On why and how Norway gives priority to peace and reconciliation

The Minister based his speech on the following points
(extract) (check against delivery).

Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, 

• The Oslo Forum is important for us – for Norway – for the international community – and I have as always high expectations. Not of solving the problems in Afghanistan or in Sudan, but of gaining vital insights into how we can understand intractable conflicts better, and how we can promote good, sustainable solutions.
• The key asset of the forum is you, handpicked experts and mediators with extensive experience from the various corners of the world, many of whom have exposed yourself to serious personal risk in the pursuit of peace. You have common experiences, but the value of this Forum is, more importantly, our differences, the extent to which we represent different roles, fields of expertise, and views and positions that have been tested – not only in academic circles, but in the real world. Like other government representatives, I particularly appreciate the key role played by CHD and a range of other non-governmental actors. At the same time, as government representatives we should not play down the extent to which we can make a difference.
• There are tasks that non-governmental actors can do better than states. But there are tasks that only states can perform – and many of these tasks are changing and we need excel us in this art of adaptation. Let me offer a few more leads on why and how my Government gives priority to peace and reconciliation:
• First. Because it is in our national interest: Globalisation brings the impact of conflicts elsewhere in the world onto our doorsteps.
• Second. Because it is important: Directly and indirectly, violent conflict kills millions of people.
• Third. Because we care: We have a strong humanitarian mandate from the Norwegian people.
• Fourth. Because we can: We have the experience, expertise, resources and networks to make a difference.
• Fifth. Because we are aware of the complexities: As a government partner in peace processes, we know from first-hand experience the painful trade-offs involved in policymaking in uncharted waters, including the dilemmas entailed in balancing ambitious human rights policies with the aspirations and demands of religious communities.
• Finally, my sixth point. Because we offer a comprehensive approach: As a government, we have the opportunity to speak to other governments; we can promote combinations of soft and hard approaches – including military means; we pull the financial plugs; and we can offer tailor-made expertise, for example in natural resource and energy management in conflict zones.