Minister of Foreign Affairs Jonas Gahr Støre

Norway – a peace nation Myth or fact?

The Nobel Peace Center, Rådhusplassen, Oslo,
Monday 24 April 2006

Meeting organised the Polytechnical Society’s Internationalisation Group, the Norwegian Institute of Foreign Affairs, the Nobel Peace Center and Telenor

Your Royal Highness,

Excellencies,

Ladies and gentlemen,

I was delighted to be invited to speak here today.

Is Norway a peace nation? Are we Norwegians particularly peaceful people?

Creating peace is an art. It involves values, it involves visions, and it involves personal courage.

“You don’t make peace with your friends, you make peace with your enemies,” said Yitzak Rabin.

The former Prime Minister of Israel knew what he was talking about. He spoke these words, as we remember, in Washington D.C. during the signing of the first Oslo Agreement in August 1993, having just shaken the hand of PLO leader Yassir Arafat.

The pictures of this event, broadcast all over the world, showed how difficult it was for Mr Rabin to make peace with an enemy he had been fighting against for so long.

It was no easier for the Palestinians.

*****

Norway is a nation that wants peace.

The Norwegian people want peace – for themselves, and for others.

But this is something we share with most nations and most people all over the world. Almost everyone wants to live in peace, to realise the age-old vision of leaving the world a better place for their children.

We could start our reflection over Norway as a peace nation by reminding ourselves that we are one of the privileged nations that is actually living in peace.

Peace is not just an absence of war.

Peace is development, access to education, healthcare and welfare, and opportunities for value creation.

Being able to create and to share.

Norway has all this.

We have experienced conflict, and many Norwegians alive today have experienced war and occupation. But that chapter is now closed. We have been able to move on in peace and reconciliation, even in an alliance with the people who once occupied us.

So, put quite simply, Norway has everything it takes to be a peace nation.

With such a good starting point, it is crystal clear that we have a responsibility to be a nation that promotes peace.

And let us bear in mind that no Norwegian politician for several generations has experienced anything like the situation that Mr Rabin, Mr Arafat and the current Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas were in, in 1993. Neither have we experienced the desperate situation facing Israeli and Palestinian leaders right now. A situation where it is misleading to talk about a peace process, because all anyone can see is a complete lack of process, negotiations or peace.

It seems grim. But the situation in the Middle East has been grim before. Israelis and Palestinians must once again take the courageous steps that will lead towards peace. And once again we – a nation that longs for the people of the Middle East to be able to live in peace – must do what we can to help.

I will say more about this later.

*****

Norway is a country that follows a systematic international peace policy at many levels.

But as we reflect on this subject today, I believe we should approach the concept of peace, and the role we can play, with humility.

It is not the case that there is something special about the Norwegian soul, our way of thinking or behaviour that makes us a more peaceful people than others. Some may give this impression. But it is false.

You can go to any neighbourhood in Norway, any football team, local council or political party for that matter, and you will soon find that we too can easily become embroiled in conflict.

The ships that set sail from Norway during the Viking era were not exactly manned by peace negotiators and development project workers.

In those days Norway was associated with violence.

So it is not anything special about Norwegians that has made us a peace nation. Let us put that idea aside. Any claim to the contrary would be, in my view, a myth.

But there is something about our country’s starting point: our geographical situation, the efforts of many generations to build our society and develop international security around us, and – it must be added – a high level of political consensus about major social issues and core values.

Today we are living in peace; we are not involved in conflicts with other countries and we feel we have a duty and a responsibility to contribute to development and peace for others. This is an important resource that we should utilise.

The fact that public opinion wants Norway to have an active peace policy is a strength. A strength the Government wants to utilise to realise the concept of Norway as a peace nation.

*****

In the field of peace, Norway is a far larger actor than the size of its population would indicate:

• We are the seventh largest financial contributor to the UN in absolute figures. Per capita we are the top contributor in almost all relevant UN contexts.

• More than 50 000 Norwegian personnel have taken part in peacekeeping forces over the last 50 years.

• We are involved in a number of peace and reconciliation processes.

• And we contribute a higher portion of our GDP to international development than any other country.

