Nansen, Norway and Armenia

Check against delivery

Slide: Nansen, Norway and Armenia.

Dear rector and deans, students and faculty,

It is a pleasure and honour for me to visit Armenia and Yerevan State University – for the first time.

Not only is this the most prestigious Armenian institution of higher learning. It also has ties to Norway, through its cooperation with the University of Bergen (in environmental microbiology, I have been told).

When I look at you, I am reminded of the young Armenian faces in a photograph that I saw this summer: A snapshot taken in Yerevan shortly after the terrorist attacks in Norway on 22 July.

The picture showed local people, many of them young, maybe students like you, gathered in a public square around an improvised collection of flowers, candles and Norwegian flags, assembled as a gesture of sympathy. This and countless similar manifestations of sympathy around the world were deeply appreciated in Norway.

When I saw this photograph, it struck me that this was beyond anything I would have expected to see in a country so far – geographically – from my own country. It suggests that the world is “small”, that there is no place really “far away”, that both the global media and the social media bring you every dramatic event in a second, and also: that there is something more that binds our two countries together.

And I think this “something” may be the man we are celebrating this year, both in Norway and in Armenia: Fridtjof Nansen, who was born 150 years ago. I am very pleased indeed that we have with us today Nansen’s granddaughter, Marit Greve.

We see Nansen’s footprint in many aspects of relations between our countries. One is at the official level, such as my participation in some of the Nansen anniversary events here in Armenia.

But we also see it at the grassroots level, for example in the contact between a school in the Norwegian county of Vestfold and the Arek Nazan Waldorf School here in Yerevan. I am sure it is no coincidence that one of the places in Norway that their students have visited is the Nansen Academy in Lillehammer.

***

Dear friends,

I would like to take this opportunity to speak about Nansen’s significance in his own time – for both Armenia and Norway – and on his relevance today.

His relevance is reflected in two important dimensions of Norwegian foreign policy – the High North (the Arctic region) and what we call our policy of engagement.

In both cases, the lines running from 2011 back to Nansen’s life and work are easy to see.

There are many reasons why Nansen, born in 1861, became a national icon and international celebrity of his time. He was a polar explorer – a scientist – a diplomat – and an international humanitarian – and much more. In all of these capacities his accomplishments were tremendous. And the acclaim he won was well deserved.

Slide: 17 May parade, “Fram” expedition, Arctic Ocean, 1895.

Now, firstly, in Norway, it was probably his achievements as an Arctic explorer that attracted most attention and popular enthusiasm during his lifetime.

This is not surprising, considering that Norway was a young nation then, and did not gain full independence (from Sweden) until 1905. The Norwegian people had a craving for national heroes, idols. What then could be better than spectacular Norwegian expeditions in the Arctic?

Crossing Greenland on skis, leaving a polar vessel behind in the ice, not looking back, and penetrating farther north than any human being had ever been. No wonder Nansen – and his men – were celebrated as heroes.

But I should also mention Nansen’s merits as a scientist and university professor. He was active in several disciplines, ranging from oceanography to history and sociology. He was truly multi-talented.

And with regard to Nansen’s achievements as a diplomat, he played a key role as a diplomatic envoy, and later as an ambassador, at a critical time for Norway. These were the years around 1905 when our union with Sweden came to an end. Nansen’s international standing – his global network to use a modern term - gave him a unique platform for advocating Norway’s cause in Europe, which he did very effectively.

Slide: Nansen at a summer camp for Armenian orphans, Gyumri, 1925.

Second. As Armenians know – maybe better than anyone – Nansen’s greatest accomplishments internationally lay elsewhere. In terms of the number of people who benefited directly – hundreds of thousands in several countries – it is fair to say that his most important work was as an international humanitarian, fundraiser, negotiator and the first High Commissioner for Refugees of the League of Nations.

There is no need for me to tell you about Nansen’s work among displaced Armenians, who were suffering severely after the tragic events of the First World War. His work seems to have made a lasting imprint in the collective memory of the Armenian people.

I sense that Nansen still has a place in Armenian hearts – as we could see in the picture of Armenians gathered in front of flowers, candles and Norwegian flags in the square in Yerevan this summer.

