Next chapter

Previous chapter

8 What do we achieve?

Good results ultimately depend on the parties’ willingness to find solutions and create lasting peace. Changes in a conflict situation are also influenced by other factors, and there are many factors over which parties to a conflict do not have control. Progress and setbacks are measured over a long period of time. Results come step by step and must be constantly fought for. There are many stages and different paths to a peace solution. The yardstick for results must therefore be more nuanced than the opposing poles of war and ‘lasting peace’. Norway can point to a number of processes in which our efforts have contributed to reducing or resolving conflicts, including in cases where a complete peace agreement has not been reached. For example, Norway has contributed to ceasefire agreements and humanitarian corridors that have had an impact on civilians, who are often the hardest hit by armed conflict.

Peace and conflict resolution work can involve small and often not immediately visible steps. In some cases, maintaining dialogue or building trust between conflicting parties can act as a brake on the conflict. The existence of a negotiating table can change the political expectations of the countries and actors involved, and can encourage the parties to show restraint so that the levels of violence decrease.

In this chapter, we discuss what Norway has achieved through active peace and conflict diplomacy in recent decades, in light of the three goals outlined in Chapter 3.1. We also describe useful experiences that will be taken into account in future work. This chapter is also limited to a selection of processes about which it is possible to have sufficient transparency.

Figure 8.1 Together with Cuba, Norway has facilitated the peace talks between the Colombian authorities and the FARC guerrillas. Here from the signing of one of the sub-agreements in Havana, Cuba on September 23, 2015.

8.1 Mitigating and resolving international conflicts

Norway has supported a number of parties to conflict in resolving some of the bloodiest civil wars of recent decades, concluding ceasefires, opening up humanitarian access, implementing confidence-building measures, and avoiding escalation. Among the seven negotiation processes in which Norway has either been a formal facilitator or had a central role as an informal facilitator, six have resulted in various forms of negotiated agreements (Colombia, the Oslo Process, Sri Lanka, Venezuela, Guatemala, and Nepal) and one remains ongoing (the Philippines). Comprehensive peace agreements have been signed in Colombia as well as in Guatemala and Nepal.

In Colombia, the parties reached a final peace agreement in 2016 with Norwegian facilitation, which resulted in the demobilisation of about 13,500 former guerrilla soldiers from the FARC, a quarter of whom were women. The FARC ceased to exist as an armed organization. The agreement is being implemented, despite a number of challenges.

In Nepal, Norway contributed throughout the negotiation process that led to a comprehensive peace agreement in 2006. The agreement has largely been implemented, and Nepal is about to embark on the final part on transitional justice.

Figure 8.2 Norway provided a unique and informal meeting place for the parties during the peace process in Nepal, and supported the UN and monitoring of the peace agreement signed in 2006. The work included disarmament and integration of the Maoist forces, pict... — Figure 8.2 Norway provided a unique and informal meeting place for the parties during the peace process in Nepal, and supported the UN and monitoring of the peace agreement signed in 2006. The work included disarmament and integration of the Maoist forces, pictured here during the commemoration of a ceasefire in 2006.

In Sri Lanka, the parties, with Norwegian leadership, signed a ceasefire agreement with an associated monitoring mechanism, which produced humanitarian results during the years it was active from 2002 to 2008 (particularly in the period 2002–2006). The war was eventually ended militarily, while some of the political issues remained unresolved.

In Guatemala, Norway was an informal facilitator of talks between the authorities and the guerrilla group URNG, which resulted in a letter of intent in Oslo in 1990. Together with other countries, Norway supported the subsequent UN-led negotiation process that resulted in a peace agreement in 1996, three sub-agreements of which were signed in Oslo. An external evaluation from 1998 concluded that Norway played a significant role in ending the civil war in the country.1

In Venezuela, the parties negotiated a letter of intent in 2021, as well as a number of partial agreements, without finding a lasting solution to the political conflict between the government and the opposition.

