Welcome address at the Wergeland Conference 2008 “Tolerance and Compassion”

The Minister’s speech was based on the following talking points
(check against delivery)

Dear young friends,

 

Introduction

• It is with a particular pleasure that I, on behalf of the Norwegian Government, welcome you to Norway, to Eidsvoll and to this historical room. It may be rather small in size, but it is of major national – and even Nordic and European – symbolic importance. It is perhaps the most historical place in Norway.
• Here modern Norway was born. For it was here that Norway’s constitution – based on the Enlightenment and the principles of the French and American revolutions and constitutions – was signed almost 200 years ago, in May 1814. We still have the same constitution, the foundation of our democracy and state institutions. During a few weeks in 1814 we also experienced independence. But the independence project “failed”, and we had to wait until 1905 before Norway gained full independence from Sweden.
• And this room is also very special for me as I am often in the Storting – and then I look straight at a large painting of the events that took place here in 1814. The room looks much bigger in the painting than here, in real life. And the men look older, but I think that many of them were not much older than you are. They were quite young in fact.
• One of those who signed the constitution was a pastor and politician called Nicolai Wergeland, Henrik Wergeland’s father. For it was here, at Eidsvoll, that our national poet grew up, after he came to Eidsvoll from Kristiansand, at the age of nine. Henrik Wergeland is not very well known abroad, and not all his works are well known to Norwegians either – compared to a work like “Solveig’s Song” by Edvard Grieg, which we heard at the beginning.
  
• Henrik Wergeland was a wellspring of commitment, enthusiasm and life. Now, as we mark the 200-year anniversary of his birth, we see that his message is still relevant.
• And nothing would have pleased him more than to see so many young people from almost twenty different countries – from Denmark to Syria, Estonia to Egypt – gathered here at Eidsvoll; all of you eager to grabble with the global challenges facing us.
• My hope is that after a couple of days in the company of Wergeland you will come to share his optimistic views on the future of the world and become wiser. As Wergeland put it: Young as yet the world must be.
• The world has definitely changed since Wergeland was living just around the corner. But he was a true cosmopolitan of his time and preached tolerance, cultural equality, and respect for human dignity and human rights, long before these norms and principles where written down in a universal declaration and formed the basis of international law. He was a true poet and activist.
• I would now like to say a few words to you about commitment, conflicts and dialogue, about the need for dialogue and about the complexity of dialogue. About living together in a globalised world, an interdependent world. About freedom. About Wergeland’s ideals.

Dialogue

• Today, dialogue between peoples, generations, countries and religions is essential. To misquote Shakespeare: to talk or not to talk, that is the question. When to talk, how to talk, and how to find common ground to get started. I would like to share with you some thoughts about all this.
• How can we talk about dialogue – and promote dialogue – when people are oppressing each other?
• From Sri Lanka to Somalia, from Lebanon to Liberia, wherever there is actual or imminent armed conflict, governments and foreign ministers like me are confronted by the dilemmas of dialogue.
• Exploring these dilemmas is key to many of the projects initiated and supported by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in connection with the Wergeland anniversary. And of the five initiatives developed under the topic “Tolerance and Compassion” – Wergeland’s hallmarks – today’s conference is the one that focuses most explicitly on dialogue.
• You will be looking at how culture and the arts can build bridges between countries, communities and groups.
• I would like to mention one example here: the High North, the relations between Northern Norway and Russia, between Kirkenes and Murmansk. Culture can do so many things that politics cannot: broaden perspectives, get people together, cross borders, find common ground, create meeting places, foster creativity, etc.
• But how we can meet each other halfway on the bridges we build. How can we avoid remaining on each side of a frontier, behind a high wall. This is not easy.
• In civil wars, there is the fear that dialogue with rebel groups will only encourage other groups to take up arms.
• States are trained to deal with states, but how to do we deal with groups? How can states start talking with groups? I’ll come back to that.
• Besides, where there is escalating tension between states, neither side wants to appear weak by offering to negotiate. But – and I’ll return to this question later – are negotiation, dialogue and talks signs of weakness, signs of giving in? No, they are not. Not at all. Talks are the option for the bravest.
• However we have a real dilemma: increasingly, both individual states and the United Nations are wary of the risk of legitimising terrorist groups through engagement and negotiation.
• As you all know, the war on terror was launched right after a war-like attack – “9/11” – and it takes the form of a war-like response. In my view, this changed the international debate on how to resolve conflict and prevent war. It reduced the space for peaceful engagement, dialogue and the use of political tools in the fight against terrorism, extremism and violence. It produced a war-like language, a confrontational language, a language that focuses on “us” and “them”, “with us” and “against us”.
• There is a need for a broader spectrum of tools and approaches.

