Åpningsinnlegg på konferanse om humanitær tilgang

Check against delivery

 

Ladies and gentlemen,
dear friends in the humanitarian community,

Thank you, Lisbeth Pilegaard and Elisabeth Rasmusson for your kind and wise words.

I would like to pay tribute to all of you who have come to Oslo from the many field offices around the world. And I would like to thank the Norwegian Refugee Council for inviting me to this conference. For me, it is also like “coming home”.

Your seminar fits well into the series of conferences that have been held over the last couple of days: the seminar on human rights defenders (Ford Foundation) at Litteraturhuset on Friday, the seminar on MDGs 4&5 (child and maternal health) in the Storting tomorrow and UNESCO’s seminar on education later this morning.

You are all setting important agendas, raising important challenges for the Government, challenging us. This is also an illustration of the Nordic model – of close cooperation and partnerships between government and NGOs.

*****

Barriers to humanitarian access and the shrinking humanitarian space are topical issues that concern us all.

It is the universal humanitarian imperative that drives our action and our resolve. However, the imperative is not universally accepted. The obstacles are many – and let me mention just a few: 

• There are governments that do not want foreigners to witness their internal warfare or abuses of human rights, so they create bureaucratic barriers or limit access by military means;
• There are armed rebels who force NGOs to pay for access or take hostages to finance their activities;
• Then, there is corruption;
• And there are legal impediments; and
• The fear of hidden agendas, for example that NGOs could be concealing terrorists or acting as missionaries.

And the trend is, unfortunately, clear – as it is stark:

In 2009, 102 humanitarian workers were killed.

This is three times more than ten years ago and twice the number in 2005. (Although we can measure this better now, it is a real, sharp increase).

It worries us greatly that NGOs in Afghanistan are threatened regularly, and that staff have been abducted and killed.

In 2009, six Red Cross workers were killed and five were abducted, globally. Not even this hallmark of neutral, independent humanitarian action has been spared.

*****

So, this is the bleak backdrop to today’s conference, and the point is, as Elisabeth Rasmusson said, humanitarian access has become increasingly difficult and increasingly complex in recent years.

This is a challenge that we as politicians and you as humanitarian organisations must address jointly.

When you are no longer able to negotiate access, your job is to tell me and other ministers – and “make the headlines”. My task – together with other foreign ministers – is to identify political opportunities and work within the political framework. I will come back to that.

The term “humanitarian space”, is thought to have first been coined by Rony Brauman of Médécins sans Frontières (although I think it may be an older concept, dating back to Henry Dunant (ICRC) and the Battle of Solferino in the 19th century) with the following definition: “a space of freedom in which we are free to evaluate needs, free to monitor the distribution and use of relief goods and have a dialogue with the people”.

It is key to any humanitarian worker. As it was to me as Secretary General of the Norwegian Red Cross a few years ago.

We see it clearly – when the humanitarian space is restrained, it is infringed. Then we realise what the real requirements for humanitarian access are.

*****

 

Dear friends,

My intervention today is based on three premises:

First, that the humanitarian principles are not western values – but universal and global;

Second, that both states and non-state actors have the responsibility – the duty – to respect and uphold international humanitarian law; and

Third, that access will depend on how an organisation is perceived and the extent to which it is accepted in the field. This touches upon the important difference between civil and military operations, their different roles.

 

(1).

So, the first premise – the universality of the humanitarian principles – may seem simple and obvious to us, but we see that it is not so simple in practice.

Fundamentally, humanitarian assistance should be given regardless of whether the person in need is a friend or foe. The prime focus is on reaching the victims and meeting the most immediate needs.

Assisting a suffering human being, whether a young Al-Shabab fighter or an elderly widow, is universally regarded as a humanitarian deed. The importance attached to assisting other people in hardship is not limited to the Western world and its system of morals. It is also a tenet of Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. We even have a universally adopted UN resolution (46/182) that endorses the humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality and impartiality.

In reality, though, these principles are violated every day. This has been clearly demonstrated in the conflicts in Gaza and Sri Lanka, and is still the case in Darfur, and in other places.

We must not allow the humanitarian principles to be perceived as part of a “Western agenda”. This would create a wedge between “the west” and “the rest”. We can’t have that.

Rather, we need to engage with those who see things differently, promote these principles and strengthen support and ownership of them. Use the humanitarian principles as “door openers”.

Sometimes this will have to be in the form of political pressure, but often “old-fashioned diplomacy” – even silent diplomacy – works better. Norway is prepared to take both approaches – in the United Nations, in regional settings and bilaterally. We must insist on this.

 

(2).

The second premise is that the prime responsibility to protect civilians lies with states themselves.

All states have an obligation to protect and safeguard the rights of their own citizens. International humanitarian law sets out provisions for stateless individuals and groups, refugees and for a state’s obligations during wartime.

Many states acknowledge their responsibility, even when they have been hit by a major natural disaster.

When an earthquake strikes, the country affected may be reluctant to declare a humanitarian disaster. However, this does not matter as long as there is the necessary political will and ability to respond to the situation.

Problems arise where that is not the case.

 

(3).

Thirdly, it is vital that humanitarian organisations are seen as neutral, relevant and reliable.

Here again, of course, image matters. Humanitarian organisations must monitor and evaluate their image in the field, whilst we – politicians - must seek to ensure a clear distinction between tasks: military, developmental and humanitarian.

Moreover, in order to be perceived as impartial, humanitarian actors must establish and maintain dialogue with all relevant parties to a conflict. This is a bold and complicated exercise.

