Minister of International Development and Human Rights Hilde F. Johnson

Norwegian Humanitarian Assistance

Statement to the Storting on humanitarian assistance, Thursday 21 January 1999

Introduction

Today I will present a ten-point, action-oriented strategy for humanitarian assistance. In order to place this strategy in its right context, I will first describe the altered landscape in which humanitarian efforts must now operate.

1998 was a year of disasters.

• Southern Sudan was struck by a terrible famine of unprecedented scale. This precipitated the largest relief operation the world has seen for many years.
• Central America was hit by the worst natural disaster in decades. It is estimated that the destruction caused by Hurricane Mitch has set the development of the region back by a generation.
• In Europe, we once again witnessed thousands of people being driven from their homes. This time it was Kosovo. The situation there is now critical once more.

Norway has a long tradition of providing relief and assistance on a declared humanitarian basis, expressive of our solidarity, in response to natural disasters and environmental degradation, and in the wake of wars and other violent conflicts. Thousands, perhaps millions, of people have been saved from starvation through various relief programmes in the Sahel area and on the Horn of Africa. Norway was one of the first countries on the scene after the tragic earthquake in Spitak, Armenia, in 1989. The field hospital we set up is still operating. In Bosnia we have provided emergency assistance, built housing and rehabilitated hospitals since 1994, and we continued these efforts for the benefit of thousands of people while the war was still raging. When the international community became aware of the disastrous famine in North Korea in 1997, we provided food, especially for children. Aid is still necessary. Last autumn we responded quickly to the Hurricane Mitch disaster, and reconstruction of the affected countries is now under way. Humanitarian assistance does help.

In 1992 the Storting allocated one billion Norwegian kroner for relief measures of this kind. This year allocations amount to over two billion kroner. In other words, in the course of the past seven years our appropriations for humanitarian assistance have doubled. Humanitarian assistance now comprises almost 20 per cent of our total aid budget. This increase has not come about because more humanitarian assistance is a political goal in itself, but because the need for this assistance continues to increase. This trend must be reversed. The time is ripe for the Storting to discuss humanitarian assistance in its own right.

Key developments

Today most humanitarian assistance is provided in a difficult political terrain, often in areas where armed conflicts are still in progress. It appears that we are confronted not only with new conflict patterns, but also with new disaster patterns. This has altered the parameters for what has traditionally been called emergency relief. Natural disasters seem to an increasing degree to be the result of man's pressure and encroachment on the environment, and are thus often partially man-made. Violent conflicts are always the result of deliberate human acts. This has led to untold human suffering. It has presented us with difficult choices. It poses new challenges in our efforts to ensure compliance with the provisions of international humanitarian law. It has revealed the importance of effective international coordination of humanitarian assistance.

I would like to illustrate this with some figures:

• Violent conflicts now occur more often within, rather than between, countries. Only six of the 101 armed conflicts between 1986 and 1989 were conflicts between countries. The other 95 were various kinds of civil war.
• Of the 27 conflicts in 1996 which were classified as "large-scale armed conflicts", with more than 1,000 killed per year, 22 clearly had ethnic elements.
• In World War I, five per cent of the casualties were civilians. In World War II this figure increased to 50 per cent. Some sources indicate that the percentage of civilian casualties in wars in the 1990s has increased to between 80 and 90 per cent.
• In 1998 approximately 30 million people were driven from their homes. Some 14 million of these are refugees in the traditional sense. An ever greater number are internally displaced, which means that they have been driven from their homes while remaining in their own countries.
• Since World War II, inexpensive, mass-produced hand weapons have killed a far greater number of people than the heavier types of weapons traditionally used in military engagements.
• Around 26,000 people are killed or maimed by anti-personnel mines every year.
• In the past few decades, the number and scale of natural disasters have increased dramatically. In the 1960s there were 16 major natural disasters. In the 1980s there were 70. (An event is defined as a disaster if at least ten people are killed or at least 100 are affected.)
• From January 1997 to March 1998, the UN provided assistance to 51 member states for dealing with the devastation caused by 77 natural disasters and catastrophic accidents related to the environment.

This poses formidable challenges. It requires effective and well-coordinated relief operations when emergencies arise. It requires us to view our humanitarian involvement in relation to our other efforts for peace, human rights and development. It requires us to focus more on preventing disasters and violent conflict, and to intensify our efforts to promote peace and reconciliation. It requires an integrated approach linking humanitarian assistance with long-term development efforts. In other words, we must face these challenges with a more holistic strategy for humanitarian assistance. This is the theme of my statement today.

New conflict patterns

Armed conflicts have always revolved around relations of power. Many of today's conflicts are characterized by their long-term and particularly violent nature. Violence affects the civilian population above all. Often, the parties to a conflict are primarily interested in driving their opponents away or retaliating against them. Violence also hits the weakest groups the hardest. Women and children rank high on the lists of killed and injured. The long-term effect is often an acceptance or institutionalization of violence, and a brutalization of the community at large.

