State Secretary Vidar Helgesen

Peace, Mediation and Reconciliation. The Norwegian Experience

Thai-Norwegian Seminar on Sharing Experiences in Promoting Regional and Global Peace, at Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, 25 November 2004

Your Royal Highnesses,

Excellencies,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am honoured to be here at Thailand’s oldest and most prestigious University, an institution that has made it its mission to pursue knowledge and excellence through international contact and exchange. It is particularly satisfying being together with such a prominent group of people, sharing experiences in promoting peace.

As Her Royal Highness the Crown Princess underlined, Norway and Thailand share a commitment to peace and to democratic values. This seminar reflects on common conviction that in this era of globalisation, the security and prosperity of every human being are the responsibility of all. It also reflects the strong ties of friendship that exist between Norway and Thailand, between our Royal Families, between our governments and between our peoples.

Ladies and gentlemen,

There are many promising developments in the world today. Democracy and peace have gained ground in our regions. Increased economic and political integration has played an important role in securing peace both in the ASEAN area and in Europe. Integration between states has created mutual dependency and made wars more costly. Development of democracy has promoted peace in place of violent conflict. But peace, stability and democracy can not be taken for granted. In Europe, this is evident, as we speak, in one of Europe’s largest countries, Ukraine. In South East Asia there are still challenging situations - even here in Thailand. The difficult situation in Southern Thailand is one of the issues of today’s agenda.

While the great majority of present conflicts are internal, within states, their consequences are crossing borders. They amount to widespread human suffering and violations of human rights and humanitarian law. And they often pose a threat to regional and international stability. In our world internal conflicts are a global concern. Therefore we need more systematic efforts to prevent violent conflict, resolve conflict and avoid resumption of conflict.

The first line responsibility for resolving internal conflict peacefully rests with the parties and the national leaders. It is a widely held view that making a decision to apply military means is the most difficult decision a political leader can make. Having been part of Norway’s efforts in internal conflict situations, I am not so sure of that. In many situations we see that the easy option for a political leader is to arouse fear, appeal to nationalist sentiments, demonise the other side. The easy way to get support from your constituency is to create an image of a common enemy. The more demanding policy is to reach out, make an effort to understand the roots of the conflict, to understand the grievances and the aspirations of the so-called other side. To be willing to make hard choices and compromises. In making such hard choices as a political leader, you actually have to confront your own constituency and make them understand that dialogue and compromise is a better option than unleashing military or security forces. And because this latter option is politically demanding and potentially unpopular, history has taught us that leaders advocating dialogue and peace are not always popular in short run. But those who choose violence and hostility rarely stand as victors in the long run.

We need systematic efforts on the part of the international community to achieve peace, security and stability. This should rest on a firm foundation of international law, the United Nations Charter and the UN Security Council. Indeed, the first purpose of the United Nations, laid down in Article 1 of the Charter, is "to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace". The nature of threats to peace is different today than at the time of the inception of the UN Charter. But the UN legal order is sufficiently flexible to enable the world organisation to address contemporary threats. I trust that the recommendations that will be put forward by the UN high-level panel, chaired by the distinguished former Prime Minister of Thailand Anand Panyarachun, will help us improve our global security system.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Norway has been involved in peace and reconciliation efforts and in promoting human rights and democracy in different parts of the world during the last decades.

One of the conflicts that has featured most prominently on the international scene, and that is still tragically unfolding before us, is the Middle East process. It was here that Norway first made the headlines as a peace facilitator when Israel and the PLO signed the Oslo agreement in 1993. Since then, we have learnt some valuable lessons.

Firstly, greater efforts should have been made to build trust between the parties. This situation was aggravated by the fact that there was no system for monitoring both parties’ adherence to the agreements. The Quartet has learnt this lesson and has included the principle of a monitoring mechanism in the Road Map for Peace.

Secondly, in 1993 the leaders were ahead of their peoples. There was a lack of a broader political dialogue between Israelis, between Palestinians and between these two communities.

Thirdly, a sustained involvement by the international community is crucial. The parties were not ready to solve the conflict themselves.

Lastly, just as no Israeli government will make concessions to Palestinian terror, so no Palestinian government can dismantle militant organisations without support from the Palestinian population. And such support can only be created by giving the Palestinians a hope that one-day in the not too distant future the Israeli occupation will come to an end. By the recent death of President Yasser Arafat an era is over. A new era may begin. President Arafat’s death, Knesset’s recent approval of Prime Minister Sharon’s disengagement plan and the re-election of President Bush have created a new situation with new opportunities. The parties and the international community must now join their forces in order to utilize this opportunity.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Norway’s engagement in Sri Lanka highlights many of the common experiences and approaches of Norway to peace work. For the past five years Norway has been facilitating the peace process between the government of Sri Lanka and the Tamil Tigers. The peace process grew from recognition by the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE that the conflict cannot be resolved by military means.

The peace process in Sri Lanka has made substantial progress since the government and the LTTE entered into a cease-fire agreement in 2002. Two years of cease-fire is by far the longest cessation of hostilities since the war began in 1983, and may have saved thousands of lives compared to the situation during the fighting.