These figures and the general political debate have led to the claim that we are a “humanitarian superpower”. Fine words.

But I would like to take the opportunity today to express a fundamental scepticism about this accolade.

Firstly, I believe that we – least of all – should pride ourselves on being a “superpower”.

Why?

What do we associate with the word “superpower” today?

Countries that take the law into their own hands. Countries that do not pay proper attention to international rules if they conflict with their national interests. Countries that believe that just because they think something is important, so too should the rest of the world.

Besides, I believe the term gives a false impression. Norway provides a large amount of development assistance in terms of its GDP and in relation to the size of its population. This is important and we have every reason to be proud of it.

However, in a global context, our contribution is overshaddowed by other actors who are far larger. In this perspective it is not the per capita amount that counts.

So the truth is that Norwegian efforts in all international contexts depend just as much on our ability to influence others, work with others and share responsibility with others. This means we have to win others’ confidence. And it means we have to be prepared to take responsibility in good times as well as bad.

Our policy is based on a long-term approach, on consistency.

Are there then common values running through our modern history that foster popular support for Norway’s active peace policy? This is an important question.

There are two clear lines that can be identified in the Norwegian mindset, Norwegian society and Norwegian politics that have led us to develop a role as an actor for peace and development.

For me it is natural to start with the tradition of solidarity in the labour movement.

Social democracy is based on the concept of joint responsibility for a joint future. It is based on a political tenet that I regard as a stroke of genius: no one becomes worse off when everyone becomes better off.

This is a vision of a society where everyone is involved, where everyone is given the opportunity to make use of their abilities and pursue their interests.

And this is not a philosophy for home use only. Indeed it can only be truly meaningful if it is part of an international vision – a vision of the world as we dream it could be.

It is due to this vision that I became a social democrat.

Former Prime Minister Thorbjørn Jagland has spelt this out more clearly than anyone: we must strive to apply the same principles for democracy, redistribution and social development at the international level as we have done at the national level. This agenda is an agenda of peace, and it is an agenda that we want to put into practice in our foreign policy.

In a few days we will celebrate 1 May. In Norway it tends to be seen as an occasion for putting forward Norwegian demands. But it is in fact a day for promoting international solidarity with oppressed people far from our shores.

The international focus of social democracy fosters solidarity with others, and a commitment to peace and welfare in other countries.

This is not a product of our welfare age. It was started by the pioneers of the labour movement, who were fighting against injustice at home and abroad. The one is not possible without the other.

The labour movement’s network of contacts was decisive in the process that culminated in the Oslo Agreement. This is not a coincidence. Ever since World War II, social democracy has played a leading role in the development of Norway’s humanitarian profile, in Norway’s efforts to promote peace.

I would also like to highlight the traditions of solidarity and compassion that are found in both low and high church organisations.

In these we find a great deal of international experience, willingness to make a sacrifice, love of one’s neighbour, deep-seated faith and solidarity with others. I am thinking here of people like Elias Berge in Norwegian Church Aid, who put Biafra on the map, or rather on our map, on our agenda, 40 years ago.

Norwegian international development policy, the desire to provide assistance, is based on a high degree of consensus between the political and social movements known as social democracy and Christian democracy in Norway. We must nurture these ties.

For there are other things on offer today in Norwegian politics; there are those who promise the electorate deep cuts in Norway’s international development allocations.

I can just imagine the Norwegian representative knocking on the door of the Mozambique Government, following an outcome of a Norwegian election that I hope we never see, saying, “Hello, I’m from Norway, the richest country in the world, far to the north. I’ve come to tell you that we’ve decided to stop all bilateral assistance and cooperation. We need the money ourselves. All the best for the future!”

The fight against this approach is worth taking up, and it will be an important item on the foreign minister’s agenda over the next few years.

And I would particularly like to highlight the importance of the broad approach taken at both national and international level by the many NGOs in Norway that are now found in all areas of civil society. You represent expertise, networks, experience, commitment and will. Rita Westvik has just shown us one example of these qualities**. What I am talking about here is also part of Nansen’s tradition – one that we should be very proud of. ( Antar at hun snakket om Nansen**)

One of the strengths of Norway’s peace and reconciliation efforts is their popular ownership.

