Political Adviser Olav Kjørven, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

“Human Rights and Development: Norway’s Opportunities and Challenges”.

9th International Symposium on Education for Peace, Justice and Human Rights, Høgskolen i Vestfold, 10. august 1998 (check against delivery )

Dear audience, professors, teachers, students and other participants - who are “building bridges and breaking barriers”.

Introduction: What is “a good life”?

Recently I gave a talk to a group of young people gathered at a religious conference here in Norway, where the topic for one night was “what is a good life”? I put a blank transparency up on the overhead projector and asked the audience to define the ingredients of a good life. The transparency ended up looking like this (the actual transparency to be put up):

“What is a good life?”

Good health

Friends

Peace

Work

Money

Education

Security

Human warmth

Good mood

Freedom

Family

Music

Knowing Jesus

What is interesting about this list of ingredients, in light of the topic here today, is that it captures dimensions that are central to both development and human rights (although some perhaps more than others). What we have here is a capturing of five important dimensions:

• A material dimension: food, health, money, etc.
• An intellectual/creative/artistic dimension: education, work, music..
• A social dimension: family, friends, belonging, etc
• A political dimension: freedom (including of expression), security, peace
• A spiritual dimension: faith, fundamental values, purpose (for some: knowing Jesus)

Human Rights and “the Good Life”

You are already familiar with the basic human rights, as defined 50 years ago. I am sure you will notice the overlap with the lists just presented:

• Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
• No one shall be subjected to torture, arbitrary detention or exile.
• Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
• Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
• Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to take part in the government of his country on a democratic basis.
• Everyone has the right to work, to adequate health care and social services, to education and to participate in the cultural life of the community, in accordance with the resources available to the individual country.

Development, Human Rights and the Good Life

And then there is development. What is development? The United Nations has defined development as the process of expanding peoples’ choices: The choices to:

• to live a long and healthy life
• to get an education
• to have a decent standard of living
• to live in freedom and security
• to have other peoples’ respect, and selfrespect

In the socalled “development community” there is now relatively broad consensus about this. Development is something much more broad and rich than simply expanding a country’s gross domestic product. Economic growth is certainly part and parcel of the development process, but does not in and off itself lead to development, at least not the kind of development that average people want. Growth is a means, not an end. Growth is one of several means towards the development end.

What the lists I have shown you suggest is that the quest for development and the pursuit of human rights are closely interlinked. In fact, they are almost one and the same. They are about the same: the quest for a better life, of having the opportunity and the right to make choices--at the individual level and at the level of societies as a whole. This is what people desire all over the world, whether they live in industrialized or socalled “developing” countries. In fact, from this perspective it becomes clear that all nations are, in fact, developing. Developing towards something better, or something worse. The term “developed” is therefore almost meaningless, because it suggests an end point. A utopian state. In fact, we know that all societies are changing, developing towards something. Choices may be expanding in some areas of life but not in others. History has taught us that utopia is beyond reach. Utopias are only useful as long as they stay beyond reach. Industrialized countries “haven’t got it all right”: it should suffice to mention problems such as violence, loneliness and alienation, unemployment, and racism.

The quest for “development” ought to be a quest for fulfilling more human rights, better and better, expanding people’s choices--and not solely in economic terms. And fundamentally, the human rights agenda is a developmental agenda, for poor and for rich countries alike.

However, the pursuit of human rights and development can both be lop-sided, in fact has tended to be lopsided. In the debate on human rights, civil and political rights have often been pitched against social, economic and cultural rights. While Western countries have often focused on civil and political rights, many developing countries have been more concerned with social, economic and cultural rights. However, it is not a question of either/or. One might rightly say that certain human rights are of little value to people who are starving and in need. However, the struggle for human rights is basically about human dignity – about individual human beings, about protecting the individual against oppression and exploitation, poverty and injustice, marginalization and degradation. Thus development and human rights are closely linked up with one another.

