Armed violence and protection of civilians

Delegates, good friends,

·         I wanted a testimony today to come from civil society, in addition to the ICRC and the Norwegian Red Cross. I therefore invited the Brazilian NGO Igarape to make a film for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs – to expound the multifaceted problems relating to armed violence. Their film Faces of Violence presents us with brutal realities from around the world, but also with messages of change and hope at least where there is the will and courage among states to act, to prevent and reduce armed violence, and protect our citizens and communities. The film was shown in Geneva a couple of weeks ago.

 

*****

 

·         The main focus for my address – and the key word – is humanitarian disarmament.

 

·         The Norwegian Government has for years developed a strong and comprehensive approach to humanitarian disarmament. That is recognising disarmament as a humanitarian and developmental imperative, not simply a security issue.

 

·         Our engagement in the fields of landmines, cluster munitions, small arms and other related areas is motivated by the unacceptable harm to civilians caused by the use of these weapons.

 

·         Why? We must seek disarmament in order to meet human rights obligations, ensure development and respond to humanitarian disasters.

 

·         I firmly believe that it is the situation in affected communities that must guide our multilateral humanitarian disarmament responses.

 

·         First, on armed violence: Armed violence caused by conventional weapons is an important part of this picture. Every day, more than 2 000 people die as a direct or indirect result of armed violence.

 

·         It is a global problem that cuts across all levels of development. The death toll from armed violence borders on epidemic proportions.

 

·         Armed violence:

o   prevents development,

o   causes human rights violations and individual trauma,

o   creates an atmosphere of fear and insecurity,

o   fosters a culture of impunity,

o   undermines trust in key public institutions,

o   and undermines development efforts and the fabric of society.

 

·         Although hard to define, armed violence is easy to recognise, as our friends from Brazil showed in their film. Definitions are important in describing and understanding any issue. However, to actually reduce the level of armed violence we need to move beyond theoretical concepts and towards real insight into the complex factors that cause it.

 

·         A primary objective for us is to improve our understanding of:

o   the multitude of forms armed violence takes,

o   how it impacts on people, across gender and age, communities and states,

o   how we can measure the problem and the efforts to address it,

o   and – not least – how we can move towards real reduction and prevention of armed violence in the coming years.

 

·         By reducing and preventing armed violence, more people will be able to live their lives in safety and security. We will be able to deliver on our promise to protect individuals both in and outside conflict situations.

 

·         We are not starting from scratch here. Armed violence and the links to international humanitarian and human rights law, development and humanitarian efforts have been on the international agenda for years, both within and outside the UN.

 

·         Since the establishment of the Mine Ban Convention in 1997, and the Convention on Cluster Munitions in 2008, we have seen increased international support for the protection of civilians and their communities.

 

·         Antipersonnel mines and cluster munitions were banned because the humanitarian consequences of their use are simply unacceptable. Again, it is the humanitarian effect of a weapon that must determine its legality.

 

·         So, the humanitarian effect of armed violence is equally unacceptable and must trigger the same humanitarian imperative for us to act as responsible states, as responsible leaders.

 

·         The endorsement of the Oslo Commitments on Armed Violence by more than 60 states in Geneva on 12 May proves that targeted efforts to address armed violence are beginning to bear fruit.

 

·         In partnership with the UN, civil society – particularly the ICRC – and other states, we will continue to work towards preventing and reducing armed violence.

 

·         At the same time we must bear in mind that the real struggle is taking place on a day-to-day basis in both rural communities and cities, and is fought by national and local authorities and civil society organisations.

 

·         Second, on international humanitarian law: Looking ahead, let us ask ourselves:

 

·         What must be done over the next five years if we are to achieve our goal of protecting civilians from armed violence?

 

·         There is already a framework for the protection of civilians in armed conflict. However, while both the Mine Ban Convention and the Convention on Cluster Munitions represent a strengthening of international humanitarian law, the legal framework of international humanitarian law has come under pressure. Core obligations are circumvented, unilaterally redefined or simply ignored, and conflict zones are sealed off to avoid public scrutiny.

 

·         For decades, the ICRC has spoken out strongly for the right of victims to receive adequate care and rehabilitation. The ICRC is the custodian of the Geneva Convention and a tireless champion of international humanitarian law.