At the same time we see that ethnic conflicts are becoming regionalized. The settlement patterns of different ethnic groups do not necessarily follow national borders. Disagreements and differences, together with discrimination of groups in their access to economic and social resources such as land, employment and education, give those with political power room to manoeuvre freely. It becomes easy to use "ethnic" and cultural sentiments to condone injustice. They are used to justify violence against groups other than one's own. We have seen this in the former Yugoslavia. We see it in central Africa, where the escalation of the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, for example, threatens to shatter the fragile political stability of the entire region.

Many of today's wars are composite conflicts, often involving uncontrolled rebel groups and elements of aggression from outside. Experience shows that there is little room for compromise and negotiated solutions. Often, war can become a lifestyle, where people cannot imagine a future without war. It is still the case that most conflicts end when one of the parties gains a military advantage. At the same time, it is also the case that in around half the conflicts in which it has been possible to negotiate a settlement, the conflict has flared up again within a few years. Examples include Angola, Sierra Leone and Guinea Bissau. This demonstrates the need for the international community to exert greater political pressure on the parties involved.

The humanitarian imperative

When confronted with such a situation, it is our moral duty to not only do our part to resolve the conflict and ensure that those in power are held accountable for their actions, but also to help the victims, those whose lives are affected. This is a matter of human dignity, solidarity and the struggle against injustice and poverty. This is the humanitarian imperative. Many developing countries take on a heavy burden by accepting a steady stream of refugees from their neighbouring countries, a response that should be far more appreciated by the international community. This means that Norway, as one of the wealthiest countries in the world, has an even greater responsibility to use its resources to help those in need.

If we fail to examine the reasons why conflicts arise and disasters occur, we will not be able to alter the course of events. The humanitarian imperative must, therefore, not only be expressed through humanitarian assistance, in saving lives, but also through a much more broad-based approach. Assistance must fulfil the real needs of the people and safeguard their rights. It must help to strengthen local capacity, not weaken it. It must ensure that those who are affected do not become dependent on external support, but are empowered to take control of their own situation and their own development as quickly as possible. It must be organized so that it does not provide a basis for a renewed outbreak of hostilities or the development of new conflicts. It must not leave communities more vulnerable to future natural disasters. It must not become a form of permanent life support or a substitute for political action.

The framework for humanitarian assistance

Humanitarian assistance has two basic tenets: it should provide immediate relief in emergencies, and it should, as far as possible, protect innocent people from harm. At the same time, it should be provided in two entirely different areas: in connection with armed conflicts, and when natural disasters destroy the lives of ordinary people. Thus there are two main types of humanitarian assistance.

Protection is both a national obligation and an individual right. It has the right to life as its starting point. In international human rights law, this has been extended to encompass the right to a life of dignity regardless of one's situation. Humanitarian assistance must be organized in such a way that it builds upon and promotes human rights.

A basic principle is that human rights are always valid. And they are valid for everyone. However, since it is the individual countries that are obliged to implement them, we often see that the protection of human rights is particularly difficult in areas of serious political unrest. In such cases there may be a need for an international presence that can provide the civilian population with the protection it is entitled to.

The issue of protection

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Committee of the Red Cross have a particular responsibility for protecting the rights of victims. Their efforts and terms of reference are, therefore, key pillars in our humanitarian policy, which is based, among other things, on the comprehensive body of law for the protection of civilians in various types of armed conflicts. We will work actively to ensure that this body of law is respected.

• This applies to the four Geneva Conventions on International Humanitarian Law and other instruments. These deal with how civilians, prisoners of war, the sick and the wounded are to be treated in international conflicts. Some of the provisions also apply to domestic conflicts. Serious violations of these provisions are generally regarded as war crimes or crimes against humanity, and involve individual criminal liability. Fifty years have passed since the Geneva conventions were adopted. This is an opportunity to renew our focus on their importance and on compliance with them.
• This applies to the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. Well over 30 million people have fled their homes in the 1990s in response to various conflicts. We have seen the political effects of mass flight, mass deportations, forced displacement and different forms of ethnic cleansing. Among the countries most affected by this is the former Yugoslavia, where this situation has had, and continues to have, a major influence on national and regional stability.
• This applies to the Guidelines for the internally displaced, or people who have been driven from their homes while remaining in their own countries. The majority of refugees today are internally displaced persons. They are not covered by the provisions of the convention on refugees. Norway has long been in the forefront of efforts to provide better protection for the internally displaced. Last year the United Nations Commission on Human Rights presented a set of guidelines, prepared by the Secretary-General's special representative for the internally displaced. They are based on existing humanitarian law and human rights legislation. We will work actively to promote the use of these guidelines as an international standard.

Humanitarian principles set out in the Geneva conventions and certain other instruments are considered to a large extent to be binding customary law. States are therefore obliged not only to permit, but also to respect and support the necessary assistance and protection efforts carried out. When the UN and the Red Cross provide assistance in an area of conflict, it is this body of law that provides the legal basis for their activities.