Several studies conclude that development projects are more often successful and achieve better results in countries where civil rights in particular are respected. This is related to the fact that the authorities act in a more responsible manner when the inhabitants enjoy legal protection and thus where there is room for criticism and scrutiny. In brief, the protection of human rights helps to give the authorities a greater sense of responsibility towards the population, which in turn has a favourable impact in terms of development. Enhanced respect for political and civil rights reduces tension in society and stimulates economic development. Thus there is a strong interplay between greater observance of civil and political rights on the one hand and economic, social and cultural rights on the other. And, looking at it from the other perspective, poverty-oriented development does strengthen--almost per definition when done the right way--economic, social and cultural rights.

The Flip Side....

To all the wonderful words we have invented to describe human rights and development there is a dark flip side. That of reality, at least reality for a very large part of the world’s population. This is what poor people around the world have to say about their own state of poverty (source: Human Development Report 1997):

• Poverty does not allow people to be people
• Poverty means never having quite enough to eat
• Poverty is nowhere to go when the day is over
• Poverty is the squatter mother whose hut has been torn down by the government for reasons she cannot understand
• Wealth is the blanket we wear. Poverty is to have that blanket taken away
• Poverty is the lack of opportunity for my children
• Poverty is loneliness

This list also illustrates my initial point here today, of how much poverty has to do with deprivation and breech of basic human rights. Indeed, poverty is, in our view, the most massive human rights problem that the world faces today. I am now going to show you another list. You have probably seen most of the points before, so take it as a solemn reminder of how far away from any meaningful goal we really are:

• More than a quarter of the world population lives in desperate poverty, for less than one dollar a day. The majority of these people are women and children.
• something on disease..
• 140 million children receive no basic schooling.
• 250 million children work - often in jobs that are harmful to their development.
• Illiteracy rates in some of the poorest countries are still 70-80 per cent.
• Prisoners were tortured, ill-treated and raped in at least 124 countries in 1997.
• Prisoners of conscience or "possible" prisoners of conscience were imprisoned in 94 countries.
• Extra-legal executions or "possible" extra-legal executions were reported in 69 countries last year.

Can Norway Make a Difference?

So, what can we do about all this? Or, you may ask me, as a government representative with responsibilities for human rights and development, what can or what will little Norway do about all this? Our words in international foras such as the United Nations, no matter how passionate or persuasive, what are they but words and more words? Our deeds in the form of development assistance, what are they but drops in a vast ocean of misery?

Our short answer to these questions is as follows: Positive results are indeed possible. Small countries such as Norway can make a significant difference by means of hard, smart and systematic work. We can make a difference by working directly at the country level, especially in places where we have development cooperation. We can also make a difference at the macro level, in the larger, international human rights and development foras and the economic and political frameworks within which we operate. In fact, a key lesson learned over the last several years is that we must work simultaneously at both these levels--the country and the global--if we are to make real progress.

The Global Arena

Let me now turn to some examples that illustrate how a difference can be made at the global level, in addressing both developmental and human rights challenges.

Example 1: The Debt Crisis

The first example is a plan we have launched to address one of the world’s most serious obstacles to poverty eradication and development (and therefore also to improving human rights)--the debt crisis of the poorest countries. This plan was prepared due to our realization that development assistance in itself is far from sufficient as a means in the fight against poverty. There are, amongst other things, serious global, structural obstacles that stand in the way of development. Unless we somehow, internationally, address the debt crisis, many of the poorest countries do not stand a chance. However, Norway being a small creditor in the big scheme of things, it was clear that unilateral action on our part would not make much of a difference. Our challenge was therefore to come up with a way to stimulate improvements in existing international mechanisms for debt relief. Improvements in these mechanisms, under the auspicies of the socalled Paris Club of OECD creditor governments and the World Bank and IMF--the socalled HIPC initiative--could actually make a difference in the lives of hundreds of millions of people. It is our hope that the plan we have launched might perhaps reap some results in this direction.

