Minister of Foreign Affairs Jonas Gahr Støre

Managing conflict and building peace. Norwegian policy for peace and reconciliation

Real Instituto Elcano, Madrid,
13 March 2006

Check against delivery

Ladies and gentlemen,

Navigating the stormy waters and treacherous straits of war, peace and the conditions for human security is a challenging task. How fitting it is that this prestigious institute I have the honour to visit today is named after the great Spanish navigator and explorer Juan Sebastián de Elcano, who was the first man to sail around the globe, in 1522.

I find in my own dealings with international politics that knowledge is key in securing safe passage for foreign policy interests. While our compass will always be our values and beliefs, it is research on international issues that provides us with the charts we need to navigate.

Captain de Elcano’s feat is a source of inspiration and courage for us in world politics today, as so many of the tasks we are facing require breaking new ground, breaching old barriers, strengthening channels for dialogue, and forging new alliances, friendships and networks.

Now, let us take a look at the world map, which has changed considerably since 1522. Over the next 20 minutes or so I would like to share with you some of my thoughts on managing conflict and building peace, and Norwegian policy for peace and reconciliation.

I would like to start off with some good news.

The Human Security Report for 2005 shows that armed conflict, genocide, political crises and human rights abuses have declined since the end of the Cold War.

The number of armed conflicts and the average number of people reported killed as a direct consequence of each conflict have also fallen.

The decrease in political violence coincides with an increase in international efforts to end conflicts.

Norwegian policy for peace and reconciliation is in this perspective part of a general upsurge in conflict-resolution efforts by many countries, as well as in UN preventive diplomacy and peacekeeping missions. International activism seems to be yielding results. In other words, our efforts – your efforts – can make a difference.

The bad news is that even though there are fewer conflicts, they are having a more profound effect on our societies. Local conflicts know no borders; they have become a global concern.

When de Elcano circumnavigated the globe [when he arrived at Sanlúcar de Barrameda in Spain aboard the Victoria on 6 September 1522, along with 17 other European survivors of the 265-man expedition and with 4 survivors out of 13 Tindorese Asians], it was considered to be a virtually impossible feat. Today LNG vessels, jets, goods, services, capital, messages and persons flow freely around the world, to the benefit of developed and developing countries alike.

The same, however, goes for threats to our security. These threats are global in nature.

Many of the most serious dangers we are facing today – terrorism, cross-border crime, environmental degradation, spread of diseases, fear – arise in areas of conflict far from home.

But no place is “far from home” on the world map today, with its many lines of communication.

Fear is spread by videotapes shown on TV.

Suicide bombers take the bus, travel on the underground or on Cercanías [commuter trains] – as they did during the rush hour on the morning of 11 March 2004 here in Madrid. That was two years and two days ago.

Messages spread throughout the world in only seconds. Birds carry diseases. The heroin sold on our streets, offered to our children, comes from villages in Afghanistan.

Our efforts to help resolve these conflicts are therefore anchored not only in solidarity and respect for human dignity, but also in our security. By helping others, we are helping ourselves.

Norway’s foreign policy in response to these – and other – global challenges follows three main tracks.

The first track is Norway as a supporter of the development of an international legal system that regulates the use of force and prevents the domination of the weak by the strong, and where the world’s nations and people recognise the benefits of cooperating. Cooperating to find solutions to the major issues of our time.

The number one issue, in my view, is to strengthen and reform the UN and other multilateral institutions.

Last autumn the UN Summit highlighted important areas where action is needed in the fields of peacebuilding, human rights, security and protection of vulnerable groups.

A quick glance at the issue of peacebuilding, research and experience shows that many of the resources committed by the international community in conflict situations do not have the desired effect. Peace processes grind to a halt, the reconstruction of war-ravaged communities proves to be difficult.

Ideas about how lasting peace can be promoted are, however, changing.

We are now talking about complex conflict situations.

We are talking about facing the challenges with a full range of means: military, civilian, short-term, long-term.

We are talking about humanitarian aid and development assistance.

