The possibilities and limitations of external bilateral assistance to conflict prevention and management

The possibilities and limitations of external bilateral assistance to conflict prevention and management

Anne Kristin Sydnes

Minister of International Development, Norway

I would like to congratulate Denmark and my colleague, Minister for Development Cooperation Anita Bay Bundegaard, for taking the initiative for this conference on conflict prevention and peace-building in Africa. It bodes well for our future partnership in our new, shared embassy building.

I would also like to express my appreciation of the generous efforts of the Government of Mozambique, which has consistently shared its experience of conflict prevention and peace-building with the international community. At the LDC conference in Brussels last month, I had the honour to co-chair with Dr. Leonardo Santos Simão an interactive debate on governance, peace and social stability. Drawing on his vast experience of establishing good governance in a country ravaged by a difficult freedom struggle and a tragic civil war, Dr. Simão illuminated the depths and complexity of the governance issues that LDCs have to address.

During the past two decades violent conflicts have taken an increasing toll of Africa’s development prospects. Almost half of all African countries and one in five African people are affected directly or indirectly by such conflicts. About 14 million people, the majority of them women and children, are currently uprooted by conflict, either internally displaced or forced into exile. These people are among the most vulnerable of all groups, and often live under terrible conditions.

Quite apart from the human tragedy, the economic and social impact of these civil conflicts is alarming. The most visible impact is on physical infrastructure. Vast regions of southern Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Angola have almost no viable road networks. Agriculture and trade are rapidly declining, and access to both land and markets is hampered by the insecure situation. Institutions are collapsing and the civil service is ceasing to function. Limited public finance is being redirected from development to military efforts. Violent conflict also erodes social capital, leading to mistrust and an inability to build a common future based on development and enhanced human well-being. Furthermore, the HIV/AIDS pandemic thrives in a conflict environment and compounds the threat to human security.

For Africa’s development partners, conflict prevention presents an immediate, albeit daunting, challenge.

Internal conflicts are also increasingly taking on a regional dimension, and are threatening neighbouring countries’ development efforts. Weapons and bandits spread from conflict areas into neighbouring regions, creating insecurity. Such problems tend to multiply in countries caught in a vicious circle of zero growth, where state authority and legitimacy are weak, or where neighbours are exploiting ethnic links and networks that cut across borders. Such processes can lock countries into complex cross-border interventions and conflicts that are very difficult to disentangle. The Great Lakes region has gone through such a process, and so has the conflict triangle of Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea. We also see it in the Horn of Africa.

The magnitude of the challenge requires serious and concerted efforts by African leaders and more attention and support from the international community. Unless major progress is made in addressing conflict, Africa is unlikely to reach the International Development Goals and satisfy the legitimate needs and aspirations of its peoples.

My own country – Norway – is involved in a number of efforts to help prevent violent conflict, to assist parties to end conflict and to prevent the recurrence of conflict. And so are our Nordic friends and many other countries, including a number of African states. Yesterday the OSCE Secretary-General Janis Kubis shared the experience gained by regional organizations in conflict prevention. This morning, the focus was on how the European Union could assist Africa.

The question we have been grappling with throughout this conference is, I believe, the following. How can this multitude of efforts be brought together and made into focused and effective action for conflict prevention? It is in this perspective that I would like to discuss the possibilities and limitations of external bilateral assistance.

Norway welcomes the Secretary-General’s Report on Conflict Prevention. We share his vision that we need to move from a "culture of reaction to a culture of prevention".

We also welcome the open approach of the Secretary-General, who has invited member states to participate in developing a "road map" to implement the specific recommendations in the report. One of the best ways of making bilateral assistance to conflict prevention relevant and effective is in connection with coordinated international efforts led by the UN system. In relation to this, another important reminder has been made here this morning: the Brahimi report and its recommendations to improve the UN peace operations.

