Minister of International Development and Human Rights, Ms. Hilde F. Johnson

Building under Fire

Oslo, 14 June 1999

Ladies and gentlemen,

Introduction

Let me start by sharing with you an experience I had a year and a half ago. In February last year, I visited a small border town called Maquela do Zombo in northern Angola, where I was introduced to a project run by the Norwegian Refugee Council and their local partners. It was called "Teachers' Emergency Project", and combined an intensive training programme for teachers with the construction of new school buildings. The area had been badly damaged by the fighting between government forces and the rebel movement UNITA, so there had been no schools there for a long time. I was deeply touched to see the joy of both teachers and pupils in their new school (a "school in a box"). Through song and dance they told us the story of the project, a story of hope and promise in a war-torn society.

But after I left the war returned to Maquela do Zombo. The children were again left without teachers. The schools were again empty. In this situation one asks oneself: "Was it all in vain, then?" And for me the answer is, "No, definitely not." Because knowledge, education, lessons learned are the only kind of infrastructure that can never be destroyed by war. It is retained in the minds of the people, of every individual, and forms part of the basis on which peace and development will eventually be built. The basis that is actually our human capital.

Dear friends,

It is an honour and a pleasure for me to have been given the opportunity to address this seminar hosted by an organisation which is very close to my heart. I appreciate the emphasis that the Life & Peace Institute is putting on community-based peacebuilding and the mobilisation of civil society in the peace process. These are vital for a sound and viable development process.

The title of this seminar - "Building under Fire" - captures in a way the essence of the humanitarian challenge. It helps us recall how often efforts to build peace and a better life for people in areas of conflict are frustrated by further fighting and unrest. But this must not make us falter in our efforts to build a strong and sustainable peace and a society that gives its inhabitants a chance to live a decent life. The lesson to be drawn from Maquela do Zombo is a positive one.

Today, the return of refugees to Kosovo is at the forefront of everyone’s mind. This will be an enormous challenge for post-conflict recovery. I feel it is important, after one catastrophe has dominated the media this year, to focus more on other areas in the world where conflicts continue to affect the lives of tens of millions of people year after year.

I am going to talk about four subjects in my address here today:

• Firstly, the characteristics of today’s conflicts,
• Secondly, the dilemmas of humanitarian assistance,
• Thirdly, the building blocks for peace, and then,
• Finally, I will talk about closing the gaps in the international community’s response.

1. Firstly, the characteristics of today’s conflicts

Most of the world’s poorest countries are currently affected by conflicts or are trying to recover from recent conflicts.

Violent conflicts now occur much more often within than between countries, i.e. they are internal. Many of today’s conflicts are characterised by their long-term and particularly violent nature.

Violence affects the civilian population above all, and women and children rank high on the lists of those killed and injured. Civilians are the target. The long-term effect is often an acceptance or institutionalisation of violence, and a brutalisation of the community at large.

At the same time we see that ethnic conflicts are becoming regionalised. The settlement patterns of different ethnic groups do not necessarily follow national borders. This allows those with political power to use "ethnic" and cultural sentiments to condone injustice and to unleash violence against groups other than their own. We have seen this in the former Yugoslavia, and we see it in central Africa, to mention but two obvious examples.

Many of today’s wars are complex, composite conflicts involving ideological, ethnic and economic issues, where uncontrolled rebel groups and elements of aggression from outside are involved. Indeed, war can become a "lifestyle". Experience shows that there is little room for compromise and negotiated settlements.

And in around half of the cases where it has been possible to negotiate a settlement, the conflict has flared up again within a few years. To put it bluntly, the conflicts in Angola and Sierra Leone have little to do with politics and very much to do with diamonds, and have been conducted with unrivalled brutality.

2. Secondly, the dilemmas of humanitarian assistance

Today, most humanitarian assistance is therefore provided in a difficult political terrain, often in areas where armed conflicts are still in progress.

And the issue of emergency relief to areas of conflict raises many questions: Are we prolonging the war? Famine relief fills many stomachs. Is it also feeding the soldiers? Or the oppressors? Are homeless refugees receiving our blankets, or are these blankets giving army officers a good night's sleep?

In other words, is our humanitarian relief giving recipients the opportunity to keep conflicts going? We must do what we can to avoid such unintentional effects. However, we cannot operate in difficult conflict situations, and reach people in dire need of help, without taking risks. We have to take those risks. It is our humanitarian imperative, our moral duty. We have to deal with and discuss the many questions and dilemmas of humanitarian assistance.