Fridtjof Nansen’s life and work is a very special tie between our two countries. Many Norwegians are not fully aware of this link. The celebration of this year’s Nansen anniversary will help refresh our memory.

But Nansen is much more than just a historical figure. He is, as I said, still relevant. You could say that he still serves as a source of inspiration for Norwegian foreign policy.

Slide: Nansen portrait from Mr Støre’s office in Oslo.

Actually, I am reminded of this in a very direct manner every day. In my office at the Foreign Ministry in Oslo, there is a large portrait of Fridtjof Nansen painted by his close friend Erik Werenskiold in 1913 (so Nansen is 52 years old). As you can see, it is a full-size portrait, showing Nansen with his dog, well dressed, outside his home near Oslo. He seems to be looking at me – at us – and asking: “Have you done enough today?” It makes me think.

As I mentioned, at least two dimensions of Nansen’s life and work seem particularly relevant to Norwegian foreign policy today.

Firstly, his exploration of the High North, and secondly, his work as an international humanitarian, striving to improve the situation of refugees and displaced people.

Both can be related to priorities in Norwegian foreign policy today. Let me explain.

Slide: The High North seen from the north/from “above”.

Now, let us briefly turn to the north.

One of the Norwegian Government’s most important priorities now and in the years ahead will be to explore new opportunities in the High North – and to meet the important challenges of this region.

In Nansen’s time, much of the Arctic was terra incognita – blank areas on the map. This is no longer the case. But today the Arctic is changing in ways that are creating new challenges – the fact that the ice is melting is one – as well as new opportunities.

It is in the north that we are seeing the most rapid developments in our immediate neighbourhood.

This is why the High North is such a high priority for Norway.

Of course, we are not alone here. We see increased general interest in the High North, for example from our neighbours in the north – Russia, Canada, the United States, our Nordic neighbours Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, Finland – but also from actors like the European Union.

This growing attention and interest reflects the increasing geopolitical attention given to this region.

Russia is an important neighbour and partner for Norway. Before 1917, there was lively trade and lots of contact between our countries in the north. Then, in Soviet times, the border was closed. But since 1990, the border has again been open, and normal, neighbourly relations are gradually being re-established.

Now tens of thousands of people cross this border in the High North every year (3 000 in 1990, 110 000 in 2010). Business relations, education and culture projects and many forms of cooperation are prospering.

Not only between Norway and Russia; other countries in the region are also actively engaged. The Arctic Council is fast becoming the centrepiece of political cooperation around the Arctic. Another example is the broad regional cooperation that has been successfully developed since 1993 in what we call the Barents Euro-Arctic Region. Our border with Russia is no longer a sharp line that divides. It is now a line that unites common interests.

Last year – after 40 years of negotiations – we agreed on the maritime boundary with Russia in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean. This creates further opportunities for cooperation between our countries.

Education and research have become key sectors in our cooperation with Russia. Especially in a region of such rapid change, all stand to gain from uniting forces in developing our common knowledge base, and from teachers and students getting to know one other.

Slide: Surface water on the ice sheet, dog sledge

One of the major challenges in the High North today is climate change.

The warming climate – which can be very clearly observed and studied in the High North – offers new opportunities, but also presents new risks to the environment.

One example is the Northern Sea Route.

Slide: Northern Sea Route.

As the polar ice retreats, this alternative – and quicker – route from Europe to Asia, or vice versa, from China to Norway, is becoming commercially interesting, reducing the time by 40%.

But increased shipping traffic in these waters also carries the risk of pollution and accidents. There is a great need for effective measures to safeguard the vulnerable Arctic environment. This too calls for international cooperation. Whereas the effects of climate change may first be seen in the Arctic, they are often most severely felt elsewhere, in Africa for instance.

***

I will now turn to Norway’s policy of engagement. Here too, Nansen is an important source of inspiration.

What do I mean by “policy of engagement”? It is a broad concept. It refers to a way of working in fields such as humanitarian assistance, human rights, development cooperation, global health, environment, peace, disarmament and security.