And we are talking about the critical transformation from humanitarian efforts in times of crisis to rebuilding in times of peace. In this context, I would like to add that the current efforts by the UN to set up a Peacebuilding Commission will be important in strengthening the efforts of the international community to provide the necessary support to countries making this delicate transition.

Another urgent topic is Iran. Norway is deeply concerned about Iran’s nuclear activities. We share, together with Spain, a strong wish to resolve this matter by diplomatic means. This can be done by referring the Iran issue to the UN Security Council. The Council must give the IAEA more political backing in dealing with the issue.

At the same time all parties must refrain from unilateral steps that might aggravate the situation. I strongly believe that finding a political solution to the Iran issue will enhance stability in the region. It will help us to reach our long-term aim of creating a zone free of nuclear weapons and their means of delivery in the Middle East. I would be very interested to hear your views on the Iran issue later.

The second main track of Norwegian foreign policy is Norway as a partner to our friends and allies – “como el amigo de nuestros amigos”.

Our membership of NATO is an important pillar of our foreign policy. And we have close ties with the EU countries through the EEA Agreement. We have a close partnership with the US, and with Russia - our neighbour.

I would like to add that NATO may be on its way to becoming an even more important global peacekeeping actor. Take Afghanistan, where the ISAF forces are playing an important role. Norway has made a long-term commitment to Afghanistan. We want to help to create peace in the country. Achieving stability will require a broad-based effort that includes providing humanitarian and economic assistance, promoting political reform and addressing the security situation. This is reflected in our approach. In addition to our military presence through ISAF, consisting of close to 500 Norwegian soldiers, we are providing police and judicial training as well as assistance aimed at creating new livelihoods. We look forward to cooperating with you when Spain takes over the command of ISAF in February next year.

The NATO operation in Afghanistan presents fascinating perspectives for NATO engagement in other conflicts as well – such as those we face now in the discussions on a role for the Alliance in supporting the African Union efforts in Sudan.

My point is that Norway can only promote its own interests and values if there are other like-minded countries that are prepared to listen, understand and support our views.

Our friends are important in our efforts to promote peace and reconciliation. Our engagements are often conducted in partnership with others, as the Norwegian-Spanish cooperation on peace processes in Latin America demonstrates.

And in the specific situations where Norway plays a more prominent role, our close relations with major powers are often a prerequisite for assuming our role of third-party facilitator.

This brings me to the third main track in our foreign policy, Norway as an actor in promoting peace, reconciliation and development.

The fact that we are in a position to play this role gives us a responsibility. Because we are able to do so, because we are privileged, we must help people who are affected by conflict and want to forge a future of peace and development.

We are engaged in a number of peace and reconciliation processes around the world:

Even though our role as a third-party facilitator in Sri Lanka, and our role in setting up a back-channel for negotiations in the Middle East have received most attention, Norway generally supports other actors – the UN, regional organisations, NGOs and other governments – rather than going it alone.

In some cases, however, we play a more prominent part. Why? There are at least six reasons:

Firstly: When we do become engaged, it is because we consider that we can make a significant contribution.

Secondly: It is always at the explicit request of both parties to a conflict.

Thirdly: If we engage, we engage wholeheartedly, and go as far as we can in ensuring that we are an effective and reliable actor.

Consequently, and fourthly: We are willing to make a long-term commitment, and we have a consistent and predictable policy on peace efforts based on solidarity.

Fifthly: There is also broad political consensus on Norwegian policy for peace and reconciliation, which ensures consistency regardless of changing governments. The peace process in Sri Lanka is a case in point.

Finally, our close relations with central actors in the international arena, and our transparent economic and political interests, make us an acceptable third party in many situations.

The importance of partnerships is highlighted by our excellent relations with Spain. The cooperation between Norway and Spain has been and is an important factor in several peace processes. Historically, we were both members of the group of friends in Guatemala, and in the ELN and FARC processes in Colombia.

Now Spain and Norway are part of a group of so-called accompanying countries, which will assist in the emerging process between the Government of Colombia and the ELN. They have met twice in Havana, and will meet for a third time early in April. Let us all hope there will be a fourth, fifth and sixth meeting as well.