There is also a growing awareness that humanitarian assistance can have other unintended consequences. It can create new social divisions. Famine relief can undermine people's ability to cope. Long-term emergency relief can make people dependent on outside aid. And such relief cannot resolve a crisis by itself unless it is followed up by political initiatives. Emergency relief in itself seldom puts an end to violence.

We must accept that the scope of humanitarian assistance is limited. This is especially clear when the cause of the crisis is politically determined, for example in the case of the overexploitation of natural resources or in consequence of armed violence. Moreover, emergency relief may make matters worse unless we also deal with the structural problems and the root causes of the crisis.

Humanitarian assistance can never be a substitute for political action. Such assistance must therefore always be undertaken in conjunction with other efforts to address the causes of conflicts and to resolve them. In other words, a holistic approach is needed.

Let me give you some examples of the dilemmas we are facing today in two countries – Afghanistan and Rwanda:

Afghanistan

The international community is testing the possibilities of resuming some aid to Afghanistan within the United Nations strategic framework. This is a conceptually promising approach spanning the entire range of political, human rights, humanitarian and development concerns within a single framework. I think the actions of the Taliban regime last year are a prime example of the dilemmas we face in providing humanitarian aid – dilemmas and questions such as:

• Is there a limit to what we can accept in terms of maltreatment and gross violations of human rights in order to continue our relief work?
• Should we accept the gravest violations of the rights of women and girls, while at the same time cooperating with the authorities on the provision of humanitarian aid?
• Is it right to pull out and leave those in need behind?
• Is 18 years of humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan enough?
• Can humanitarian aid or the denial of such aid to Afghanistan or, say, North Korea, bring about any change in government policy? Or is humanitarian aid benefiting the government?
• Can humanitarian aid or the denial of aid inadvertently strengthen national authorities’ onslaught on "undesirable" ethnic groups?

Rwanda

These issues have also been extremely pressing in central Africa. Rwanda is an example of another difficult challenge faced by humanitarian organisations, that of distinguishing between the refugees who have a legitimate claim to international protection and the people who do not. The extremist groups responsible for the genocide took almost 3 million people with them into neighbouring countries as hostages. Murderers and groups of militia camouflaged themselves among the scores of refugees, and the UNHCR had no mandate or means to deny them refugee status.

There were serious defects in the international efforts in Rwanda. I think there are a number of lessons to be drawn, starting with the need for greater awareness of the conflict potential in societies where there is internal tension. Other lessons are:

• Humanitarian assistance must be followed up by political and confidence-building measures.
• A knowledge of local conditions and the dynamics of the conflict are necessary conditions for planning effective assistance.
• The international humanitarian relief system and aid organisations are poorly equipped to tackle the transition from emergency relief to more long-term sustainable development.

I will revert to the last of these points later.

3. Thirdly, building blocks for peace, which is the main topic of my address here today.

In the light of these lessons, what are the building blocks for peace? What should you concentrate on during your discussions at this seminar?

Scenarios

The scope for actually "building under fire", i.e. during conflicts, is very limited as regards development assistance. But in our humanitarian assistance we must strengthen all processes for conflict transformation, peace-building and reconciliation through available channels.

At the same time, even if a conflict is going on, you can actually sow some seeds for long-term development through selected interventions in refugee camps, for example through immunisation and the teaching of children. Health services and education are the cornerstones of every development process. They build the human capital. In effect, they are basic human rights.

In certain countries, sometimes called "failed states", there are no central authorities for us to relate to. In other countries there are partial conflicts or cyclical conflicts combined with very weak institutions. We have to tailor the timing and nature of our assistance to the circumstances in the country concerned. In many of these situations there are no risk-free interventions.

However, the risk of inaction often appears to outweigh the risk of intervention.

A fully integrated approach to humanitarian assistance, peace and reconciliation and development is long overdue. We are working actively at the international level and within our own administration and budget to encourage such an integrated, holistic approach.

At the international level, a good deal of thought is being given to providing assistance to countries that are in conflict, where there are hostilities and in post-conflict situations, and to closing gaps between the provision of humanitarian and development assistance.

The World Bank has suggested three rough groupings of countries:

1. The first group consists of countries at risk, where destabilising factors threaten to trigger conflict. Deriving lessons from our experience and sharing them across borders is necessary to increase awareness. These lessons will also be valuable in designing post-conflict assistance strategies that help reduce the risk of conflict recurrence.
   