In the Philippines, Norway, together with NOREF, has facilitated the government’s negotiations with the communist movement and played a key role in the demobilization in Mindanao. The Philippine government and the rebel movement Moro Islamic Liberation Front entered into a peace agreement that resulted in the creation of a self-governing area in Muslim Mindanao. The decommissioning of arms and the reintegration of former soldiers back into civilian life have been crucial to ensuring a lasting peace. Norway has a leading role in the disarmament mechanism. By 2025, 26,000 of 40,000 former combatants will have been demobilised.

Figure 8.3 Norway has participated in various peace negotiations in the Philippines since 2001. This picture is from the disarmament process of former fighters from the Moro Islamic Liberation Front.

In Ethiopia, Norway contributed to the AU’s mediation efforts in the Tigray conflict, which resulted in a ceasefire agreement in 2022. The conflict had led to extensive humanitarian suffering, gross human rights violations, and millions of people fleeing. It is estimated that there have been hundreds of thousands of war-related deaths. Through NORCAP, Norway contributed directly to the AU’s mediation efforts to support African ownership. It took two years to get the warring parties to the negotiating table, but when it first happened, a ceasefire agreement was negotiated in Pretoria within two weeks. Norway also supported the establishment of a monitoring mechanism at an early stage, which contributed to stabilisation and an incipient normalisation of everyday life for the inhabitants of Tigray. At the same time, this is a story about intensive negotiations and unresolved issues that were set aside along the way. The peace and the situation in Tigray remain fragile, and key questions remain.

In the Sahel region, local peace agreements negotiated with Norwegian support have reduced conflict, increased the mobility of the civilian population, and contributed to the reopening of schools. This is a result of Norway’s cooperation with NOREF and non-governmental organisations such as Inter Mediate, Promediation and HD, as well as local organisations and institutions that can exert influence on decision-makers. The inclusion of women has been challenging given traditional gender roles, but partners have managed to involve women through targeted dialogues. In Mali, Norway actively contributed to ensuring women’s participation in the monitoring committee for the peace agreement between the authorities and opposition groups (the Algiers Agreement).2

The Oslo Accords between Israel and the PLO were an interim agreement that was planned to open up for new rounds of negotiations on the most difficult political issues. These have not yet been resolved, but the agreement was an important attempt to indicate a diplomatic path that for decades had broad support among our close allies and the majority of UN member states. The agreement also laid the foundation for an international effort to facilitate a sustainable Palestinian state by establishing basic institutions. The work for a two-state solution has now become far more difficult, but is still a high priority for Norway. We also contribute to solving problems that arise in the absence of a peace process and two-state solution.

A recent example was Israel’s decision to pay tax and customs revenues that it collects on behalf of the Palestinian Authority (PA), and which it long withheld after the terrorist attack on October 7, 2023. The situation had arisen due to a disagreement between the countries over transfers to Gaza, and the retention contributed to a critical economic situation for the PA. In dialogue with the parties, Norway, with the support of the United States, negotiated a temporary arrangement under which Norway was the intermediate station for part of the tax and customs revenues.3 This laid the foundation for the PA to receive almost 3 billion Norwegian krone from Israel, which meant that teachers, nurses, police officers and cleaners could once again receive salaries, and that basic services were maintained. Norway was able to play such a role because of good contacts and a high level of trust among key high-level figures in the countries involved. Since 7 October 2023, Norway has also used contacts with Israel and Hamas to work for access to Gaza for aid organisations.

In Syria, Norway’s long-term engagement and contact with all parties has been important in promoting humanitarian access and protection of civilians. This included the Assad authorities in Damascus and confidential contact with HTS when it controlled Idlib province. HTS was listed as a terrorist organization by the UN and subject to UN sanctions. Due to the sensitivities in Western countries regarding contact with a terrorist organization, Norway and HD stepped in and contributed to communicating messages. Among other things, the dialogue helped to ease international humanitarian access to Idlib somewhat. It also helped hinder the introduction of conservative legislation that HTS was considering introducing in the province. Overall, there is reason to claim that the dialogue helped cement HTS’s strategic choice away from jihadist ideology and towards seeking to become a responsible political actor.

