Minister of Foreign Affairs of Norway, Mr Jan Petersen

Human Security Network, Ministerial Meeting

Ottawa, 19 May 2005

Check against delivery

Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen

It is a great pleasure for me to participate in the ministerial meeting of the Human Security Network here in Ottawa. Canada played an instrumental role at the inception of the Network, being one of its two founding members. Your contributions since then, not least during your successful chairmanship, demonstrate how you continue to be a driving force. Norway appreciates in particular your efforts to focus our work, both by way of streamlining the agenda and by hosting a ministerial meeting aimed at few, but tangible political results.

Four months remain until the UN Summit in September. The stakes are high, and although there is still considerable disagreement among the Member States, a positive momentum is building.

Our primary task must be to strengthen the rule of law at the international and national levels. And to achieve this, we must strengthen the United Nations. The organisation needs a major overhaul if it is to be able to perform the way we want and expect it to. The Secretariat has a job to do in this respect, as do the Member States.

The Secretary-General has presented a number of practical proposals. These are far from revolutionary, but nevertheless will bring us closer to the organisation we need to meet the challenges of the new century.

Instead of presenting counter-arguments or alternatives for each proposal, the time has come for us to unite behind the most practical, achievable and useful proposals put forward.

The Summit must address the urgent need to establish a new security consensus and take concrete decisions on reform.

The tendency for Security Council reform to crowd out other issues seems to be becoming more pronounced. We must not forget that there are many other equally important issues on the table.

We should ask ourselves how the Human Security Network could contribute to a constructive process leading up to the Summit. A good starting point would be to identify proposals we can agree on.

Promotion and protection of human rights is one of the principal objectives of the UN. The current human rights machinery must be improved to meet the expectations placed on the UN in this respect.

We welcome efforts to elevate the position of human rights throughout the UN system and agree with the need for mainstreaming.

Norway also supports the idea of enhancing the status of the UN’s main human rights body.

The discussion of human rights is normative and inherently political, more so than many of our other our mutual concerns. We will only be able to find common ground in human rights within an institutional framework that reflects the universality of human rights and is perceived as representative and legitimate.

Norway supports the Secretary-General’s proposal to establish a Human Rights Council as a principal organ of the United Nations. This will institutionally accord human rights the primacy it should have according to the UN Charter. We must, of course, consider the implications carefully to ensure that more is gained than is lost. The composition of the new council must reflect the universality of human rights. Even smaller member countries must have a reasonable opportunity to be elected. Moreover, reform must not be at the expense of NGO access and the system of special procedures.

These concerns aside, in my opinion it will be a step forward if the Summit can agree on establishing a Human Rights Council.

The Secretary-General correctly points out that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights needs to be strengthened. We agree with the High-level Panel that the regular budget allocation of two per cent for the OHCHR is clearly out of step with its obligations under the UN Charter. It is imperative that the September Summit results in a commitment to raise the level of the budget allocation to the OHCHR within a given deadline.

Norway endorses the Secretary-General’s appeal to embrace the principle of “responsibility to protect” as a norm for collective action in cases of genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.

In the current debate, the responsibility to protect is often seen only in the context of Iraq – and not Rwanda or Bosnia. I appreciate the genuine sensitivities that attach to this issue.

We must not, however, let misconceptions distort a debate of such paramount importance. The principle of “responsibility to protect” relates to the protection of civilians within the parameters of international law, it is not about authorising illegitimate use of force.

We agree with the recommendation that the Security Council should adopt a resolution setting out the principles that are to apply to the use of force and expressing its intention to be guided by them. Formulating the criteria for the use of force is a very delicate balancing act. The criteria must be must be built on fundamental principles of international law. They must be specific in order to avoid confusion, but, at the same time, they must not encourage intervention.

We need to build greater consensus on the need for collective action and early diplomatic response, which can eliminate the need for military intervention. But it must also be clear that, in situations of mass atrocity, the Security Council has the responsibility to act without hesitation, and with authority and efficiency.

Time and again we have witnessed how human dignity is degraded through a culture of impunity for mass atrocities. We also see how this culture can critically undermine long-term security. Real and sustainable peace and reconciliation must be built on the rule of law, which is irreconcilable with impunity for the most reprehensible breaches of humanitarian law.

Norway has been a staunch supporter of the International Criminal Court ever since its creation, and welcomes the Secretary-General’s appeal to Member States to co-operate fully with this Court, as well as with the other international or mixed war crimes tribunals. The Court will be serve as the last safety net provided by the international community, to be used when there is no other genuine national mechanism to counter impunity.

Norway agrees that the participation in multilateral conventions must be more universal and welcomes the Secretary-General’s intention to hold another annual treaty event in the margins of the September summit, with a focus on global challenges.

Norway also shares the Secretary-General’s view that there is a need to strengthen the International Court of Justice, and looks forward to further discussions in this regard.

We welcome the Secretary-General’s proposals for a more consistent approach to peacebuilding and to establishing an interlocking system of peacekeeping capacities to create a new partnership between the UN and regional organisations.

The proposal to establish a new Peacebuilding Commission is an important step in the right direction, and we are eager to see it implemented.

Norway also welcomes the comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy presented by the Secretary-General in Madrid. Norway agrees that we need a comprehensive convention on terrorism.

The issue of system-wide coherence is one of Norway’s main priorities. We share the view of the Secretary-General that radical reforms are needed to address the structural restraints of the UN operational system. We propose that his vision of a more integrated, coherent and streamlined UN country presence, led by strengthened Resident Co-ordinators, be reflected explicitly in the Summit declaration.

Norway agrees that the United Nations has an important role to play in promoting and strengthening democratic institutions around the world.

We are already supporting efforts in this area through various mechanisms, including through UNDP and the World Bank. We believe the proposal to create a Democracy Fund at the UN should be carefully considered so as to avoid duplication with existing mechanisms, and facilitate co-ordination between the various UN actors at country level. Furthermore, the fund’s modalities should be designed to avoid any increase in bureaucracy, such as new or separate governance structures.

I believe that the Human Security Network can be a very relevant forum for some of these discussions and help build the momentum that is needed.

We should make use of the network to foster further dialogue and agreement between regions on a new security consensus, especially in relation to the protection of civilians in armed conflict, and in relation to achieving a more coherent approach to peacebuilding and significant improvements of the Human Rights machinery of the UN.

The UN will only change for the better if its members are willing to invest in it by seeking good and mutually acceptable solutions. I suggest that we agree today to advocate for our shared objectives in our respective regions, with a view to arrive at a UN better adapted to today’s threats to human security.

Thank you.