Minister of Foreign Affairs Jonas Gahr Støre

Old Recipes in a New World? The Challenges of Multilateralism in the 21st century

Norwegian Atlantic Committee’s annual Leangkollen Conference, Norwegian Nobel Institute, 30 January 2006

Check against delivery

Click here for a Spanish version of the speech

Excellencies
Ladies and gentlemen,

It feels good to be back here at the opening of the Leangkollen Conference for the third consecutive year. It is indeed a fine tradition to meet in these noble settings every January.

It is an honour to be invited to speak as Foreign Minister on the challenges to multilateralism and it is a pleasure to do so alongside Sir Franklin Berman, who is going to inspire us all to reflect on the overarching importance of international law. I also would like to greet the Secretary General of the OSCE, Mr Marc Perrin de Brichambaut who leads an organisation that we attach such great importance to. I look forward to seeing you later today.

International law is an undisputable foundation of a more peaceful, prosperous and just world, as recognised in the opening words of the World Summit Outcome adopted last September in New York. It ranks also as the first priority of my government’s policy platform adopted a few days later at Soria Moria here in Oslo.

When I spoke at last year’s Leangkollen Conference, as the Secretary General of the Norwegian Red Cross, my concern was closely linked to the new types of conflict we are facing and the need to defend the notion of a “humanitarian space”. This reflected a deep concern that issues of protection of vulnerable groups in armed conflict and the role of humanitarian agencies and workers were increasingly under threat.

I pointed out that the full development of international humanitarian law is a significant legacy of the violent century we have put behind us.

International humanitarian law needs to be protected, defended and expanded.

We must never become complacent. Hard-won humanitarian gains, even in the normative field, have not been won once and for all. On the contrary, actual compliance is a constant and serious challenge.

Today, I will pick up on a few of these points and add some thoughts on how this applies more generally to the idea of multilateralism.

At the UN headquarters in New York, a small gold-plated statue of a dodo bird has been put up just outside the Security Council chambers. This gift from the State of Mauritius represents a species that was hunted to extinction because it couldn’t fly. I do not think it was intentional on the part of Mauritius, but this little statue could indeed serve as a warning to us all.

International law has seen momentous developments after the scourge of the first and second world wars, as it has done in the 1990s. Mass atrocities have called for effective action. This has in turn led to a realisation that the response should be based on common norms, rules and multilateral approaches.

Moreover, mankind, human dignity, the human being, have been placed at the very centre of international politics. This is one of the central messages of the United Nations Charter, which introduced human rights on the global scene. It is likewise a clear message in key instruments such as the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

Today we take many legal achievements for granted. But knowing the state of inter-state relations one could be tempted to ask:

Were we to negotiate these legal instruments today, would we succeed with the 191 States that now are involved? Would the results have been better global rules? A more influential world arena? A more effective world body?

Returning last weekend from yet another round involving 150 states trying to bring the WTO negotiations on world trade one step forward, I have my doubts.

However, it is not because this is such a daunting task that we would shy away from attempting to be as visionary as the founding fathers and mothers of key legal instruments such as the Charter of the United Nations. The reason why we strongly reiterate our continued and full commitment to the Charter and its system is quite different.

The reason is that the Charter has fully proved its sustainability and adaptability to new challenges. Any attempt to claim that the Charter lacks this or that wording in order to legitimise the circumvention of the standards – or even the spirit of the Charter – has to be rejected. The World Summit Outcome was crystal clear on this point when it reaffirmed, and I quote: that the relevant provisions of the Charter are sufficient to address the full range of threats to international peace and security.

This is a strong message. It is an expression of the full recognition of the continued validity and sustainability of the system of the Charter of the United Nations.

This does not mean that there are no new challenges and no need to discuss how new threats can be effectively met.

Rather, this means that the Charter and its normative architecture still stand as a visionary statement: A vision with an unfulfilled potential. A vision combined with great potential, which is all too rarely realised.

While preserving what we have achieved we need to continually adapt and improve it to meet the needs of a changing world.

The advances made in recent years are unquestionable. The growing prominence of human rights in international politics and international law is an extremely positive development. Abusive governments are no longer fully protected by state sovereignty. Perpetrators of mass atrocities can no longer take immunity and impunity for granted.

The problem we need to deal with is that advances often tend to be reactive:

It took the loss of the Titanic to get a convention for safety at sea.

It took the use of poisonous gases during World War I to negotiate a new set of rules prohibiting their use.

It took genocide in Rwanda to start a discussion on the collective responsibility to protect populations.

Must we wait until there is some misuse of biotechnology for hostile or military purposes before we strengthen the rules regulating the development of the life sciences?