When HTS took over power in Damascus in December 2024, Norway’s multi-year contact with the movement enabled us to quickly be in a position to talk to key people in the power apparatus and be able to discuss ideas for the way forward towards the reconstruction of a new and free Syria. Since then, the Norwegian dialogue with HTS has focused on including all Syrian society groups in the political process and finding agreed political solutions. The national dialogue conference in 2025 had this as its purpose, and both the conference and the follow-up have been supported by Norway via partner organisations. Norway has also supported local dialogues and preparatory work for transitional justice. It is too early to estimate the extent to which Syria will succeed in establishing an inclusive government that has broad acceptance among the population, and preventing the escalation of violence. But the opportunities are greater if the international community engages the new authorities in the crucial transition process.

Back channels and discreet contact with parties have resulted in a number of confidence-building measures in various conflicts. In Afghanistan, Norwegian contact diplomacy supported international efforts to implement measures such as the release of hostages and improved security in areas where the UN was working to combat polio. Between Serbia and Kosovo, Norway’s back channel contributed to the EU-led dialogue on normalisation and the Brussels Agreement in 2013. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Norway engaged in dialogue with various parties to conflicts on temporary ceasefires to prevent the spread of the virus and ensure humanitarian access, including in southern Thailand. In the Philippines, a long-term commitment has meant that Norway is listened to when we raise violations of humanitarian law with one or the other of the parties. Norway has helped secure ceasefires during holidays and the COVID-19 pandemic in the Philippines, and gained access to political prisoners. In Colombia, Norway has contributed to the release of a number of kidnapped civilians, prisoners of war, and hostages. Temporary ceasefires have been signed as part of the Colombian negotiation processes and have brought humanitarian relief to the local population. Negotiations with criminal networks in urban conflicts have led to a decline in the number of killings, kidnappings and recruitment of children in Colombian cities such as Medellin and Buenaventura.

In East Timor, Norway contributed to a national dialogue on reconciliation in the period 2006–2010. It was established at the request of the authorities and on the basis of Norwegian civil society support for the liberation of East Timor in 1999. Norway’s involvement helped to cool the situation and reduce tension between social actors, at a time characterised by political turbulence and social unrest. Dialogue initiatives and measures for inclusion and a fair legal settlement were carried out.4

Negotiations can also result in a solution without reaching an agreement. An example is the previously mentioned confidential process between the Spanish government and the Basque resistance movement from 2005, which was facilitated by Norway and HD. The dialogue was regularly interrupted by crises as a result of terrorist attacks and domestic political disagreement, but the very existence of a process supported an expectation of a cessation of violence and strengthened the possibility of a political solution. ETA has emphasised the importance of the dialogue for its 2011 decision to lay down its arms. Spain emphasises, however, that to the extent that the talks worked (if at all), it was because they were followed by effective police operations and the imprisonment of a large number of people associated with ETA. At the same time, the process created an internal dynamic in the Basque Country that reduced support for ETA’s terrorist activities in the Basque resistance movement.

8.2 Promoting measures and solutions based on international law and the ownership of the parties

Norway’s principle is to promote political solutions that are in line with international law, including humanitarian law and human rights. This is communicated to parties in a conflict, often early in the process, and frequently both in public and behind closed doors.

The holistic perspective and the concrete experience from conflict work in the field contribute to Norway speaking with weight in the UN and other multilateral forums. An important concern for Norway has been to build consensus in the UN and among state and private actors that the approach to conflict resolution must be inclusive and safeguard key humanitarian and human rights rules.

Norway’s efforts in the field of peace and conflict resolution were an important contributing factor to Norway winning a seat on the UN Security Council in 2020. Our strongest cards in the election campaign were significant and consistent support for the UN, in combination with extensive experience as a facilitator in international peace processes.5 Women, peace and security, and the rights of children and young people were particularly emphasised during Norway’s membership of the Security Council in 2021–2022, along with peace diplomacy. For example, in 2021, Norway and Niger negotiated a unanimous adoption of Security Council Resolution 2601, which was the first resolution dedicated to the protection of education in conflict situations.6

Among the processes that Norway has facilitated, it is in the Colombian process with the FARC that the clearest results have been achieved in terms of universal rights, in the form of separate agreement chapters on transitional justice, women, peace and security, indigenous peoples’ rights, the protection of human rights defenders and the strengthening of economic, social and political rights. The peace agreement in Nepal also paved the way for better fulfilment of universal rights. However, the inclusion of such provisions in agreements does not guarantee that the rights are respected.