Human rights are often confused with international humanitarian law. The prohibition set out in humanitarian law against violence, killing and torture is obviously connected with the right to life and physical integrity, which we recognize as an integral part of human rights. But whereas human rights are always valid, humanitarian law only applies in time of war and in other conflict situations. According to the human rights conventions, the responsibility for violations of human rights obligations lies primarily with states. Under humanitarian law, however, the responsibility lies primarily with individuals. In the tribunals dealing with Yugoslavia and Rwanda, individuals are being charged with genocide, other crimes against humanity and serious war crimes. Last summer's decision to establish a permanent international criminal court was an international humanitarian breakthrough. The Government will work actively to ensure that the court is established as soon as possible, and that it is established with the greatest possible international support. It may also have a preventive effect.

Whereas humanitarian efforts often require compliance with the principle of impartiality or neutrality in conflict situations, many human rights activists may be regarded as political actors. Humanitarian organizations differ on the question of taking sides in a conflict.

Getting assistance through: access and safety

The bulk of humanitarian relief is still provided on an impartial basis, and presupposes that relief workers are allowed unimpeded access to those in need. However, these principles are being disregarded as never before. Securing access for humanitarian relief has been a major problem in Bosnia, Sudan, Afghanistan and many other countries. Preventing relief supplies from being delivered has been used as a means of weakening an opponent. Looting and attacks on relief supplies and maltreatment of relief workers have been, and still are, widespread.

The UN and the Red Cross have years of experience in negotiating access for relief operations. In several conflicts, however, negotiation has not produced results. In these cases it has been necessary to exert stronger political pressure. This is why the UN Security Council has been involved in questions of humanitarian access and the safety of relief workers. In some cases, such as in Bosnia and Somalia, this has resulted in the UN deploying peace-keeping forces. These are resource-intensive operations, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to mobilize the political will and resources necessary to support such efforts. Peace-keeping operations also require a minimum of respect and cooperation from the parties to the conflict if they are to succeed. The safety of humanitarian relief workers is an area of increasing concern for everyone involved in humanitarian assistance. The UN has, therefore, devised better emergency preparedness measures. At the same time, the parties engaged in war must be held responsible for any attacks against these groups. Measures for improving compliance with the principles for protecting humanitarian relief workers must be strengthened. This Government has been, and will continue to be, in the forefront of these efforts.

Human rights and humanitarian assistance

Women and children are at special risk in conflict and crisis situations. They comprise 80 per cent of the world's refugees. All the same, they are often accorded less international protection and assistance than men.

Female refugees are more often undernourished, die more often of illnesses and are more vulnerable to violence than male refugees. The conflicts of the past few years have produced horrifying examples of systematic assaults on women, mass rape, abduction, forced prostitution, demands for sexual services in return for food, and other violations. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women condemns violence against women. The Government will work actively to ensure that the convention is complied with. More effective measures must be drawn up to protect and help women who are subjected to violence. We must strengthen women's rights. We must ensure that women are given a role to play in efforts towards peace and reconciliation.

Children are often even more vulnerable. Easy access to and widespread use of hand weapons in modern warfare are leading to an increase in violence. These weapons are easy to learn to use, and easy to carry. This also makes it easier to recruit children as soldiers. Focusing on education, even while conflicts are going on, is one of the key means of preventing the recruitment of children and bringing about the demobilization of child soldiers. It has been estimated that a quarter of a million children today - some only seven years old - are trained to use weapons in warfare. From 1980 to 1995, an average of 365 children were killed every day as a result of hostilities. Eight hundred children are killed or maimed by anti-personnel mines every month. Untold numbers suffer from war-related traumas.

This Government will do its utmost to see that these issues are moved higher up on the international agenda. The Convention on the Rights of the Child sets out the right of children to be children. It stresses every child's right to a healthy environment and promotes children's rights in wartime as well as in peacetime. We must strengthen children's rights. The Government is working intently in the UN to win support for an additional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on raising the minimum age for participation in war. This is one way of combating the recruitment of children as soldiers. It will also safeguard children's right to a childhood.

Recently, the actions of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan have drawn attention to the issue of whether humanitarian aid should be continued when human rights are clearly being violated. Is there a limit to what we can accept in terms of maltreatment and gross violations of human rights in order to continue our relief work? Should we accept the gravest violations of the rights of women and girls while at the same time cooperating with the authorities on the provision of humanitarian aid? The question is whether there is a bottom line as regards what the international community can accept. When women as a group are denied access to hospitals and health services and girls are not permitted to go to school, we must demand that the authorities observe fundamental rights. In Afghanistan there is now open conflict between the Taliban and the donor community. The UN and most NGOs have pulled out, and relief work has ground to a halt. Those in need are left behind. Striking the right balance between promoting human rights and assisting those in need is difficult. The members of the donor community must not allow themselves to be played off against each other. The only solution is close international coordination.

We must stand firm in our belief that international relief efforts neither can nor should relieve states of their responsibility towards their own citizens. We must insist that states fulfil their obligations and respect human rights. One of the goals of a civil war is often to expel "undesirable" ethnic groups. We must not inadvertently aid national authorities in attacking or undermining the safety and welfare of particular groups. The Government will therefore strengthen the human rights dimension in our international emergency relief efforts.