With an overriding objective of stimulating more, concerted international action to solve the debt crisis, the plan proposes Norwegian action in two key areas:

1. Pressing for more flexible and reasonable treatment of debt-ridden countries in the Paris Club and in the HIPC context, by offering concrete proposals for changing existing criteria for debt relief and introducing new and innovative debt relief instruments. For example, countries emerging from civil wars and/or man-made disasters such as the Rwanda genocide ought to get quick and special treatment. Especially when the dictators that ran up the debts are gone and new leaders and the people are left with the legacy. And, a multilateral debt swapping mechanism should be introduced, to ensure that debt relief results in greater investments in people and in poverty eradication. We are actively working to build alliances amongst “likeminded” governments and institutions towards these goals.
2. Second. We will build up our credibility and the “political capital” we need to achieve the goals I just mentioned by taking concrete debt relief steps towards as many as 22 countries. We actively support international debt relief operations with our own money, for example by providing resources to national debt funds set up by countries such as Uganda and Mosambique, even though we have no outstanding debts in these countries ourselves. Perhaps most important, we are prepared to cancel all our outstanding debts with regard to those least developed countries that owe us money. This will be done in the context of their “treatment” in the HIPC initiative, and done in such a way that the initiative itself is not undermined but rather stimulated towards improvement.

Only time will tell whether the plan succeeds or not. So far we take some comfort in the fact that the main Norwegian NGO advocating cancellation of debts, as well as the President of the World Bank, James Wolfensohn, have both endorsed the debt plan as a new and worthy initiative.

The debt plan is but one example of how a small country like Norway can work in the international context to achieve progress on the development agenda. Donor coordination and breaking the practice of donor countries demanding that developing countries purchase their goods and services in return for development assistance, are other examples where we are engaged.

Example 2: The International Criminal Court

Let me now turn to the field of international law and human rights. There is a truly striking example of what international collaboration can lead to: the establishment of the International Criminal Court, which was agreed recently at a global conference in Rome. Technically speaking an international court for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide is not so much a human rights body as it is an institution for the prosecution of individuals guilty of the crimes just mentioned. However, there is of course a strong human rights dimension in the sense that the court should, indirectly, stimulate stronger protection of inalienable human rights. More than anything, though, it is a great example of international collaboration for the common good, for bettering peoples’ lives.

Norway has had a longstanding commitment to the establishment of an International Criminal Court. In the preparations before the Rome diplimatic conference to establish this court, Norway played an active role together with a number of other states. The aim was to achieve a broadest possible consensus on the premises for a truly effective, independent, and credible institution which at the same time commands the broadest possible basis of support. We put in a lot of effort to achieve these ends both within the socalled “likeminded” group, which at the end of the conference comprised 62 states and through national contributions in the negotiations and the drafting. Moreover, Norway had the chair of the working group on penalties and thereby took upon itself to contribute to momentum in the negotiating process. What at the outset was portrayed by some as being unrealistic, that is to achieve agreement within only five weeks on a text comprising more than 1,500 square brackets, at the end of the conference was transformed into an overwhelming support by 120 states for a treaty which provides for a truly groundbreaking global institution. Again, Norway was one among several active players in the process, which included rich and poor countries, large and small.

The Country Level: How Can We Make a Difference?

Let me now turn from the global to the bilateral arena, to our relations with other states in the pursuit of expanding people’s choices and rights. Again, the focus is on how we can make a difference. I will first talk about our development agenda, and then turn to the human rights agenda. In the process I am sure you will notice the extent to which there are overlaps between the two agendas, and opportunities for synergy. Let me just mention that I will be focusing on modes, who we need to work with, the instruments at our disposal, and not so much on thematic areas of concentration such as education, health, environment, and so on. This does not signal any lack of attention to any of these areas.

Development: Making a Difference

We have identified two “guiding stars” for our practical development work. First, we must--again as a small country--work strategically with other actors. We must establish and encourage partnerships, with the other country’s government, the private sector, civil society, and our colleagues in the multilateral and development assistance community. I’ll get back to that in a second. Second, we must avoid carbon copy solutions that are blind to the particular circumstances of each country. Recognizing the different cultural, economic and political realities we face, we must tailor our approach to the challenges at hand. We must have a results-oriented approach. These guiding stars are equally relevant to both the development and the human rights challenge.

Let me say a few words about the different partners in development, with whom we must build strong, honest partnerships.