In January 2016, the Syria Civil Society Room (CSSR) was established by the Office of the UN Special Envoy for Syria to promote an inclusive political process in Syria. NOREF and Swisspeace have been implementing partners for the UN in the work. The CSSR provides Syrian civil society actors with the opportunity to meet, exchange ideas, and contribute perspectives to the UN and other relevant actors. The CSSR has helped strengthen the role of civil society in the peace process and make the Syrian political dialogue more inclusive and representative. Norway has also supported the Women’s Advisory Board that includes women from various backgrounds in Syria. The Board has advised the UN Special Envoy’s Office since 2016, with extensive concrete input on the political process.

Following the Taliban’s takeover of power in Afghanistan, Norway has prioritised bringing the de facto authorities together with representatives of Afghan civil society and the international community. The Taliban’s top leadership has introduced an increasingly repressive policy towards women and girls. It is worth noting that several of the Taliban leaders who have participated in the talks with Norway, other countries, and Afghan women leaders over time have publicly challenged the current policy in Afghanistan. This cannot be attributed to Norway’s efforts alone, but is interesting in the assessment of the value of contact diplomacy in the longer term in this conflict. On a number of occasions in recent decades, Norway has ensured the inclusion of Afghan women in discussions about a peaceful solution in Afghanistan. Norway’s work has also helped to keep efforts to promote the position of women high on the international agenda.

In a number of countries, Norway has supported the countries’ national action plans for women, peace and security, including in the Philippines, which has built up a leading role in this field in Asia. Both the government and the communists are now providing solid representation of women in their respective negotiating delegations.

Figure 8.4 Broad political commitment to peace and conflict resolution.

Figure 8.5 Broad political commitment to peace and conflict resolution.

8.3 Creating political capital and insight

Through its efforts to promote peace and conflict resolution, Norway builds contact with parties to conflict and gains an understanding of how they think and act. When we engage in processes that are important to allies and other countries, this contributes to close relations and political capital for Norway. The contact with various actors involved in conflicts around the world also gives us a deeper understanding of regional and global developments and the causes of conflict. This is valuable knowledge when we are to contribute to peace solutions, but is also of direct relevance to our national security analyses.

The dialogue with the United States has been particularly close in relation to most of Norway’s key peace engagements. Norway’s efforts in Latin America have led to close dialogue with the United States on issues such as security, the fight against drugs, and migration. Moreover, the United States has often valued our contact with groups with whom they themselves could not easily speak. Norway’s long-term contact with the Taliban, Hamas, the Houthi militia, and the Iranian authorities has mainly been part of an informal division of labour. In its contact with these groups, Norway has also consulted closely with other related European countries. For decades, the Troika cooperation between Norway, the United States, and the United Kingdom on Sudan and South Sudan has contributed to close relations, as have efforts to promote peace and contact diplomacy in Afghanistan.

Our ties to the EU will be even more important in the future in a turbulent time with major security challenges. The Partnership Agreement with the EU on Security and Defence Cooperation from May 20247 sets the framework for enhanced cooperation in the field of defence and security. The EU wished to institutionalise cooperation on conflict diplomacy with Norway, and this is now enshrined in the agreement. Joint support for Ukraine’s defence is also discussed. Norway plays a role in the expanded European diplomacy to achieve a solution to the war that safeguards Ukraine’s territorial integrity and independence, European security, and international law.

In terms of foreign policy, the room to manoeuvre in the field of peace and conflict resolution has often been greater for Norway than for other European actors, as we have not been bound by the EU’s common foreign and security policy. Norway has cooperated closely with the EU in conflicts from Afghanistan to Venezuela.