A coordinated international effort

Rwanda - a watershed

This issue has also been extremely pressing in central Africa. The genocide in Rwanda in 1994, where almost a million people were killed, marked a watershed in international humanitarian assistance. The international community failed to intervene in time to prevent genocide. This led to severe criticism of the UN and many of the other international players.

Rwanda is also an example of one of the most difficult challenges faced by humanitarian organizations, that of distinguishing between the refugees who have a legitimate claim to international protection and the people who do not. The extremist groups responsible for the genocide took almost 3 million people with them into neighbouring countries as hostages. Murderers and groups of militia camouflaged themselves among the scores of refugees. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has widely accepted procedures for the establishment of refugee status, but has not been provided with a mandate or the resources to implement these procedures when armed groups refuse to submit to them. The NGOs faced the formidable task of providing food and other supplies to an enormous number of new refugees. However, the assistance was directed mainly at those who had fled, leaving those who stayed behind in somewhat of a vacuum. The humanitarian situation in central Africa is still a matter of great concern.

The serious defects in the international efforts in Rwanda have taught us a great deal:

• The international donor community must be more aware of the conflict potential in societies where there is internal tension.
• Humanitarian assistance must be followed up by political and confidence-building measures. Humanitarian, political and security issues are inextricably linked. They interact with and reinforce each other.
• A knowledge of and an analysis of local conditions and the dynamics of the conflict are necessary conditions for planning effective assistance.
• At one point, 200 NGOs were involved in Rwanda. This was obviously too many. It made effective coordination difficult.
• Gross violations of humanitarian law and principles of refugee law pose a serious threat to the safety of relief workers.
• If humanitarian relief organizations become isolated in the field the consequences may be tragic. The integrity of the assistance is also compromised and this may have unintended negative consequences.
• The international humanitarian system and aid organizations are poorly equipped to tackle the transition from emergency relief to more long-term sustainable development.

Improved mechanisms for coordinated efforts

If we are to avoid the repetition of such mistakes, we need efficient humanitarian preparedness systems and a much improved system of international coordination of assistance efforts. It is the results that count, not the flags. This is why Norway has strongly criticized the lack of coordination and tendencies to rivalry between various assistance actors. There is a need for international leadership and for much better mechanisms of coordination among multilateral, bilateral and non-governmental parties. In the view of the Government, the UN must take the lead role. The UN reforms in 1997 involved the reorganization of humanitarian efforts and the establishment of a new, more efficient Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Since then progress has been made, not least as a result of pressure from donors, where Norway has been in the forefront.

But we must make further advances. In Afghanistan attempts have been made to transform the need for closer cooperation into practical action. After 18 years of humanitarian assistance, a strategic framework has been drawn up under the auspices of the UN. Together with the most important donors and NGOs, a platform was developed where humanitarian assistance was placed in the context of development policy goals and the political processes of peace and reconciliation. The Afghanistan model has proved to be promising. Coordination is also good in the Congo and Angola. We must establish common coordinating mechanisms adapted to local conditions for all humanitarian operations. The goal of our common strategies must be to ensure that the best possible assistance is provided to people and societies riven by conflict or struck by disaster in both the long and the short term.

For this reason, the strategies must include joint planning and take account of both humanitarian assistance and long-term measures. They must include initiatives that can promote reconciliation, democratic development and respect for human rights while the conflict is still going on. They must counteract the inequitable distribution of all aid measures. They must include political and security policy issues. They must be organized in such a way that they support political initiatives for peace. This must be an integral part of the international community's response to major crises. The Government will consider giving the UN a greater role in Norwegian humanitarian assistance as the organization increases its capacity to develop coherent strategies for coordinating international humanitarian efforts.

The role of NGOs

The number of players on the international humanitarian scene has multiplied many times during the 1990s. More UN agencies than before are carrying out humanitarian activities, regional cooperation organizations have acquired expertise in humanitarian assistance, and NGOs have become larger and greater in number. On the whole, this is a positive trend because it has increased the total capacity of the humanitarian system. But it has also increased the focus on the position and role of NGOs in humanitarian efforts.

The Norwegian model

The Norwegian authorities' cooperation with NGOs has become quite comprehensive as regards both the amount of assistance channelled through the organizations and the scope of the activities. The five major NGOs in particular play a central role in humanitarian assistance. The "Norwegian model" refers to the close, but informal and flexible form of cooperation that has developed between the authorities and the NGOs. The concept refers not only to cooperation on humanitarian assistance, but equally to peace and reconciliation processes, where the local knowledge and contacts of the organizations can be successfully utilized and combined with mediation efforts.

