Panel debate on: “Reasserting diplomacy”

The Minister’s address was based on the following talking points.
Must be checked against delivery. 

• Oslo Forum is intended to give senior mediators an opportunity to reflect on relevant issues, share problems, identify solutions and genuinely learn from each other.
• Given the setbacks for diplomatic peace efforts that we have experienced the past year, I believe it is critical that we ensure that mediators and others involved are as well equipped as possible to deliver effective and long-lasting results.  
• Military success: reduced space for dialogue? (Discuss: Gaza, Colombia, Nigeria/Niger Delta, Iraq and/or Sri Lanka). (As it was put in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal this winter: “For all those who argue that there’s no military solution for terrorism, we have two words: Sri Lanka”).
• Successful use of force has put pressure on mediators. If mediation efforts increase but conflicts remain unresolved, the proponents of dialogue will increasingly face criticism.
• The world demands results of our efforts. We are asked to prove that dialogue is superior to military force. We need to follow and if possible contribute to sharpen the global debate on these issues.
• There are those, commentators and policymakers alike, who would argue that the international community should leave the parties in local conflicts to fight until one party wins decisively. They argue that civil wars end more durably when there is a decisive military victory. Fighting must consequently continue until a resolution is reached. International peace efforts will only prolong the suffering for civilians, it is argued.
• A new American administration is taking active steps away from the concept of “war on terror” and putting dialogue and diplomacy more in the front seat. 

***** 

• Let me make it clear: I believe that there are some cases where military force could and should be employed.
• A naive advocacy of dialogue as the one and only tool in the toolbox will be counterproductive for mediators. Successful diplomacy needs to be backed up by strong military and intelligence services.
• Every country has the sovereign right to use military force within its own borders to ensure its integrity and security. Such action is, however, subject to universal humanitarian and human rights norms. The UN Charter does also clearly recognise the need for military tools in certain circumstances. 
•  Dialogue and negotiations are our preferred way of handling conflicts, but it doesn’t always work. Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Martti Ahtisaari has said that every conflict can be resolved. That is hopefully true, but I believe that there are cases where dialogue alone will be insufficient.
• A number of intractable conflicts have proved resistant to mediation efforts (example, discuss: Middle East). There are probably cases where dialogue will be futile; where political peace efforts will fail.
• Example: In Northern Uganda the parties succeeded in negotiating a peace agreement in April 2008, but when LRA leader Joseph Kony failed to sign, the government of Uganda started a military campaign against the organisation’s camps in DR Congo, in collaboration with the Congolese and Southern Sudanese authorities.
• Example: In Somalia, political dialogue and reconciliation are being pursued in parallel with military action against the groups that have so far refused the invitation to take part in the reconciliation process, and instead are attempting a violent overthrow of the internationally recognised, transitional government. 

***** 

• One of the most important lessons learned from our engagement in peace processes is that in the end of the day you have to find a political, negotiated solution to conflicts.
• Only by tackling the root causes for conflict will we achieve sustainable peace. 
• Example/discuss further: Ethiopia/Eritrea. Example/discuss further: Sri Lanka. 
• Example/discuss further: Afghanistan. Combined efforts. Norway has troops on the ground in Afghanistan. Does this mean that we do only believe in the use of force in the Afghan case? Not at all. The troops are a necessary ingredient to create a minimum of stability and space for the democratically elected government. However, the troops alone will not bring a lasting political solution. For that reason I supported president Karzai’s calls for reconciliation from the outset, when the idea was still controversial. 
• The challenge now is how do we make reconciliation work and with what tools? Who do we talk to? Should the government negotiate directly with the Taliban leadership? Who should facilitate the talking? Engagement requires trust. And: What do we talk about? We need to test the political will. A share of power. The new rules of the democratic game. Respect the electoral process and relate to the government in Kabul. Can we humanise the conflict through dialogue? Limit the use of suicide bombings or ensure the respect for humanitarian actors? All these issues are difficult, but I believe it would be irresponsible not to test them out. A fundamental prerequisite for any dialogue is Afghan ownership and leadership. Any process that sidelines the Kabul government risks undermining Afghan fragile democracy. 

***** 

• On dialogue: Dialogue does not mean giving up fundamental values and principles. Dialogue is not acceptance – but a deliberate attempt to promote your own interests and values. The alternative is all too often a monologue. Engaging in dialogue, on the other hand, signifies confidence in your own values and principles. And engaging in dialogue does not imply an obligation to agree. The option of walking out is always there.
• Dialogue means seizing the middle ground. It is easy to seize the extremes; those flanks are rapidly captured. This soon leads to a “with us or against us” stance. Most people, however, shy away from the extremes. They search for solutions in the middle ground. Effective dialogue challenges the dominance of the extremes.
• We have to support and create arenas for dialogue, both locally in our communities and internationally. We have to deal with issues around a negotiation table, where differences can be explained and discussed. Dialogue through microphones is seldom successful.
• It is important to include the excluded, internationally – for example non-state actors – and at home. 

*****

• Concluding remarks: Example: Africa. I started this introduction by painting a rather grim picture of the results of our peace efforts the past year. Let me conclude on a more positive note by referring to the Human Security Report Project’s findings that there has been a marked decline in the number and deadliness of armed conflicts in sub-Saharan Africa in the new millennium.
• The Human Security Report Project suggests that the drivers of this decline are found in the post-Cold War surge of policy initiatives designed to stop wars or prevent them from starting again. The report points out that international engagement in mediation efforts are important. With not only one, but actually two, African leaders on this panel, I will refrain from commenting further on these numbers, and rather just give the floor to Foreign Minister King-Akerele.