Dear collegues

Foreign policy is shaped by realities; realities that require choices to be made. Such choices may be difficult, they may be controversial, but closing one’s eyes to realities is the worst choice of all.

One of the realities facing Norway as a small country is that we stand to gain from an international order based on peace, the rule of law, democracy and human rights. Helping to promote these ideals internationally is ultimately in the interest of any small country – and in the wider interest of the security of all states and individuals.

A second reality is that being a small country, Norway is not in a position to impose its views on others. To make our mark, dialogue must be our strategy.

Peacebuilding is therefore, in our own interest, one of our foreign policy goals. And dialogue is the method we use to work towards this goal.

But dialogue and cooperation mean little if they are not accompanied by very real political choices. Peace-talking alone is not peace-building. If peace is in our interest, it follows that we must continuously make choices to uphold peace. We must make choices about partners in peace, choices about institutions for peace, choices about addressing the threats to peace.

Norway has a long tradition of making such choices. At the end of the Second World War, a number of states united behind the UN Charter, of which peace was the primary aim. Norway played an active role in developing the charter and also had the first UN Secretary General. Coming out of a shattering war, and bordering on a great power with less than friendly aspirations, we found that building peace required building partnerships with friendly nations. Not only did we become actively engaged in the UN, but we also made the important choice of becoming a member of the western alliance, which has been and still is a major peacebuilding project. We continue to support this peacebuilding project, not least the newly established NATO–Russia Council.

It has also been a deliberate choice of ours to support European economic integration, as in practical terms Norway is one of the countries that is most closely integrated into the European economy. Notwithstanding our decision to stay outside the European Union, Norway is fully supportive of EU enlargement – not least because it is in the interests of peace and stability in Europe. Economic integration, together with political integration and security integration, are the most important building blocks of peace.

Throughout the cold war, while our security interests were very much linked with our neighbouring areas, Norway also became a large provider of development assistance and humanitarian assistance to developing countries. A significant part of this was channelled through NGOs and the Red Cross. At the same time, Norway carried out some untraditional diplomacy in support of the opposition in countries like South Africa and Chile. This, too, was in pursuit of peace and human rights.

All this shows that peacebuilding is nothing new to Norwegian foreign policy. But as the nature of threats to peace have changed, and as the pattern of conflict has changed, the nature of peacebuilding in our foreign policy has changed. A key agent of change in this regard was one of my predecessors as state secretary, and my immediate predecessor on this rostrum, Mr. Jan Egeland.

As the cold war ended, a new type of conflict came increasingly to the fore, in the form of civil wars, armed insurrection and violent secessionist movements. As we know only too well, internal conflicts often turn particularly violent. In wars between states, each state takes particular care to protect its own civilians from the attacks of the other state. In such wars, the security of the state and the security of the individual tend to go hand in hand. But when conflicts occur within states, the situation can be very different. Here the security of the individual can be threatened because the state is strong and wages war on its own people. But no less frequently, the individual may be under threat because the state is weak and fails to protect its civilians against armed insurrection, uncontrolled violence, or even terrorism. Moreover, internal conflicts are often related to ethnicity or religion rather than territory. When individual attributes such as religion, ethnic origins or clan affiliation become grounds for war, it too often follows that civilians are attacked for their religion, ethnicity or clan affiliation. Those who have a right to protection under international law are often in more danger than soldiers or guerrillas, who are protected by their weapons. The important distinction between combatants and civilians is too often blurred by the urge to demonize entire peoples and punish them collectively for the conduct of their leaders.

The grim reality is that almost nine out of ten killed in armed conflict today are civilians. However, increasing international attention is being paid to the plight of civilians in war, and growing pressure is being put on states to respect and uphold humanitarian law and human rights. New international legal norms and mechanisms have been developed, but still the important challenge remains: how to ensure respect for already existing norms.

The new pattern of conflict has led to a new understanding of security. When the security of the state is threatened, not by external aggression but by internal tension, the state is faced with the dual challenge of preserving its own security without jeopardizing the security of its people. Regrettably, few of the states in question are able to meet this challenge. It underlines, however, that today state security can no longer be the only consideration shaping security policies. State security must protect and promote human security.

Changes in the relationship between the state and the individual have led to changes in the relations between states too. The individual is no longer confined to the margins of international affairs. Increasingly states find that they lose legitimacy in the international community if they do not promote and protect the human rights of their citizens. And as governments of the west, we are called upon by our electorates to respond to the intolerable televized suffering of individuals in far-away places.

This is not to say that the new significance of the individual in international politics is merely a result of the media revolution. We have to respond not primarily to maintain the sense of "doing good", but because it is in our own interests too.

Internal conflicts do not only have internal consequences. They may destabilize a whole region, threatening regional peace and stability. This was acknowledged soon after the cold war. And this has never been more evident than in the time since 11 September 2001. The epicentres of military and economic power in the western world were destroyed, and the whole thing was planned in caves in one of the poorest countries of the world. After this, no one can go on believing that we can maintain security in our part of the world, that we can protect our values and our way of living, as if the rest of the world does not exist.

