4 Dilemmas

In different roles and conflict situations, Norway faces different dilemmas. This requires a good understanding of conflict and actors and solid risk analyses. This chapter takes a closer look at some of the dilemmas faced in peace and conflict diplomacy and discusses how risks can be reduced and managed.

4.1 Do we legitimise controversial actors or behaviour?

Norwegian engagement in a process is based on the parties to the conflict desiring Norway’s involvement. However, this is not a guarantee that the will for peace is present. An important question is whether our involvement can contribute to prolonging a conflict or be used to legitimise warfare? It cannot be ruled out that some actors want a ceasefire in order to be able to strengthen themselves and regroup. Others may enter into negotiations to create an impression of a willingness to reach peace, in order to improve the country’s or organization’s reputation. Offering controversial actors or regimes contact or an international meeting place can give them a sense of international legitimacy.

However, the assessment of successive Norwegian governments in recent decades has been that the upsides can outweigh the disadvantages, if contact and meetings are handled in a good way and at the right level, with clear messages and expectations. In some cases, isolation may be necessary, but this also has a number of problematic aspects. One loses both situational awareness and opportunities to influence when there is no contact, and there is a risk that isolation contributes to miscalculations and strengthens repressive elements internally. In Afghanistan under the Taliban in the period 1996–2001, for example, Al Qaeda was given more leeway, which they used to plan and prepare for the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

Photo: Ministry of Foreign Affairs

It can be easier to uncover conflict parties’ interests or hidden agendas when you have good knowledge of and follow the parties over time. As part of a long-term approach, insight and a certain degree of trust are built. The position of moderate forces internally can also be strengthened through dialogue with Norway and other countries. It can undermine the relationship with a party if one cuts off contact during difficult periods or goes public with criticism. The willingness of parties to negotiate often varies during a process and is often related to the situation on the ground, which a facilitator must take into account. Such assessments are demanding, and are relevant to several processes in which Norway is and has been involved. We assess current issues continuously and conduct extensive networking efforts to have the best possible situational awareness and be able to reduce political risk. Norway is also keen to learn from experience and continuously improve its process work.

4.2 Principles and pragmatism

When Norway deals with conflicts and associated violations of international law, there are various considerations that must be taken into account. There may be some tension between the need for firmness of principle and the need for pragmatism when working with conflicts.

For Norway, it is crucial that there is broad support for international law. It is also important for those affected by a conflict that negotiated solutions safeguard international law, including women’s rights and victims’ rights. That is why we are clear to the parties when we enter into a process, and principled when parties to a conflict do not respect international law, including humanitarian law and human rights. We have placed particular emphasis on not acting with what many call ‘double standards’. It is a banner issue for Norway to defend international law, regardless of who violates it. The most relevant examples are the violations of international law that Russia is responsible for in Ukraine, and those that Israel is responsible for in Palestine. Norway has, on the basis of principle, publicly condemned violations of international rights committed by both countries.1

Norway’s approach to conflict resolution is value-based. At the same time, effective diplomacy requires that trust is built, even with actors in whom there is initially little confidence. In fact, being consistent in terms of values can strengthen contact with parties who do not share our views. They know what Norway stands for, and respect that we are open about it in discussions. At the same time, public condemnation of conflict parties can create distance. A negotiated solution could improve the human rights situation in a conflict area and prevent future violations of international law more effectively than public condemnation. It is therefore important to consider how criticism is presented:

Public criticism. Civil society and local actors can demand a clear Norwegian voice on censurable conditions in individual countries. On occasion, however, Norway’s condemnation of terrorist acts and violations of international law has led to interruptions of facilitation work for shorter or longer periods. Criticism must be weighed against the added value of maintaining contact with and trust in the parties. In some contexts, Norway supports joint acts and statements under the auspices of, for example, the UN and the EU, or we are part of an international division of labour where other countries front the criticism externally. Sometimes it is also necessary to change our approach. In Venezuela, after the presidential election in 2024, Norway chose to clearly distance itself from the conduct of the election, as did international observers and other countries. This represented a change of direction from our commitment as an impartial facilitator.

