Mr. Olav Kjørven, State Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Norway
Joint seminar between Norway and Japan:
Peace-building and Development Co-operation
Oslo, 25 September 2003

Check against delivery

Keynote address on Peace building and Development Co-operation

Mr. Akashi,
Excellencies,
Ladies and gentlemen,

Benedict Spinoza has said that

"peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence and justice".

And it is a condition for development.

Norway and Japan are committed to improving the lives of the poorest around the world. We would like to assist in development that can lead to better conditions for the many who suffer. But our assistance will do little lasting good unless we first focus on the foundation for long-term development: durable and sustainable peace.

In her opening address, Minister for International Development, Hilde F. Johnson, outlined the causes and consequences of violent conflict and the international community’s responsibility in conflict prevention, peacemaking and peace-building. In my remarks I will try to say something about what peace-building is and what I believe to be good donor practices, using examples from the cooperation between Norway and Japan.

Let me start, however, by expressing my profound joy and satisfaction over the fact that we are doing this seminar together. Japan and Norway are far apart in some ways, but in others we are very close. I believe we have grounds for a dialogue that can be very rich, stimulating, at times provoking, and potentially very fruitful for both of us. Japan has been a major contributor over the years to international development—many years in a row Japan has been the largest donor in terms of aid volume. Although we sometimes differ over approach, there can be no doubt about the fact that Japan has contributed significantly to development and in building a solid foundation for peace in many parts of the world, especially in Asia. But Japan, like Norway, can do even better in the future. We both desire to do better. That’s the basis for this seminar.

So - what exactly is peace-building?

It is not only reconstruction of infrastructure. It is not only disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration of ex-combatants. It is not only repatriation of refugees and reintegration of internally displaced people. Peace-building is more than that.

The way I see it, peace-building has at least three dimensions:

1. security,

2. political development, and

3. socio-economic development.

The security dimension

Peace-building starts with disarmament, demobilisation, and reintegration of ex-combatants into the local community. This may include special measures aimed at helping women and children, mine-clearing and disarmament. Civilian control, transparency and accountability are important aspects of adapting the security sector to peace rather than war.

The political dimension

Peace-building requires reconciliation among the fighting parties - on all levels: top, middle and the grass roots. Some argue that reconciliation is so essential that it deserves to be singled out as a separate dimension of peace-building. Reconciliation can be promoted through dialogue and targeted projects, but it must also be an integral part of the total plan for peace-building. Equally important are human rights, good governance and democratic development. Options for legal action and truth commissions must be addressed. Civil society must be nurtured and encouraged to assist in service delivery, advocacy and "watchdog" functions.

The social and economic dimension

Refugees and internally displaced persons must be repatriated and reintegrated. Efforts to build peace must also include high-quality and accessible education and health services on a non-discriminatory basis. And it must include measures to stimulate productive sector development, such as legal and economic reforms. Here, there are links to the important initiatives to increase transparency and accountability of extractive industries and to promote corporate social responsibility.

Peace can be built by combining many elements. Like a painter’s colors, these elements can be mixed in many different ways. The mix will vary, but in most cases virtually every element has to be addressed. The elements complement and strengthen each other. The selection of elements, the sequencing, the timing and the magnitude will differ, but all dimensions and all elements have to be considered in order to make a coherent whole. If not, peace is likely to be short-lived.

Peace-building differs from conventional development in that it is explicitly guided and motivated by a primary commitment to the prevention, avoidance and resolution of armed conflict, and the maintenance of sustainable peace.

We often equate post-conflict situations with transitional assistance. However, we have to remember that peace-building takes time. While pushing for results, we must have the patience required to secure a peace that will last.

The primary responsibility for peace rests with the conflicting parties. But the international community can help build competence, capacity, and institutions for non-violent conflict resolution and sustainable development.

Peace-building interventions by the international community – beyond humanitarian assistance - must be based on a common platform. If we do not have this platform, we risk being left with a plethora of uncoordinated ad hoc projects with less than optimal effect and efficiency. Poverty reduction strategy papers (PRSP) of the countries concerned can provide such platforms.

Underneath this we need a conflict analysis. We have to understand the actors, structures, objectives and dynamics, as well as the underlying causes and the consequences of the conflict. If our understanding of the problem is flawed, our efforts will fail. This relates to our bilateral aid, but is perhaps even more important for multilateral institutions.

The international community needs to understand what causes and keeps civil wars going, in order to figure out how they can be ended. Even more important is the knowledge of how to prevent conflicts in the first place, and how to sustain peace. We need more research on peace. And we need to encourage and nurture more knowledge on peace-building in our ministries and in our embassies.

I am a strong believer in co-operation to increase efficiency. I am convinced that the OECD countries have a lot to gain from streamlining terminology, strategy and policy. Eleven years after then UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros Ghali launched the term "peace-building", we still have much work to do, strategically and politically. We can benefit from joint efforts on conflict analyses and competence building programs. Valuable work is carried out in the OECD/DAC Network for Conflict, Peace and Development Co-operation (CPDC). I believe there is a potential for strengthened co-operation between our two countries here.