I often use the peace process in Sri Lanka as an example.

Norway’s involvement started under a Centre Party government with a former leader of the Socialist Left Party as the key actor, it continued under a Labour Party government, a centre/right coalition and now a centre/left coalition, with no change to the thrust or level of involvement in the peace process itself.

Norway’s policy is easily recognisable because it has broad support.

So our starting point is good. It has firm historic roots.

But when it comes to putting this advantage into practice, I believe there are two aspects of the Norwegian character that we should be wary of.

One is a tendency to be big-headed; we can come to believe that we are bigger than we are, that we, in our peaceful corner of the world know best how others should resolve their most complex crises.

Others are unable to understand this arrogance; they react to it, they loose confidence in us, and nothing is achieved.

The other is at the opposite end of the scale – a tendency to believe that we are smaller than we are, that we are unable to make any real difference.

This is also wrong. The fact is that in many situations, Norway has a real possibility to make a difference. If we are able to position ourselves well, if we are able to build trust, and if we are able to deliver results over time.

It is only together with others that we can create a peaceful world.

This is something I will come back to.

As I conclude these introductory reflections, I would like to mention a third tendency that I believe we must guard against. We must not allow ourselves to believe that all we have to do – all Norway has to do – is to want peace, and that we can let others take responsibility for the difficult, and at times painful, aspects of bringing it about.

Maintaining a strong and effective defence force is part of Norway’s policy for peace.

The fact that we have not needed to actively use our defence force to ensure peace within our borders for more than half a century does not mean that we do not need a strong defence.

On the contrary. Norway’s defence forces, together with our alliance commitments and rights, have secured peace in our country. And this has contributed to peace on our continent.

Some people maintain, and I listen to what they are saying, that it is a paradox that Norway – a peace nation – has 500 military personnel in Afghanistan, and even fighter aircraft.

I do not agree. We have responded to an appeal from the democratically elected Afghan President and the democratically elected Afghan national assembly.

We are not there to make war, but to help a state that is impoverished and broken down by war and violence to start on the difficult path towards peace and development. We want to help to give the Afghan people the security they need to build this path and then to walk along it. We do not know if we will succeed. But we know that if we do not try to help, they will not succeed – and nor, in the end, will we.

Besides, the present situation affects us in more ways than one. Peace in Afghanistan, in this region where there is so much conflict, will also benefit us.

For example the suicide bombers in London – a city visited by half a million Norwegians every year (and it was a miracle that no Norwegian lives were lost) – were terrorists who had been trained in the Afghan mountains. Disbanding these groups will improve our security too.

And the heroin that is sold on the streets of Oslo, and that we desperately hope our children will keep away from, comes from Afghanistan. The opium farmers will not grow other crops unless they are able to work in peace, are given support for new irrigation systems and have the opportunity to sell their produce.

This is why we are needed there – for our sake too.

I will not go into a long historical digression, but it is worth remembering that history is full of tragic examples of people wanting peace who ended up at war.

The seeds of conflict, violence and destruction are everywhere. Our most important task is to address the causes of injustice and conflict.

But we also have to deal with the consequences of injustice and conflict. We cannot do the one without the other.

This axiom must be applied if Norway as a peace nation is to be a fact and not a myth.

*****

This is why Norway’s policy for peace is not just a string of involvements in different peace processes, but an engagement that is gradually being woven into our security policy.

Our security policy for the 21st century.

Our security policy for the age of globalisation.

Globalisation is making the world a better place. Many people are being lifted out of poverty. But many, far too many, are being left behind, are not able to benefit from welfare and growth, but are suffering from disease, economic decline and conflicts.

Over the last 15 years, we have witnessed one hundred conflicts, around 30 of which are still “active”, to put it mildly. Almost all of them are internal conflicts.

Globalisation means that we too are affected by these conflicts. Local conflicts are a global problem, a global challenge.

Many of the greatest challenges today: terrorism, international crime, environmental degradation and the spread of disease and fear arise in conflict areas far away.

But nowhere is “far away” any more. It is all on our doorstep.

• Fear is spread through video recordings shown on TV.

• Suicide bombers wait for the bus at the bus stop; they travel by metro.

