Minister of International Development and Human Rights, Ms. Hilde F. Johnson

Conflict Resolution and Development

Seminar on Peacemaking and Peacekeeping, New York, 10 May 1999

Ladies and gentlemen,

United Nations global conferences, from Rio in 1992 to Rome in 1996, have highlighted the crucial links between the three key goals of the UN Charter: peace, sustainable development and human rights. This is certainly encouraging.

There is, obviously, still a wide gap between rhetoric and reality - between what has been set out and what has actually been achieved. This applies not least to peace. Peace is the major precondition for development. Yet, peace and human security remain an elusive proposition for far too many people.

The vicious spiral of deadly conflict continues to escalate in a world that has never before been so prosperous. In a global environment ripe with development opportunities, the gap between rich and poor is widening - while assistance to the poorest countries continues to decline. In a world that is rapidly "shrinking" due to globalisation, economic interdependence and advances in technology and communication, mistrust is contagious and continues to fuel discrimination and hatred - allowing ethnic identity and cultural sentiments to condone injustice. Why?

In a scenario so riddled with paradoxes, there are of course no easy answers. Countries have different historical legacies and geographical features. They are at different stages of economic development. They have different public policies and different patterns of internal interaction and international exposure. The sources of violent conflict reflect this diversity and complexity. This is what makes every conflict distinct from any other.

What is it then that they have in common? We know mass violence usually results from deliberate political decisions. War remains an instrument of politics in the hands of wilful leaders. And internal conflicts - whether in the form of civil wars, armed insurrection or violent secessionist movements - revolve around relations of power. Moreover, they are often based on a perception of gross injustice or violation of "rights". Conflicts have their winners and losers and their conflict entrepreneurs. The conflicts of our time take place mainly within states, rather than between states. They are protracted, persistent and difficult to resolve. And all too frequently, they turn particularly violent. Violence of this kind above all affects the civilian population and hits the weakest groups hardest. The prevailing effect is an institutionalisation of violence, and the brutalisation of the community at large. The uncontrolled, illicit spread of devastating tools of war like small arms and anti-personnel mines also fuels wars and conflicts.

In these Kosovo-dominated times it is vital to ensure that catastrophes and conflicts affecting thousands and millions of people in other parts of the world get their rightful attention. Although the media only seem to be able to deal with one conflict at a time, the international community has an obligation to address the magnitude of human suffering. Africa accounts for more than half of all war-related deaths in the world. Breaking the vicious circle of violence poses formidable challenges. I would like to share with you some of our experience from our present efforts to assist and facilitate the resolution of the conflict in Sudan. I believe this case aptly illustrates the dual nature of conflicts that I outlined above. It has both typical and unique features. It also reveals the political and - indeed - ethical dilemmas we face when we intervene in societies marred by violently conflicting interests.

Sudan has been afflicted by war since its independence in 1956. The only reprieve has been the eleven-year peace from 1972-1983, when it was possible to think constructively about long-term development. Currently, therefore, this represents Africa's longest running civil war. Since 1983 it has accounted for up to 1.9 million dead, 4 million people internally displaced and 1 million refugees. This far exceeds the total number of people affected for instance in the Balkans till now. Although there will always be disagreement about the roots of the war, most observers agree that a key factor is the relationship between North and South, not only in terms of ethnic, cultural and religious composition, but also of differences in development levels and distribution of resources. As we all know, the war in Sudan also has acquired a significant regional dimension.

The civil war has persisted with varying degrees of intensity and success for the protagonists to the conflict, but the suffering of the population has been unabated, particularly in the South. We can all recall the dramatic images from last year's disastrous famine, provoked by drought and wilfully exacerbated by man. This catastrophe triggered a massive international humanitarian relief operation costing USD one million a day. An international response like this is commendable and - I would say - mandatory as an expression of solidarity. It relieves the immediate suffering of many people. It does not, however address the underlying structural factors that can explain why and how such calamities take place. Nor can it prevent them from happening again.

After 30 years of war and agony, the people of Sudan deserve better. I firmly believe that humanitarian assistance alone is not enough to prevent the recurrence of mass suffering, and should not be allowed to replace political action. I believe that, when possible, outside assistance during a conflict should include plans and initiatives that can promote reconciliation, democratic development and respect for human rights. Furthermore, their design must encompass political and security issues and support political initiatives for peace in a way that recognises and enhances local and/or regional ownership of political processes. In this area the international community still has a long way to go.

The challenge of conflict resolution is therefore to develop an attitude a well as a framework. This must, firstly, acknowledge the existence of substantive political claims that may motivate conflict and, secondly, assist and advise on how to address these issues and rectify injustice. When we take on the responsibility for facilitating the resolution of violent conflict, four factors seem to be paramount. These are in-depth knowledge and analysis of the political dynamics of the country, good networks on both sides of the conflict, a long-term perspective and sustained and adequate coordination among all relevant actors.