2. The second group consists of countries in the midst of internal conflict or involved in external hostilities, where financial and most development assistance is not appropriate. Ethiopia and Eritrea are one example. The conflict in the DRC and Angola are others. Countries in partial civil conflict situations, such as Sri Lanka, present, in my view, far broader opportunities for humanitarian involvement, and for building peace with means related to development assistance and political diplomacy as well. As an example, I would like to mention the relief and reconstruction work being carried out by a Norwegian NGO, FORUT, in the conflict areas of Wanni in Sri Lanka.
   
3. The third grouping suggested by the World Bank encompasses countries in post-conflict situations. In such situations development assistance without gaps is extremely important. Peace is often fragile in these cases. Statistics show that every second conflict that reaches a peace settlement starts again. It is all the more important to make sure that the building blocks for peace are being further strengthened and broadened in the post-conflict period.

The last group of countries are the focus of attention of what is called "the Brookings Process", which was launched at a roundtable meeting in Washington this past January. It is intended to formulate proposals for closing any gaps between humanitarian assistance and long-term development. In the paper now under consideration, and which will be issued by the UNHCR later this year, "post-conflict" is defined as the period when hostilities have abated to the level where some reintegration and recovery activities can begin. This definition encompasses a wide spectrum of post-conflict scenarios ranging from continued low-intensity conflict (Afghanistan, Burundi, Rwanda) through a fragile peace (Guatemala, Liberia) to a settled conflict (Mozambique).

Prevention

Above all, we must not forget that prevention is better than cure. Early-warning systems are important. In order to prevent conflicts and other crises, identify potential conflicts and prevent a fragile peace settlement from breaking down and leading to fresh conflict, efforts must be made on many fronts, ranging from intergovernmental negotiations through peace and reconciliation efforts to development cooperation.

It is absolutely essential to consolidate a political culture that can prevent violent conflict. We can achieve this by helping to develop norms, rules and institutions for dealing with conflicts of interest without resorting to weapons.

For example, we know that where well-developed democratic forms of government and the rule of law prevail, there tends to be less conflict in the relations between people and states. This demonstrates how important it is to strengthen good governance in countries subject to conflict, both during the conflict and when it is over. Here one must also take special local conditions into account. This is especially important in stabilising a peaceful settlement.

A government characterised by good governance is one that enjoys a high degree of legitimacy. It is inclusive, flexible and has the ability to adapt to new conditions, tasks and challenges. It encourages the participation of an active civil society. It promotes values such as pluralism, tolerance, negotiation and compromise. In other words, it is the best tool we have for preventing conflict.

We have recently taken an initiative against corruption, which is a persistent challenge to good governance and, needless to say, poses a threat to economic and social development. In a statement to the Storting on 6 May, I outlined six new measures for combating corruption, including assistance to our partner countries, support for better coordination of international efforts and a new role for NGOs. All the forces that tend to undermine good governance can easily contribute to a process of fragmentation, which may in turn affect the stability of a country.

Reconciliation

From prevention to reconciliation, "building under fire" involves not only assisting the victims, but also trying to strengthen local capacity which will be crucial not only to achieving peace, but also to building the future of the society. "Building under fire" involves not least working tirelessly for peace and reconciliation.

In this regard Norway will continue to make use of the opportunities for peace and reconciliation efforts provided by Norwegian humanitarian assistance. We will take a proactive approach to the further development of strategic frameworks and other coordinated efforts that will guide and integrate humanitarian assistance and political initiatives for peace and reconciliation.

Let me mention a few cases where the proactive approach of several actors has been - and is - crucial. This also tells us something about building blocks for peace.

Case I - Guatemala

Norway has been involved in Guatemala since the 1976 earthquake, first simply providing emergency relief, later supporting long-term development. The Norwegian Government and the NGO Norwegian Church Aid (NCA) developed good contacts with both the guerrilla movement and the Government of Guatemala. This was to a large degree built on personal contacts on both sides of the conflict. Norway facilitated talks and negotiations between the two parties. Negotiations started in 1990, and an agreement on a definitive cease-fire was finally signed in Oslo in 1996. Throughout the negotiations, Norway supported the process financially. Economic support was needed to finance the demobilisation and reintegration of former soldiers on both sides. We made a long-term commitment to Guatemala. The signing of the cease-fire agreement was a step on the road to lasting peace.