Norway agrees "that effective conflict prevention requires a comprehensive approach that encompasses both short-term and long-term political, diplomatic, humanitarian, human rights, developmental, institutional and other measures taken by the international community in cooperation with national and regional actors". Indeed, the need to provide the UN system with a broad and unified approach to peace, security and development is a core premise for Norway’s work during its membership of the Security Council. Through bilateral presence in countries like Ethiopia, Eritrea and Angola we have gained experience and knowledge proven useful in deliberations in the Security Council.

A UN presence at the country level can be important for the early prevention of conflict, also to ensure that preventive strategies are based on local initiatives and participation.

Considerable benefits can be derived from more sharing of information about conflict prevention. The international community needs to have a common analysis of the root causes of the problems in the specific conflict environments. And the UN is the right place to do that. We must do our utmost to develop common goals and unified approaches.

To my mind, this is a key to increasing the possibilities and expanding the limits of external assistance to conflict prevention. Strengthening the institutional capacity of the UN to act as a catalyst and network for efforts to prevent violent conflict is therefore one of our top priorities.

One of the principles for creating a culture of conflict prevention is that conflict prevention must have national ownership and that the primary responsibility for conflict prevention rests with national governments, backed up by civil society.

Conflict prevention and sustainable and equitable development are mutually reinforcing activities.

This is where development partners can play a role. It is our responsibility to provide resources for development and for conflict prevention. Structural conflict prevention must address the root causes of conflict, such as poverty and inequality. The negative trend in international ODA must be reversed, as a signal of the international community’s commitment to conflict prevention. We all know: there is a close link between development and peace!

In order for bilateral partners to help prevent conflict, we must contribute to a culture of conflict prevention and examine all our policies and programmes through the lens of conflict prevention. We must recognize that all aid can influence conflict situations and create incentives or disincentives for peace.

Strengthening governing institutions and processes is essential if we are to improve nations’ ability to prevent violent conflict. Democratic institutions and processes such as elections, parliaments and other representative assemblies allow a nation to resolve conflicting visions peacefully and to forge consensus on its future direction and development. Effective government policy-making and an accountable public administration ensure equitable and productive distribution of services and resources. Legal frameworks consistent with international human rights norms and standards, the fair and effective administration of justice, and an independent judiciary ensure that conflicts between citizens can be peacefully resolved, and foster the sense of predictability and justice necessary for achieving sustainable social and economic development.

As a bilateral development partner, Norway is stepping up its assistance in this field.

At the LDC conference in Brussels, UNDP in collaboration with Norway launched its "Global Trust Fund on Democratic Governance". The new UNDP network of regional resource facilities on democratic governance, including the one in Oslo, will play an important role in this endeavour. I hope that they will be able to promote the sharing of information and build the regional and country-specific expertise needed to foster national ownership. They should also help to make international support for governance more specific and thus more effective in conflict prevention. I would like to use this opportunity to promote the new trust fund and call on bilateral donors to make use of this facility.

Governance is just one of many areas where bilateral partners must take a regional approach in their assistance for conflict prevention. Norway’s membership of the UN Security Council has made it imperative for us to put in place subregional strategies where political, diplomatic, humanitarian and development cooperation efforts are focused on conflict prevention and peace-building. Our regional strategies for the Horn of Africa, the Great Lakes region and West Africa are about to be finalized. Already I have seen how these efforts have encouraged my staff to think in terms of conflict prevention in all their work, including in the context of our programmes of development cooperation with long-term partners such as Tanzania, Uganda, Ethiopia and Eritrea.

Regional and subregional African organizations are making major efforts to contribute to conflict prevention and enhanced security. Norway would like to assist in these efforts. I have made it a priority that our support to regional organizations should be substantially stepped up. The SADC has been an important development partner for the Nordic countries from the start – when indeed conflict prevention and management were at the core of its mandate. We are now exploring the potential for developing programmes for capacity-building with ECOWAS, the East African Community and IGAD as well.

Security first! Security is crucial for sustainable development. Building legitimate and accountable systems of security – enhancing democratic control of the military and improving police, judicial and penalty systems – is being given higher priority, also for external partners.

Bilateral partners do have a role to play, although there are risks involved and delicate issues to be considered by all partners.