It is therefore in our interest to meet these new realities, which require peacebuilding efforts, and here Norway has a part to play.

Indeed, since the beginning of the 1990s, Norway has played a very active role in peace-building efforts and in promoting human rights and democracy in parts of the world as far apart as Sri Lanka and Guatemala.

Let me however, make it very clear that peace can only be achieved by the parties involved. It cannot be imposed from abroad. Unless the government and people of a country are genuinely willing to confront the problems that are causing the conflict, there is little that even the best informed and most benevolent outsider can achieve. But, as outsiders, we can help to make peace. "Outsider governments" can play a tremendously important role in making peace attractive to both parties in the conflict. There must be a peace dividend. Assistance for reconstruction and investment in destroyed infrastructure may be evidence of such a dividend. The back-to-school programme in Afghanistan represents one such measure that made people believe in the benefits of peace.

If and when the conflicting parties are willing to work towards the peaceful settlement of their disputes, an adequate mediation and facilitation machinery is needed. To successfully underpin peace efforts, third party mediators must have a clear understanding of their role and what they can realistically achieve. Norway has never been in a position, or indeed wanted, to act as a forceful mediator using coercive means to persuade the parties to move along the road to peace. What we can do is to serve as facilitator. Both in the Middle East peace process and in Sri Lanka, we have provided the parties with the technical assistance they required.

To be effective, the facilitator needs in-depth knowledge of the history behind the conflict, as well as a clear understanding of the genuine interests and objectives of the parties. Furthermore, it is a great advantage to know the key persons involved. Third party involvement enables the parties to realize the advantage of a peaceful conclusion of the conflict and draw on its dividends. It is essential to maintain good and friendly relations with all the parties to a conflict, and to enjoy credibility and confidence. It is also important to respect all the parties. Moralizing must be avoided.

Norway has been actively involved as a facilitator in connection with a number of internal armed conflicts around the world. A few have been brought to a conclusion, while others are still going on. However, we are also involved in a number of negotiating processes where the prospects for a peaceful solution are still bleak. These conflicts show no signs of being resolved by themselves. There is a lack of confidence between the contending parties. However, as long as all or both parties want our presence and participation in the processes, we will continue to do what we can to contribute towards a solution. We are prepared to exit if there is no genuine willingness, and no useful role for us left to play, but we are also prepared to stay in the process and be patient.

In a number of conflict areas, Norwegian efforts to promote a peaceful solution stems from long-term involvement or presence, either in terms of development cooperation or through the involvement of NGOs or research institutions. In Sri Lanka, for example, Norway has had long-standing development cooperation with the government. The Norwegian team spent a long time building contacts and relations of trust with decision-makers on both sides. Both parties agreed that the assistance of a neutral third party was important for the peace process. Norway’s role is to assist the parties in their efforts to reach a political solution. We do not go beyond the tasks that the parties ask us to take on. Concretely, a significant part of Norway’s efforts are focused on facilitating understanding between the parties in a very practical way: we help the parties communicate with each other in order to minimize misunderstandings; we clarify the implications of media reports for the parties; and we help bridge the gap between the positions of the parties.

It is essential to bolster the commitment to peace. This is not only relevant for the parties directly involved, but also for other important actors like prominent NGOs, and religious groups, media and civil society. NGOs represent a vast reservoir of resources and expertise, and have often proved to have the best access to people and networks that can be rapidly mobilized. To utilize NGO resources as effectively as possible, Norway has established arrangements for close cooperation between voluntary organizations, academic institutions and the government, a cooperation of which this event is a good example.

Such arrangements enable a quick response in situations where humanitarian assistance and active brokerage can be decisive for a fragile peace process. We did that in the Middle East, in Guatemala and in Mali. We did the same in Bosnia and in East Timor. We are doing it right now in Sri Lanka, Afghanistan and Sudan. We have preparedness arrangements, which enable the rapid deployment of equipment and qualified personnel. And we have flexible arrangements for humanitarian assistance, which can quickly be directed towards new, unexpected situations.

I have touched on some elements of peacebuilding from the perspective of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. But I would like to stress that there is no single recipe for peacebuilding. Successful peacebuilding also depends on coincidences and a certain degree of luck.

Some people have argued that Norway has certain features that may be an advantage. We have never been a colonial power and are perceived as being independent. Norway is one of the biggest providers of development assistance in the world, has good relations with developing countries and speaks their cause in the United Nations and other fora. Humanitarian ideals and our conviction of the importance of global justice are important motivations for our involvement.

Finally, I would like to emphasize once again what an invaluable asset we have in the broad support that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs enjoys from Norwegian society at large for its involvement in peacebuilding efforts. I hope that a seminar like this will help to maintain and even strengthen your belief in the high ideals that motivate peacebuilding efforts in the first place and your commitment to practical action. As we know, there are always new challenges to be met.