Keynote address at Seminar on Strategic
frameworks for peace-building
Ladies and gentlemen,
"Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue,
a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence and
justice".
This is what Benedict Spinoza said, and we might
add:
Peace is a precondition for development.
It is a great pleasure for me to take part in
this event, focusing on the policy, evaluation and research agendas
of peace-building. Your deliberations at this seminar will be an
important contribution to the debate on how to build lasting peace
around the world.
I know I am speaking to a highly qualified
audience, so please bear with me if what I say sounds
self-evident.
The conclusions and recommendations in the
Utstein countries’ peace-building synthesis report tell me that we
may need to go back to basics in order to deal with the problems of
conceptual confusion and the strategic deficit. There is an urgent
need to deal with these problems and we must take them
seriously.
The Utstein peace-building study has identified
a major strategic deficit in the peace-building efforts of the four
Utstein countries: Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and the UK. The
problem is illustrated by the fact that more than 55 per cent of
the surveyed projects do not show any link with a broader strategy
for the country in which they are implemented. Some projects are
not linked to a broader strategy because there is no such strategy
for them to be linked to. In other cases, the broader strategy does
exist but the link is lacking. Some projects appear to be "strategy
resistant", as if they need no strategic justification because
their value is self-evident. The study also found that planning is
being based on relatively little analysis. And that there are
important conceptual confusions and uncertainties.
Our peace-building efforts will not have the
desired impact if this is a correct description of the current
state of affairs.
If we seriously want to promote peace and development, we have
to improve our performance. Foreign policy and development
co-operation must go hand in hand in order to maximise the impact
of our involvement in promoting lasting and sustainable peace.
First, we need to overcome the conceptual
confusions and uncertainties.
Second, we must develop national strategic frameworks for
peace-building.
Third, we must formulate peace-building intervention
strategies in specific countries and regions when the need
arises.
And we must do these things together.
- We need to overcome conceptual confusions and
uncertainties
The concept of peace-building was introduced by
the UN Secretary-General in his report An Agenda for Peace in 1992.
It was launched as a supplement to preventive diplomacy,
peacemaking and peacekeeping. An Agenda for Peace and its
supplement of 1995 are the main documents that define our conflict
management concepts.
In his address to the Security Council on 5
February 2001, Secretary-General Kofi Annan summed up
peace-building in the following way: "Peace-building is about the
resumption of economic activity, the rejuvenation of institutions,
the restoration of basic services, the reconstruction of clinics
and schools, the revamping of public administration, and the
resolution of differences through dialogue, not violence. The
over-arching challenge is to move societies towards sustainable
peace".
In the Statement by the President of the
Security Council at the end of the most recent debate in the UN on
peace-building, in 2001 – a document I can wholeheartedly recommend
to anyone who is interested in peace-building – peace-building is
clarified as follows:
"The Security Council reaffirms that the quest
for peace requires a comprehensive, concerted and determined
approach that addresses the root causes of conflicts, including
their economic and social dimensions."
The concept of peace-building has been further
elaborated in the OECD/DAC guidelines of 1997 and 2001 on Helping
Prevent Violent Conflict and is widely discussed in the academic
literature.
The overall
objective of peace-building is lasting and sustainable
peace. And the principal tools available to us are the various
forms of development assistance.
Peace-building is a critical
supplement to preventive diplomacy, peace-making and peace-keeping.
These are separate concepts, but they are often closely linked in
the field. Peace-building can
- help prevent violent conflict from breaking out,
- pave the way for and support peace-making processes,
- help rebuild post-conflict societies.
In other words, peace-building is
relevant in emerging, current and post-conflict situations.
Peace-building does not include
negotiation processes, whether or not third parties are involved,
but peace-building can support such negotiation processes.
Peace-building does not encompass peace-keeping operations, but
peace-building can be an important part of the mandate of
peace-keeping forces.
Peace-building is not a defined set
of activities. Peace-building is whatever needs to be done in the
context of emerging, current or post-conflict situations
with the explicit
purpose of promoting lasting and sustainable peace. That
is to say that peace-building is defined by its context and
purpose.
We cannot reasonably claim that
whatever development co-operation activities we carry out in a
conflict-prone society will qualify as peace-building.
Traditionally, development actors have worked
around conflicts rather than
in or
on conflicts. At times our interventions may actually
exacerbate conflict. This is unacceptable. At the very least our
efforts must have no harmful effects. But normally we should have
more ambitious goals than that. Our development co-operation must
help prevent violent conflicts and promote peace as a basis for
further development.