The authorities

Our first and most crucial partner comprises the authorities of the countries with which we engage in development cooperation. We will never truly succeed with development assistance unless we can establish a fruitful partnership government to government. It is also paramount that we respect a government’s right and duty to be in charge of the development process, to formulate its own strategies, for example for education or agriculture. Too often, donors have undermined the development process by taking over, by dominating. Sometimes, this has only stimulated aid dependency and lack of initiative on the part of recipient governments. So, respecting our partner governments and what is often called “recipient or client orientation” is a key principle.

However, we also need to face some hard facts. Authorities do not always feel a real responsibility for development and equitable distribution, or for the promotion of civil and political rights in society. In many countries, corruption is also a pervasive problem. When this is the case, the potential for development success is far more limited than it otherwise could be. In this kind of situation, we should not simply pull out, however, but rather engage in a frank dialogue about development prospects and the constraints on development cooperation. In addition, we can channel more of our development assistance towards processes and measures that encourage democratic development and a greater respect for human rights, and, not least, more responsible administration and less corruption. We can also to greater extent use NGOs as channels, in order to more directly reach the grassroots level.

In 1990, Kenya broke off diplomatic relations with Norway and government-to-government development assistance was stopped. The Government believes that it is now time to resume efforts in this country, but with a clear human rights and democracy profile.Traditional government-to-government cooperation will not be resumed. We envisage a substantial intensification of cooperation between NGOs and other representatives of civil society, in Kenya as well as in Norway.

Many countries often have a hard-pressed public administration and a poorly developed judicial system. Some lack fully developed democratic institutions. Our development policy goals therefore include increasing our assistance to strengthen the judicial system, to electoral systems and to expertise in the field of human rights, to mention just a few priorities.

If we as human rights defenders among governments, are to be credible in addressing torture, use of the death penalty, wrongful imprisonment, discrimination - or other violations of human rights, we also have to address issues of poverty and the rights of the world's poor to basic needs. This is not a question of either/or. Certain human rights are of little value to people who are starving and in need. Increased attention should be given to social, economic and cultural rights--this should be the very essence of our development assistance!

The donor community

The second major partner is the donor community – the bilateral and multilateral donors. In many countries the large number of donors and their various interests are in fact in danger of undermining the country's ability to focus on a strategy for development. It is therefore essential that providers of assistance, such as ourselves, coordinate our efforts, on lines laid down by the recipient countries. We cannot continue to quarrel about whose flag will be raised over the various projects. We cannot all keep sending out consultants and experts to study the same topics and assess the same measures. We cannot take up all the available time of the recipient countries' authorities for separate consultations and meetings so that they are no longer able to do the job that has been assigned to them: governing their country. We must help them to make it easier to govern the country, not more difficult!

If the donors cannot disregard their national interests, ignore their need to improve their own profile, and coordinate their efforts more efficiently, the practical effect of our efforts will be considerably reduced. A constructive move in this direction would be that the donors, on the basis of the development plans of the recipient countries, agreed to cooperate on supporting large programmes within for example the education and health sectors. Such sectoral programmes have produced good results in several countries and represent a promising form of cooperation that could become a joint political and contractual framework for a great deal of the assistance given to the poorest countries. We saw clear examples of this during a recent visit to Uganda earlier this year. Another important initiative would be to improve the distribution of work between the donors. In this way, it would be possible to avoid wasting resources on work that others already have well under way. However, if the work on coordination is to succeed, it is also important that the developing countries themselves are in control. The good results obtained in Botswana are a direct consequence of the fact that the country's authorities have always done just that, and have coordinated development cooperation and insisted that assistance may only be given to measures that form part of the country's long-term development plans. In Botswana, development has been so effective that we are now in process of reorganizing our assistance and reducing our presence. This is a good example of the fact that development cooperation does work!

Better coordination has been one of the main points in our talks with colleagues from other donor countries. Everyone agrees in principle that coordination must be improved. It is now important to find good solutions for bringing this about in practice in our partner countries. We will be giving this high priority in the time ahead.

The UN and the World Bank have no national interests, and would therefore be the most appropriate bodies to help the developing countries with the practical coordination work. One of the reform initiatives of the UN's Secretary General in this context involves integrating many of the UN's activities in each individual country. This is a good beginning. The Government will continue to work to ensure that all UN organizations, the World Bank and the bilateral donors coordinate their assistance as far as possible in all countries. The Government intends to gradually step up the multilateral assistance to half of Norwegian development assistance.