Guatemala is a good example. The major earthquake in Guatemala in 1976 was followed by massive international relief efforts. Civil war had then been raging for 15 years. After the worst consequences of the earthquake had been dealt with, Norwegian NGOs continued their assistance. Their network subsequently played a significant role in the peace process, for example by facilitating initial contact between the guerrilla forces and representatives of the government, by assisting in the first stages of the "Oslo agreement", and by promoting the implementation of the peace process itself until the final peace agreement for Guatemala was signed in 1996. At that point the war had been going on for 36 years. War takes its toll. And this toll is generally heaviest for the poorest segment of the population. This is what makes mediation efforts so difficult. However, the peace process is continuing as the peace agreement is being implemented and efforts are being made to encourage social and economic development. In this process it is still important to maintain close cooperation between NGOs and the Norwegian authorities.

New challenges in cooperation with NGOs

Norwegian NGOs have made an outstanding effort to help those in need for many years. The Norwegian authorities will continue to regard them as key partners in international relief efforts. We welcome the fact that the NGOs themselves have drawn up codes of conduct, or standards for ensuring the quality of their relief efforts. One of their criteria is neutrality. For some of the organizations, however, genuine solidarity involves choosing sides politically. This is up to the NGOs themselves. The decisive factor, however, is the ability of the NGOs to complement each other's efforts and to work in accordance with the international humanitarian framework under the auspices of the UN.

Cooperation between the authorities and NGOs must be consistently tailored to the needs at hand. While we fully respect the NGOs' distinctive character and independence, we expect them as providers of assistance to adjust their activities to the increased international coordination of humanitarian operations we are seeking to attain, even when this requires common financing mechanisms. Therefore there is a growing need for more predictability as regards government allocations. The Government intends to find allocative arrangements that will both provide a greater degree of predictability and meet the need for flexibility when new crises arise, especially for organizations that receive large allocations. It is important that this is also viewed in relation to total government allocations to organizations involved in both humanitarian assistance and more long-term development efforts.

NOREPS

NOREPS, the Norwegian Emergency Preparedness System for humanitarian assistance, was established in 1991. Its aim was to enhance Norway's ability to deliver goods, services and personnel for humanitarian operations at short notice. The scheme involves close cooperation between the authorities, aid organizations and the Norwegian private sector. At the same time, the aim has been to promote the export of Norwegian supplies to international emergency relief organizations.

The Government is determined that the assistance provided through the "Norwegian model" should be of high quality, be cost-effective and draw on and develop local capacity in developing countries wherever possible. It is important to get the most out of every dollar invested and to find solutions that are, as far as possible, sustainable in the long term. This is why I requested last year an independent review to determine whether the current NOREPS scheme lives up to these aims. The report is now close to completion. The Government will use it to examine potential changes to ensure that NOREPS and other such mechanisms function in accordance with our overall goals, including that of closer international coordination of humanitarian operations.

Challenges and dilemmas in humanitarian assistance

If we are to achieve better results in our humanitarian relief efforts, we must delve more deeply into the causes of conflicts and disasters, and become better at coping with dilemmas and limitations.

Priorities

One of the main priorities has to do with the allocation of resources. Humanitarian assistance is often determined by media attention and CNN's camera lenses. The public demands swift action when the spotlight is on. By the same token, when the cameras turn away much of the suffering is forgotten. But just as we must respond quickly when crises arise, so must we be prepared to remain when the media have left the scene.

However, the humanitarian imperative to assist wherever and whenever necessary is not always as evident as it might be in the donor community as a whole. We all have limited resources and we must decide on our priorities. However, it is often historical ties, geographical proximity and strategic interests that determine where resources are allocated. But the response to the disaster in Central America before Christmas and the continuing assistance being given to Bosnia are two examples that it is possible to mobilize massive support in a crisis.

It is therefore all the more serious when other crises are "forgotten". They become "invisible". The supply of resources is steadily dwindling. This is true not least of a number of African countries that are no longer the focus of media interest. We were all shocked over the massacre of 45 people in Kosovo. Similar daily incidents in other conflict areas receive no attention, not even the recent massacre in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where 1000 people were killed. We must not allow anyone's needs to be forgotten. We must make better use of our resources and get more donors to contribute. Greater efficiency will also result in more assistance. We must face the fact that Norway cannot deal with all humanitarian needs. We must therefore improve international cooperation and coordination to make it possible for the international community to respond adequately to all the humanitarian challenges facing us. The Government will give priority to assisting countries and populations that are not receiving the international attention they deserve.

The dilemma of emergency relief

We have been providing humanitarian assistance to Sudan for 30 years. That is a long time. In Afghanistan we have been doing the same for 20 years. That is also a long time. Is it possible to reach a point when a long time becomes too long, when "enough is enough"? In the name of humanity and solidarity I say no, it is not possible. But we must strategically use the different instruments at our disposal in the persistent search for solutions.

In discussions on emergency relief the question is often asked: "Are we prolonging the war?" Famine relief fills many stomachs. Is it also feeding the soldiers? Or the oppressors? Are homeless refugees receiving our blankets, or are they giving army officers a good night's sleep? In other words, is our humanitarian relief giving recipients the opportunity to use their own resources to keep conflicts going? We must do what we can to avoid such unintentional effects. However, we cannot operate in difficult conflict situations, and reach people in dire need of help, without taking risks.

