Minister of Foreign Affairs Jonas Gahr Støre (*)

When Dialogue Matters – Promoting Human Rights Across Ideological Differences

Conference on “North Korea: New Approaches” - The Rafto Human Rights House, Bergen 9 May 2006

(*)Address delivered by Mr Petter Wille, Deputy Director General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Check against delivery

Dear friends,

The life and work of late Dr. Thorolf Rafto has been a great inspiration. His dedication to human rights, his commitment and his compassion continue to have an important impact. It is encouraging to see that this commitment is followed up by the Rafto Human Rights House.

The involvement of the Thorolf Rafto Foundation for human rights in North Korea dates back several years. In 2000 Kim Dae-jung, then President of South Korea, was awarded The Thorolf Rafto Prize for his “sunshine” policy towards North Korea and in recognition of his life-long struggle for human rights on the Korean Peninsula.

This is the last of a series of conferences on human rights in North Korea, which have been organised to boost knowledge and understanding of the situation in that country today. This is of vital importance. Knowledge is needed to raise international awareness of the plight of the North Korean people. I would therefore like to salute the initiative taken by the organisers of the conference, the Thorolf Rafto Human Rights House and the Citizens’ Alliance for North Korean Human Rights.

The universal recognition of human rights is a cornerstone in our efforts to build a society based on greater justice, equity and more equal opportunities for all.

Norway believes that without the rule of law, not only will power prevail over justice, but there will also be no prospect of long-term peace and prosperity.

Our society has developed on the basis of the rule of law and the legal rights of the individual. Our vision is therefore to help the international community to develop along the same lines. We must increase security and enhance human rights by promoting the rule of law, placing it at the centre of any debate on peace and development, global trade, disarmament and non-proliferation.

*****

As explicitly stated in the World Summit Outcome adopted last September in New York international law is one of the indispensable foundations of a more peaceful, prosperous and just world. International law is also one of the top priorities of the Norwegian Government’s policy platform, which was adopted a few days later.

After the scourge of the first and second world wars international law went through momentous developments. We saw the same happening in the 1990s. Mass atrocities have called for effective action. Thus, the full development of international human rights and humanitarian law is a significant legacy of the violent century we have put behind us.

Relativist approaches to human rights have generally become less prevalent. There is broad, international agreement that human rights are universal, and their protection and implementation are codified in existing international conventions and treaties.

But these human rights and humanitarian victories have not been won once and for all. On the contrary, lack of compliance is a constant and serious challenge.

International human rights and humanitarian law needs to be protected, defended and expanded.

*****

Today a historical vote is taking place in the General Assembly. In just a few hours the 47 states that will form the new UN Human Rights Council will be elected. This marks the start of a new era in our efforts to promote and protect human rights.

Why do we need a Human Rights Council?

The UN Human Rights Council is the UN member states’ response to the human rights challenges facing us every day throughout the world. The time was ripe to renew and reinvigorate the system of human rights protection within the UN.

The UN Human Rights Commission which the Council is replacing, has increasingly been criticised for lack of efficiency and relevance over the last ten years. Some states used their membership of the Commission to prevent the Commission from dealing with human rights violations in particular countries. Others, including Norway, became frustrated by the lack of consensus within the Commission even when confronted with situations of grave and systematic human rights violations.

The UN member states have clearly divergent views on the reform agenda. The reform process and the creation of the UN Human Rights Council have taken us along a winding road with many stumbling stones. And we cannot rest yet – working methods and other issues of importance to the functioning of the new Council, are still outstanding.

It is vital that all of us who are striving to promote and protect human rights make our voices heard in the discussions and negotiations on the modalities, working methods and priorities of the Council in the months to come. Norway will do its utmost in this process.

But let me focus on some of the positive changes we can expect from the new Council:

• The new Council will be able to respond more promptly to human-rights crises as it is mandated to hold at least three sessions per year as well as special sessions if needed.
• The Council will review of every single country’s human rights record, probably starting with its own members. Hopefully this means that it will no longer be possible to use membership of the main UN human rights body as a shield against justified critisms of inadequate human rights protection.
• Member states will be asked to commit themselves explicitly to the protection of human rights. It will even be possible to suspend members in cases of gross and systematic abuses. As underlined by Kofi Annan: “Taken together, these provisions should make it very hard for a notorious violator to win election, and should deter the worst offenders even from running.” This will give the Council greater legitimacy.

However, as we proceed in establishing these new working methods, we must not overlook the features of the Human Rights Commission that were vital for bringing the human rights agenda forward. We must secure the elements that actually made the Commission able to respond efficiently and accurately.

Among the most important features of the Commission that must be retained are the Special Procedures, including the appointment of Special Rapporteurs covering particular thematic and geographical areas.