Our responsibility did not end there, however. Although the television cameras have left Guatemala now, we have not. We are involved in human rights projects, in strengthening democracy and in economic development. I believe this long-term strategy will secure the foundations for peaceful development and prevent future conflict. Let us hope that the last referendum will not seriously impede this process. A long-term involvement is clearly in the interests of the people of Guatemala, but ultimately also in the interests of neighbouring countries and the international community.

Case II: Mali

Another example of a peace process where the Norwegian authorities have been involved is the reconciliation process in Mali. For many years Norwegian Church Aid had been involved in relief and development projects in this West-African country, with the assistance of the Norwegian Government of course. When a rebellion broke out in 1990, the NCA was in the unique position of having close contact with the different factions. In 1994 it was invited by civil society institutions, the rebel movements and the government to facilitate the process leading to reconciliation and peace. This process ensured a broad grass-roots influence on the final peace settlement. Many are familiar with the famous fire of peace in Timbuktu, where small arms where delivered and burnt. Since then development cooperation for the affected populations has continued, also involving bilateral Norwegian assistance and Norwegian assistance channelled through multilateral organisations like the UN (UNDP) and NGOs like Norwegian Church Aid, CARE and others.

Now Mali is among our most important partners in the human security area, building regional alliances to ban the production, stock-piling and use of small arms, among other things. These are important efforts to prevent internal tension and conflicts from breaking out into full-scale war.

Case III: Sudan

I know that the Life & Peace Institute has long been involved in reconciliation efforts on the Horn of Africa. I would therefore like to share with you some of Norway’s experience in Sudan, which has been afflicted by war since its independence in 1956. The only reprieve has been the eleven-year peace from 1972 to 1983. This conflict is Africa’s longest running civil war. Although there will always be disagreement about the root cause of the hostility between the parties and the war itself, most observers agree that a key factor is the relationship between North and South. This involves ethnic and cultural factors, and also differences in development levels and the distribution of natural resources.

After 30 years of war and agony, the people of Sudan deserve better. I firmly believe that humanitarian assistance alone is not enough to prevent the recurrence of mass suffering, and that it should not be allowed to replace political action. This is the reason why I have taken on the responsibility of chairing the Sudan Committee of the IGAD Partners Forum, which is the donor support group for the peace process conducted by IGAD under Kenyan chairmanship. We are now pushing for a reform of the negotiation process towards accelerated and sustained negotiations. Hopefully a decision to this effect will be made at the next round of negotiations in late July. In Sudan too, we are building on extensive Norwegian NGO experience and contacts.

I believe that assistance during conflicts must include initiatives that can promote reconciliation, democratic development and respect for human rights. They must encompass political and security policy issues and support political initiatives for peace in a way that recognises and enhances local ownership of political processes. The peace process cannot be imposed from above.

When we take on the responsibility for facilitating the resolution of violent conflicts, four factors seem to be paramount. These are: 1) in-depth knowledge and analysis of the political dynamics of the country, 2) good networks, 3) a long-term perspective and 4) coordination, which is extremely important. Norway has been assisting Sudan for nearly 30 years. In the last few years most of this assistance has taken the form of humanitarian aid channelled through Norwegian and international NGOs and the United Nations. It has also included elements of long-term development initiatives. The IPF has, for example, now decided to establish a working group on planning for peace, including reconstruction and long-term development efforts.

The role of NGOs

The Norwegian authorities have expanded their cooperation with NGOs in terms of both the amount of assistance channelled through these organisations and the scope of their activities. The five major NGOs in particular play a central role in humanitarian assistance. The "Norwegian model" refers to the close, but informal and flexible form of cooperation that has developed between the authorities and NGOs. The concept refers not only to cooperation on humanitarian assistance, but equally to peace and reconciliation processes where the local knowledge and contacts of the organisations can be successfully utilised and combined with mediation efforts.

Norwegian NGOs have made an outstanding effort to help those in need for many years. The Norwegian authorities continue to regard them as key partners in international relief efforts. We welcome the fact that the NGOs themselves have drawn up codes of conduct, or standards, for ensuring the quality of their relief efforts. It is vital, however, that they work in accordance with, and under the coordinated framework of international humanitarian agencies under the auspices of the UN.