Peace-building differs from
conventional development cooperation in that it is explicitly
guided and motivated by a primary commitment to the prevention of
violent conflict and the promotion of lasting and sustainable
peace.
- We must develop national peace-building strategic
frameworks
I suggest that we extract the most
important elements from the UN and OECD documents and create a
strategic framework which can structure our thinking as well as our
operations. Peace-building interventions must be comprehensive,
coherent and co-ordinated, but we need to simplify and clarify in
order to arrive at a framework which is helpful in practical
situations.
Peace-building is not only
reconstruction of infrastructure. It is not only disarmament,
demobilisation and reintegration of ex-combatants. It is not only
repatriation of refugees and reintegration of internally displaced
persons. Peace-building is all that and more.
The way I see it, peace-building
has three
dimensions:
1. security,
2. political development, and
3. socio-economic development.
I am aware that the Utstein study
synthesis report has a fourth dimension called "reconciliation and
justice". I prefer to include this in "political development".
The elements of each dimension
resemble to a large extent - but not completely - the survey
categories in the Utstein study.
The security dimension
The security dimension encompasses
security for the country and the personal security of its
inhabitants. The four elements to be considered are:
- Disarmament, demobilisation, and reintegration of
ex-combatants into the local community. This may include special
programmes for women and children.
- Humanitarian mine action includes mine clearing, stockpile
destruction, support to victims of landmines, and awareness
programmes.
- Improving
control of small arms and light weapons includes measures
to prevent misuse and illegal trade, providing incentives to hand
in weapons, and dealing with the underlying causes of the demand
for such weapons.
- Security system reform emphasises the importance of
civilian control, transparency and accountability as regards the
military, the police, the justice sector and the penal services.
This is necessary in order to adapt the military and civilian
security forces to peace rather than war.
Security is a precondition for
development. We see this very clearly in many countries, not least
in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The political dimension
Some of the underlying or
triggering causes of violent conflict are illegitimate or weak
institutions, corruption, insufficient respect for human rights, a
democratic deficit, and the perception that the administrative and
political channels are not adequate or that they are
unavailable.
In order to promote peace, we have to address
these underlying or triggering causes of conflict.
- Support for political and administrative authorities and
structures may be necessary in a transitional period in order to
help strengthen the position of regimes that are pro peace and
development. This may also include support for the transformation
of guerrilla movements into political parties. Such support can
help build competence and capacity for national ownership of
peace-building.
- Lasting and sustainable peace depends not only on commitment on
the part of political leaders, but also on social acceptance of
peace in the population. Peace-building requires reconciliation and
the promotion of non-violent conflict resolution at all levels of
society: the military, political, religious and business
leadership, the middle level and the grass roots level.
Reconciliation can be promoted through dialogue and targeted
projects, but it must also be an integral part of all elements of
peace-building. Reconciliation aims at healing the physical,
psychological and psychosocial wounds caused by armed
conflict.
- Equally important is help to build up institutions and
processes that promote good governance, democracy and human rights.
Activities may include support for election processes,
constitutional bodies, legal reform and monitoring of the human
rights situation. Key objectives are accountability, transparency,
equality, and the abolition of corruption and discrimination, which
in turn will increase the government’s credibility, legitimacy and
stability. And in these efforts we must be particularly alert to
the needs, interests and rights of women and children.
- Support to governments must be balanced by support for the
peace-oriented elements of civil society, including the media. NGOs
in the North can help foster a vibrant civil society in the South
which can assist in service delivery, engage in advocacy, help
promote reconciliation, act as a watchdog and help empower the
relevant groups so that they can make effective use of democratic,
non-violent conflict resolution mechanisms.
- The issue of legal action and truth commissions must be
addressed. This is an extremely sensitive issue. An appropriate
balance needs to be found between truth, justice, reconciliation,
punishment and impunity. How likely is a peaceful solution to a
conflict if the negotiating parties face the threat of punishment
for atrocities? On the other hand, how legitimate and stable is a
peaceful solution to a conflict if the perpetrators of atrocities
go free?