 

·         Together, we must ensure that protection of civilians under international humanitarian law is respected and strengthened.

 

·         We must also recognise that armed violence occurs outside those situations traditionally defined as war or armed conflict. Here too, we must ensure the protection of individuals and recognise the rights of victims.

 

Some key issues in this respect:

1.

·         This is also our approach to the ongoing negotiations for an Arms Trade Treaty: The international arms trade must be controlled and regulated because of the human suffering and oppression caused by the use of conventional arms, including small arms.

 

·         An Arms Trade Treaty must prevent and reduce violations of international humanitarian and human rights law caused by the use of such weapons. We value the work and support of the ICRC in this process and regard the ICRC as an important partner in the forthcoming negotiations.

 

2.

·         Today (28 May) is the last day of the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. It is too early to tell what the final outcome will be. We have seen intense negotiations to combine the three pillars of non-proliferation, disarmament and peaceful use. The nuclear issue seems to have been brought onto more productive tracks compared with the last decade, but how much closer, really, are we to a world free of nuclear weapons? There would, after all, be hardly any possibility of protecting civilians in a nuclear attack.

 

·         Why should these weapons be excluded from the provisions of international humanitarian law?

 

3.

·         Over time, we have let the nuclear weapons portfolio slide into an exclusive realm of technical experts, and to be treated as a technical issue.

 

·         But the nuclear weapons issue is really about security and values - in other words, about politics. To reach a proper understanding of the matter, I believe it is essential that we start applying the humanitarian and international humanitarian law perspective to the nuclear issue – as we do with other categories of weapons.

 

·         Again, humanitarian organisations have a very important role to play, because they focus on the real-world impact of our security policy doctrines and our political efforts.

 

·         The political importance attributed to nuclear weapons has probably helped to narrow the discussion. We discuss nuclear weapons as objects of security policy – but we have not for a long time considered in depth the practical implications of their actual use. And more specifically we have not considered properly their humanitarian impact.

 

·         We urgently need to put the nuclear file back on the agenda. Even a quite limited nuclear conflagration would cause human suffering, economic disaster and environmental damage on a scale that is very hard to imagine.

 

4.

·         I commend the ICRC for taking the initiative to address these issues in a concrete and serious way by launching a project on how to assist victims in the event of an attack from nuclear, radiological, chemical, biological (NRBC) weapons. Preliminary findings, I understand, show that the international community is not at all prepared for this challenge, and more importantly, that it is unrealistic to assume that it will ever be.

 

5.

·         I have for many years worked to include in our analysis the direct consequences foreign policy might have for human lives and human health.

 

·         From my years in the World Health Organization (as well as my years of promoting comprehensive perspectives on foreign policy), I have seen time and time again how important it is to keep the field perspective in mind when handling issues that are “purely political”.

 

·         Four years ago, I launched, together with six other foreign ministers, the Initiative on Global Health and Foreign Policy to draw attention to this issue. It is highly relevant in this context too. I strongly feel that the time has come to take an approach that links humanitarian and security priorities. Global health and security policy.

 

So, to sum up:

·         We know from past experience that today’s positive momentum on disarmament may be halted and even rolled back. To secure a sustained effort for nuclear disarmament, we must to do two things:

 

·         First, we need to reframe the nuclear issue to include all relevant aspects. As President Obama said in Prague, “to put an end to Cold War thinking, we will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, and urge others to do the same”. And I would like to add: We need to make use of the conceptual insights gained through the humanitarian disarmament processes of recent years.

 

·         Second, we need to take a fresh look at how multilateral negotiations are being conducted, and in particular pay more attention to the need to include all relevant state and non-state actors. The role of civil society and humanitarian organisations is absolutely essential. We need them to ensure results and to ensure that the agreements we reach take all relevant aspects into account, not least the effects of our policies on real life.

 

·         Still, the main responsibility for addressing the threat of the use of weapons and armed violence rests with states. States have responsibility for protecting of their citizens and promoting development.

 

·         Thus, tackling armed violence is ultimately a question of political will and resolve.

 

·         It is not a straightforward political exercise. Armed violence cannot simply be banned, like antipersonnel mines and cluster munitions. There is an urgent need to promote fact-based national, regional and multilateral efforts to strengthen the frameworks to reduce and prevent armed violence and to promote the elimination of nuclear weapons.