Cooperation between the authorities and NGOs must be consistently tailored to the needs of the particular situation. While we fully respect the NGOs' distinctive character and independence, we expect them as providers of assistance to adjust their activities to the increased international coordination of humanitarian operations we are seeking to attain, even when this requires joint financing mechanisms. Therefore there is a growing need for more predictability as regards government allocations.

The Government intends to devise arrangements that will both provide a greater degree of predictability and meet the need for flexibility when new crises arise, especially for organisations that receive large allocations. It is important that this is also viewed in relation to total government allocations to organisations involved both in humanitarian relief and in more long-term development efforts.

The Norwegian Volunteer Service (Fredskorpset)

Let me also mention that we are in the process of restructuring the Norwegian Volunteer Service on the basis of a partnership concept. The NGO community will also have a crucial role to play in building the new Volunteer Service, which will be located outside NORAD, our development directorate, i.e. outside state-to-state cooperation. This means that volunteer service will no longer be a one-way street. The new concept also involves South-South cooperation, and dispatching volunteers from the South to Norway. Another new feature is that volunteers returning home will have to go out and share information on their experience. I believe that this initiative can, in a small way, contribute to peace-building and the mobilisation of civil society in peace processes.

The role of the churches – as building blocks for peace processes

In modern secular societies religion is often regarded as a private matter and hence outside the sphere of general politics, economic transactions and military power. But in fact, religion plays an important role in maintaining cultural and ethical values, and can make a much-needed and constructive contribution to our societies. The church, its leaders and members are the facilitators in this process.

All of us here today are well aware that in many third-world countries, the churches are the only institution of civil society that are truly local and function well. Often there can be no local capacity-building without also taking the religious communities into account – and building on them. This makes the role of the churches all the more important, both in preventing conflicts from escalating, and in building peace and reconciliation.

For religion to contribute positively to our societies, freedom of religion and belief must be recognised as a basic human right. The freedom to worship corresponds to a fundamental spiritual need. Religious freedom in this genuine sense represents the most basic existential freedom of the human being. But even though there is a growing recognition of man’s spiritual nature in almost all states, there is continued suppression of religious liberty in many places, especially when religious convictions are at odds with political power.

Religion can be misused and may provide fuel for conflicts. The situation in the Balkans is perhaps the most recent and most violent example of a situation where religion has been misused in this way. Every day, and in many parts of the world, we see other examples of the use of religion as an instrument for gaining political power and promoting the exclusiveness of one group at the expense of others. – As the Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasrin says through the character Sudhamoy in her novel Lajja: "… Ironically, all religions point towards one goal – peace. Yet it is in the name of religion that there has been so much of unrest and lack of peace… Flying the flag of religion has always proved the easiest way to crush to nothingness human being…"

But religious belief as such is seldom the cause of conflict or war. It is the cynical misuse of religion for political purposes, for power or territory, that causes tension and conflict. For example we frequently find that employing religious symbols and language can be one of the most powerful strategic "weapons" in a conflict.

If religion has the capacity to fuel conflicts, then surely religion can also be a force for peace. In fact, religion can be one of the most powerful building blocks for peace. As it is written in the Bible: "Blessed are the peace-makers". The church and its leaders and religious organisations therefore have a vital role to play in conflict prevention and conflict resolution. They must help people understand their own faith – but also the faith of others. Tolerance and respect for our fellow human being must be a building block that churches and religious communities bring to conflict areas.

In my view, one of the main priorities of all religious leaders today should be to make sure that every available opportunity is seized to defuse conflict, facilitate peace and create a more stable situation. Relief efforts and humanitarian assistance should be used to complement these efforts, and help to build bridges over religious divides.

A society’s respect for religious expression is a measure of its commitment to tolerance and its capacity to accommodate different ideas. Tolerance and respect for the fundamental freedoms of others are the basis for peaceful coexistence between people. Religion also gives us the hope and belief that God will – eventually – prevail. In my view, we must not lose sight of this, and we must hope and pray, but indeed also demand, that tolerance and respect for others become the foundation for "building under fire", as well as when hostilities have abated.

4. Fourthly, closing the gaps in the international community’s response

One of the challenges of "building under fire" is to make sure that the building process is continuous. That it doesn’t stop. This applies not least to assistance. Any gaps or vacuums may be detrimental to peace processes and to stabilisation efforts in connection with a fragile peace accord.

For far too long we have been talking about development and humanitarian emergencies as if they were two totally unrelated phenomena which are also separate in time. First emergency, then development. And correspondingly, when it comes to our assistance: first emergency relief, then development cooperation. This is wrong.