There is also a growing awareness that humanitarian assistance can also have other unintended consequences. It may create new social divisions that give rise to conflict. Famine relief may undermine people's ability to cope. Long-term emergency relief may make people dependent on outside aid. And such relief alone cannot resolve a crisis on its own unless it is followed up by political initiatives. Emergency relief in itself seldom puts an end to violence.

We must accept that the scope of humanitarian assistance is limited. We can see this especially clearly when the source of the crisis is politically determined, either in the form of overexploitation of natural resources or as a consequence of armed violence. Emergency relief may also make matters worse unless we also deal with the structural problems and the root of the crisis.

The Government intends to address these problems. This means among other things a willingness to resolve conflicts through political initiatives. (This is the reason for my involvement in the Sudan conflict.) It involves better international coordination, better operational planning and a more purposeful targeting of measures. This is one reason why Norway is playing a leading role in the coordination efforts in Afghanistan. When a humanitarian presence is maintained over a period of time, attitudes and approaches to the use of local resources become important. It is important to fine-tune our awareness to subtle variations in local conditions. We must build up the local community's ability to resist brutalization. We can build on local traditions that strengthen respect for the integrity of the individual. We can make concrete and purposeful efforts to break down walls of fear and mistrust between individuals and groups. We can support networks that can overcome inequality and strengthen civil society. We can prevent new violence by giving the conflict-oriented bearers of weapons alternative courses of action. If we are to succeed in creating the basis for a permanent peace, we must deal with the feeling of injustice that originally caused the violence to spread.

Systematic evaluation and learning from experience are also essential in meeting the dilemmas we face. A major international study of the efforts in Rwanda provided valuable insight. An evaluation of the work done by Norwegian organizations in relieving hardship, hunger and suffering showed encouraging results.

The example of Sudan

Most of our assistance to Sudan has taken the form of humanitarian aid channelled through Norwegian organizations. An assessment of these efforts has been made which calls for a more coherent strategy in relation to Sudan. The Government has taken action accordingly. The conflict in Sudan has become the most protracted war on the African continent. And it has taken on considerable regional overtones. The humanitarian situation is now more unpredictable than ever, and may rapidly deteriorate. Respect for human rights is approaching zero. Hunger has become the weapon used by all parties to the conflict.

Despite our detailed knowledge of Sudan and our insight into the political dynamics of the country, the results of our humanitarian assistance have been mainly local. No one has managed to find a way of reversing the tragic course of the conflict. There are many reasons for this. The most important seems to be that none of the parties to the conflict has so far come to the recognition that peace is the only viable solution.

But we are not giving up. The international community must exert more pressure on the parties. For more than four years several of the countries in the regional organization IGAD have tried to create a basis for a peaceful solution in Sudan. Major donors have supported these peace efforts through a separate Sudan committee in the IGAD Partners' Forum, which I am chairing. As a consequence, Norway will now send a representative to Sudan under the auspices of our embassy in Cairo. On Saturday morning I will be travelling to Sudan and Nairobi together with my Italian colleague to hold new talks on the peace process with the parties to the conflict. I will therefore give the Storting an updated account of the situation in the country, including the humanitarian situation, on 4 February.

A strategy for humanitarian assistance

I will now discuss the premises for the Government's strategy for humanitarian assistance. For far too long we have talked about development and humanitarian emergencies as if they were two unrelated phenomena which are also separated in time. First emergency, then development. And correspondingly, when it comes to our assistance: first emergency relief, then development cooperation. The limitations of this approach have now become fairly clear. The facts of the case, as I have tried to describe them in this statement, have shown that this perspective is not viable. It is high time to depart from this artificial division. Instead we must base ourselves on the obvious fact that the two concepts of development and humanitarian emergency are in reality only two different aspects of a social process. Development is traditionally used to describe growth and progress, which are positive. Humanitarian emergency describes deterioration and setbacks, which are negative. We find elements of both everywhere. By combating humanitarian emergencies we promote development. And by reinforcing the positive elements, by promoting development, we combat such emergencies. What is called for now is a new approach in which all measures are regarded as building blocks, as parts of a whole. And among the most important of these building blocks are the efforts to promote peace and reconciliation.

We must have a long-term perspective

This means that everything we do must be based on the idea of long-term development. Our efforts may vary in terms of duration and in other ways, from an air-drop of food to people in dire need to long-term programmes for institutional development. All these efforts must be part of a long-term effort. We cannot assist the needy one day and turn our backs on them the next.

In many places, not least in Africa, people are living in a permanent state of emergency. This is the case in areas affected by drought or warfare. In such vulnerable situations it is especially important that humanitarian and development-oriented efforts go hand in hand. We must seek political solutions at the same time as we are dealing with humanitarian emergencies. We must safeguard people's rights and help them to regain their sense of human dignity when they have been deprived of it. We must support the growth of viable civil societies. Humanitarian assistance will hopefully be of short duration, but it is absolutely necessary if we are to lay a foundation for solving problems in the long term. Long-term development cooperation may be necessary in order to permanently reduce vulnerability to natural disasters and violent conflicts.