The social and economic dimension
Some of the underlying causes or
triggers of conflict are increasing socio-economic differences,
unequal distribution of benefits, marginalisation of vulnerable
groups or geographical regions, and relative deprivation. Others
are competition for limited natural resources, such as water and
arable land, and environmental degradation. In addition, conflicts
may be fuelled by competition for valuable and easily tradable
natural resources, such as diamonds, oil and metals. Efforts to
build peace must address these causes of conflict.
- A pressing challenge in post-conflict situations is the
repatriation and reintegration of refugees and internally
displaced persons. It is important that lasting solutions are
found, and that refugees and internally displaced persons are given
legal, physical and material support so that they can be
reintegrated into society as productive citizens.
- In post-conflict situations
infrastructure and important government functions may have to
be built or rebuilt. The population will recognise and
appreciate the initial peace dividend when roads and buildings are
repaired, when electricity and telecommunications are restored,
when shelters are provided, and when schools and health clinics are
available to all.
- However, efforts to promote lasting and sustainable peace must
encompass not only quick impact projects, but also long-term
development programmes for high-quality and accessible
education and health services for everyone. It is
particularly important to reach out to children and youth - the
leaders of the future.
- Last, but not least, peace-building also includes measures to
stimulate
productive sector development, employment, trade and
investment. This can be achieved by legal and economic
reforms, institutional co-operation and technical co-operation on
resource management. Important initiatives have been taken to make
extractive industries more transparent and accountable, and to
promote corporate social responsibility.
I see this comprehensive framework
with three dimensions, each with four or five elements, as a useful
approach to peace-building. We in Norway are interested in drawing
on the discussions at the seminar when we finalise our own
strategic framework.
Good donor practices in peace-building
There is, of course, no
one-size-fits-all in peace-building. I like the image presented in
the synthesis report: like a painter’s colours, the elements of
peace-building can be mixed in many different ways. The mix will
vary, but in most cases virtually every element has to be included.
The elements complement and strengthen each other. The selection of
elements, the sequencing, the timing and the magnitude will differ,
but all three dimensions and all thirteen elements have to be
considered in order to make a coherent whole. If not, peace is
likely to be short-lived.
The primary responsibility for
peace rests with the conflicting parties. But the international
community has a critical role to play in building competence,
capacity, institutions and processes for non-violent conflict
resolution and sustainable development.
National ownership and
co-ordination of international interventions are important for
delivering in peace-building. Peace-building interventions by the
international community – beyond humanitarian assistance – should
be based on
a common platform. If we do not have this platform, we
risk being left, again and again, with a plethora of uncoordinated
ad hoc projects with less than optimal effect and efficiency. A
platform like this can be built on a poverty reduction strategy
paper and other planning documents of the countries concerned, if
the country has been able to develop such planning documents.
Whatever is the case, it will require donors to submit to the
co-ordination of interventions and harmonisation of procedures.
Responsibility should be divided according to the comparative
advantages of the various multilateral organisations, bilateral
donors, civil society and the private sector.
As a basis for the common platform
we need
a conflict analysis and a needs assessment. We need to
understand the actors, structures, objectives, dynamics, causes and
consequences of the conflict. Unless the real nature of the problem
is understood, the efforts to find a solution are likely to end in
failure. This applies to both bilateral and multilateral
development co-operation. Norway needs more knowledge and better
capacity for conflict analysis as a basis for our involvement in
efforts to promote peace.
The UN Security Council highlighted
the importance of gender perspectives in conflict prevention and
resolution, peacekeeping, and peace-building in resolution 1325 on
women, peace and security.
We need to find better ways of
involving women. They are often the strongest advocates of peaceful
solutions. We know that it is often women and children who suffer
most during conflicts. But women are still scarce around
negotiating tables, in constitution-making bodies, and in political
councils. Efforts to build peace are less likely to succeed if
women do not play their part. Gender perspectives must be addressed
at all stages and at all levels: during conflict analysis, in needs
assessments and in the formulation of the common platform, in
planning, implementation and evaluation, in conflict prevention,
and at every rung of the ladder to peace. Much more needs to be
done here.
Clearly, promoting lasting and
sustainable peace calls for considerable energy, ingenuity and
financial resources.
A UN estimate has shown that
official development assistance has to increase from USD 57 billion
to USD 100 billion a year in order to reach the Millennium
Development Goals by 2015. This is only a small fraction of the
current global military spending every year. I believe we should
reconsider our priorities, both in the North and in the South.
Fortunately, we have seen an increase in official development
assistance recently, and I very much hope this trend will continue.