Bilateral assistance can help improve the capacity of the relevant civilian bodies in government to manage the security forces more effectively. There is growing recognition of the need to apply the principles of good public sector management to the security sector as well. These principles include transparency, accountability and informed debate and participation. One of the areas where assistance is needed is reinforcing legislative capacity to effectively regulate the security forces. This includes strengthening the role of relevant parliamentary committees. However, it is of crucial importance that security system reform should be approached as a normal part of cooperation on good governance, that it is undertaken jointly and in a coordinated manner and that it is based on national ownership.

Again, I would like to emphasize the importance of supporting regional cooperation and regional organizations. Since 1995, Norway has been supporting a regional programme called Training for Peace in Southern Africa.

The main purpose is to assist the members of the SADC in building their capacities for participation in peace operations. Before the start of the programme we had consultations with regional and sub-regional organizations like the OAU and SADC as well as with the governments in the region.

Training for Peace has become one of the leading programmes in the SADC region for building civilian peacekeeping capacity. More than 2 000 people from the ministries of Foreign Affairs, Defence and Justice, the police, the military and NGOs have participated in activities under the programme.

Now, I would like to focus on another important consideration as regards the possibilities of bilateral assistance. One of the recommendations in the Secretary General’s report concerns the need to involve non-governmental organisations and civil society in conflict prevention and peace-building. Norway fully shares this view. Indeed, the involvement of the Community of Sant’Egidio in facilitating the peace process in Mozambique is a telling example of the merits of this approach. And it is an approach where bilateral partners have an important role.

This brings me to the "Norwegian model". Much of our international reputation as regards peace building must be shared with certain Norwegian NGOs and NGO-partners in developing countries. I would like to share with you some of our experiences.

• There has to be complete trust between the relevant NGO and government.

• In for example Guatemala: The contribution was due not only to the expertise and capacity of Norwegian NGO (Norwegian Church Aid), but also to our willingness to rely on the organization.

• A crucial element of the model is speed, flexibility and efficiency at both political and civil servant levels in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This is also true for financial resources. You need to have flexible financial resources available.

• There must be strong political backing and willingness to operate through a wide range of channels.

• And there must be endurance!

We must recognize that success may not come quickly, if at all. Efforts can often fail. But we must not allow ourselves to be daunted by fear of failure. This would mean shying away from our responsibilities.

Conflict prevention and peace-building hinge on trust. Legitimate state authority and a healthy civil society need each other. However, a crisis of legitimacy exists in many states. Donor involvement with oppressive regimes is problematic, and there are clear limits to our involvement. At the same time, complete withdrawal may have a negative impact. We must meet these dilemmas head on. Multilateral institutions can play a key role in encouraging partnerships between governments and civil society organizations in situations characterized by distrust and weak state legitimacy.

While there are clear limits to the role bilateral partners can play in these situations, it is my conviction that we can do more. Aid creates incentives. How can these incentives be managed so as to promote conditions and dynamics for non-violent conflict resolution?

We can continue to engage in a policy dialogue. In the context of concerted international engagement, led by the UN, we should seek to negotiate transparent and coordinated benchmarks on aid flows. And the conditionalities should be linked to nationally owned reforms.

At the beginning of my speech, I mentioned the HIV/AIDS pandemic in connection with the grave consequences and human suffering created by violent conflict. Why?

HIV/AIDS is a security issue that extends far beyond the threat to personal security. It is a local security issue in that it directly affects capability of the police and thereby the stability of the community. It breaks down institutions that enjoy public confidence and serve public interests. It is a national security issue. In Africa, many military forces have infection rates as much as five times higher that of the civilian population. The disease makes nations more vulnerable to both internal and external conflict.

In New York this week I announced that the Norwegian government has committed itself to providing additional one billion kroner, or 110 million US dollars, to fight against HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Strengthening the capacity of local health systems will be a major focus in our efforts!

In conclusion, I would like to take this opportunity to repeat the call that UN Secretary General Kofi Annan makes in the final paragraph of his report on conflict prevention:

"It is high time that we translate the promise of prevention into concrete action. 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.