Education is another important building block, a basic investment in human resources. Education can help to consolidate norms and values that can prevent or limit violent conflict. This is always important, and is essential when a society is recovering from violence. We must ensure that children and youth have access to education even when they are living in areas of conflict. This will improve living conditions for the individual and lay the foundations for development, curb population growth, combat child labour and not least contribute to greater participation and strengthen democratic development. By investing in education we can achieve a number of different development goals simultaneously. Improved knowledge will also reduce the strain on the environment, promote understanding and encourage tolerance. All these things are important in preventing violent conflicts and natural disasters. The Government will intensify efforts in this area.

We must maintain a broad perspective

Our efforts must be based on a broad perspective. We must be flexible in our efforts to provide assistance. We must aim primarily at dealing with the underlying causes of poverty and humanitarian need, rather than limiting ourselves to alleviating the symptoms. This may mean, for instance, that we must seek political solutions or economic reforms while at the same time relieving dire need. In other words, we must make several parallel efforts.

We must also view our efforts in relation to the efforts of others. In this connection it is important to adjust the approaches and working methods of humanitarian organizations and those involved in more traditional development cooperation. Development-oriented organizations and the development banks often have slow and cumbersome planning and decision-making procedures. The humanitarian actors respond quickly, but do not take sufficient account of contexts, long-term considerations and sustainability. On both sides there is a tendency to focus too much on mandates and too little on actual needs and comparative advantages.

We need a more proactive and creative approach to reconstruction and rehabilitation. We must give priority to measures to promote reconciliation and strengthen local capacity. Our efforts must be based on local ownership and ensure participation by the relevant groups. We must place special emphasis on involving the most vulnerable and marginalized groups in the population. Only in this way can we build democracy and ensure peace and stability. This means that we must help to close the international financing gap in such post-conflict situations. This is a challenge for the entire international donor community; the development banks in particular need to be involved.

We must prevent conflicts from arising

Above all, we must not forget that prevention is better than cure. Early-warning systems are important. Humanitarian emergencies always have a cause. If we can help to reduce, or preferably eliminate the cause of such emergencies, we will not only prevent untold suffering. We will also economize on resources.

In order to prevent conflicts and other crises, identify potential conflicts and prevent a fragile peace settlement from breaking down and leading to new conflict, efforts must be made on many fronts, ranging from inter-governmental negotiations through peace and reconciliation efforts to development cooperation. Much of what I have already said can be viewed in such a context. But there are also a number of other important aspects.

It is absolutely essential to consolidate a political culture that can prevent violent conflict. We can achieve this by helping to develop norms, rules and institutions for dealing with conflicts of interest without resorting to weapons. For example, we know that well-developed democratic forms of government and the principles of the rule of law tend to lessen conflict in the political relations between people and states. This emphasizes the importance of strengthening good governance in countries subject to conflict. This applies both for the duration of the conflict and when it is over. Here one must also take special local conditions into account. This is especially important in stabilizing a peaceful settlement. A government characterized by good governance is one that enjoys a high degree of legitimacy. It is inclusive, flexible and has the ability to adapt to new conditions, tasks and challenges. It encourages the participation of an active civil society. It promotes values such as pluralism, tolerance, negotiation and compromise. In other words, it is the best tool we have for preventing conflict.

We must also focus attention on social and economic inequalities and on the weapons that increase oppression and insecurity. This is why action to combat anti-personnel mines and small arms is so important. The insecurity caused by these weapons may make long-term assistance difficult and humanitarian assistance impossible. The Government is making active efforts to encourage international follow-up of the Anti-personnel Mine Ban Convention and to improve control of small arms. Norway is heading the international efforts in the area of small arms together with Canada. This is an element in the Lysøen cooperation between Canada and Norway on humanitarian issues and human security.

We must prevent natural disasters

Even natural disasters make a distinction between rich and poor. Despite the fact that there are far more natural disasters in the Americas than in Africa, African disasters claim far more casualties. In fact, between 1961 and 1991, they took 15 times more lives. In other words, the effects of these disasters are connected with the problems caused by poverty.

I have already mentioned that we now have a new situation with regard to natural disasters, which are increasing in number and scope. There are many reasons for this. One may be climate change, another population growth and growing poverty. Poorly managed industrial development and the commercial overexploitation of natural resources are also important factors. Poverty alleviation and environmental action can help to prevent or reduce such damage, and thereby the need for humanitarian efforts. The Government will participate in this.

If we succeed in our goal of reducing poverty, safeguarding human rights, and promoting good governance and people's participation in decisions that affect them, we will at the same time have laid a firm foundation for reducing violent conflict and the scope of natural disasters. We must make use of all the tools at our disposal to achieve this. Often we will have to take parallel action, as we did in Central America recently. Both emergency relief and debt relief were essential in order to provide efficient, long-term help.

International processes have been set in motion to develop a more coordinated and integrated approach. Meetings that I have had with the president of the World Bank, James Wolfensohn, and the leaders of several UN organizations, among others, clearly indicate that we are in the process of going from words to action in this area. We may be on the verge of a change in paradigm in international assistance.