The private sector

The third partner is the private sector. Without a flourishing private sector, the engine of economic development, we cannot succeed. The authorities and the donor organizations must cooperate with the private sector to create a climate that attracts private investment, both domestic and foreign. Here there is a big job to be done. There is a lot to be learned from the fact that a total of 37 per cent of African private capital is placed outside Africa, whereas the corresponding figure for Asia is 3 per cent and for Latin America 17 per cent. The Government is preparing the first overall strategy for private sector development in the South which gives priority to the interests of the developing countries rather than to those of the Norwegian private sector. One of the objectives is precisely to increase confidence in the economic soundness of investing in the poorest countries.

Private sector development in the South must also be viewed in the context of the priority we give to health and education in our development assistance. This kind of assistance will result in increases in public expenditure in recipient countries. Just as we do in this country, the developing countries will be obliged in the long run to finance these sectors themselves. The development of a dynamic private sector is therefore a matter of major importance, as this will help fuel social investment in the longer term. This is why the strategy for support for private sector development in the South is so important. This work is founded on the following main pillars:

• The target is to achieve results in our partner countries in the form of enhanced economic growth and more jobs. The private sector schemes that we have today will be reviewed with this in mind, taking a particularly critical look at pure export subsidy schemes.
• The process ensures that the strategy is formulated on the basis of a close dialogue with our partners in the South.
• An instrument of major importance will be assistance in strengthening the political, legal and commercial framework for economic activity, which has to date largely been absent in many poor countries.
• Further reduction in the extent of tied aid will be important. A major problem associated with tying aid to deliveries by one's own manufacturers is that it excludes the private sector in the developing countries from competing for aid-financed contracts. Tied aid therefore represents an obstacle to the development of the private sector in the South.

Following deliberations two years ago the Storting took the initiative to increase the developing countries' share of contracts in connection with assistance projects. It was the view of the Storting that tender competitions should first be reserved for local and regional companies in the developing countries when these were found to be competitive in terms of price and quality. We are now discussing this arrangement with our partners as part of the strategic work which will be presented to the Storting this fall.

The civil society and voluntary participants

The fourth partner consists of the participants in civil society, i.e. NGOs, churches, universities and other institutions. These all represent a factor that has been given very little attention in connection with development, that of social capital. This kind of capital must be utilized better in the fight against poverty. The proliferation of microcredit schemes demonstrates the amount of development potential inherent in cooperation with voluntary organizations. Several organizations, not least Norwegian, focus most of their activities on education and health. When this type of investment is combined with work on mobilizing political and economic involvement and participation among the poor, this really steps up the pace of development work. 23 per cent of the assistance budget is devoted to the work of NGOs.

It is by preserving their distinctive character and by concentrating on tasks in areas where they are especially well qualified that the NGOs make their most important contribution to development assistance. The organizations' large geographical area of impact and their considerable experience and expertise from many years of development work constitute a unique resource. They can also contribute to the building of civil society by cooperating with partners in the developing countries.

Human Rights: Making a Difference

The Government aims at pursuing a more clearly defined and more rigorous human rights policy. In such cases the choice of means is often difficult. On the one hand public criticism and clear positions are often necessary to demonstrate our views. On the other hand we have seen on several occasions that more has been achieved by building mutual confidence and entering into a dialogue.

In this context we must never lose sight of the goal; our choice of means must always be decided by the interests of the people we wish to support. The immediate consequences must be weighed against the possible long-term consequences. The signal effect in Norway and in the world at large must be weighed against the possibilities of bringing about concrete improvements in the country concerned. The basis of all our assessments must always be the best interests of the individual.

This is where the greatest challenge lies, in identifying the instruments that yield the best results in any given situation. I will again put a list up on the projector. As you can see, I’m a big fan of lists. They provide an illusion of order where there is really mostly chaos!

