colonial powers did not take into consideration or learn from the relative tolerance that existed under the Ottoman Empire. The partitioning of the Middle East after the First and Second World Wars laid the basis for the conflicts that we are still struggling with today, as the interpellator explained so well.

The emergence of the ideas of a “clash of civilisations” and of “the West against Islam” thus have a historical backdrop that we need to be aware of. On the other hand, history alone cannot provide the full explanation, and although historical facts can explain certain aspects, this does not mean that they legitimise violence and terror.

We should remember that the oversimplified image of “the enemy” goes both ways. Such images are being constructed actively in the Middle East as well, and cynical forces are exploiting their polarising power for the purpose of political mobilisation. However, this demonisation is not only occurring between the West and Islam, but also between factions within Islam. There are signs that suggest that authoritarian regimes in the Middle East are accentuating tensions vis-à-vis the West as a way of legitimising their own positions of power.

We must therefore ask: how can Norway’s foreign policy be designed in such a way that it helps to dismantle the image of “the enemy” and reduce the hostile sentiment that terrorism draws on? Here knowledge is of key importance.

Research has shown that the lack of predictable, democratic governance based on the rule of law is a major cause of terrorism. This is why efforts to protect and promote human rights are crucial. This is why efforts to improve governance and ensure that the exercise of authority enjoys legitimacy and inspires trust among the people are so important. The interpellator referred to the rule of law. I think it is decisive.

Research has also shown that ethnic and religious discrimination and marginalisation are important factors. It is therefore necessary to increase the participation and inclusion of all groups. We can contribute by pursuing a development policy that helps to reduce ethnic and economic divisions. This is one of the reasons why areas such as the Palestinian Territory and Afghanistan are among the biggest recipients of Norwegian development assistance.

Only by increasing our knowledge about each other can we build trust in the long run. Talking to someone does not mean that you share the other party’s view, only that you are willing to listen. In a world where we are increasingly dependent on each other, we have an increasing need to understand each other’s interests and motives.

Understanding does not mean renouncing our own interests or values. One of the key tasks of foreign policy is to promote insight into and understanding of different world views, particularly those of our opponents. Without such understanding we are ill equipped. I think the interpellator pointed out something important here, namely that we have not invested enough time in trying to understand how images are formed on “the other side”.

All experience indicates that exchange of information and bridge-building have a conflict-reducing effect in both the short and the long run. European history has many examples of this. It is essential that the fight against terrorism is not perceived as a war against Islam.

I will illustrate this by means of two concrete examples.

Norway chose to engage with the Palestinian Unity Government, which was based on a joint platform negotiated by Fatah, Hamas and independent Palestinian representatives. Norway chose to engage with the Unity Government because it implied a commitment to a political process also on the part of those who feel that they are represented by Hamas. This is essential in order to secure a sustainable peace with Israel.

In addition it was important for Norway to show support for a process spearheaded by democratically elected President Abbas and the Arab world. I believe it is dangerous if the West is perceived as being virtually unison in its opposition to processes supported by the region’s own actors. This increases polarisation. Norway may have contributed to nuancing this picture somewhat.

When others close the door, it is important that there is somebody who is prepared to promote dialogue, keep political channels open and act as a liaison with the international community. Once again: we must fight terror with all available means – including “harsher” means – ranging from intelligence to the use of power. But we must also take a political approach and search for processes that can bring groups away from terror and into politics.

Terrorist groups must be dealt with in a consistent manner. Nevertheless, I think there are grounds for questioning the expediency of blacklisting organisations that are suspected of terror. It is relatively easy to muster support for having an organisation put on such a list. It is far more difficult to achieve the consensus necessary to have an organisation removed from such a list. In certain cases blacklisting can keep an organisation trapped in the terrorist category and impede those who want to see a change of policy. This is why Norway does not currently follow a practice of automatically aligning itself with the EU’s list of terrorist organisations. We will not align ourselves with any such list of an organisation of which we are not a member. We respect and act in accordance with the Security Council’s resolutions in this area.

Our policy in Afghanistan is based on the use of a variety of means. Afghanistan needs international military engagement. But this alone is not enough to stabilise the country. Only through civilian development and reliance on Afghan political processes will the country be able to achieve lasting stability.

Norway therefore supports a range of measures aimed at counteracting marginalisation and at creating space for political processes as an alternative to violence in Afghanistan. We discussed this in detail in this chamber last Tuesday. An important element of this policy is to support President Karzai’s explicit intention of launching a more inclusive political process, one in which the Afghan authorities include those political forces that want to build a new Afghanistan.

Groups that wholly or partly base their activities on terror must be dealt with firmly. Movements such as Hamas and the Taliban are on the outer limits of the political space for inclusion and dialogue. Due to their values and conduct they present us with particularly great challenges. But that does not mean that we should refuse to have any contact. Not in my view. We must, however, be absolutely clear and refuse to compromise on our fundamental commitment to universal values and standards.

If we fail to involve and include a broad range of parties – both governmental and non-governmental groups – extremists and spoilers will be free to take over the arena and set the agenda. Most of these groups are deeply rooted in the social, economic, political and religious reality in their countries. If they are excluded from the processes we are supporting, they may remain where they are and rely even more heavily on the means that seem most readily available to them, namely violence and terror.

A final remark: we need to design our policy on the basis of insightful knowledge, expertise on the terror we need to fight, and understanding of the social, economic and political factors that are affecting societal development.

This is a debate we will have with our closest allies and partners. I have the impression that there is more openness to such debate now, since the “them versus us” approach has led to such poor results.