I will now present a ten-point strategy for our humanitarian assistance:

1. Norwegian humanitarian assistance is based on international humanitarian law, refugee law and human rights, as laid down in internationally binding conventions.

• We will seek to strengthen the integrity of humanitarian assistance and ensure the safety of relief workers, both in international fora and toward governments and other actors in areas of conflict.
• We will actively help to improve international coordination in cases where difficult choices have to be made between humanitarian, political and human rights considerations (as in the case of Afghanistan).

2. Norway will continue to maintain a high level of humanitarian assistance. We will seek to mobilize greater resources to meet new needs.

• We want to get more value for every dollar by concentrating on improving the quality, efficiency and coordination of humanitarian assistance.
• We will make active efforts to involve countries that do not contribute sufficiently in the global mobilization of resources.
• We will contribute to better integrated and more efficient efforts to prevent and limit natural and man-made disasters.

3. Norway will work for greater efficiency and better coordination in international humanitarian aid.

• We will contribute to the further development of emergency preparedness systems and work to enhance the ability to respond rapidly to signs of crisis.
• We will work for better coordination at all levels - in the field, between headquarters and between capitals; we will use financial means as catalysts and set a good example by providing unwavering support for good coordination initiatives.
• We will make strategic political and financial contributions to UN coordination of humanitarian assistance, for example under the auspices of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). Norway will continue to be in the forefront in pushing the process of UN reform.
• We wish to see further improvements in the mechanisms for joint appeals for emergency relief, coordinated efforts and strategic frameworks for humanitarian assistance. Norway will make every effort to ensure that the activities of other countries and NGOs are integrated as closely as possible through these mechanisms.

4. Norway will take the lead in developing a fully integrated approach to humanitarian assistance, peace and reconciliation, and development.

• We will work actively in international fora to gain support for a fully integrated approach to coherent humanitarian efforts. An example of this is the Lysøen cooperation with Canada and other like-minded countries.
• We will consider whether budgetary changes should be made for the administration of Norwegian humanitarian assistance. For example, there may be a need for a more flexible use of our regional allocations earmarked for development assistance.

5. We will give high priority to conflict prevention and the consolidation of fragile peace settlements by means of strategic efforts to promote peace, reconciliation and conflict resolution.

• We will continue to make efficient use of the opportunities for peace and reconciliation initiatives provided by comprehensive Norwegian humanitarian efforts.
• We will take a proactive approach to the further development of strategic frameworks and other coordinated efforts that will guide and integrate humanitarian assistance and political initiatives for peace and reconciliation.
• We will promote the effective implementation of the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention and further develop international initiatives to combat the proliferation of small arms and the use of child soldiers in war.

6. We will give high priority to the prevention of conflicts and disasters and the consolidation of fragile peace settlements by means of targeted poverty-oriented efforts in the fields of education, democracy and the environment.

• We will review our own new initiatives to see how education can be used more strategically for conflict prevention and the consolidation of peace.
• We will work for a more strategic effort in the prevention of environmental problems, the need for which is illustrated by the partly man-made floods in China and Central America.
• During the spring of 1999 we will draw up a plan for more effective support for democracy in the developing world and a more conscious use of democracy-building efforts in peace and reconciliation processes.

7. We will help to develop new financial mechanisms that will fill the critical resource gaps between acute emergency relief and more long-term development activities.

• We will serve as a catalyst by responding rapidly when necessary to establish debt funds, as in the case of Central America after Hurricane Mitch, or other situation-specific financial mechanisms, and will make a critical assessment of the need for more permanent solutions.
• We will consider making proposals for improved donor cooperation in which the development banks may play a more central role in emergency and post-conflict contexts.

8. We will further develop the "Norwegian model" for humanitarian assistance by making it more efficient and integrating it more closely into global humanitarian efforts.

• We want the NGOs to continue to play a central role in Norwegian humanitarian assistance, provided that they function efficiently and are willing to be closely integrated into global coordination efforts.
• We will re-evaluate the support systems in order to give the NGOs more predictable conditions and better opportunities to plan their humanitarian assistance in a long-term perspective.
• We will adjust the NOREPS system in the light of the forthcoming report, with an emphasis on greater efficiency through international competition and greater use of local and regional resources.

9. Strengthening of local capacity and local ownership will be a key condition of all Norwegian assistance, including humanitarian assistance.

• We will help to give humanitarian assistance a firmer basis in human rights, emphasizing that the recipients are not only victims but also a resource to draw on.
• We will promote the increased use of local resources in all channels used by Norwegian humanitarian assistance, including NOREPS.

10. Norwegian humanitarian assistance is, and should be, rooted both in the moral imperative to help and protect people in need, and in solidarity with those in need.

• We must seek to achieve a universal approach to humanitarian crises; all people in need should have the same right to humanitarian assistance, regardless of where they live.
• We will place particular emphasis on solidarity with those who are no longer the subject of media interest, and help to keep the focus on "forgotten" conflicts and their victims. This is perhaps our greatest challenge.