The key categories of instruments at our disposal are:

• political instruments
• economic (investment and trade) instruments
• development assistance as an instrument
• multilateral instruments

- The range of political instruments

Political talks and visits provide many opportunities to raise human rights issues with the governments of other countries. This is done on a regular basis, either publicly or behind closed doors. There is broad political agreement in Norway as to the importance of pursuing a critical dialogue with regimes we disagree with, and that we find reason to criticize.

Upgrading or downgrading of diplomatic contact and representation can signal a desire for contact or be an expression of dissatisfaction. The Government generally regards it as advantageous to keep channels open for communicating Norwegian points of view, even in countries of whose governments we are critical. Political isolation may result in a regime receiving fewer signals from other countries and becoming even more oppressive.

Twenty-five years ago, Pinochet’s brutally oppressive regime in Chile caused many countries to reduce their presence and to withdraw their ambassadors – some as a protest against the Junta, others as a result of the stagnation of bilateral relations. Norway chose to retain its ambassador in Santiago. This aroused criticism, and it cannot have been an easy decision. Today, however, we know that it was indisputably the right decision. Our ambassador, Frode Nilsen, was able to bring his influence to bear on the Chilean authorities so as to get a large number of prisoners out of the country. Another example of the importance of maintaining a presence is South Africa during the apartheid regime. Our Consulate-General in Cape Town kept in close contact with opposition groups and NGOs during the apartheid regime, and provided extensive moral and practical support.

Restrictions on the issue of visas to representatives of a regime constitute another clear political expression of criticism of their policies. Norway has introduced such restrictions for representatives of the governments of Burma and Nigeria. Other restrictions that have been used as political instruments include boycotts of sporting events.

- The range of economic instruments

The Norwegian authorities also use various instruments to influence trade with and investments in other countries. The Norwegian debate can often give one the impression that the only choice is between "full stop" and "full speed" in this area. This is seldom the case. A full economic boycott would only be an option in very special cases, such as the apartheid regime in South Africa or when the UN Security Council adopts such measures, as in the case of Iraq. The UN has a broad range of sanctions at its disposal. The Government exercises caution in introducing unilateral measures. This is also important as regards respect for international codes of conduct. Moreover, broader international measures carried out in cooperation with other countries will have a considerably greater impact. For instance, Norway advocated international sanctions against Nigeria within a UN context.

However, there are far more instruments along the economic scale that can be used in relation to countries where gross human rights violations occur. One such instrument is to appeal to Norwegian companies to refrain from investment and trade in countries where there are serious breaches of human rights and a lack of willingness to enter into a dialogue. Burma is a well known example in this regard . Such appeals will only apply to a limited number of countries where the human rights situation is particularly difficult and where dialogue is not possible.

The Norwegian authorities also have a number of instruments that we use, or refrain from using, to stimulate trade and investments. Examples are the generalized system of preferences (GSP) and a number of schemes for industrial and commercial cooperation financed with development assistance funds. In addition to this, support for marketing is provided by the Norwegian Trade Council and the Foreign Service. The use of such instruments will be tailored to a greater degree to the human rights situation in the various countries.

We are also addressing the issue of human rights and business ethics. This too, is an issue of credibility. The Norwegian government is now encouraging business and industry to give higher priority to human rights issues. The Confederation of Norwegian Business and Industry has issued an ethical checklist to help member companies to draw up their own human rights policy. We have established what promises to be a close and rewarding co-operation between NGOs, research institutions, employers and trade unions and government to this end.

- The range of development assistance instruments

We have already spent considerable time today talking about development assistance. As I have drawn attention to, development assistance in itself contributes towards promoting economic, social and cultural rights. In many partner countries, human rights and democratization have become priority areas. The list of measures is long and extensive, ranging from technical advisory services to specific human rights monitoring and establishment of the rule of law. Typical examples are Ethiopia and Zambia. We know from experience that influence through persuasion and practical measures is more sustainable than results achieved by means of sanctions and penalties. We therefore encourage cooperation between Norwegian institutions and corresponding institutions in partner countries for the transfer of knowledge and expertise. We also provide support to NGOs. The Government aims at strengthening this aspect of Norwegian development assistance.