But it is far from enough.
The World Bank report
Breaking the Conflict Trap says that "war retards
development, and conversely, development retards war". Violent
conflicts have negative spill-over effects locally, nationally,
regionally and globally.
Poor donor performance is
expensive, too. We may try hard, but our efforts may not yield the
desired results. According to the World Bank, too often too much
assistance comes in too fast in post-conflict situations. This is
often followed by a rapid decline in funds and a vacuum before
long-term assistance is initiated. And it may come in the wrong
way, fuelling warring parties rather than promoting stability for
peace.
This vacuum is too often filled
with violence. Assistance is often negligible during the most
critical period. And the critical period is not the first year, it
is the first ten years after conflict, with the greatest challenges
surfacing 3-5 years after initial peace. Insufficient and
inappropriate follow-up in post-conflict situations increases the
likelihood that violence will recur, and this does indeed happen in
approximately 50 per cent of the cases. This is a problem that we
have to take much more seriously.
In Norway most of the funds
earmarked for peace-building come from the allocation for
transitional assistance. This was established in 2002, and
is intended to bridge the gap between humanitarian assistance and
long-term development co-operation. But certainly, country specific
and regional allocations as well as other global allocations are
being used for peace-building, too.
Norway wants to be a competent and
reliable partner: impatient for results, but patient during the
time it takes to reach a sustainable peace. We can act quickly and
flexibly, but we maintain a long-term perspective. But to be
efficient, we must be more strategic - together with the entire
donor community.
- We must formulate peace-building intervention strategies in
specific countries and regions when the need arises
Millions of Africans live in
conditions of extreme poverty and insecurity. Norway and many other
countries have a shared commitment to supporting African leaders in
their efforts to obtain peace.
We should explore how we can expand
our co-operation on conflict prevention and peace-building in
Africa. The new African Union needs help with capacity building.
The Union has ambitious plans to become an influential player in
conflict prevention and resolution, and in good governance and
human rights. Some of the sub-regional organisations like ECOWAS
and SADC also have such plans. They need our support and
co-operation.
After nearly 40 years of violent
conflict in
Angola, peace has been restored. Both parties emphasise
the importance of consolidating the peace and of national
reconciliation. We have recently formulated a strategic framework
for Norway's involvement in Angola during the post-conflict period.
The overriding goal is to contribute to lasting and stable peace
and poverty reduction. To this end, the strategy addresses
security, and political, social and economic development. The
Angola strategy is an example of how to adapt the draft general
strategic framework to a country-specific situation
In the case of
Sudan, the IGAD-led peace talks have gone hand-in-hand
with international preparations for broad-based post-conflict
support. The IGAD Partners Forum, co-chaired by Italy and Norway,
has initiated the Planning for Peace process in order to
demonstrate international support for the peace talks and to
prepare for international assistance once there is a peace
agreement. Key issues have been a comprehensive and coherent
approach, national ownership, and co-ordination between all donors.
The prospects of international assistance and debt rescheduling
have probably motivated the parties. Although humanitarian
assistance to Sudan will continue, no large-scale international
assistance efforts will begin unless the parties agree to make
peace.
At the same time, we know that the
peace agreement could well be the easy part. The real test will
come during the six-year interim period when the agreement will be
implemented. Rebuilding a country torn by conflicts over so many
years is an enormous challenge to both the parties and the
international community. In less than six years there must be
tangible results and the fabric of Sudanese society must be
sufficiently restored for the people of Sudan to see that peace
pays and unity works.
As an observer to the peace talks,
Norway, together with Italy, the USA, the UK, the UN and the
African Union, has offered support and advice to the IGAD-led
efforts headed by Kenya. Talks resumed yesterday and will continue
until 20 December. Hopefully, we will then see that the parties are
ready to honour their commitment to securing an agreement before
the end of the year. In that case, peace-building efforts will be
initiated. To enhance international awareness of the prospects for
an imminent peace deal in Sudan, Norway has invited the group of
IGAD Partners Forum nations, international institutions and others
to meet in Nairobi to review the steps we need to take in the
period leading up to the signing of a peace agreement. Here, a
strategic approach will be critical.
I think it would be useful if a
joint conflict assessment were to be carried out as a basis for a
joint strategic framework for peace-building in Sudan. Norway has
offered to host a donor conference as soon as there is a peace
agreement. We are discussing the timing of this event with the
parties, the IGAD chair and other observer nations.