It reflects the fact that we share the global interest in combating suffering and deprivation. It also reflects the fact that this interest coincides with specific national interests, such as security and stability. And I also believe that we have a moral obligation to assist other people when we – as in Norway’s case – have the instruments and resources to make a difference.   

In practice, we achieve good results when we combine our role in multilateral institutions – like the UN – with a leading role on specific topics or in regional initiatives. Our policy of engagement is perhaps best described through some examples.

Slide: Mine field.

First, over the years, the Norwegian Government has developed a broad approach to what may be called humanitarian disarmament.

Disarmament is crucial to meeting humanitarian needs, promoting development, and increasing security. 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.

Two important conventions have been established: the Mine Ban Convention and the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

These demonstrate that it is possible to negotiate multilateral instruments for disarmament that have an immediate humanitarian effect on the ground and strengthen the protection of civilians. This is possible when there is a common sense of purpose across traditional groupings, when our work builds on the realities on the ground, and when representatives of states recognise and make use of the expertise of humanitarian organisations. Sometimes I feel that this way of working is very much in the spirit of Nansen.

These conventions have been successful because we were able to use new arenas, new methods and new partners – a new way of doing diplomacy. The involvement of humanitarian actors – and by this I mean civil society, the field-based organisations of the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) – has been crucial.

Political support for the two conventions at the highest levels of the UN and the ICRC has been extremely important. The affected states themselves have ensured a continued focus on the realities that must be addressed.

Norway has engaged with states from all regions that share these objectives. Together with the humanitarian organisations we developed a strong common voice.

I hope that Armenia too will sign up to these two important conventions (the Mine Ban Convention and the Convention on Cluster Munitions).

A second international challenge that concerns us all is health. Health is fundamental for all people and for the development of nations.

In 2006, the Foreign Policy and Global Health Initiative was launched by the foreign ministers of Brazil, France, Indonesia, Senegal, South Africa, Thailand and Norway. The aim is to raise the issue of global health on the international agenda. We explore how foreign ministers and foreign policy can address health issues of international importance. We want to show that health is not only threatened by globalisation, but can also benefit from it.

The seven countries in this group represent a great variety in terms of size, geography and regional networks. This makes the network useful in finding diplomatic solutions to global health issues.

One example is the negotiations on the Pandemic Influenza Preparedness and Response, which were successfully concluded last year after several years’ work. This is a very complicated issue, but the seven-country group helped find solutions that could work for all the actors involved – and that finally led to a breakthrough.

Thirdly, human rights: a key component of Norwegian foreign policy for many years and an area of importance in Nansen’s work. The universal human rights are a system of norms and rules designed to ensure protection of the individual. It is essential to ensure human dignity – for you and me, for everyone, everywhere.

Several arenas are important. The UN Human Rights Council is one. Armenia went through a Universal Peer Review (UPR) last year. Norway did the same in 2009.

This is an extremely useful process, where each country in turn undergoes an open and thorough examination. It makes us take a critical view of our own performance, and provides an excellent basis for addressing shortcomings.

Much of the same can be said of two other organisations where Armenia and Norway are both members: the Council of Europe and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).

One of the many reasons that international forums like these are so important is that human rights are not the internal affairs of any state. They are universal, and they are a common concern across state boundaries. This is extremely important, and I am pleased that this was clearly confirmed by our heads of state and government at the OSCE Summit in Astana last December.

I have met a number of individuals with the courage to speak out and fight for human rights – human rights defenders. One of the first things I did when our present government took office was to draw up guidelines for our embassies on supporting human rights defenders on the ground. We want to assist these brave people.

While I am here with you, Norway is taking the lead in negotiating the resolution on human rights defenders in the UN General Assembly. This work is important because it all boils down to this: How much can a single individual achieve and endure?

We have seen it time and again: Without freedom of speech, human rights defenders don’t stand a chance. Consequently, Norway has made freedom of speech a top priority in our human rights policy.

Fourthly – just a few words on international peace operations.

In some cases, the international community is compelled to resort to military means to safeguard international peace and security or to protect civilians. Such action must be based on a mandate from the United Nations.