As regards democracy and respect for human rights, there is a positive trend in many of our partner countries. Unfortunately, however, we occasionally have reason to react against violations of civil and political rights in a partner country. One example is the Palestinian areas, where we have repeatedly raised the issue of human rights violations. In such situations we first consider increasing the amount of assistance for human rights measures. This will also serve as a signal to the recipient country. If this is not possible, we must consider other measures such as shifting the focus of or reducing the total amount of assistance to the country, withholding part of the assistance or, in extreme cases, discontinuing cooperation altogether. This is, of course, a response that we wish to avoid. It is therefore important to make our views clear to the recipient country, and to maintain a continuous dialogue.

Discontinuing cooperation will have major consequences for those who really need our assistance. It may also affect our possibilities of safeguarding the economic, social and cultural rights of the poor and of promoting peace and reconciliation and supporting democratic forces in the country. This must always be an important consideration when making our decisions.

- The range of multilateral instruments

The promotion of human rights at the multilateral level includes both compliance with international rules and their further development. The most important forum for official Norwegian criticism of human rights violations is the United Nations. Through its debates on draft resolutions, the General Assembly of the United Nations and the Commission on Human Rights express the international community's perception of the conditions in a particular country. Norway has been elected as a member of the Commission on Human Rights for a three-year period from 1999. This is an assignment to which the Government will give high priority.

In addition to sanctions, the UN has a variety of useful instruments that can be employed to promote human rights. The United Nations has monitoring committees for the various conventions and more specific investigative mechanisms. We are also involved in efforts to introduce the right of appeal in connection with violations of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the right of inspection for the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Commission on Human Rights appoints special rapporteurs for selected countries, and what are termed thematic rapporteurs to investigate, for instance, allegations of violations of the freedom of religion, restrictions on freedom of expression, or possible abuse of internally displaced persons.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, plays an essential role in international human rights efforts. The Government has recently advocated a major international effort to improve the difficult financial situation for the work of the High Commissioner in the fight for human rights. This week, in Oslo, the High Commissioner will be attending a conference on religious freedom, which is one of the key human rights issues of our time . We look forward to extensive discussions with her on this topic, which will also involve our own prime minister, Mr. Kjell Magne Bondevik.

We already talked about the newly established International Criminal Court. The new European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which convenes on 1 November, is another important instrument. It will be better equipped to deal with the increasing number of cases resulting from the admission of new member countries. The Government emphasizes the need to coordinate the work of the Council of Europe with that of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Norway is active in reporting breaches of OSCE obligations. We are also involved in resolving conflicts, and contribute financially to laying the groundwork for better observance of human rights obligations.

The Government also attaches importance to active participation in the further development of existing rules governing human rights. For example, we are strongly involved in efforts to prevent children being used as soldiers, ensure a more effective prohibition against the sale of children, establish stricter rules against harmful child labour, improve protection of human rights advocates and strengthen legal protection in states of emergency and internal conflicts.

Applying the instruments

In sum, the Government makes use of these instruments in a systematic, strategic manner in efforts to strengthen human rights internationally. We can make use of all opportunities for contact and influence. Political talks can be followed up with concrete offers of assistance in improving conditions and be combined with criticism in multilateral organisations. There is no contradiction between putting forward criticism and making an active effort to improve the situation. On the contrary.

China is a good example of a country with which we have an ongoing human rights dialogue, and where we are drawing on several instruments. In order to support the dialogue at political level, we are providing financial and technical assistance through a number of projects. This includes cooperation with human rights groups and development of the rule of law and local self-government. At the same time, and although we can now see certain indications of progress, we are raising the question of China’s violations of human rights in multilateral fora as well as in direct dialogue.

But why one approach towards China and another one towards Burma or Iran? This is where the importance of avoiding carbon copying of approaches comes in. Each case is different and therefore requires a “tailormade” approach, in order to get the best possible results. To take Burma, this country has so far refused to enter into a dialogue with Norway. And the opposition, which won the most recent election, has called for boycott and recommended refraining from dialogue. Such cases justify stronger methods, such as those the Government has applied.

