Minister of Foreign Affairs Jonas Gahr Støre

The Role of Human Rights in Peace Agreements - Norway’s facilitation of peace processes

Seminar in Bern, Switzerland, on 5 April 2006

Check against delivery

Ladies and gentlemen,

In some important respects, coming to Switzerland is almost like coming home. I lived here for two years with my family while working for the World Health Organization, and I saw what an important contribution Geneva and Switzerland as a whole are making to forwarding multilateral efforts in the age of globalization.

I was also able to appreciate other aspects of Switzerland’s excellence while I was serving as Secretary General of the Norwegian Red Cross. My many exchanges with the International Federation and with the ICRC highlighted another important dimension of the efforts Switzerland is hosting.

In short, coming to Switzerland is coming to the centre of Europe, to the heart of international co-operation and global networks – in politics, business and the arts, and to the soil that has fostered pioneers and leaders in international and humanitarian law, and in peace building, human rights defenders, and founders of important organisations. For me, one man stands out in particular - Henry Dunant, the founder of the Red Cross and the first Nobel Peace Prize Laureate in 1901.

While I was serving the Red Cross, I rediscovered Dunant’s groundbreaking work. After witnessing the brutal battle of Solferino in 1859, he took initiatives that led to the creation of the Red Cross, the drawing up of the Geneva Conventions and the concept of the humanitarian space, which spells out the essential conditions for assisting victims of conflict.

It is tempting to ask where the world would have been without the Red Cross. It would have been a more brutal place, with fewer legal and moral standards to protect civilians and the victims of war.

Our topic here today is human rights in times of armed conflict, and we are reminded of the continued relevance of the Geneva Conventions. Some argue that the current international humanitarian law is inadequate to address contemporary challenges in the struggle against terror.

I disagree. International law provides a modern framework which is still applicable and adaptable to changing circumstances. The UN Summit last autumn clearly reaffirmed that the Charter of the United Nations is still sufficient for addressing contemporary conflicts, including what is being called the war on terror. The same applies to basic treaty and customary humanitarian law. The Geneva Conventions and related customary law is universally accepted, but not universally respected.

We have seen legitimate doubts related to the legal categorisation of the status of combatants. But this has no bearing on the fundamental norms for the protection of detainees. These are not open to doubt.

For example, Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention stipulates that “should any doubt arise” as to whether a person is entitled to Prisoner-of-War status in an international armed conflict, then “such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.” Moreover, the rules contained in Article 75 of the First Additional Protocol to the Conventions, which have been widely recognised as customary law binding to all States, provide protections applicable to all detainees in international armed conflict.

President Jacob Kellenberger of the ICRC has put the record straight by saying that nobody can be placed above the law or outside the law. That adds up to a legal and a moral standard that we need to safeguard as we strive to resolve conflicts and anchor peace.

My theme today is Norway’s experience of facilitating of peace agreements, with a special emphasis on human rights. The link between peace, development and human rights is a key one.

Another Nobel Laureate, Amartya Sen, has shown how the establishment of parliamentary democracy and basic freedoms in India, have eliminated famine.

When people have freedom of speech, they use it to make their needs and concerns heard.

In our work with peace and reconciliation processes, we see how human rights violations both emanate from conflict and how they cause conflict.

We also see how respect for human rights can provide a viable path towards peace.

There are fewer conflicts between countries. But there is more strife and suffering as a result of fighting and unrest within countries.

Local conflicts are no longer local, many of them know no borders. They are a global concern.

Today ships, jets, goods, services, capital, messages and persons flow freely around the world, to the benefit of developed and developing countries alike.

The same applies to threats to our security.

Many of the most serious threats and dangers we are facing today – terrorism, human trafficking, environmental degradation and spread of diseases – arise in areas of conflict far from home.

But today, no place is far from home, and threats have become global in nature.

Our efforts to deal with these challenges are therefore anchored in solidarity and respect for human dignity, as well as in our own security.

By helping others, we are also helping ourselves.

In general, Norway’s foreign policy in response to these – and other – international challenges follows three main tracks:

The first track is support of the international legal order – including the system that regulates the use of force.

We want to prevent the domination of the weak by the strong. We want to contribute to a stronger legal order and cooperate with others to find solutions to the major challenges of our time.

The number one issue is to strengthen and reform the UN and other multilateral institutions.

The current efforts by the UN to set up a Peacebuilding Commission will be an important step towards providing the necessary support for countries making the delicate transition from war to peace.

Furthermore, I am happy that we were able to find a solution that made it possible for the Human Rights Council to be established. The final result was not perfect. But it still represents a real opportunity – an opportunity that we need to grasp.

The second track of our foreign policy is partnership with our friends and allies – being “the friend of our friends”.

Our membership of NATO is important to us. And we have close ties with the EU and EFTA countries, with the US, and with Russia – our neighbours.

Norway can only promote its own values and interests if there are other like-minded countries that are prepared to listen, understand and support our views.

Our friends are important in our efforts to promote peace and reconciliation. Our engagements for peace are often conducted in partnership with others, like Switzerland. And in the specific situations where Norway plays a more prominent role, our close relations with major powers are often a vital aspect, even a precondition, of our role of facilitator.

This brings me to the third main track of Norway’s foreign policy: promoting peace, reconciliation and development.

Norway is engaged in a number of peace and reconciliation processes around the world. Our efforts in places like Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Sudan and the Middle East have received some attention, but Norway generally supports other actors – the UN, regional organisations, NGOs and other governments, rather than going alone.

In some cases, however, we play a more prominent part. This is always at the explicit request of the parties to a conflict, and always because we believe that we can make a contribution.

