Engagement makes a difference

Article in Dagbladet (Oslo, Norway) 6 December 2006

By Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre and International Development Minister Erik Solheim

[Translation from Norwegian]

Engagement makes a difference
Norway’s peace and reconciliation efforts are not just symbolic.

Norway’s peace and development policy – its “policy of engagement” – must be constantly seeking new insights and ideas. We are open to input and criticisms that can improve our policy in terms of both content and method. Much of our peace and reconciliation policy is still at the pioneering stage, and needs to be reviewed with a critical eye on an ongoing basis.

Professor Øyvind Østerud presented a critical review of Norway’s peace and development policy in an article in the December edition of Nytt Norsk Tidsskrift. He suggests that the rhetoric of Norwegian foreign policy warrants critical examination, and maintains that development, peace and reconciliation efforts are a powerful demonstration of good intentions – a forceful, symbolic policy both in and outside Norway. Nevertheless, he doubts that the “policy of engagement” contributes to a better world. We disagree.

Professor Østerud puts forward a number of interesting points of view. However, his conclusion gives the distinct impression that all engagement is futile. Unless the conditions for success are already present, for example in the form of institutions that are capable of pursuing a development-oriented policy, development cooperation will have little effect.

We agree with this point, but it is hardly an original one. Of course, development cooperation works better if the recipient country has professional institutions that are free from corruption.

But – we have to ask ourselves – should we therefore refrain from helping where conditions are not perfect?

The reality is simple and it is dramatic. Yes, international engagement in peace and reconciliation processes is, frequently, unsuccessful. But can we just assume that this is a natural law that cannot be challenged?

This is not how we view the political scope of action. Engagement builds on the desire to challenge the status quo and support peace and development processes. Various groups and countries ask Norway to become engaged. We consider carefully whether this is appropriate in each case, particularly in light of whether we believe Norway can make a real contribution.

Professor Østerud points out that the “Norwegian model”, where NGOs and independent research institutes are involved in the authorities’ efforts, does not leave room for critical voices.

This is not how we experience the day-to-day work in practice. There is a high level of knowledge and expertise in Norway, as a result of our engagement, and it is well distributed between the authorities, NGOs, research institutes and others. Criticisms and analyses are put forward, and this is appreciated. Indeed we receive considerable feedback from these very organisations.

Norway’s engagement in peace and development is underpinned by the population’s sense of solidarity, the understanding that we have a responsibility that extends beyond our borders.

One expression of this solidarity is the Norwegian people’s contribution of more than NOK 200 million to this year’s TV appeal for Médecins Sans Frontières. This is part of the effort to make the world more just, fight poverty strengthen the protection of human rights, and promote democracy, peace and reconciliation.

But it is an uphill struggle. After several decades of development cooperation, one billion people still live in extreme poverty. International peace brokering efforts have not succeeded in bringing about peace in the Middle East, Sudan or Sri Lanka. More than 10 million children die every year of preventable and treatable diseases. Many people are asking whether it is possible to make a difference.

However, Professor Østerud’s approach is too simplistic. He lists all the cases where engagement has not succeeded in creating peace or a well-functioning state, and uses it as a kind of illustration to show that our efforts are useless. For we also have to ask ourselves what would have happened without our engagement.

What would have happened in South Africa if the international community had not condemned apartheid and supported the liberation struggle until wise leaders like Mandela and de Klerk joined forces in the reconciliation efforts? We believe that a proper review of our efforts would show that international engagement has prevented wars, and has resulted in fewer people living in absolute poverty today than ten years ago.

According to The Human Security Report 2005, the number of armed conflicts and the number of people killed in conflicts and genocide has fallen dramatically since the Cold War. The report maintains that this is due to increased international engagement in peace and reconciliation.

We also know that development cooperation contributes to economic growth. Figures from the World Bank show that the GDP per inhabitant in the most debt-burdened countries has increased since 1990. The UN has established that in 2003 there were two million fewer children who died before the age of five than in 1990. The number of people living below the poverty line of one dollar a day has been reduced from 29% to 23%.

Professor Østerud and others maintain that it is nearly impossible to influence a country’s institutions and political development from outside. He believes that well-functioning states develop from within over a long period of time, as has been the case in Europe over the last couple of centuries.

This is too simplistic a view. In today’s globalised world, conflicts that do not directly involve us are moving increasingly closer. Conflicts elsewhere are also increasingly linked to the challenges we ourselves are facing. The cartoon controversy just under a year ago was a powerful illustration of this development. The publication of the cartoons in Denmark and Norway evoked violent reactions in the Middle East. Suddenly old and new lines of conflict in the Middle East became directly linked to us at home. The reactions and the debate branched off in every imaginable direction, including rebounding to our own society, which has become multi-cultural and multi-religious in a quite different way than previously.

The opportunities to influence a country’s development – for better or worse – are far, far greater than Professor Østerud suggests. For example, most African countries today hold democratic elections. The process of democratisation has been strongly influenced by international development cooperation.

We agree that good intentions are not enough. We must constantly seek better ways of working. We must ask more questions and listen more carefully. Self-criticism – rather than complacency –must be the rule. If we are to become better, we have to find out what does and what does not work.

We have therefore strengthened our efforts to evaluate and measure results through the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad). We are working purposefully on improving and systematising our engagement in peace processes.

Professor Østerud makes an important point, when he highlights that misrule, corruption and the absence of dialogue between the ruling elite and the population are often an obstacle to peace and development. This is a key challenge in all peace and development efforts.

We are seeking to make politicians more aware of their responsibility towards their citizens. This is all about strengthening parliaments, improving control functions and promoting transparency in the use of public funds.

There is a need for better coordination of international development efforts. As Professor Østerud points out, there have been many examples of donors’ being guided by their own economic and political interests. International development cooperation can sometimes impede the development of sustainable local institutions.

This is a challenge in Afghanistan. We have therefore taken the initiative for greater focus on civil efforts in the country. We have won ground within the NATO community. The UN must be the main actor. The UN must be given greater responsibility for coordination, both in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

To us it is clear: Norwegian and international efforts have produced results. More people now enjoy better lives, new generations are experiencing peace, people are holding their politicians accountable for misuse of funds, and corruption is decreasing in a number of countries.

It is people who create conflicts, and only people can resolve them. The choices we take have an effect. We cannot sit and wait until a list of conditions for successful nation-building have been fulfilled in countries where everyday life is coloured by terrible conflicts, poverty and destitution.

We welcome debate on and analysis of Norway’s peace and development policy, because this helps us to improve our efforts. But the best debate will be on how we best can contribute, not on whether we should contribute at all.

Facts
• Professor Øyvind Østerud, who chaired the committee to study the use of power in Norwegian society, wrote a critical article on Norway’s peace and development policy in the most recent issue of Nytt Norsk Tidsskrift.
• He claims there are not enough critical voices to challenge the symbolism of Norway’s development, peace and reconciliation policy.