• A country in Africa that is collapsing under poverty, disease and conflict opens up a new breeding ground of instability and insecurity that is likely to spread.

• Migrating birds are carrying disease.

• And, as I already mentioned, access to the heroin that is being offered to our children on the streets of Oslo depends on whether or not the central Afghan authorities are able to control the rural areas of their country.

Our efforts for peace, reconciliation and development are not just based on solidarity and respect for human dignity.

Our peace policy is becoming part of our own security policy.

The security aspect alone is sufficient justification for our peace policy. It is also the most important justification.

Another justification that we sometimes hear is that we can use our peace efforts to promote Norway.

I believe this approach is one that must be handled with great care. We should not, we cannot use our participation in peace efforts to sell Norwegian salmon. Norwegian coastal cruises have drawn thousands of foreign visitors without us having to advertise Norway’s beautiful fjords and its peace efforts.

All the same, the role Norway plays in peace processes does give us an international reputation. And the peace processes draw attention to other issues that are important for us. Norwegian governments find – yes, I find this myself – that our involvement in peace processes can be a ticket to gain political attention for other issues. We must not waste the opportunities this offers.

*****

Peace policy as an integral part of our security policy means that peace policy is also part of our foreign policy. This Government wants to stake out a direction for our foreign policy that takes into account some overriding principles for what our nation wants to and is able to achieve.

We are in an old railway station, so it is particularly appropriate to use the image of tracks to describe Norway’s foreign policy. There are three main tracks:

The first track is our ambition to strengthen the international rule of law, and we will cooperate with others to find joint solutions to the greatest challenges of our time.

There are no national solutions to terrorism, pollution, human trafficking, HIV/AIDS or bird flu.

Norway – perhaps more than other countries – is best served by a world order that is based on rules not power.

Where the large and powerful do not take the law into their own hands, where the use of power is regulated, where trade is subject to shared and predictable rules of play, where we can fight problems like human trafficking and overfishing by strengthening the international regulations.

The second track is our recognition of where we are and what we need. We want to be the friend of our friends. We want to develop our partnerships with our friends and allies in the Nordic area, in NATO in the European cooperation and across the Atlantic, with the US and Canada.

We will have a good opportunity to foster these ties later this week, at the meeting of NATO foreign ministers at Sofia to prepare for the NATO summit in the autumn. Norway’s security policy is rooted in NATO and will continue to be so.

Our friends and allies must know where we stand, so that we also know where they stand in relation to us. In good times and in bad.

And thirdly, we take action in situations where Norway has the opportunity to contribute towards peace, reconciliation and development.

We will play an active role in the UN, and we will show willingness to provide assistance and support for development. And we will look for opportunities where we can make a difference. Not in all places, but where we have a strategic point of entry.

As Erik Solheim did when he created a role for Norway in Sri Lanka. As Mona Juel and Terje Røed Larsen did in the Middle East.

Or as Jens Stoltenberg did when he took on the leadership of the efforts to provide vaccines for all the children in the world through the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI). This was an opportunity that was waiting for someone to grasp it. And Mr Stoltenberg did.

*****

My main point is Norway’s peace policy follows all these tracks. They are interrelated. Much of what Norway does on its own is only possible thanks to the part we play in international cooperation, and through our partnerships and alliances.

In several conflicts, Norway has preparatory, complementary and supportive roles to UN efforts. Guatemala is one example. The Middle East is another.

Our efforts in the UN have given us credibility. Our peace and reconciliation efforts are built on our close ties with the UN, NATO and the European cooperation.

Although we have a high-profile role in some conflicts, we more frequently work together with others, for example through the UN.

Norway’s peace efforts are not a one-man show.

The most important work Norway does for peace is contributing to a world order that regulates the use of force. We believe that the UN is the most important forum for dealing with questions of international security. Our most important job is, therefore, to strengthen and reform the UN and other multilateral institutions.

This has been the case for a long time. Support for the UN will always be a vital part of Norway’s foreign policy.

And we believe that the UN will become more important than ever in the years to come in efforts to deal with global challenges and to secure peaceful coexistence. The UN’s greatest advantage as a forum for promoting world peace is the broad range of its tools.