Reconciliation

• In the light of what I have said about dialogue, we must re-establish space for reconciliation. And we must be clear about what we want to achieve through reconciliation. Consider for example South Africa, before and after apartheid, and the reconciliation processes there. Minority versus majority.
• There is increased awareness that a military response is not sufficient. In Afghanistan, our soldiers are effective in combat, but the international community is challenged by what is termed as asymmetrical warfare. It is having disastrous consequences for the civilian population and reconstruction efforts. The challenges in Afghanistan cannot be met – or solved – by military means alone.
• The word reconciliation is used in many contexts. In Afghanistan, it is used to describe President Karzai’s efforts to reach out to all ethnic groups and actors – even the Taliban – in order to establish some political consensus on the path ahead.
  
• We must engage relevant actors and opinion makers – what I would call agents of change. Often they are not easy to identify or gain access to. They may have a culture, traditions and religion that are different to our own, but we must make an effort to engage with them. Access is a key word.
• In the time in which he lived, Henrik Wergeland was just such “an agent of change”. And so may you be – agents of change.
• Exploring the role culture can play in building bridges between people may prove to be the right road to take (even literally).
• This process requires freedom of expression, which was another principle close to Wergeland’s heart. He asked: Can the source of the spirit, the flight of thought, bear to be restrained?
• He knew the value of freedom of expression and the press, which he called the most precious diamond in the people’s diadem. The right to freedom of expression was set out in paragraph 100 of Norway’s constitution, which was signed in this room in May 1814, as I mentioned. It has formed the backbone of democracy and culture. It reflects the spirit and words of Voltaire: I disprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Dilemmas of dialogue

• During the next few days, you will be exploring the dilemmas of dialogue from a number of different angles.
• For example, as I already mentioned, you will be discussing the role of art in building bridges between people, and you will also be looking at the limits of freedom of expression.
• These are complex, highly relevant, and also highly appropriate questions in connection with the anniversary of Henrik Wergeland.
• Throughout his life, Wergeland used his art – his pen – in the fight for social and political justice for everyone, for more openness in society.
• He knew that his poetry, his words – and art in general – had real power to highlight issues, to build bridges and change attitudes, and thus bring about change in society at large.
• Remember, firstly: that dialogue does not mean giving up fundamental values and principles. Dialogue and discussions help to build confidence. And secondly: that dialogue provides the option of seizing what I like to call “the middle ground”. It challenges the dominance of the extremes. This is exactly what politics and democracy is all about: engagement, finding and seizing the middle ground, the common ground, counteracting the extremes, the extremists, and refusing let extremist views dominate the field of play.
• Projects in the field of art and culture are arenas and channels for dialogue. Cultural cooperation provides an effective means of making contact with people who may be hard to reach by other means, such as traditional diplomatic channels. International theatre projects, concerts, seminars and workshops create meeting places, a common ground, and a shared experience.
• And of course, giving voice to alternative points of view is a precondition for true dialogue.
• Governments and foreign ministers – like me – are trained to understand states and how they operate on the international scene. But we do not know enough about the internal dynamics of non-state groups, whether we are talking about rebel groups, insurgents or extremists. In order to assess what room there is for engaging with such groups, we need to understand their motives, objectives and the conditions under which they operate. It is a question of knowledge, of insight. We need to engage in dialogue on key issues, basic values.
• In this situation, art in general – and perhaps literature in particular – offers unique glimpses into worlds that may otherwise remain closed to us. This is important for building knowledge and understanding, and thus mutual respect across political and cultural divides, and across generation gaps.
• More than anything, Henrik Wergeland raised the flag of humanity. He was an untiring advocate for the repeal of the provision in the Norwegian constitution that banned Jews from entering the country. He compared humankind to precious stones with an inner light. 