Confidential dialogue. Norway often raises violations of international law in confidential dialogue with the parties. This can be important to ensure a sustainable process and a viable end result. Many processes are undermined by the parties committing serious abuses at the same time as negotiations are ongoing. The parties can use the negotiating table to raise such issues. Dealing with violations of international law will almost always be crucial for a lasting peace solution.

Legal responsibility. Norway works for transitional justice and victims’ rights, which should be a key part of peace processes. Transitional justice is intended to ensure that those who have committed serious abuses in a conflict are held accountable, that the victims receive redress, and that the crimes do not recur. Norway is a state party to the International Criminal Court (ICC), which imposes a special responsibility where Norway assists as a facilitator of negotiations. Norway also supports the International Court of Justice in The Hague’s (ICJ) follow-up of potential violations of international law through advisory opinions. The two courts are crucial to ensuring respect for international law, including humanitarian law.

At the same time, the prospect of international prosecution may make actors in a conflict reluctant to find a peaceful solution. Finding a balanced solution between justice and a peaceful solution can be a demanding issue in a negotiation situation. How the issue is handled is often crucial to ensuring the legitimacy of a peace agreement, both nationally and internationally.

There is room for balanced trade-offs between a peace solution and the desire for a fair legal settlement. The ICC’s competence is based on the so-called complementarity principle. This means that the states themselves will have the main responsibility for prosecuting crimes. It is only in the event of an unwillingness or inability to carry out such a national prosecution that the court will be able to hear the case. If there is a genuine investigation at the national level of the same persons for similar crimes, the ICC will normally have to respect this. For example, Colombia chose to establish a special national court for peace, which the ICC respected with reference to the principle of complementarity. The fact that the parties established a truth commission and a commission for disappearances is also important to ensure the rights of victims in Colombia.

4.3 How impartial is Norway?

Norway has a tradition of impartial peace diplomacy in conflicts. Norway has rarely had strong national interests related to specific solutions or specific parties in the conflicts in which we have been involved. However, there are exceptions. In Afghanistan and Libya, Norway participated in NATO operations, while we also worked diplomatically for peaceful solutions.

Most of the conflicts Norway has been involved in in recent decades have been civil wars. The landscape is now also characterised by devastating interstate conflicts. In Russia’s war against Ukraine, Norway has clearly chosen sides, and it is out of the question to take on any role as an impartial facilitator. Russia’s attack on Ukraine in violation of international law affects important Norwegian, European, and allied security interests. Military and civilian support for Ukraine is fundamental for the country to be able to defend itself against Russia’s warfare and to ensure a solution that safeguards international law and Ukraine’s and Europe’s security needs. Norway and Ukraine are exchanging experiences in conflict resolution, and Norway is helping to strengthen Ukraine in negotiations. Norway is also taking diplomatic initiatives together with European partners and in close contact with the United States to support a peace process.

A prerequisite for Norwegian involvement in conflict resolution is that the parties to a conflict wish for and request such involvement. Norway’s role is to support the parties in finding agreed solutions. However, being impartial does not mean being value-neutral, and it is challenging if the parties enter into agreements that are contrary to international law. The peace talks in Doha in 2020 between the Afghan government on the one hand and the Taliban on the other never resulted in a peace agreement. If they had succeeded, it is likely that the agreement would have laid the foundation for a political system with stronger restrictions for women, as a result of demands from the Taliban. Could Norway have supported an outcome that ensured the absence of war at the expense of women’s inclusion and rights? The answer is not a given, as the alternative must also be considered. Continued war or an armed takeover (as was the case) also have devastating consequences, including for women and children.

In the current international situation, it is important to show the significance of impartial diplomacy with an emphasis on the ownership of the parties. Norway is often in a good position to assist conflict parties in finding good political solutions because we can step into impartial roles, while we at the same time have credibility when it comes to promoting international law.