The UN has a role to play at all stages of a conflict, from before violence breaks out, to peace operations, support in the transition period following a peace agreement to long-term development and institution building with a view to ensuring lasting peace.

We support the UN, but we are the friend of our friends in this area too. Friends tell each other when things are not as they should be. A good friend does not give blind, uncritical support. We are promoting necessary reforms in the UN.

So is out neighbour Sweden. Today they took onboard a new Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is also president of the UN General Assembly with responsibility for introducing reforms until September. This is a large and challenging task and we will give him our support.

We must not allow the situation to arise where those that support the UN the least are setting the agenda for how the UN should be developed.

We who have the highest ambitions for the UN must be the ones to set the pace.

Three areas are currently being examined: development, the environment and emergency relief.

Jens Stoltenberg is one of three co-chairs on a reform panel that will submit its report in September. The panel is an important opportunity to examine UN efforts as a whole: What are we achieving? Are our efforts fragmented? Are the UN agencies pulling in the same direction?

The establishment of the UN’s new Human Rights Council, which will replace the Commission on Human Rights, is an important step since the summit last autumn. Not as big a step as many would have wished, but still a step in the right direction.

We must renew confidence in the UN as coordinator of joint action to reach joint, global targets. The UN must be made more effective. It must utilise its advantages better. And the key area will be international peace and security.

And then we have the Peacebuilding Commission, which will propose streamlined peacebuilding strategies. We will mobilise the resources needed to establish lasting peace after a peace treaty has been signed. Far too many peace treaties break down soon after because the countries involved do not have the support they need to follow them up. Norway will have a seat on the Commission’s Organisational Committee** ( OK?**) from the start.

Norway’s support is clear and unambiguous. We will use the Commission as a forum for cooperation. And we will contribute NOK 200 million to the Peacebuilding Fund.

But we will also face the challenges that will arise when the UN plays a larger role in the coordination of peacebuilding efforts. We will have to allow ourselves to be coordinated. In certain situations this may mean that we will have to put our national ambitions aside. And we are willing to do so.

The problems that arose in the Balkans in the 1990s brought to the fore the need to strengthen the coordination of peace efforts and the cooperation between the UN and NATO. As a result, Norway and many other countries have taken part in NATO-led operations under a UN mandate in recent years.

In many cases the alliance is best qualified to carry out complicated military operations. It is also politically significant that NATO draws the transatlantic countries together in a joint approach to such challenges.

Norway must continue to work closely with NATO. But we also want to increase our participation in operations under UN command.

We will give priority to efforts in Africa, where most of the world’s conflicts are taking place. The media tends to draw attention to the UN’s failures, as these provide dramatic headlines. But the fact is that the UN is successful in very many of its engagements in Africa – indeed the UN can mean the difference between peace and conflict.

In the Foreign Ministry, we are drawing up a new, broad Africa strategy, which will take into account the full range of tools available and how they interrelate. We have had a good strategy for our international development policy for some years. Now it is time to rethink our foreign policy.

Too little international attention and effort is directed to Africa. The situation in many parts of the continent is dramatic.

The situation in Sudan is particularly serious. Although a peace agreement for Southern Sudan has been signed, peace is far from being secured in this extensive area. On the contrary, developments are going in the wrong direction.

The longest shadows are currently being cast from Darfur. The security situation has gone from bad to worse over the last few months. It is deplorable that the Norwegian Refugee Council, who are running the refugee camps, have been forced to leave Darfur. And we are very concerned about the human rights situation.

Norway’s efforts include support to the African Union’s mission in Sudan (AMIS), and to the UN mission (UNMIS), which is monitoring the ceasefire. But more support is needed from the international community.

Relations between the UN and Sudan have become severely strained as a result of the situation in Darfur. We must support the UN and the principles underpinning the global rule of law. It is our duty to respond to injustice, even when it is taking place within a country’s borders.

Many of the major challenges of our time should be dealt with within just such a multilateral framework. Whether or not we will be successful in Sudan remains to be seen, but we must do what we can.

The conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians is one such challenge. Iran’s development of a nuclear programme is another. I am convinced that at some point the problems in Iraq will have to be solved by the world community, probably by the UN.