Another example of the Norwegian-Spanish connection is to be found if we look back at the history of the peace process in the Middle East:

The Middle East Summit in Madrid in 1991 paved the way for our own efforts. At the outset, Israel and the PLO intended to use the Oslo channel as a supplement to the multilateral Madrid process, with a view to identifying means of moving the stalled talks in Washington forward. Later, inspired by the potential for success, the parties widened the scope and went the extra mile to the Oslo agreement. “Oslo” became the name of the ensuing bilateral process, just as “Madrid” has become the name of the efforts to resolve all the regional conflict issues that remain following the establishment of the Israeli state and the Israeli-Arab wars.

Now, if we turn to the present, it is clear that the framework for the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has changed dramatically with the victory of Hamas in the Palestinian parliamentary elections and the political earthquake that has shaken Israel.

The Norwegian Government respects, of course, the results of the Palestinian elections. And we support the conditions put forward by the Quartet to a Hamas-led government. The new government should declare its commitment to all agreements and understandings, recognise Israel’s right to exist and renounce all use of violence as a political means.

We think, however, that a Hamas-led government should be judged on its political platform and its actions, rather than on its words. The international community should not exaggerate its requests for the immediate redefinition of ideological rhetoric in a way that could provoke a refusal to make any compromise in action.

The new Palestinian government will inevitably need some time to consider its approach. Hamas should be put to the test. But if it is seen by the Palestinian people to fail, due to hostile actions by the international community, this could be perceived as practising double standards, and then the Palestinian electorate will vote for Hamas again, or for an even more radical movement.

Norway shares the vision of the Middle East peace process formulated by the UN Security Council. A comprehensive and just peace can only be achieved by means of a two-state solution, where Israel and a Palestinian state live side by side in peace and security within internationally recognised borders. We advise the parties to return to the Road Map for peace and reach a final settlement through negotiations based on the principles set out in the relevant UN Security Council resolutions.

In the short term, I am deeply concerned about the humanitarian situation in the Palestinian Occupied Territory. The international community must find channels and ways to continue its assistance to the Palestinian people.

Norway is focusing on this challenge in our capacity as Chair of the donor group (AHLC). We should aim at preserving and continuing our investment in Palestinian institutions. Our message to Hamas should be that the Palestinians are now facing a moment of truth: Either Hamas rises to the challenge and takes the road of peace, or chaos and further misfortune may befall the people who elected them.

Turning to the situation in Sri Lanka, the recent developments in the peace process have been promising.

The presidential elections in November 2005 generated a momentum that has moved the peace process forward. However, this momentum was obstructed by a pronounced level of violence in the two following months that seriously threatened the cornerstone of the peace process, i.e. the Ceasefire Agreement.

The parties met in Geneva three weeks ago to discuss how they could strengthen the implementation of the Ceasefire Agreement. They agreed to a joint statement and renewed their commitment to upholding the Agreement, including to bring an end to politically motivated killings.

The statement also reconfirmed their commitment to fully cooperating with the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (SLMM) in its task of monitoring the Ceasefire Agreement. We strongly welcome the commitment by the parties to meet for a second session in Geneva on 19-21 April to further explore ways to strengthen the implementation of the Agreement.

Although these meetings are not tasked to find a final political solution, we trust that the parties will through these talks build confidence, and that it will also be possible to resume political talks on possible solutions to the 23-year-long conflict in the near future in order to find a sustainable solution acceptable to all peoples of Sri Lanka.

Ladies and gentlemen,

There are also other areas – and arenas - where Norway is utilising the opportunities and resources we have to promote peace, reconciliation and development, where we are trying to make a difference.

Let me share with you two examples:

The first is the efforts to provide vaccines for the poor.

Millennium Development Goal number four is to reduce the mortality rate among children under five by two thirds by 2015. The Norwegian Government was one of the first contributors to the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation, a programme to give all the world’s children access to vaccination. We recognised the potential of the initiative, and we were prepared to make a long-term commitment. Now we are intensifying our efforts.

The second example is the work we are doing in the promotion of human rights.