The Special Rapporteurs are independent human rights monitors and watchdogs, and their work will be of vital importance for the new Council. Their presence in the countries in question and the reports they draw up will provide the Council with crucial information and expert advice, and will ensure focused day-to-day communication with these countries and regions. We must be prepared to provide regular support for the Special Rapporteurs in the future to ensure that this system is not weakened.

Another important feature of the Commission that needs to be retained in the new Council is NGO and civil society access and participation. This is a question of maintaining transparency, democratic legitimacy and not least ensuring that the new Council is one of the most important arenas for the debate on human rights at the global level. The Council must not be a closed forum for states only, but must allow for NGOs and civil society to take part in ongoing debates in the human rights agenda.

The Council’s stronger focus on technical assistance and dialogue with individual countries means that it is particularly important to ensure that the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights functions well and has the necessary expertise and capacity. During the reform process, Norway has been one of the strongest proponents for increasing the budget support for the OHCHR to enable her and her team to respond to human rights crisis worldwide as efficiently as possible.

North Korea has ratified four of the major international human rights conventions. (The International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the Convention on the Rights of the Child). However, alarming reports of systematic, widespread and grave human rights violations indicate that the obligations set out in these conventions consistently are being violated.

Norway was co-sponsor of the UN Commission on Human Rights resolution on North Korea of 2005. This reflects out deep concern about the lack of human rights protection for the people of North Korea. The resolution refers to reports of torture, the application of the death penalty for political reasons, extensive use of forced labour, and severe restrictions on the freedom of expression, thought, conscience, religion and peaceful assembly.

It is absolutely crucial that the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is allowed to visit the country on acceptable terms and receives full cooperation. The Norwegian Government strongly supports the mandate of the Special Rapporteur and we encourage Professor Vitit Muntabhorn to continue his efforts to engage the Government of North Korea in a constructive dialogue and cooperation.

*****

Another major achievement of the World Summit Outcome Document is the explicit statement of the principle of the responsibility to protect from mass atrocities. This is clearly directed at those governments whose populations are suffering. It is also unmistakably directed at the Security Council, which has extraordinary tools at its disposal pursuant to the Charter.

There should be no doubt that in situations of genocide, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing and war crimes, the Security Council has a responsibility to act

• without hesitation
• with authority and efficiency
• in the face of threats to international peace and security.

We would like to see the Security Council adopt a resolution that reflects the principles that should apply to the use of force as a last resort and express its intention to act in accordance with them.

These developments – the establishment of the UN Human Rights Council and the expression of the Principle of the responsibility to protect are great achievements. When we become disillusioned in our struggle for the promotion and protection of human rights we must remind ourselves of what we have been able to accomplish in this field lately:

• Abusive governments are no longer fully protected by state sovereignty.
• Perpetrators of mass atrocities can no longer take immunity and impunity for granted.

In short, the growing prominence of human rights in international politics and international law is an extremely positive development that gives us new possibilities to respond to the needs of people in dire straits.

*****

The strong link between Norwegian peace and reconciliation policy and our history as a social democracy with a strong solidarity movement and a strong civil society has been highlighted on earlier occasions. There is a broad consensus in Norway that we share a common responsibility for the future, and that we have a common responsibility to make a contribution – locally as well as globally. This vision is not only relevant for our peace and reconciliation work, but also for our humanitarian efforts. And the two are closely linked in our foreign policy.

At the core of our humanitarian aid lies the idea of “the Norwegian Model”; involving close cooperation with civil society. This enables us to reach out and help people in need more directly and more efficiently – on the ground. Civil society plays a key role in the implementation of humanitarian projects, and provides important channels for information. Furthermore, strengthening civil society in recipient countries helps to promote self-help and disaster prevention within the countries in question. Strengthening civil society in North Korea through humanitarian aid projects is vital for the country to be able to meet its own needs in the future.

Over the years Norway has developed a fast and flexible system for humanitarian aid. Our active engagement in this field gives us a unique opportunity to influence others and execute good leadership. It also gives us a particular responsibility to live up to the relevant norms and standards.

Norwegian humanitarian aid is a clear expression of our commitment to core principles of solidarity, equality and human dignity – and to the humanitarian principles of neutrality, impartiality and independence. Our efforts have a form basis in international humanitarian law, refugee law and human rights as codified in internationally binding conventions.

Humanitarian aid and humanitarian organisations are usually associated with short-term efforts in the immediate wake of armed conflict or a natural disaster. It is evident that the situation in North Korea falls outside both of these categories. What we see here is a sustained, humanitarian disaster, with no clear solution. North Korea is not unique in this regard, but these types of situations stretch the limits of the concept of humanitarian aid. This presents donor countries with a dilemma, especially in cases where the regime is clearly not fulfilling its responsibility to alleviate widespread human suffering.