We may well find that it is not sufficient to focus on conflicts on an individual basis, but that we should rather consider the wider regional contexts in which they are occurring. In this connection, Europe offers an interesting example from recent history. Collective security and development organisations have brought about lasting peace in our continent.

The European Community (now the EU), NATO, the CSCE (now the OSCE) have taken different approaches, but have shown that a need for security on one side does not automatically make the other side feel insecure, in contrast to what we are seeing in the broader Middle East.

As we seek to find solutions to the broader Middle East, we should keep these lessons in mind.

*****

But there are also a number of conflicts where the UN is unable for various reasons to play a role. And it is particularly in these that countries such as Norway, with extensive resources and strong political resolve and visions, can make a difference.

This is what many consider the hallmark of Norway’s efforts: our involvement in peace and reconciliation processes.

Our involvement in Sri Lanka, Sudan and the Middle East is well known. Many here this evening will also be familiar with the roles we play in the Philippines and Haiti, and, after several years of stagnation, we are again taking part in a group of friends to support the peace process between the ELN and the Government of Colombia.

We are also involved in processes that are not in the public eye because the issues at stake are sensitive.

I will not spend any length of time going through the status of these engagements. Most of you are familiar with them, and many of you are directly involved in them.

But I will say a few words about the Middle East. I will not give a complete overview of the conflict, but I will stick to the subject of my talk: Norway’s role as peace nation.

Over the last few weeks, this has been the subject of a lively debate that has questioned not only the role we are playing, but also our relations with the people who are hit by the conflict.

Norway has been engaged from the beginning at both the official level and the personal level, through several generations. There have been numerous points of contact and networks involving both sides of the conflict. Norwegians, both as individuals and in groups, have expressed strong points of view and strong ties to one or other of the parties; many of us have identified with both.

But Norwegian governments have always emphasised the importance of being able to maintain contacts on both sides – or more correctly all sides – of the conflict and in the region.

It would not be correct to say that we have been a neutral party, as some newspapers have wanted us to be. We have never been neutral in our views of the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians.

Ever since the state of Israel was established in 1948, our main approach has been to support key UN resolutions and decisions.

The Red Cross, on the other hand, is neutral. The Red Cross points out breeches of international human rights, but is strictly neutral in its relations with the parties.

We take a standpoint. We support the vision of two states – Israel and a Palestinian state – living side by side within internationally recognised borders. We deplore the use of violence and condemn terrorism and attacks against civilians.

Together with the international community, we expect the Palestinian Authority to renounce the use of violence, recognise Israel’s right to exist and respect the agreements that have been signed.

And, together with the international community, we set clear requirements to Israel. As occupying force and the stronger party in the conflict, Israel bears a particular responsibility.

We expect Israel to comply with the agreements it has signed, with key Security Council resolutions and with the requirements of the international community to stop the annexation of Palestinian Territory, stop illegal settlement and stop the construction of the separation wall on occupied Palestinian territory.

Occupying Palestinian land in contravention of international law will not bring lasting peace to the people of Israel. It was the recognition of this fact that led Mr Rabin to pursue negotiations and the path to peace. Shimon Peres has stood up on podiums in Oslo and explained how this was needed to bring the Israelis onto a different track. Now, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has emphasised that his Government wants a negotiated solution. This is positive, and we, the Norwegian Government, must respond to his initiative with expectations.

However a negotiated solution will only be possible if the Palestinians have a sustainable society.

It is the Israelis and the Palestinians alone who can create lasting peace. It is they who must want it.

But the international community, including Norway, is responsible for providing assistance, support and setting clear limits. And where necessary – setting clear requirements.

Norway must strive to strike the balance that ensures the greatest possible influence, a position where we can make the greatest contribution to the resumption of the peace process. The balance between acting on our own and acting as part of the international community.

We speak with our own voice; we develop our own standpoint. But we must not be lulled into thinking that he stands strongest he who stands alone.

An important part of the contribution we can make is the influence we can exert on, and through, others. This requires close involvement with the leading actors in the international community; they must know us, know what we stand for and have confidence in us.

Norway has supported the fundamental principles set by the Quartet (made up of the UN, the EU, the US and Russia) in February this year that the Palestinian Authority must abide by.

