Bilateral seminar Norway-Brazil on Peace and Reconciliation

Speaking points for Minister of Foreign Affairs Jonas Gahr Støre’s opening remarks

Check against delivery

• Peace and reconciliation efforts: first and foremost about changing realities on the ground. Glad to see that there are many here with experience from the field. Your inputs important to guide our discussion.

First, a few words about: Norway’s policy for peace and reconciliation

• Why is Norway engaged?
• One of the Government’s main priorities: to pursue an active policy for peace and reconciliation. Broad consensus in Norway among political parties.
• Based on a shared Norwegian vision that we should take a broader responsibility in the world – a policy of engagement – engage in the settlement of disputes and contribute to peace and security. Be relevant.
• This policy of engagement is a matter of both values and interests: 
  - Values, because we, as a rich nation in a peaceful corner of Europe, have a moral responsibility to engage in the cause of peace and development for others. Norway is fortunate. Norway’s “economic and political surplus”.
  - Interests, because ultimately our security is best served by less suffering and less instability and more progress in the fight against world poverty. Today, the question of interests is less a question of geography and strategic areas.
• Norway a solo player? No. Promoting peace is not something one country can do alone. We seek to build alliances with other countries. Try to be useful, helpful.
• The countries in question “own the process”, it is their process.
• The issue of vulnerability. Sri Lanka.
• The question of how to measure whether we succeed or not, whether the policy is successful or not? Measure peace? Measure engagement? Debate in the Norwegian media now. Complex issue.
• Traditional and new conflicts. Support processes. New methods. The importance of civil society, NGOs.

My second point – our cooperation with Brazil:

• Brazil is a key ally. On a wide range of policy issues – from the WTO to issues relating to health and foreign policy – we work together to promote our common interests. Many common areas for cooperation.
• Two reasons for this:
• Brazil adheres to the same values and basic principles as Norway when it comes to international commitment and engagement: principles based on UN resolutions, international solidarity, promoting democracy and democratic institutions, and the rule of law.
• We complement each other. Brazil a leading country on the international political scene in South America, and is playing an increasingly prominent role globally, both politically and economically.

Thirdly, two examples – first Haiti:

• Your work in Haiti, for example, is a vivid illustration of how your contribution can make a difference – literally – between peace and war:
• The MINUSTAH forces that took over control in Cité Soleil earlier this year were predominantly Brazilian troops, led by General Santos Cruz. Why were you successful when others had tried before and failed?
• Perhaps this is mainly a question of understanding the people, their fears and hopes. Strong cultural links between Brazil and Haiti. Different languages, but a common identity and shared cultural building blocks. Created a foundation for improving understanding and gaining acceptance for the involvement of the international community.
• Your success was not due not only to appropriate military tactics, but also to the emphasis you placed on cultural sensitivity, which made people welcome UN soldiers. Such a level of trust is a key element in building lasting peace.
• This approach is brought very much to life in the book about the project, Regards Croisés, which I have had the chance to look at: Children in poor communities in Haiti and in Brazil got to know each other by exchanging photographs of each other and their families. When the children were asked: Where is Haiti? – one of them replied: “Haiti, it’s right over there, on the other side of the road”.

Second example –the situation in the Middle East

• Engagement and dialogue have also been our approach in the Middle East. Norway has persistently shown support for President Mahmoud Abbas’ political platform of dialogue and negotiation.
• Necessary to listen to all groups, to give our views and to share our reading of other actors’ interests. This is the approach we have used when dealing with Hamas. Their political horizon differs profoundly from ours. But agreement is not a precondition for dialogue. Isolating a major popular movement like Hamas would only strengthen their resolve to act as ‘spoilers’.
• We worked behind the scenes to facilitate the Mecca agreement between Fatah and Hamas. Through our dialogue with Hamas, we helped to encourage Hamas to join a National Unity Government and commit to a moderate political platform that reflected the Quartet principles. But then, as we all know, things changed.
• Brazil has joined the process as a new concerned actor. Presence in Ramallah important. I welcome Brazil’s engagement. Will strengthen the sense of support from the wider international community.
• Middle East: example of changing environment. And: How to deal with groups? States vs. groups.

Finally – I want to make a brief point on health and foreign policy

• Joint engagement on health as Foreign Ministers. My good colleague Amorim and I share the view that we need to be more conscious of public health in the way we conduct foreign policy, and vice versa. We must be ready to apply diplomacy to achieve health results, and to engage in the health arena to achieve foreign policy results.
• In conflict situations, health can be a bridge builder. In the hospital run by Médecins Sans Frontières in Cité Soleil in Port au Prince, even the most notorious gang leaders agreed to leave their guns outside so that medical services could be carried out without the risk of armed violence erupting.
• Increased vulnerability due to globalisation and climate change. Our commitment to moving from a “them and us” perspective of security towards a stronger sense of world community.
• Health situation in countries as a benchmarker.

To conclude

• Clear that Norway and Brazil have a lot in common in our efforts to prevent and settle conflicts and disputes. Brazil an important partner. Working together with NGOs.
• Objective of today’s meeting is to take our understanding to the next level by examining real case studies and learning from each other.
• I wish you a very productive and rewarding day.