For a long time Chile and South Africa were synonymous with the most serious of all human rights violations. Extensive violations of human rights took place daily behind closed doors. Today, both Chile and South Africa are active champions of human rights, but there are still far too many closed doors around the world. However, unlike 25 years ago, many of these doors are now unlocked, or even ajar, open to involvement by the world at large. Human rights, as I said before, are largely accepted as being an international concern. This gives us considerable scope for practical efforts to combat human rights violations. This potential exceeds our capacity, but if an increasing number of countries join forces in the struggle for human rights, there is hope that more and more doors can be opened to let in fresh air, throw more light on the situation and let in the helpers.

Universality of Human Rights

Let me now, before I end, say just a few words about the universality of human rights. In conjunction with an increased acceptance of human rights as an issue of the international

community, we sometimes experience a debate on the actual relevance of human rights to different cultures. Mankind offers a rich tapestry of peoples and societies, traditions and rituals, all in all - cultures. In my view, the inherent respect for human dignity is the common thread that holds this tapestry together - across cultures. However, many attempts have been made to deny or explain away responsibility for civil and political rights by defining them as a Western concept that conflicts with a country's own culture. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan - among other world leaders - has rejected such views, presented by certain countries, with pointed questions in respect of his own people: "Do not African mothers weep when their sons or daughters are killed or maimed by agents of repressive rule? Are not African fathers saddened when their children are unjustly jailed or tortured?" The fact that one comes from a different culture does not change what constitutes human dignity. Human dignity and the fundamental value of the human being is the basis for all human rights principles. This is about individual human beings, about protecting the individual against oppression and exploitation, poverty and injustice, marginalization and degradation. Human rights principles are universal. As a South-African Parliamentarian of the ANC once pointed out; "Culture can never be an excuse for abuse."

Human rights standards are neither selective, nor relative. It is not the case that some human rights apply today and others tomorrow. Nor do some human rights apply to you and others to me. Nor do some apply to men and others to women. The obligations are universal. Thus, Norway does not accept reservations to the human rights treaties which are incompatible with the object and purpose of those treaties. They should be respected by all.

There have been, and still are, constant attempts to dilute human rights. Some claim that fundamental rights must be balanced by a set of fundamental obligations. But human rights entail duties for states, while the rights are for individuals, never the other way around. Prime Minister Tony Blair has said that the right to enjoy our freedoms comes with the obligation to support the human rights of others. We simply do not have the right to close our eyes to injustice merely because there is already so much evil in the world that it seems hopeless to do anything about it. This view is shared by the Government. We have no excuse for not becoming involved in efforts to safeguard human rights.

In Conclusion...

The work of promoting respect for human rights is rooted in a fundamental belief in human dignity. As political adviser for the Minister of International Development and Human Rights, I would like to state that one of the overriding aims for this Government is to contribute to a world where every human being is guaranteed the right to life, an opportunity to live in peace, freedom and security, and the fulfilment of basic needs. It is our firm conviction that the right of and the respect for the individual human being constitutes the basis for human development.

So I come back to where I started out. The opportunities for synergy, for win-win, for more bang for the buck--call it whatever you want--in the quest for safeguarding and improving the respect for people’s human rights and for development, for widening people’schoices.

The opportunities for tackling these major problems have never been greater than they are now. In part thanks to the end of the cold war, in part due to public pressure in all corners of the world, human rights are on the international agenda as never before. The OECD has calculated that it is realistic to halve the proportion of the world population living in absolute poverty by the year 2015. We think we ought to aim higher than that. Poverty is a violation of human rights. Poverty is unacceptable. We should build alliances to eradicate poverty.

When the values at stake are human life, human dignity, freedom from poverty, oppression and injustice, words and “setting realistic targets” are not enough. The greatest achievements of humankind--such as the abolition of slavery, the cathedrals of Europe, the Great Wall of China, etc. etc.--were not a result of realistic target setting. What is needed? Awareness, responsibility, vision, hard work, courage--by individuals, by human rights groups, by governments and by the United Nations. For the only meaningful response is action. It is this kind of concerted effort--that we really get started--that will be the most worthy celebration this year of the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The challenge before us is to ensure that our words are followed by deeds and that our deeds are worthy of the universal values embedded in the human rights declaration.

Thank You.