This is where we most need a dramatic change in multilateral relations:

We must be proactive rather than reactive. The principle of responsibility to protect populations from mass atrocities, as stated in the World Summit document, is clearly directed at the governments whose populations suffer. It is also unmistakably directed at the Security Council, which has extraordinary tools at its disposal pursuant to the Charter.

The UN Summit produced less ambitious results than we had expected. Yet the broad majority of states seem to agree that multilateralism is the best option for ensuring peace and security in relations between nations, for protecting human rights and for enforcing compliance with international law.

The multilateral approach is also our best hope for eradicating global poverty and creating a more equitable international order.

But still we continue to hear and see examples of states opting for unilateral approaches:

We saw it in Iraq.

We see it in the Middle East.

We see it in the interpretation of international law, where states sometimes look for loopholes rather than abiding by the standards.

These are important reminders that the balance between the most influential states and all the other member states is delicate:

States are not equally powerful, but their concerns are equally legitimate.

People are different, but human dignity is a universal value that puts us all on an equal footing.

International cooperation and arenas for setting international norms will only work if all states have a reasonable opportunity to present their case. This is a big challenge in an international system which has so many voices.

Norway holds the general view that the alternative to the rule of law is not only a society where power prevails over justice. It is also a society without long-term peace and prosperity prospects.

Our society has developed on the basis of strengthening the rule of law and the legal rights of the individual, and so our vision should be to develop the international community along the same ideas. We must increase security and enhance human rights by strengthening the rule of law, placing it at the centre of any debate on peace and development; global trade, disarmament and non-proliferation and we should search for new and stronger legal instruments to help combat terrorism and organised crime such as human trafficking.

Just as most democracies have created systems of redistribution within their states, forging societies built on greater justice, fairness and more equal opportunities for all, the same inspiration should underpin our approach to managing our global interdependence. The fight against national poverty was won through investments in health, education and development, and the fight against global poverty must be won in the same way.

For this to happen we need to take bold new steps in strengthening the multilateral system, in enhancing democratic decision-making among states, and in setting out new rules that can integrate the developing countries into the world trade system – as we now strive to achieve through the current round of the WTO negotiations.

And we need new bold initiatives to eliminate the immediate causes and effects of extreme poverty, such as the spread of infectious diseases and the unacceptably high rate of child mortality. When he was Prime Minister in 2000 Jens Stoltenberg helped to launch the Global Alliance for Vaccination and Immunisation. Returning as Prime Minister last autumn he has re-engaged with that commitment.

By setting the goal of immunising every child, the world can reach the fourth Millennium Development Goal: halving child mortality by 2015. We are on our way to achieve this. It is possible and it is feasible. And we will do so not alone, but by forging new global partnerships that can speed up the efforts

***

As we move forward we must establish a new agenda for defining the appropriate legal framework for managing our growing interdependence in the age of globalisation.

And as we do so, we need to speak out when existing rules are circumvented.

One such issue concerns the detention of prisoners in the fight against terrorism. In the concrete example of the conditions of prisoners at the US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, we have expressed our view that this practice is worrying and may set a dangerous precedent.

To me, it is not the Guantanamo camp as such that is the question, it is the principle underpinning the way detainees are treated.

No conflict, international or national, can legitimise a prisoner being deprived of basic protection and minimum legal rights. Every individual detained – at Guantanamo or elsewhere – shall as a minimum be treated humanely in all circumstances, at all times, irrespective of their status.

Although the precise status of a person may, under the circumstances, legitimately raise doubts, there can be no doubts as to the basic standards of protection that have to apply. The idea that fundamental rights and freedoms may be set aside to fight terrorism will, in the long term, only lead to the opposite effect – it will undermine that very fight.

In our struggle against terrorism we must never compromise on human rights and the basic principles of the rule of law. Respect for these basic values should be what distinguishes us from terrorists, and our friends from our foes.

***

Let me now turn to the key component of our multilateral system, the United Nations. Since 1945 until today, the UN has been a vital instrument of Norway’s foreign policy. We favour a stronger UN. Our objective is to reaffirm the world body as the coordinator of collective action, the principal lawmaker and an effective vehicle for attaining common ends.

But here too we need to see that the world is changing. The UN has to evolve and readapt to a new sets of actors, new ways of communication and new ways of interacting in the international community.

Take one concrete example, the way the world addresses the fight against the avian flu – a global threat concerning us all. The role of the UN and its specialised agencies is paramount. But the UN and its agencies cannot confront this challenge alone. They need to interact with a complex variety of actors in a complex global setting; including regional organisations like the European Union, financial institutions, the pharmaceutical industries and then, of course, the government and civil society of each state concerned.