Norway has engaged in human rights dialogues with China, Indonesia and Vietnam. We have been able to establish these dialogues due to our international standing as a promoter of human rights, our political will to engage, and our expertise in this field. An expertise we share with Spain, of course.

I would like to make one important clarification: When we approach human rights dialogues, for example when acting as a third-party facilitator, we are never neutral. Our engagement does not mean that we suspend our values and beliefs.

Quite the contrary, one of the reasons we have been considered to be useful is the high profile we have on issues like human rights and international humanitarian law.

But because of our background and our international commitment, we have in many situations been considered to be impartial. And so we have been able to assume a role as a partner in dialogue, or a third party in a peace processes.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Conflicts usually spring from the unequal distribution of economic and political power.

But many times, conflicts are played out in a context of values and they have a religious dimension.

Religion can intensify conflicts. And religion can be a bridge-builder in conflicts.

There are those who use religion and culture in a way that unites internally and divides externally. This has been particularly relevant in the last couple of months, not least because of the widely publicised cartoon issue.

Here I would like to underline the importance of freedom of expression as a universally recognised human right and a mainstay of Norwegian society. We should also bear in mind that all people have the right to respect for their religion and to protection from religious discrimination. Tolerance, mutual respect and dialogue are fundamental values both in Norwegian society and in our foreign policy – as in Spanish society I believe, since you have a much more multicultural society than we do.

At the same time, we should be sensitive to the fact that in this age of globalisation and rapid change, many people feel that their way of life is under threat. They feel that there is an imbalance between the West and those parts of the world that do not benefit from globalisation to the same extent.

The American writer Thomas L. Friedman claims that the world is flat, that there is now a level playing field for economic competition. But there are many people lost in the margins of globalisation for whom the world is not flat, but an uphill battle.

Such imbalances and social injustice can be exploited by religious leaders and used to sharpen conflicts between “the West and the rest”, and to create stereotypes of “us versus them”.

But religion can defuse conflict as well. The message of peace is prominent in all of the major world religions: Faith can be a uniter. Religion is about what ties people and cultures together. The common belief in a single God in all the monotheistic religions that originated in the Middle East is a testimony to our common history. To our common responsibility.

Fortunately, we are seeing internationally an international upsurge in interreligious and intercultural dialogue. The Norwegian Government sees it as a very important task to support all such efforts.

Spain has taken an important initiative for an Alliance of Civilization. It is a pleasure for me to announce today that Norway is pledging its support to the initiative. The Alliance will be useful in increasing understanding between the Muslim world and the West, and will contribute to democratic reform, peace and stability.

Talking about dialogue, I often feel that in many situations “dialogue” is portrayed as a “soft” approach for those lacking the will to confront issues by means of force.

I would contend that dialogue is not a sign of weakness. Quite the opposite. The primary lesson we have learned from our engagement in a broad range of peace and reconciliation processes, both as a leading and as a supporting actor, is that in the end, a political, negotiated solution will have to be found. At some point the dialogue must start. People must meet, face to face, around a table.

The courageous leader, therefore, is the one who seeks that solution sooner rather than later, even in the face of mistrust and internal political adversity.

It is a sad fact of life that in most conflicts, the parties turn to negotiations too late. “Too late” here means that many lives could have been spared.

The parties to conflicts should look to captain Juan Sebastián Elcano. Even a seemingly insurmountable task can be accomplished if there is will, determination, courage and patience.

And if the parties are willing to seek a political solution, the international community has a responsibility to help them reach it. It is in our own interests.

*****

Finally, I would particularly like to thank the Elcano institute and its director, Mr Gil Carlos Rodriguez – a distinguished expert on international law, for organising this seminar, which has brought together so many experts. I would like to mention, in particular, Mr Rafael Estrella, the (Spanish) Socialist Party spokesperson in the Foreign Affairs Committee. I am also pleased to see a number of eminent Spanish journalists, editors and diplomats present here, and also representatives from the Spanish research institute FRIDE, which has close working relations with Norwegian counterparts. I am glad you could attend and I look forward to your questions and comments.

Thank you.