These principles are also supported by Arab countries and the popularly elected Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas.

This was our view before Hamas came into power, and we have the same view now that they have formed a government. This means that we stand by our requirement that Hamas has to make changes, and that the economic support we provide directly to the Palestinian Authority will depend on them doing so.

If we lack steadfastness here, we will undermine the message we have been sending since the beginning. And we will lose the confidence of the international community that we want to influence and cooperate with.

Meanwhile we are continuing – and we are prepared to increase – our economic support to the Palestinian people. We are looking into the matter closely, and will discuss it with President Abbas when he visits Oslo on Tuesday and Wednesday this week. He has been here before; indeed he was one of the architects of the Oslo Peace Process. His visit will give us a good departure point for the international donors’ meeting in London on Thursday.

Here we are taking a joint stand on fundamental principles, and this is of vital importance.

But we can also have some diverging views or positions on certain questions, for example with regard to contact with the Palestinian Authority. Some countries have refused to have any contact. We think this is unwise.

If you want a party in a conflict to take a different view, it helps to talk to them.

We are prepared to meet members of the Palestinian Government at diplomatic level in the region. And if representatives come to Oslo in a proper and lawful manner, our Middle East experts will listen to them and take the opportunity to explain our point of view to them. Not at political level – that would be a signal – but in a meeting with Ministry staff.

*****

Dear friends,

All peace processes are unique. They are asymmetrical.

We must strive to make our peace and reconciliation efforts more professional.

We are currently systematising our efforts in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The aim is to gather Norway’s and other countries’ experience of peace processes and learn from what we are doing right so that we can do even better.

This year we have also allocated considerable resources for research on peace-process related questions. And we are initiating and supporting a number of opportunities to gather and share experience of peace processes.

Sometimes I am asked: What is the hallmark of Norway’s approach in peace processes?

I have identified five factors:

Firstly, it is important that we are consistent, that the nature of our involvement is clear – even through changes of government.

We concentrate our efforts on a small number of processes. We aim to bring these to a successful conclusion.

Secondly, we take a long-term approach to our peace efforts.

As I have already mentioned, there is broad political agreement on our peace policy, and that is important. When we take on the responsibility to act as a third party in a conflict, we must ensure that we remain a stable element throughout the process and do not give up before it has been completed.

The long-term approach also applies to our relations with countries in which we are engaged. In Sudan we have been involved in the peace process since 1998, and we plan to continue to provide support until the interim period comes to an end in 2011. But our engagement in Sudan dates back even further. Norwegian Church Aid and the University of Bergen have been present in the country since the 1960s and Norwegian People’s Aid since the 1980s.

Thirdly, we are aware of the interplay between humanitarian assistance, development cooperation and peace efforts.

In many cases, the knowledge and contacts that have made it possible to take part in peace processes have developed through our humanitarian activities in conflict areas. This means that when we do take action, we can do so with a broad toolbox.

The fourth element I want to highlight is our cooperation with NGOs, with civil society.

I have already mentioned the role played by Norwegian Church Aid and Norwegian People’s Aid in Sudan. Fafo played a key role in the Oslo channel and is an important partner together with Norwegian Church Aid in Norway’s peace efforts in Haiti. Norway was asked to take part in the peace process in Guatemala partly as a result of the efforts of Save the Children Norway and Norwegian Church Aid following the earthquake in 1976 and Gunnar Stålsett’s efforts in the Lutheran World Foundation.

Norwegian research centres, in particular the Peace Research Institute Oslo, the Norwegian Institute of Foreign Affairs, the Christian Michelsen Institute and Fafo, have made an important contribution as actors, providers of knowledge and network builders.

What is particularly characteristic for the Norwegian model in this context is the way in which NGOs are involved. In many cases we work across boundaries, with close cooperation between state and independent actors. We can therefore ensure that as many resources as possible are utilised.

The fifth element is the importance of international cooperation. Our involvement in the UN and our close relations with many of the world’s powerful countries are vital for Norway’s role in peace efforts. Here credibility and motives are key factors.