Our engagement in
Sri Lanka started with humanitarian assistance which
quickly evolved into development co-operation. In 1998 we revised
our guidelines for development co-operation with Sri Lanka to focus
on paving the way for and supporting a negotiated solution to the
conflict. For some time Norway has been assisting the parties in
their efforts to reach a political solution.
It is important that all donors
co-operate with the parties in supporting rehabilitation,
reconstruction and development, especially in the north and east.
The parties have turned to the international community for advice
and assistance in order to show the population a tangible peace
dividend and bolster support for the peace process. This
illustrates how important it is to create close links between peace
processes and peace-building, and between foreign policy and
development co-operation.
A key principle for success in
Afghanistan is Afghan ownership and leadership. The people
of Afghanistan and the international community cannot afford to
fail. We must work together for a lasting and sustainable peace in
that war-torn country. This implies delivering on all three
dimensions: On security, on the political process (Loya Jirga), and
on development. This is the responsibility of the Afghan government
- as well as the international community.
If peace and stability are to be
established and maintained, it is absolutely imperative that the
international community delivers on their promises and makes a
long-term commitment to assisting Afghanistan. Subject to
parliamentary approval, Afghanistan will from 2004 be on our list
of partner countries, which means that Norway has a long-term
commitment to development co-operation with Afghanistan.
We cannot discuss peace-building
without mentioning
Iraq. The UN should play a central role in rebuilding
Iraq. The organisation will lend legitimacy to all aspects of the
reconstruction efforts. The international community must join
forces to ensure that Iraq can take its rightful place among the
community of democratic nations.
- Some items on the peace-building agenda
Eleven years after the term
"peace-building" was launched by the UN Secretary-General
Boutros-Boutros Ghali, we still have much work to do, conceptually,
strategically, politically and operationally.
I hope this seminar will help clear
up any remaining confusions about terminology and pave the way for
national strategic frameworks for peace-building. It could be
useful to consider the need for joint competence building
programmes as regards these issues.
In country or regional
peace-building interventions, I believe we would benefit from joint
conflict analyses and maybe also
joint strategic frameworks. Perhaps Sudan would be a good
place to start? And we could add a
monitoring evaluation?
Policy issues can be further elaborated in the OECD/DAC
Network for Conflict, Peace and Development Co-operation. We could
also raise them in the UN, the World Bank and regional
organisations. I will be happy to promote the peace-building agenda
in the Utstein group and elsewhere.
Evaluations, preferably joint evaluations, can help
increase our knowledge of the best approaches to thematic and
crosscutting issues in peace-building, and of the relative
effectiveness of the various strategic options. At the next meeting
of the OECD/DAC Network on Evaluations, the evaluation agenda of
peace-building will be considered in more depth, drawing on the
studies and conclusions of this seminar.
As for the
research agenda, I encourage you to come up with
recommendations for research on the relationships between peace and
development, rather than on conflict. I have been rather puzzled by
the fact that peace research often seems to focus much more on
conflicts than on peace. I believe we need to understand how and
why peaceful changes take place, how non-violent conflict
resolution mechanisms can prevail, and how peace can be sustained.
There are numerous cases to be analyzed.
We may want to study how and why
serious political crises have been resolved in relatively peaceful
ways in Madagascar. We may want to look into the peaceful
revolutions in Eastern and Central Europe in the recent past. And
we may want to analyse why others have failed. On a more humorous
note: We may even want to analyse why Norway gained its
independence from Sweden so peacefully.
In Norway we are currently studying
a proposal from two research institutions for a long-term research
programme on conflict, peace and development. This seminar could
provide some very useful input in this regard.
(End)
The quest for peace involves us
all. In this quest, we need alliances and partners. No country is
strong enough to bring about peace alone. By working together we
can be stronger, more persuasive and more successful. Thus, there
is no alternative to strengthening multilateralism. The UN is the
only truly global forum where overarching common visions can be
realised. We must continue to strengthen the UN’s ability to
function as a focal point for peace-keeping, peace-building and
conflict prevention.
In the words of Kofi Annan,
"Let us make this endeavour a testament to
future generations that our generation had the political vision and
will to transform our perception of a just international order from
a vision of the absence of war to a vision of sustainable peace and
development for all."
Let us make his words ours. Let us work for what
we believe in. Let us do our utmost to make this vision come
true.
Thank you.
