Syria – how to get beyond the impasse

Opening panel: Mr. Espen Barth Eide, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi, Joint Special Representative for Syria of the United Nations and the League of Arab States, Ms. Louise Arbour, President, International Crisis Group. Moderated by Ms. Veronica Perdosa, Al Jazeera. 

Foreign Minister Eide based his introductory remarks on the following points.
Check against delivery

Dear guests and friends, 

It is a pleasure to welcome you to the 11th Oslo Forum. I hope that you will find the informal atmosphere conducive to sharing experience and discussing some of the toughest challenges to peacemaking today.

The Oslo Forum was conceived as a “laboratory” for testing ideas, asking tough questions and questioning basic assumptions about conflict resolution. The idea is to improve conflict resolution and find new and innovative paths to negotiated political settlements. 

We need to look at previous experiences and lessons learnt when addressing some of the most challenging conflicts of today like Syria, Sahel and Somalia. In the last year we have witnessed many positive steps and courageous leaders that chose to negotiate and cease to fight.

Colombia. In August 2012, the Government and the FARC agreed on an agenda for peace negotiations that were launched in Oslo in October and subsequently continued in Havana.

On 26 May the parties reached a historic milestone; they announced a preliminary agreement on comprehensive land reform including access to land for Colombia’s many poor, small-scale farmers.

Last week the parties began discussing how to enhance rights and guarantees to participate in politics for the opposition, as well as for a transformed FARC.

Many challenges remain, but the parties demonstrate a strong will to reach a peaceful settlement, which gives room for optimism.  

Philippines. The Government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front signed in October 2012 the “Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro”. This is a road map that has the potential to bring peace and development to Muslim Mindanao and the Philippines. It clears the way for a possible establishment of a new autonomous political entity to be called Bangsamoro.

Myanmar. Since 2011, the Government of Myanmar has entered into ceasefire agreements with 10 of the 11 non-state armed groups in the country.
At the end of May, an agreement was signed by the parties to the last remaining conflict, in the Kachin state. The agreement covers continued political dialogue, an easing of hostilities, improved access for humanitarian assistance and the possible monitoring of the situation on the ground.

This represents a historic opportunity for peace in the whole country, and prepares the ground for a political dialogue between the parties to the conflicts. 

This morning, we have put the brutal conflict in Syria on our agenda.

The situation in Syria is tragic and deeply disturbing. According to UNHCR and OCHA, it is the worst humanitarian crisis since the World War 2. The UN estimates that 93.000 people are killed as a consequence of the conflict. Millions of people are refugees. The people inside Syria live in dire conditions. There are gross violations of international humanitarian law. The suffering and destruction caused by these two years of cruel warfare by the regime against its own people is a shocking tragedy.

The paralysis of the international community sends the message of talk, no action. The civil war has slided into a deepening military deadlock that is becoming a regional and international proxy war. This is deeply disturbing.

The international community must seize the moment now to make a serious diplomatic push towards the negotiation table. 

In my view, this push must build on the six-point understanding reached by Geneva 1. This understanding contains the main elements required, and those can be elaborated upon. Although expectations of a concrete outcome of the Geneva talks are rather low, the process itself is important.

Further, I believe that the Security Council should agree on a resolution to back up the diplomatic initiative and try to secure support for the approach from all regional players. What we need is a broad international coalition for de-escalating the conflict and eventually stopping the supply of weapons.

We face tough choices and decisions in order to open the doors for a political solution. It is often the case that, only when both parties feel they are neither winning, nor loosing, are they willing to talk. So what should be the precondition for such talks?

First, although Norway wants President Assad to leave and eventually face trial for his war crimes, I do not see that any political process will be possible if we continue to insist that he should leave as a precondition for talks.

Second, I sincerely hope that the Iranian presidential elections can be an opportunity for reconsidering the participation of Iran in a supportive role within the political process.

I look forward to our further discussions here today. Thank you.