Although the situation is difficult, we must not give up. It is our obligation – at both individual and governmental level – to seek solutions. That is why we are here today.

*****

Finally, let me also share with you how the Norwegian Government is working to address these challenges.

(First)

Norway’s humanitarian engagement is an integral part of our foreign policy. Well, what does that mean? Last year, the Parliament – the Storting – approved a white paper on Norwegian humanitarian policy (a policy we will constantly need to update). Our engagement is at two levels: politically, where foreign policy initiatives are key; and as a strategic and substantial donor.

Our main focus is to ensure rapid, flexible and effective response to changing humanitarian needs.

In addition, we are working to strengthen the overall humanitarian system and especially the mandate and capacity of the UN. Humanitarian reform is an important issue. The system is not perfect and improvements are needed.

Norway is a key partner for the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

We contribute substantially to the various emergency funds that have now been established.

We attach particular importance to strengthening the ability of the various UN peace operations to implement their protection mandates.

We maintain close dialogue with the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, with other countries, and at a more practical level we support the training of African peacekeepers.

The participation and protection of women is a precondition for peace and stability. As we approach the 10th anniversary of Security Council resolution 1325, we are strengthening our efforts to promote women’s roles in international peace and security - and to combat sexual violence in conflict.

(Second)

Humanitarian disarmament (a rather new concept, which we have coined) has emerged as a core element in our efforts to make the world a safer place. These efforts have focused successfully on two types of weapons that have particularly devastating and unacceptable consequences from a humanitarian point of view: landmines and cluster munitions.

We are also addressing the broader challenge of armed violence within and outside armed conflicts. In the Autumn I plan to go to Laos to attend the first meeting of the states parties to the Cluster Munitions Treaty. There we will take stock.

(Third)

Recent lessons learned from Gaza, Sri Lanka, Sudan and the DRC have highlighted the need for regional and global dialogue on the interpretation and application of international humanitarian law. There are different perspectives here.

Last year French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner and I initiated a process to reclaim the protection of civilians under international humanitarian law. The purpose is to agree on a way forward to promote respect for international humanitarian law and enhance the protection of civilians. I know – and I am glad - that the Norwegian Refugee Council is actively involved in this work.

(Fourth)

When it comes to our bilateral efforts, we raise humanitarian issues both in policy dialogues and in connection with concrete crisis situations, for instance in the Middle East, Sudan and the Horn of Africa.

(Fifth)

We work regularly with you – indeed we provide support for a range of civil society organisations, such as the Norwegian Refugee Council, the International Committee of the Red Cross and others - to help them fulfil their humanitarian mandate.

*****

So here is the map for our “humanitarian navigation”. But as we know, the waters are rough and the terrain does not always match the map – so let me, before I close, share with you some dilemmas that are relevant to both governments and NGOs.

The first dilemma: on civilian-military cooperation in integrated missions.

Civilian-military cooperation is vital in many conflict situations. The various actors need to talk together and coordinate their efforts.

When the distinction between their roles and responsibilities becomes blurred, this makes the situation not only difficult but dangerous.

Where do we draw the line for involvement by the military?

Norway takes a firm and well-balanced approach to the distinction between civilian and military efforts. Humanitarian assistance must not be based on military logic or campaign objectives, but only on humanitarian needs. This is not an easy issue.

I have taken part in several discussions on this topic – and they are indeed challenging – most recently in Meymaneh in Faryab province during my visit to the Norwegian troops there. It is easy to understand their frustration and their wish to assist the local population there.

However, it would blur the distinction between humanitarian and military action, and their separate functions, if we allowed them to engage in humanitarian or development projects.

The blurring of this line is one reason why only 40% of Afghanistan is defined as a permissive environment for humanitarian actors, according to the UN.

I know that the NRC has taken a lead on these issues in Afghanistan. This is important and your active involvement is indeed necessary and highly appreciated.

The second dilemma is the conditions for access.

Again, where do we draw the line?

Is it acceptable for some humanitarian assistance to end up in the hands of the warring factions, as in Somalia, as long as some reaches the actual target groups?

And if so, how much are we willing to “lose” in this way?

Another related question is whether it is acceptable to pay taxes to one of the warring parties – or to a government for that matter – in order to reach the people in need?

The third dilemma is risk.

Today we are sitting safely here, but you know all about working in dangerous places. That is part of your mandate. Risk assessments are vital not only to safeguard your operations but to ensure your survival.

And then the difficult question arises: Who are we seeking to protect? Them or us? Should we risk our own staff or should we operate through local partners who – at least in some places – are less exposed and thus may be more willing to face local risks? However, in some places the reverse may be true, and local partners may be even more exposed to risk than us.

The fact that 80% of the humanitarian personnel injured, kidnapped or killed are national staff working for international humanitarian organisations tells us something about burden sharing – and about this complex issue of taking risks.

Another question – or dilemma – is when to leave.

At what point can we say that we have enabled local personnel to handle the challenges in the field, so that international staff can pull out?

When do we define a situation as unacceptable?

Where do we draw the line?

Darfur is a case in point. As OCHA reported recently: “We are under attack every day, we have hijacks every day, we have aid workers attacked every day ... Darfur has become a very dangerous place for aid workers.”

Many donors seem to have reached the conclusion that the conditions for providing good, impartial and responsible humanitarian assistance are no longer present – that the humanitarian principles have been eroded.

We cannot give up – we cannot and will not see it this way. This is indeed the challenge.

I am thoroughly looking forward to hearing about the discussion on these issues later, I wish you a fruitful conference, and I welcome your feedback.

Thank you.