So what are the defining traits of Norway’s approach to conflict management and the facilitation of peace processes? Let me mention a few points:

Firstly, when we do engage, we engage wholeheartedly. We do our utmost to ensure that we are an effective and reliable actor.

Secondly, we are willing to make a long-term commitment. We have a consistent policy on peace efforts, and there is broad political consensus on the Norwegian policy for peace and reconciliation.

When we do get involved, we aim to be a consistent and stable part of the process. This ensures consistency regardless of changing governments. Our engagement in Sri Lanka, for example, has been maintained through four Norwegian governments of changing political colour.

Thirdly, cooperation with non-state actors is important. Several processes are being handled jointly by the Norwegian Government and national and international NGOs.

Fourthly, our close relations with central actors in the international arena, and our transparent economic and political interests, make us an acceptable third party in many situations.

The importance of partnerships is highlighted by our excellent relations with Switzerland. Currently Switzerland, Spain and Norway form a group of what are known as accompanying countries, which are assisting in the emerging process between the Government of Colombia and the ELN. They have met twice in Havana, and will meet for a third time at the end of April. Let us all hope there will be a fourth, fifth and sixth meeting as well.

Turning to the situation in Sri Lanka, where we also cooperate closely with Switzerland, the recent developments in the peace process have been promising. The parties met in Geneva in March to discuss how they could strengthen the implementation of the Ceasefire Agreement. And they will meet again in two weeks’ time, again in Geneva.

Although these meetings are not intended to find a final political solution, we trust that the parties will build confidence through these talks, and that it will be possible to resume political talks in the near future with a view to finding a sustainable solution to the 23-year conflict that is acceptable to all the people of Sri Lanka.

*****

Human rights play an important part in all the processes where Norway is involved – and the promotion of human rights and international humanitarian law is a priority of our foreign policy.

Human rights violations are frequently both a source of conflict and an expression of conflict.

Violations of human rights are often rooted in injustice, inequality, discrimination and marginalisation that were present long before the armed conflict started. Violations must be addressed for peace to be restored and democracy to flourish.

We have also found human rights to be a powerful tool for bringing parties closer to each other and to finding a solution to the conflict.

Mediators operate in a politically contentious and sensitive atmosphere. In such a setting, internationally accepted norms of human rights can provide the parties with a common language with which to approach the root causes of their own conflict.

Turning to our experience from the peace process in Sudan, it is clear that the end of war, with the signing of the peace agreement last year, was in itself the best instrument for ensuring respect for human rights throughout Sudan. But even before the signing of the agreement, Norway was working actively to strengthen the parties’ commitments to international humanitarian law and human rights standards.

The current situation in Darfur is very serious. Over the last months there has been a further deterioration of the already grave security situation. There is deep international concern over the dreadful human rights situation. We are trying to do our part through our support to the African Union Mission in Sudan and their efforts on the ground. But a lot more is needed.

The conflict in Darfur casts long shadows over the future of Sudan. There will be no peace in the country without peace in Darfur.

Another example of the role human rights can play is the peace process in the Philippines. The conflict between the New Peoples Army and the Government has been ongoing for close to 37 years. The parties have managed, however, to reach an agreement on the respect of human rights and international humanitarian law. Norway has supported the implementation of the agreement through the establishment of a Joint Monitoring Committee intended to register and handle claims of human rights violations.

So far the success of the monitoring committee has been limited. But we sincerely believe that human rights could be a springboard for bringing the peace process forward.

Norway also aims to mainstream women’s rights into all the processes we are involved in. In many of today’s conflicts, women are excluded from conflict management and from managing peace and reconciliation processes. In response to this situation, the UN Security Council adopted resolution 1325 on women, peace and security.

Norway has, as one of the first countries in the world, drawn up an action plan for implementing resolution 1325. Our main goals are the equal participation of women in peace processes and the protection of the human rights of women in conflict areas.

*****

As facilitator of peace processes, we are often faced with difficult dilemmas. The choice is often between perfect war and imperfect peace.

Lasting, viable peace usually means dealing with the past, and how we do this will vary greatly from one country to the next.

But forgetting without recognising and forgiving could undermine the stability of a peace agreement.

Peace and justice do not amount to a choice between two paths – rather they are the same path.

Consider the question of amnesty. The challenge, in the short term, is to bring people to the table and silence the guns. But we must be able to act on many levels. It is difficult, for example, to justify allowing perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes to decide the terms of the peace and their own position in the society.

This is, of course, a question of justice in its own right. But it is also a question of taking a holistic approach to bringing a country from war to peace. Ensuring justice is a means of alleviating anger, disclosing the truth and – most important – giving a clear message of what kind of society we want to build.

We want to lay the foundation for societies that do not discriminate, that do not instigate hatred.

We want societies that are built on the rule of law, that are based on democratic institutions, and that protect every person’s right to pursue his or her own happiness.

We want societies that enable everyone to live in accordance with their own view of what gives life meaning and value.

In short, we want societies that are based on respect for human rights.

*****

The strength of the principles set out in the international conventions on human rights is demonstrated by the fact that they are not depleted when they are shared. They are truly universal.

This is not the case with nationalism. Nationalism implies a yearning back to a time when your country was at its most powerful. And if everybody does so at the same time, we will quickly run out of space.

But basic freedoms afforded to one person do not infringe on the rights of another. In fact, there is room for human rights and fundamental freedoms for everyone.

And, the more people live in societies based on respect for human rights, the stronger the protection of the rights of everyone becomes.

One of the last lines of Nelson Mandela’s autobiography Long Walk to Freedom puts it in this way “. . . to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”

This demonstrates the power of human rights. The more you share the rights, the stronger they become.

In our work for peace, it is important that we develop and use this power.