The importance of not having a colonial past has also been highlighted, but I don’t want to place too much emphasis on this point. There are several countries with a colonial history that have played and continue to play an important role in peace processes.

The fact that Norway’s economic and political interests are unambiguous is perhaps more significant. This makes it easier for us to convince others that there are no other motives or hidden agenda behind our peace efforts.

Due to our track record and our efforts in the international arena we are considered in many situations to be impartial. This has made it possible for us to act as facilitator in many contexts.

*****

As Bente Erichsen mentioned, the excellent Robert Capa exhibition, which was seen by 18 000 visitors, has just closed. Robert Capa took photographs in the thick of action – in the Spanish Civil War, in the Normandy invasion, in Korea, portraying fear and death, the many faces of war, humiliation, hate, survival, the children. Next week a new exhibition will open here at the Peace Center, “Abraham’s Children”. The Iranian documentary photographer Abbas from Magnum has been studying Islam, Christianity and Judaism with his camera over a period of ten years, trying to understand the children of Abraham. I am looking forward to it.

There is power in the printed picture.

The cartoon controversy showed clearly that foreign policy and domestic policy are not easy to separate. If Norway is to have credibility in its peace efforts, we must demonstrate that we can deal with difficult issues relating to religion and ethnicity – both at home and in other countries.

The cartoon controversy showed how domestic and foreign policy issues are intertwined.

Freedom of expression is essential for a sustainable democracy, and the cornerstone that supports and protects other rights and values.

Norway will not be able to build bridges unless it is able to listen to different sides of the argument. We have to be able to create, maintain and handle dialogues.

But limiting the freedom of expression, the foundation of dialogue, is not the way to resolve tension between different values.

And I repeat: Norway takes a third-party role in peace processes because we are impartial, not because we are neutral.

We do not put our values on the back burner, we do not moderate or adapt them to the situation at hand.

On the contrary. One of the reasons so many people have wanted to engage Norwegian actors is because we have a high profile with regard to human rights and international humanitarian law. This has been clear in many types of conflict.

We are not, therefore, neutral. Having values is a strength. Values provide us with strength. As the Crown Prince pointed out in a talk he gave to a group of school children, we can see morals as an opportunity not a restriction. Moral issues are about human dignity, and when we are confused we need a compass to help us find our way through ethical dilemmas.

Yes, our values act as a compass. It is a good metaphor.

*****

I would like to say a few final words about dialogue. For we hope that peace processes reach a stage where dialogue is possible.

Some people have maintained that dialogue is a soft option for those who do not have the will, the courage or the ability to meet resistance with power.

I totally disagree. One of the most dangerous things in the world today is the absence of dialogue.

We are in a fight against terror, and as I go about my life as a citizen in our society, I want to feel confident that the police and the security and intelligence units are making sure that it is safe to walk along streets and take the metro. But we cannot resolve complex conflicts that stem from social, economic and religious issues with special forces alone.

Being willing to enter into a dialogue is not a sign of weakness. On the contrary.

Dialogue is based on values and principles; it is the strategy of the brave.

Dialogue opens doors. Dialogue builds bridgeheads not positions of defence.

We have learned many lessons from our participation in peace and reconciliation processes. The most important of these is that in the end you have to find a political, negotiated solution to conflicts.

People must meet – face to face, around a table.

They must be able to see this prospect, this alternative, somewhere ahead of them.

After reading Nelson Mandela’s biography, I saw clearly that he could have pursued the path of violence when he was released from prison. He would have received overwhelming support from the angry, suppressed black population. But he asked people to turn their backs on “the grave insult to human dignity”, as he referred to apartheid in his Nobel Peace Prize address in 1993.

Nelson Mandela chose the path of dialogue, the path of peace, the path of values.

And by making this choice, he probably saved South Africa from a devastating civil war.

He knew that it is a brave leader who chooses a political solution sooner rather than later. Even in a situation seeped in suspicion, mistrust and internal political strife.

It is a sad fact that the parties in most conflicts do not seek dialogue and negotiations before it is too late. “Too late” means too many deaths, too many injuries, too many people who are marked for life by violence. People who are unable to the world a better place for their children.

These are the lessons we must learn if our reputation as a peace nation is to be born out in practice. And not become a myth.