Norway is not a major military power, but we seek to contribute, together with our close allies. This too is part of our policy of engagement. Two examples are Afghanistan and, recently, Libya.

The fifth area of Norway’s engagement policy is our peace and reconciliation work. Our main goal is to prevent and end suffering. But again, resolving conflicts – even conflicts far away (if there still is such a thing as “far away”) – also serves our own interests, by helping to make the world more secure and stable.

Peace and reconciliation efforts are complex and sensitive. They touch on core issues of state sovereignty and integrity. We are careful to engage only where the parties to a conflict ask us to. Indeed, we have no effective means of compelling parties to engage.

Norway is currently involved in peace and reconciliation efforts in more than 20 countries and regions. In most cases we support other actors, in particular the UN. But in many places we take responsibility for specific aspects of peace efforts where we can make a difference.

One example is our participation, together with the US and the UK, in the troika that supported the peace process in Sudan.

Another example is our leadership over many years of the coordinating committee for international assistance to the Palestinians (AHLC).

In a few cases, we have served as the sole facilitator. This was the case in the process leading to the Oslo Accords (on the Middle East), in Sri Lanka, and is currently the case in the Philippines.

These are broad engagements where we build trust and work closely with the parties to develop solutions and define steps towards peace. In a number of other countries and conflicts, Norway works more informally – sometimes out of the public eye entirely – to bring the parties to the negotiating table.

The fact that we are willing to talk to all actors in a conflict, including those who do not share our views, makes it possible for us to build bridges. For example, we have contact with both Hamas and Fatah, and long-term contacts with religious-based groups in the Middle East and North Africa, whose political importance took on a whole new dimension this spring.

Our main tool for building greater understanding across political systems, beliefs and positions is contact – dialogue – based on confidence. I believe that stable and lasting peace can only be achieved through a political, negotiated solution.

However, there are some who claim that dialogue is a soft option for those who do not have the will, the courage or the ability to meet resistance with power. I disagree. Dialogue does not mean giving up fundamental values and principles. Dialogue helps to clarify what the disagreements are, and how practical solutions may be found. Dialogue will always be at the heart of Norway’s contribution to conflict resolution.

***

Now, some of you may be asking yourselves, am I making a “sales pitch” for Norway to get involved in the efforts to resolve the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh?

The answer is a clear “no”. In the case of this conflict, a good international framework already exists in the form of the OSCE Minsk Group. Norway fully supports this process and calls on both Armenia and Azerbaijan to engage actively and constructively in this framework.

Let us also remind ourselves of an obvious but essential fact. While international third parties can play a helpful role in facilitating a peace process, it is ultimately the parties themselves who must have the courage and political will to take the decisive steps. Painful concessions may be needed in order to reach the necessary compromise.

I sincerely hope that the leaders in Yerevan as well as Baku will demonstrate this courage. Let us not forget: Compromise is not defeat. Compromise can be a greater – and longer lasting - triumph than any military victory.

***

Slide: First slide – Nansen, Norway and Armenia.

This brings us back to where I started – to Fridtjof Nansen. He was a hero, an idol, but he was not a war hero. His triumphs were not due to military power. And he explained why in his Nobel Peace Laureate Lecture in Oslo in December 1922 – which is easy to find on the Internet. Nansen’s triumphs were the result of the extraordinary strength of will of an individual man.

He took on the forces of the Arctic to explore new territory and new opportunities with new scientific instruments and methods. Although much has changed, we are doing the same today, in the High North.

And Nansen took on major international powers to improve the situation for thousands of people affected by war and displacement. Through Norway’s and many other countries’ policy of engagement, we seek to carry on this work today. It is our duty – and our privilege – to help keep Fridtjof Nansen’s legacy alive.

***

I am pleased that we can use the remaining time for discussion and I will be happy to answer your questions. What foreign policy issues are important for Armenian young people? What role should Armenia play in Europe and in the world? What common challenges are we facing? Is Fridtjof Nansen still a relevant figure for you? I would be very interested to hear your comments, and I will try to answer any questions you have for me.

Thank you.