Foreign Minister Knut Vollebæk

Values in world politics – how do they matter?

Ladies and gentlemen,

Mahatma Gandhi was once asked his opinion of Western values. His answer was that he thought they would be a very good idea.

They still are.

The task of upholding ethical values in a fast-changing, global world is a daunting one. Is it possible to talk about “globalization” unless values such as peace, justice, tolerance, human dignity and security are taking hold and being implemented on a global scale?

Like most politicians I am constantly asked: “What are you going to do about this?” The often painfully difficult question is normally prompted by TV coverage of human rights abuses, flagrant acts of injustice, conflict and war. Pictures such as these affect us profoundly. They leave us numb and shattered.

Of course values differ from culture to culture. But this pluralism cannot be infinite. Norms and values grow out of certain basic human needs that are common to all cultures. Trying to find the common denominator is not an easy matter. I am therefore happy to wish you all welcome to Oslo to a conference that will help us in this mammoth task.

Why is it necessary to hold such a conference?

Are not values simply convenient rhetoric, empty words and window-dressing for the better-off?

For some people they are no more than that. This breeds indifference. And the final consequences of indifference may be horrific – human rights abuses, ethnic cleansing and genocide. Fortunately, there is another side to the coin. The strong reactions to violations of human rights tell a different story. They speak of moral repulsion, compassion and solidarity. These are values that cut across the political and geographical spectrum because they are what make us human.

Many of our most important common values are expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which celebrated its 50th anniversary last year. Article 1 of the Declaration reads: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and shall act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

We have been fortunate to have strong voices guiding us, which never allow us to forget these words. People of exceptional moral integrity and equally exceptional personal experience, reminding us of the difference between right and wrong - Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandi, Aung San Suu Kyi.

Too many people are still deprived of their dignity. We can see this for ourselves. The scenes on television are a constant reminder. What are we going to do?

I leave it to the prominent speakers in this room to make an in-depth analysis of which norms and ethical values matter in international relations and how we can translate them into political action. Instead, I would like to say a few words about the modest contribution Norway has made to the debate and about how we have sought to implement what we see as values worth striving for.

One of the main objectives of the Norwegian Government is to bring ethical values to the forefront in national politics and public debate. Our Minister of International Development and Human Rights will be presenting an Action Plan for Human Rights to the Norwegian parliament later this year. But human values have an even broader scope than human rights.

A special Government Commission on Human Values has been established, with members recruited from various walks of life. Its mandate is to stimulate public debate on which norms and values should underpin our democratic society.

The Commission is trying to increase awareness of the crucial links between values, life style and health. It is looking at how human rights are implemented in local communities. It is promoting a proper debate about where children get their values from - the traditional institutions of home/school/church on the one hand or the media and computer world on the other. Representatives of the Commission are here today to share their experience with us.

Now we want to take this one step further. The question we are asking ourselves is: Which norms and values should guide foreign policy and international relations in general? What is the link between national and international norms and values?

During this century we have learned the hard way that violations of the freedom and rights of individuals, absence of the rule of law, discrimination of ethnic, religious and social groups, and economic injustice have serious consequences not only for the lives of individuals, but also for states and for our common security.

Since the end of the Cold War, the focus on national security has given way to a much broader security concept, which encompasses ethical norms and standards that have a positive impact on people’s everyday lives.

The campaign to ban anti-personnel landmines, the efforts to curb the proliferation of small arms, and the establishment of the International Criminal Court are all examples that come to mind.

The convention banning anti-personnel mines was negotiated in Oslo and broke new ground in the efforts to deal with a pressing humanitarian issue. 133 states have now signed the convention and 81 have ratified it. There are huge challenges facing us in this field on every continent and we have committed ourselves to providing financial support and personnel to achieve the aims of the convention.

Curbing the uncontrolled proliferation of small arms and light weapons in the world, especially in areas of conflict, is another major challenge. During this decade alone, an estimated 6 million people have been killed in conflict or post-conflict zones around the world. The vast majority of the victims – as many as 90 per cent according to the International Committee of the Red Cross – have been civilians.

The weapons most commonly used to carry out the bloodshed are low-technology small arms that can be carried and fired by the individual – automatic rifles, grenades, submachine guns and high-powered pistols.

The establishment of the International Criminal Court to try crimes against humanity, the crime of genocide and war crimes was a historic achievement. Norway has been a fervent advocate of the establishment of the Court and played an active role in the negotiations.

Our aim is to promote a new form of deterrence, which again may lead to enhanced protection of civilians, relief workers, military personnel and others in zones of conflict and war. In the words of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, this “represents the greatest recent single act of progress for justice, human rights and the rule of law.”

Many of the challenges to individual security and survival are global phenomena, both in their origin and in their effects. This calls for new alliances and new partnerships – between states, between international organizations, and between these and NGOs. In response to this we have established an informal cooperation with Canada and a group of 9 other countries, in addition to international organizations and NGOs.

This unusual alliance is called the Lysøen process and grew out of the close cooperation on anti-personnel landmines between Canada, South Africa and Norway. Today, our partnership is being used in other areas of joint concern where important values are at stake, for instance child soldiers – or the situation of children in armed conflict in general.

Through this partnership we are seeking to implement what we see as an increasingly important humanitarian agenda. Norway’s strong interest in this agenda stems from humanitarian concerns that I am convinced we all share.

The security of the individual human being is constantly at risk. The threats to human dignity, human survival and basic human needs are many. Globalization has enormous potential for expanding human development, but it also has a downside. Inherent in a fast-changing world are risks that make people vulnerable and insecure.

In such a world ethical values are not a luxury. They are of the very essence. International commitment and empathy can make the difference between having a job or being out of work, keeping your home or losing it, indeed between staying alive or being killed.

Life is the ultimate value. The first duty of any politician – indeed of any human being – is to protect and nourish human lives. This is the guiding principle of Norway’s development assistance. To foster human development is a moral obligation and it is also in our own interests.

The closer international focus on ethical values and norms brings the individual into focus. Human dignity, human rights, human security, human development – all these concepts that we use so freely reflect our awareness of the rights and duties of each individual human being.

However, human beings are always embedded in a culture. Social and cultural differences must be taken into account when values are discussed. Rules, norms and standards are never culturally neutral.

We tend to forget that our values are based on our own historical experience. Many Western countries are therefore handicapped when dealing with situations like Rwanda or Kosovo, marked by deep ethnic conflict. Let us learn from our difficulties. But let us not be deterred from working for what we strongly believe in.

I have briefly presented some of the projects Norway believes in and supports. They are all part of a new international agenda where the issue of human security occupies a central place. No individual, no single state, no single organization will be able to see this agenda through. The international community must act together.

Now is the time.

Today, released from the ideological confrontations of the past, we can more freely base our policies on common values. This new openness makes great demands on the international community.

At the same time we must be patient. The way forward is to slowly and skilfully build bridges between cultures, translating the categories and norms of one into the language of the other. The question is which cultural differences do we accept and which do we feel are unjustified?

This is an important venture and a difficult one. I think we have only just begun to appreciate how important and how difficult.

Nevertheless, like Gandhi, I think it is a very good idea.

This page was last updated June 25, 1999 by the editors