Dialogue does not always work

• However, let me add that, although they are the preferred way of handling conflicts, dialogue and negotiations do not always work.
• A number of complex conflicts have, so far, failed to respond to mediation efforts – in the Middle East, in Cyprus, in Somalia, in Sri Lanka. As some of you know from first-hand experience. From the list, I can see that there are four participants from Egypt, four from Israel, four from Lebanon, one from Oman, one from Qatar, five from the Palestine Territory and one from Syria.
• And in some conflicts, such as in Iraq and Chechnya, the warring parties have rejected outright the possibility of dialogue.  
• And even where mediation has resulted in peace agreements, as in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi and South Sudan, few observers are celebrating yet. Others are convinced that only military victories can result in a so-called more stable peace.
• So although dialogue is a more popular approach, we must not be naïve or unrealistic. Talk is cheap, say the cynics. And they point to negotiated deals that continue to break down due to renewed fighting.
• Proponents of dialogue will always face this criticism. But we must not give up. We must foster greater respect for dialogue by ensuring that mediators are as well equipped as possible to deliver effective and long-lasting results.
• Negotiated settlements may be unstable. But we must be wary of a “perverse logic” that could lead to military solutions to civil war being favoured. Instead, we must focus on achieving better agreements that really address the underlying grievances.

Norway believes in dialogue

• I would like to emphasise the point I made earlier – the obvious point – that Norway believes in talks and dialogue with all relevant parties in a conflict.
• We have a long tradition of meeting with all kinds of organisations, movements and regimes, even when we disagree with them.
• Moreover, in our attempts at engaging in conflict, we must “walk the talk”.
• If we respect democracy and the will of the people, we cannot ignore the results of free and fair elections just because we do not like the politics of the winning party.
• Take the Middle East for example. Israel and the Palestinians. The peace process. The goal is to live side by side in peace. The question of engaging in political talks with Hamas. We believe that it would be better to engage and try to move the group further into a political process than to see it drift further into extremism. The alternative to a coalition government would be civil war and increased Palestinian extremism. Another example here is Sri Lanka.
• Another important point I would like to make is that it is not only politicians who have a role to play in conflict resolution through dialogue. Religious leaders have an essential role to play. Religion is an element in many conflicts, and in many cases it is part of the solution. One should not see religion as the problem. Religious leaders are often trusted and respected by the people, and can therefore play a constructive role in building broad support for peace. People-to-people contact is important. So are religious communities.
• Wergeland himself campaigned actively for more tolerance between religions. In his poem “The Three”, he describes a meeting in the dessert between a Mullah, a Rabbi and a Christian priest: Every religion has a kind and loving heart, he reminds us. That is what unites them.
• Norway supports and encourages dialogue efforts in many areas of conflict, including the Middle East, and we work closely with a wide range of actors, including religious leaders.

To sum up:

• We all know that cultural exchange can counteract stereotyped images.
• It can prevent or reduce prejudice, racism and xenophobia.
• It can foster mutual awareness and understanding.
• To put it plainly: cultural encounters can – and do – build bridges.
• And who can make this happen? – You!
  
• Remember: dialogue takes time, and we must go deeper into what it means. It takes time to build the necessary knowledge, trust and confidence, to adjust our own perceptions and those of the other party. When we look at other nations, other countries, we tend to look for the differences. What we should look for are the similarities, what we have of shared experience, common challenges, what unites us.
• The time perspective is not always compatible with the demands of national and international politics for quick and durable results. But patience and long-term commitment are essential.
• Dialogue is not easy. But at the same time, we should not forget the hope that is in the air on a warm and bright Norwegian summer day, as Wergeland put it:

I in bad spirits, did you say? I, who need only a glimpse of the sun
To break out into loud laughter from a joy I cannot explain?
When I smell a green leaf, dazed I forget poverty, riches, friends and foes.