In resolution 1325 (2000) on women, peace and security, the UN Security Council highlighted the importance of gender perspectives in conflict prevention and resolution, peacekeeping, and peace-building efforts.

We need to find better ways to involve women in conflict areas. Women are often the strongest advocates for peaceful solutions, and we know that women and children often are those who suffer most during conflict. But women are still scarce around negotiating tables, in constitution making bodies, and in political councils. However, efforts to build peace are unlikely to succeed unless women play a full and equal part. Gender perspectives must be addressed at all stages and levels: during conflict analysis, in needs assessments and PRSP planning, in implementation and evaluation; in conflict prevention, at all steps on the ladder to peace. Much more needs to be done here.

We need to look closely at the recommendations in "Women, Peace and Security", - the study submitted in 2002 by Secretary-General Kofi Annan pursuant to UNSC Res. 1325 (2000). Another document of importance here is "Women, War and Peace: The Independent Experts’ Assessment on the Impact of Armed Conflict on Women and Women’s Role in Peace-building", by Elisabeth Rehn and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf.

Effective peace-building is intimately linked to the development process. But not any kind of economic development. In fact, there are many examples out there of unbalanced economic growth leading to increased tensions, increased conflict among groups in society. Certain types of development may produce affluence for some, but more poverty for others.

I firmly believe that we must pursue strategies of broad empowerment and inclusion much more strongly in our efforts. This is at least as much about politics, institutions and law as it is about economics and economic development investments as such. It obviously has a lot to do with governance, of creating the conditions that allow people the freedom to pursue their aspirations. This is more than mere words and fine principles. We have the option of contributing to making this a reality. Take Sri Lanka. We can assist in creating a more enabling environment for marginalized communities and groups. In some ways we are trying to do exactly that, but I believe we can do even better, and we have a unique window of opportunity. Take the Democratic Republic of Congo, the worst humanitarian crisis in the world today. In order to break the downward spiral, I am convinced of the need to base the development and peace building efforts much more strongly in the Congolese civil society itself. Allowing local Congolese institutions, not least the Churches, to provide services and stimulate dialogue and economic activity—the way they have done in the past—will be more efficient and peace building than relying mainly on outsiders to do the job.

The OECD countries have substantial, but nevertheless limited financial resources at their disposal for peace-building and development co-operation. A UN estimate tells us that the official development assistance has to increase from USD 57 billion to USD 100 billion a year in order to reach the Millennium Development Goals by 2015. This is but a small fraction of the current global military spending each year. I believe there is reason to reconsider our priorities, both in the North and in the South. Fortunately, we have seen an increase in official development assistance (ODA) lately, and it is my hope that this trend will continue.

In Norway. the most important funds available for peace-building is the allocation for transitional assistance. This was established in 2002, and was inspired by the work done by Sadako Ogata in the UNHCR to bridge the gap between humanitarian assistance and long-term development co-operation. Incidentally, let me say how pleased we were to hear of her appointment as the new JICA director earlier this month. I look forward to working with her in her new capacity.

From Norway’s side, most our transitional assistance funds have been channelled through multilateral organizations. We also believe it to be important to bridge the financial gap experienced by non-governmental organizations in Norway in their efforts to build peace, efforts that complement the government’s work. NGOs are of special importance to help create a vibrant civil society in conflict and post-conflict situations.

In addition, we have country specific and regional allocations that may be used for peace-building. But peace-building is not necessarily different from other activities in partner countries. Development co-operation must be peace and conflict sensitive in order to contribute to peace-building. If not, development co-operation may fuel conflicts rather than prevent them.

The quest for peace and security is our common, principal challenge.

In this quest, we need alliances and partners. No country is strong enough to bring about peace alone. By working together we can be stronger, more persuasive and more successful.

Japan’s active support for the peace process in Sri Lanka is highly valued by all parties involved. The Japanese government plays an important role as an advisor to the parties on reconstruction and development, and as a coordinator for the donor community.

My fellow keynote speaker today, Mr. Yasushi Akashi, has spearheaded Japan’s efforts for peace and development in Sri Lanka. We are honored to have him with us today, and greatly appreciated his remarks earlier. The success of the Tokyo conference is attributed not least to the efforts of Mr. Akashi.

Norway’s role in Sri Lanka is to assist the parties in their efforts to reach a political solution to the violent conflict. Our engagement in Sri Lanka started with humanitarian assistance and has evolved into development co-operation. In 1998 we revised our guidelines for development co-operation with Sri Lanka to focus on building peace.

It is important that all donors extend their support for rehabilitation, reconstruction and development, in particular in the north and east, in co-operation with the parties. They have turned to the international community for advice and assistance, in order to show the population a tangible peace dividend and bolster support for the peace process. The conflicting parties’ ability to make progress depends on their capacity to demonstrate concrete progress. This shows how important it is to create close links between peace processes and peace-building, between foreign policy and development co-operation.