For more than four years several of the countries in the regional organisation IGAD have tried to create a basis for a peaceful solution in Sudan. In accordance with the Africa report of the Secretary-General as well, an Africa-owned regional process has been embarked upon. Many donors, including Norway, which has been supporting Sudan for nearly 30 years, have been backing these peace efforts through a separate Sudan committee in the IGAD Partners' Forum, of which I am currently chair. The peace initiative as such is headed by Kenya, on behalf of IGAD. A Declaration of Principles has been adopted, in which the right to 'self determination' for the Southern region constitutes the most important achievement.

This is - and should be - an Africa-owned process. Through frequent contacts with the parties, and in coordination with the Kenyan chair of the negotiations, the IPF is trying to contribute to a sustained and accelerated peace process. The IPF now coordinates all extra-regional actors, and stands ready to support all the substantial structural reform of the peace process. This is necessary to ensure that the other conflicts in the region do not severely affect the peace process.

Furthermore, the IPF partners are now ready to work on incentives, sticks and carrots, that will encourage a follow-up of political progress in the negotiations. We want to take a long-term perspective. Planning for peace, repatriation of refugees and reconstruction of civil society are important elements in this effort. I hope that the parties and foreign aid agencies will be able to cooperate constructively in this respect. It is paramount that we avoid any major setbacks in the process at this stage, when there is considerable international backing for the IGAD initiative. Despite recent postponements of the negotiations, we do believe we are on the right track.

I earlier touched on the dilemmas that we confront when we strive to shift from a dynamics of violent conflict to a momentum for peace. I would like to elaborate a little on this. Most international assistance to Sudan is humanitarian. 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.

Rather than confining ourselves to alleviating the symptoms, however, we must aim to deal with the underlying causes of poverty and inequity at the same time as we meet humanitarian need. This requires us to view our humanitarian involvement in relation to our other efforts for peace, human rights and development. An integrated approach has to be taken. This means helping to develop norms, rules and institutions for dealing with conflicts of interest without resorting to weapons. It is essential to strengthen systems of governance that are participatory, transparent and accountable in countries subject to conflict. Internal war typically evolves from a wide or growing gap in political participation and distribution of economic assets. Building formats of governance that promote tolerance, negotiation and compromise may therefore be the best tool we have for preventing a resurgence of violence in fragile societies that are in transition from civil strife to peace. This should be part and parcel of every post-conflict and development effort.

At the same time it is clear that almost every second conflict that has been resolved starts again. This illustrates the importance of addressing the root causes of conflicts. It also reveals the importance of social and economic development. An integrated post-conflict strategy which avoids the gap problem (between humanitarian assistance and more long-term efforts) should be pursued. Sustainability is a key issue here.

While state-to-state conflicts may be more difficult to prevent through development assistance, such measures may be important both to avoid internal conflicts and to contribute to their resolution. Both from a poverty perspective and from a conflict-prevention perspective, the decline in development assistance from OECD countries is indeed very worrying. An important tool in conflict prevention and partly also conflict resolution is being undermined. Thus, the urgent need for resources for combating global poverty and the structural - and therefore often violent - discrimination of groups in their access to political, economic and social resources constitutes a moral challenge that we cannot ignore.

This is also a question of respecting human rights. All of them. Every one of them. All human rights deserve equal attention, whether they are socio-economic rights or political and civil rights. They are integrated and indivisible. The human rights agenda of tomorrow must address the universality of human rights through a holistic approach. This was obvious to the framers of the Universal Declaration. It should be equally clear to us. In this area, too, one could say that respect for human rights - all of them - may reduce the risk of conflicts, not least internal conflicts. Respect for human rights may indeed also be one of the major tools for resolving conflicts - and for making peace sustainable in the long term.

Seven weeks into NATO's military action in response to the ethnic cleansing undertaken by the regime in Belgrade, I am still struck by this tragic expression of our lack of effective options when human rights are abused by unscrupulous leaders in civil conflict. This is a sombre reminder of the urgency with which we need to reinvigorate our commitment to the pledges we once made when we adhered to the original Declaration, as well as the commitment undertaken in the Charter of the United Nations. But it is also a reminder of the need to develop appropriate means and measures at an early stage, ensuring respect for human rights and preventing tension from escalating into conflict. In this regard - and in any peace effort in the Balkans - it is vital that the United Nations is secured a crucial role.

One of the international community's greatest challenges, one of our greatest challenges, is therefore, how to promote the Organisation's universality in enhancing human security, security for the individual to live in freedom from fear and from want. Global challenges require global solutions. In the modern world, there is no alternative to strengthening multilateralism. The United Nations is the only truly global forum where overarching common visions can be achieved. It belongs to us all. It is unique and indispensable. This is where we all should be held accountable. Let us therefore support it, help to make it more efficient, and secure it as the focal point of our efforts to improve our common future. In these difficult times, nothing is more important.

Thank you.