Peace and conflict diplomacy contributes to strengthening Norway’s bilateral relations with individual countries and organisations, including outside our closest circle of allies. Strengthening these contacts is in Norway’s interests, in a more unstable world where political and economic power relations are changing. There are many examples of how Norwegian engagements have given us valuable access around the world:

Norway’s role as a peace actor, including in Latin America, was one of the reasons why Brazil invited Norway to join the G20 Guest of Honour in 2024. Guest of Honour membership has provided us with an arena for contact and interaction with the world’s largest economies.
At the same time as China has increased its own ambitions with regard to contributing to peace processes, it has shown increased interest in Norwegian experiences from conflict areas both close to China (such as Myanmar and Afghanistan) and in the rest of the world (such as in the Middle East).
Our work in Southeast Asia also provides close links to ASEAN as Asia emerges as an even more important region for Europe. In particular, the long-term efforts in the Philippines, Myanmar, Nepal and Sri Lanka have contributed to Norway’s credibility as a partner in Asia. This has laid the foundation for significant cooperation in several fields. Through this work, Norway has also gained good insight into China and India as actors in the region.
In Afghanistan, contact with India, Iran, China, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, and Turkey, as well as the United States, and European countries, was crucial to both understanding the framework within which Norway was working, and to creating confidence in the possibilities for a political solution. A number of countries have shown interest in Norwegian perspectives on Afghanistan.
In the Middle East, Norway is in contact with countries such as Saudi Arabia, Oman, Turkey, Qatar, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates on conflict resolution. One example is the collaboration with Saudi Arabia on the leadership of the global alliance for the implementation of the two-state solution. Norway’s support for regional de-escalation, conflict resolution, and cooperation is appreciated. Norway’s extensive engagement in the Middle East has contributed to close contact with – and good insight into – virtually all countries in the region and the dynamics between them.
Norway, Oman, and Switzerland have trilateral cooperation on conflict resolution.
In Latin America, the engagements have contributed to close contact with countries in the region, including Cuba, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, and Ecuador, as well as actors outside the region such as the EU, Turkey, and Russia.
Norway has cooperated closely with Turkey on support for a political process between Somalia and Somaliland and on regional cooperation on Afghanistan.
Norway’s efforts to resolve conflicts in the Horn of Africa have provided important links to the AU and the regional organisation IGAD.

These ties to a broad group of actors also provide a basis for working with coalitions of countries that wish to support international law, norm-based world trade, and multilateral solutions to conflicts and crises.

Footnotes

Sørbø, G. M. et. al. (1998). Norwegian Assistance to Countries in Conflict. The lessons of experience from Guatemala, Mali, Mozambique, Sudan, Rwanda and Burundi (Evaluation Report 11.98). CMI/PRIO on behalf of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Lorentzen, J. (2025). Explaining changes in women’s representation in peace processes: The adoption of a gender quota in the Agreement Monitoring Committee in Mali. International Political Science Review, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/01925121251323483

The Prime Minister’s Office and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2024, February 18). Norway assists in scheme for crucial transfers from Israel to Palestine. Regjeringen.no. https://www.regjeringen.no/no/aktuelt/norge-bidrar-til-avgjorende-ordning-for-pengeoverforinger-fra-israel-til-palestina/id3025994/ and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2025, January 12). Norway is transferring Palestinian clearance revenues. Regjeringen.no. https://www.regjeringen.no/no/aktuelt/palestinske-skattepenger-overfores/id3083079/

Pedersen, N. (2009). Pedersen, N. (2009). Den gode viljen. Ein dokumentar om norsk fredspolitikk. Spartacus forlag. (‘The Good Will. A Book on Norwegian Peace Policy’. In Norwegian only)

Nissen, A. (2023). Sikkerhetspolitikkens primat – norsk freds- og forsoningspolitikk under Ine Eriksen Søreide. (‘The Primacy of Security Policy: Norwegian Peace and Reconciliation Policy During Ine Eriksen Søreide’s Term’. In Norwegian only) International Politics, 81(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.23865/intpol.v81.4102

United Nations Security Council. (2021, October 29). Resolution 2601. https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_res_2601.pdf

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Defence. (2024, May 28). Norway and the EU sign Security and Defence Partnership. Regjeringen.no. https://www.regjeringen.no/no/aktuelt/norge-og-eu-inngar-avtale-om-forsvars-og-sikkerhetspolitisk-samarbeid/id3040958/