The limitations of this approach have now become fairly clear. It is not viable. It is high time we departed from this artificial division. Instead we must base ourselves on the obvious fact that development and humanitarian assistance are in reality simply two different aspects of the same social process.

This means that we must take a long-term approach in everything we do. Our efforts may vary in duration and in other ways, from an airdrop of food to people in desperate need to long-term programmes for institutional development. All these efforts must be part of a long-term plan. We cannot assist the needy one day and turn our backs on them the next. At all times during this process the assistance must be carried out with the participation of those affected.

In practice, we experience a "gap in approach" and an "institutional gap" between humanitarian relief organisations and development agencies, and the funding available to each – a "financial gap", from my viewpoint as politician. This gap is reflected in differences in priorities, planning and programming approaches. The political choices of donor countries play a considerable part in their response, and result in "gaps in donor interest". There are also substantial gaps in the timing, allocation and actual amounts in dollars between pledges, commitments and disbursements due to political or administrative problems within donor countries and limited absorptive capacity. Significant gaps may result simply from a lack of effective coordination in needs assessment, programme planning and implementation. But also in political priorities.

Needless to say, proposals for filling these gaps will be the focus of attention in the time ahead, and they will receive greater impetus from the requirements at our doorstep, so to speak, in the Balkans, which will be a test-case in this regard.

The new Norwegian strategy for humanitarian assistance

This was one of the main messages in a new strategy for humanitarian assistance that I presented to the Norwegian parliament in January. The strategy takes into account some of the challenges and dilemmas I have touched on in this address. I believe many of you are familiar with the strategy, which is also available in English. These are some of the issues I stressed:

• We will seek to get more value for every dollar by concentrating on improving the quality, efficiency and coordination of humanitarian assistance. We will make active efforts to involve countries that do not contribute sufficiently in the global mobilisation of resources.

• We will work for better coordination at all levels – which is sorely needed, and we will make strategic political and financial contributions to the UN coordination of humanitarian assistance, for example under the auspices of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).

• We will review our own new initiatives to see how education can be used more strategically for conflict prevention and the consolidation of peace.

• We will help to develop new financial mechanisms that will fill the critical resource gaps between acute emergency relief and more long-term development activities.

• We will help to give humanitarian assistance a firmer basis in human rights through a rights-based approach, emphasising that the recipients are not only victims but also a resource to draw on.

• We will place particular emphasis on solidarity with those who are no longer the subject of media interest, and help to keep the focus on "forgotten" conflicts and "forgotten" victims. This is perhaps our greatest challenge.

Conclusion

Development is traditionally associated with growth and progress, which are positive. Humanitarian assistance is associated with deterioration and setbacks, which are negative. We find elements of both everywhere. By alleviating the impact of emergencies we promote development. And by reinforcing the positive elements, by promoting development, we combat such emergencies.

What is called for now, conceptually as well as administratively, is a new, holistic approach in which all measures are regarded as building blocks, as parts of a whole. And among the most important of these building blocks are efforts to promote peace and reconciliation, including conflict transformation – which is the theme of this seminar – "Building under Fire".

Dear friends,

Basically, I have been talking about the importance of caring. Solidarity and caring about others is a moral duty, i.e. doing what we can to ensure that more people benefit from development. Today’s globalisation means that every part of the world is our neighbourhood. As all of you here today know very well, there is no longer such a thing as "far away". This goes both for geography and for our sense of solidarity. Caring about others, caring about the suffering of others, and doing something about it should not be an act of kindness that we perform now and then. It should be – and it is – a moral imperative for all of us. Every human being has the same worth and the same inherent rights.

As His Holiness the Dalai Lama put it in his address to the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; "… as we approach the end of the twentieth century, we find that the world is becoming one community. … I believe that to meet the challenges of our times, human beings will have to develop a greater sense of universal responsibility. Each of us must learn to work not just for one self, one’s own family or one’s nation, but for the benefit of all humankind. Universal responsibility is the key to human survival. It is the best guarantee for human rights and for world peace."

A greater sense of universal responsibility – or global accountability – should also be the message of this seminar. For there is one truth that must remain. Our commitment to humanitarian assistance and long-term development assistance – and to closing the gap between them – our commitment to "building under fire" – is identical to our commitment to the implementation of human rights. To our respect for human dignity. It is on this basis that we must act, for our own sake, for the sake of decency.

Good luck with the seminar! Thank you.