The operating conditions for humanitarian actors in North Korea are becoming more restrictive. Fewer organisations are allowed to operate; those that are have to do so with less international staff, and less opportunity to monitor the flow of their aid. It is becoming increasingly difficult to operate according to international standards. We have to take this situation very seriously, and we have brought the matter up with the North Korean authorities in meetings.

Nevertheless, our clear intention is to maintain our humanitarian aid to North Korea. Let me mention three particular reasons for this:

• Firstly we are helping people in great need. The suffering of the North Korean people cannot be ignored by the international community;
• Secondly, we are maintaining contact with the country. This is important; isolating North Korea further will not help to improve the living conditions of its people;
• Thirdly, maintaining humanitarian assistance may help prevent future disasters or at least limit their scope, as it builds the capacity of local civil society.

Humanitarian assistance is not undertaken in a vacuum. It has to be seen in the context of the political situation in the recipient country. In North Korea we are very clear about our humanitarian intentions while at the same time following a clear policy in dealing with the regime.

Our humanitarian aid is based on the principles of international law, and is provided in close cooperation with the United Nations and civil society. This cooperation is mutually reinforcing for the parties involved. It also defines clear boundaries for acceptable behaviour, while allowing a dynamic development of new standards in response to changes taking place on the ground.

*****

North Korea sent shock waves through the international community when the regime admitted to developing a nuclear weapons programme. This not only represents a serious threat to regional stability in East Asia. It also undermines the multilateral nuclear disarmament and proliferation efforts. North Korea claims that it has withdrawn from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). However, Norway and several other countries have not accepted its withdrawal. Consequently North Korea is still obliged to honour its commitments to the NPT.

The international community must continue to put pressure on North Korea to discontinue its nuclear weapons programme. If it does not, North Korea will become even more isolated and tension in the region will increase.

Possible solutions to the North-Korean nuclear weapons issue are being discussed in the framework of the six-party talks hosted by China. The members of the group are North Korea, the US, China, South Korea, Japan and Russia. A joint statement on a nuclear-free Korean peninsula was agreed and released at the end of the fourth round of talks last autumn. However the interpretation of the statement and how it should be implemented has proved to be more difficult to agree on and no progress has been made since. Nevertheless, dialogue and cooperation are the only way forward to finding a mutually acceptable solution.

Norway is not party to the six-party talks. But we have had regular meetings with North Korea over the last few years, both at senior official and at political level. The agenda of these meetings included nuclear weapons issues, humanitarian assistance and the human rights situation, as well as aspects of bilateral and multilateral concern. Our ambassador to Seoul, who is also accredited to Pyongyang, makes regular visits to North Korea where he has extensive meetings with officials and the international humanitarian community including UN-organisations, Red Cross and several NGOs. These visits are of the utmost importance in updating us on North Korean affairs and are a good opportunity to discuss all issues of concern in a frank manner

We have noted that North Korea shows considerable interest in the Nordic countries. Together with the foreign ministries in Sweden and Denmark, we financed a conference on social welfare and economic development that was organised by the Nordic Institute of Asian Studies (NIAS) in Copenhagen late last year. The conference, which was held in Shanghai, provided an opportunity for academics and civil servants in North Korea and the Nordic countries to meet and exchange information and ideas. This may seem a small gesture, but it should be remembered that only a few years ago, it would have been impossible to hold a conference of this kind, and it proved to be a useful arena for dialogue and interaction.

*****

Dear friends,

What drove me to politics was the opportunity to create better societies. It is not always easy to know how to proceed or whether we are making progress.] Human rights and international humanitarian law provide both a direction and a yardstick for our efforts. Human rights and international humanitarian law provides both a direction and a yardstick.

Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen has shown how the establishment of parliamentary democracy and basic freedoms in India eliminated famine. When people have freedom of speech, they use it to make their needs and concerns heard.

We want to lay the foundation for societies that do not discriminate, that do not incite hatred. We want societies built on the rule of law and based on democratic institutions that protect every person’s right to pursue their own happiness. We want societies that enable everyone to live their lives in accordance with their own view of what gives life meaning and worth. In short, we want societies based on respect for human rights.

The election of the UN Human Rights Council today will hopefully prove to be an important step in strengthening the UN’s human rights machinery. But we have to be realistic. Like the Commission, the Council is a political body which will only be as strong as its member states allow it to be. But it gives us new opportunities that we cannot afford to pass by.

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

Basic freedoms afforded to one person do not infringe on the rights of another. There is room for human rights and fundamental freedoms for everybody. In fact, the more people who live in societies based on the respect for human rights, the stronger the protection of the rights of everybody become. This demonstrates the power of human rights. The more you share the rights, the stronger they become.

[Thank you].