The parties to the conflict must have ownership of the mechanisms of assistance, and they must get political credit for it. The parties themselves must take the lead in the peace process. When negotiations resume, the parties will need to agree on a common mechanism to direct assistance to the north and east. Donor countries must be coordinated, consistent and clear about their conditions for providing assistance.

Japan’s decision to use political support and economic assistance as tools to resolving the conflict in Sri Lanka is most welcome. I believe that a successful peace process will depend on international assistance throughout the entire process of reaching and consolidating a political solution. I believe that together we can achieve more. For instance, with your help, the best possible use of the resources of the ADB.

Norway and Japan also work closely together in other countries, like Burma. Norway strongly supports the United Nations’ key role in facilitating the peace process in Burma. Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners must be released immediately, and a political dialogue between the military regime and the opposition must be resumed.

We believe that a solution in Burma demands active involvement from Asian neighbors, and we appreciate the constructive role played by the Japanese government. I look forward to continuing our cooperation there.

Afghanistan is another area where we have cooperated extensively. Much is at stake. The people of Afghanistan and the international community cannot afford to fail. We must work together for a durable and sustainable peace in that war torn country.

As chair of the Afghanistan Support Group in 2002, the Government of Norway greatly appreciated the close co-operation with the Government of Japan. We share a commitment to a better future for the people of Afghanistan, and will continue our support in the months to come.

We cannot discuss peace-building without mentioning Iraq. The UN should play a central role in rebuilding Iraq. The UN will lend legitimacy to all aspects of the reconstruction efforts. The international community must join forces to ensure that Iraq can take its rightful place among the community of democratic nations. We have noted with satisfaction Japan’s strong commitment to this effort.

This year marks the tenth anniversary of the Tokyo International Conference on African Development – TICAD. TICAD III will be taking place in the beginning of October in Tokyo. TICAD has helped keep Africa’s development needs on the international agenda. The conference will be a significant event at a time when the newly established African Union and the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) initiative are taking shape.

Millions of Africans live in conditions of extreme insecurity and poverty. Norway and Japan have a shared commitment to support African leaders in their efforts for peace.

Minister Johnson gave us some uplifting news on Sudan this morning. The end of the civil war in Sudan is long overdue, but now in sight. The next step is a massive peace-building effort. I commend the Japanese government on its active support for the peace process in Sudan.

The dialogue between Norway and Japan can help us coordinate our humanitarian efforts and our involvement in peace processes and peace-building. Both Japan and Norway are strong supporters of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. We attach great importance to our continued co-operation on humanitarian matters as well as our common efforts in long-term development to improve education, health, fight HIV/AIDS and promote human security and human dignity. I believe we have common interests in promoting the so called "4R initiative" taken by the UNHCR. The purpose is to promote joint planning and implementation among the UNHCR, the UNDP and the World Bank in order to bridge the gap between their respective responsibilities as regards refugees and internally displaced people.

Global challenges require global solutions. Thus, there is no alternative to strengthening multilateralism. The UN is the only truly global forum where overarching common visions can be achieved. We must support the UN, help make it more efficient and ensure that it can serve as the focal point of our efforts to improve our common future.

The United Nations has been a cornerstone of Norway’s foreign policy since the organization’s inception almost 60 years ago. Norway is firmly committed to the principles of multilateralism. It is in our national interest to promote international co-operation based on rules of behaviour that are equal and binding to all. We must continue to strengthen the UN’s ability to promote peace and security. Peacekeeping, peace-building and conflict prevention must remain key functions within the UN.

I am happy to see much similar thinking in the new ODA charter of Japan and the policies of Norway, as expressed in our Action Plan to Combat Poverty in the South, launched last year. I particularly welcome the focus on poverty eradication and peace-building. Similarities are also evident in the report of the Advisory Group on International Co-operation for Peace, chaired by Mr. Akashi. This is an excellent foundation for enhanced co-operation on policy issues as well as on operational activities in the future. In addition to these clear signs of alignment, let me also underline the indisputable value of having people in charge that are personally committed to peace building as a moral value. This is clearly the case when it comes to you, Mr. Akashi, as well as many other leading policy makers in Japan. I trust you will find that your counterparts here are on the same wave length.

We will continue our constructive co-operation in Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Burma and in other countries. We may explore how we can expand our co-operation in Africa. The new African Union needs help in its capacity building. There are ambitious plans for AU to be an influential player in conflict prevention and management, as well as in areas of good governance and human rights. Similar ambitions are held by sub-regional organizations like ECOWAS and SADC. They will need our support and cooperation.

There is potential for future co-operation as regards the UN University in Tokyo and GRID Arendal, which is associated with the UNU as well as the UNEP. I am looking forward to the next joint seminar on development co-operation in Tokyo in 2004. It is my hope that today’s seminar will be part of an intensified dialogue between our two countries in the months to come, where we can continue to address the common efforts to promote peace and development in all corners of the world.

As Kofi Annan so eloquently says:

"Let us make this endeavour a testament to future generations that our generation had the political vision and will to transform our perception of a just international order from a vision of the absence of war to a vision of sustainable peace and development for all".

Thank you.