Peace facilitation is a cumbersome process that requires patience. Maintaining the cease-fire is part of the key to success. Therefore an independent monitoring mission has been established. The Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission is led by Norway and includes observers from the five Nordic countries.

We and both parties in the conflict in Sri Lanka have found monitoring of the Cease-fire Agreement to be an important contribution to the peace process. In addition to observing implementation, the SLMM functions as a sort of facilitator on the ground by assisting the parties to resolve problems before they escalate. As with the peace process, the maintenance of the Cease-fire Agreement remains the responsibility of the parties themselves. The SLMM’s role is to assist, not to enforce.

Just to underline my point that patience may be the most important ingredient of a successful process, the peace talks are now on hold due to various internal developments. Real, homegrown peace takes time to establish. This is the case in Sri Lanka, where we have been engaged for five years and where we are willing to continue for as long as the parties wish and as long as we can play a constructive role.

It will be important for the success of the peace process that civil society in Sri Lanka advocates more actively for peace and that their recommendations are heard by the parties. I mentioned the lack of a broader dialog and peace education between the Israelis and Palestinians as one explanation why the peace process in the Middle East did not succeed. Civil society initiatives are needed to inform the population about the peace process, create a reasoned public debate on solutions, and put pressure on leaders to achieve them. In Sri Lanka, religious leaders, including in the majority Buddhist community, can be instrumental in supporting the peace process. It is very positive that Thai Buddhists communicate with their Sri Lankan counterparts and share their tradition of peaceful coexistence.

The government of Thailand has generously offered a permanent venue for peace talks between the Government of Sri Lanka and the Tamil Tigers. The negotiations commenced at Sattahip and subsequent sessions were held at the Rose Garden Resort. Thai authorities and Thai people ensured that the environment for negotiations was highly conducive and this surely contributed to the constructive spirit of the talks.

Today, the parties seem a long way from resuming direct negotiations.

The uncertain political and security situation, as well as the need of the parties to develop confidence in one another as negotiating partners, may partly explain the delay in resuming talks.

Norway is prepared to continue to work closely with the parties in Sri Lanka to facilitate a return to the negotiating table. In difficult phases, it is particularly important to maintain open communication. We are prepared for the peace process to be a long road and remain committed to assist as a patient partner on the request of the parties. But we do engage on the basis of a recognition that the parties hold responsibility for taking the process forward.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

In addition to the processes already mentioned, we have experience from supporting peace and reconciliation processes in Guatemala, Colombia, Haiti, Sudan, Aceh, the Philippines and others. In some cases we play the role of official facilitator, in other processes we support other countries or organisations in their efforts.

Peace and reconciliation processes pose a range of different challenges. Nonetheless, we all benefit from reviewing our experiences and sharing the lessons we have learnt. Even if we play different roles in different processes, the Norwegian experiences, or model of peace facilitation, if such a model exists, have some common features.

Firstly, Norway’s role as a peace facilitator is in many ways a continuation of our long-standing support of the UN mandate for peace and security, and our humanitarian action and development co-operation.

Second, our government has a tradition of co-operating closely with Norwegian NGOs. Norwegian NGOs have gained valuable experience through activities in different parts of the world for several decades. Therefore we have good networks and hands-on knowledge of the various regions. A common denominator for many of the peace processes in which we have been involved has in fact been the interaction between diplomatic and humanitarian assistance, and between government and non-state actors.

Thirdly, we do have flexible resources to contribute to this purpose, both human and financial. It is an important part of our role as facilitator to contribute funds to organise peace talks, to support confidence building measures and to provide development assistance in order for people on the grass root level to experience the peace dividend.

A fourth point is the consensus across the political spectrum in Norway on the importance of promoting peace internationally, which allows Norway to be patient as facilitator. We have a long-term perspective on our involvement, and have been able to remain engaged even in difficult stages of a peace process. It takes time for the parties to build sustainable solutions, particularly in a situation where parties who have been at war must come to a rational decision to cooperate on a mutually beneficial solution

An important asset is the fact that Norway is a small country with no colonial past and few vested interests. We are not in a position to pressure any parties into agreement. The fact that we do have amicable relations with central international actors is another factor. Another precondition might be the secrecy and discretion that often, but not always, have been a prerequisite for success.

It is important to keep in mind that successful mediation is only possible if both parties have a genuine will for peace. History shows us that sustainable peace agreements can only be achieved if the parties themselves are committed to the solution. They are the ones who need to make bold choices. If parties to conflict are not willing to do so, there is little a third party can do.

Ladies and gentlemen,

When the Nelson Mandela visited this University some years ago, he made a reference to the Roman expression- "Pax vincit omnia” - "Peace conquers all". As he commented, this was a rule to which the Romans did not pay a great deal of attention themselves. Nor has it yet become the guiding principle in world affairs, not least because the conditions for peace are still to be realised in many areas of the world. But it is in our power to make it true.

I mentioned initially the opportunities that globalisation offer, and also the new challenges to peace and security that we face in this new era. What is certain is that conflicts on the other side of the globe concern us all. Peace must be made real and tangible in the daily existence of every individual. Peace must be sought, above all, because every member of the human family deserves to live a life of dignity and security.

I am looking forward to the further deliberations on this important topic this morning.

Thank you for your attention.