It takes an extraordinary ability to improvise new approaches to coordinate such a response and to ensure that they are balanced. The same goes for numerous other agendas, be they of a security or development nature.

Then to the use of force.

Norway shares the opinion of the High-level Panel and the Secretary General that the Security Council is fully empowered under Chapter VII of the Charter. The task is not to find alternatives to the Security Council as a source of authority, but rather to make the Council work better. The UN is the only international body that can, in the last resort, legitimise the use of force other than in cases of self-defence and with the consent by the state concerned – and the threshold for doing so must be high. There must be clear justification and an undisputable legal basis.

Perhaps the most important result of the UN Summit in New York in September was that national leaders agreed to confirm the principle of responsibility to protect populations as a norm for collective action. For the first time it was agreed that we – in the name of humanity – have a common duty to protect people when their own governments will not.

There should be no doubt that in situations of genocide, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing and war crimes, the Security Council has a responsibility to act without hesitation and with authority and efficiency in the face of threats to international peace and security.

We would like to see the Security Council adopt a resolution reflecting the principles that should apply to the use of force as a last resort and express its intention to act in accordance with them.

We believe it is extremely important that the UN and the member states make every effort to prevent the need to use force through peaceful and diplomatic means.

The surge in UN-led peace operations is placing a heavy strain on the UN’s resources. We, the member states, need to respond to the UN’s need.

It is the ambition of the Government to increase our participation in UN-led peacekeeping operations in 2006 – particularly in Africa. Through our dialogue with the UN we are seeking to identify relevant capacities that can be employed in ongoing or future operations.

The UN is increasingly relying on regional organisations. We welcome the increased involvement of the African Union in providing peace and security on the African continent. The AU has a right to expect support of the international community.

The AU summit in Khartoum a short time ago reconfirmed the determination of the African countries to play a leading role in peace-building efforts on their own continent. We were pleased to see that the summit succeeded in finding a solution to the difficult question of the AU chair in a way that served to enhance its credibility on issues of peace and human rights.

We will continue to support the AU in order to strengthen its capacity to conduct peace operations.

***

Moving the multilateral agenda forward requires evolving consensus. There is no way around it. To understand the challenges to our old recipe of multilateralism, we must keep in mind that the UN is struggling with at least four major challenges, as I see it:

The first is a growing tendency for member countries to take an “a la carte” approach to the UN.

States claim rights but are often unwilling to put an equal emphasis on their duties and responsibilities. They are often unwilling to compromise on their own interests, and sometimes unwilling to contribute to the common good without getting something in return.

The second problem is the tendency to protect the established order at any cost. In many ways, this is a response to the first problem. It is understandable that many developing countries are worried and that they wish to counter what they see as attempts to transfer functions from the General Assembly to a small circle of rich and powerful nations.

We share that concern. But the consequences are serious when leading developing countries oppose any reform – and in fact oppose the notion of a more effective UN. I believe that we who firmly believe in a strong and vigilant United Nations should be at the forefront of reform instead of leaving the reform agenda to those who would like to shrink the UN’s ambitions. In this regard we need to strengthen the dialogue with our partners in the South to avoid misunderstandings that can weaken the UN.

In this undertaking I have been calling for a revitalisation of a common Nordic voice.

Since the accession of Finland and Sweden to the EU, this voice has – apart from cooperation in the legal field – been harder to detect. This may now change. It would be a welcome sign of revitalisation if the Nordic countries were to reengage as a united force for UN reform.

The third problem follows the second and concerns the weaknesses in the UN administration:

The Volcker report on the oil-for-food programme and the reports about sexual abuse committed by UN peacekeepers have exposed practices that the UN should never be involved in and can never accept. In reality, the UN has difficulty dealing with them.

The message is the same: we who strongly believe in the role of the UN must be the first to react and demand change, reform and more efficiency.

The fourth problem is that while the demand for the services of the UN funds, programmes and specialised agencies is greater than ever, the UN is underfinanced and overloaded. There is a gap between what member countries and their citizens expect the UN to do and the resources available to do the job.

We cannot address these challenges by being passive and complacent.

Norway is a major financial contributor to the UN. A substantial amount of Norwegian public money is channelled through the UN, including about half of our development aid. We have a responsibility to our taxpayers and to the UN to monitor the organisation to ensure effective and efficient management of its resources.

The UN needs, in our view, organisation-wide reform. If the United Nations is to have full credibility, it must have a transparent, effective and accountable system of managing its resources.

We must hold the UN to the highest standard of ethical behaviour.

We want to use the UN as an arena to address the challenges of globalisation, and to promote social globalisation and justice.

We want the UN to play a leading role in security issues, disarmament and non-proliferation, and the fight against terrorism.

We want to strengthen the UN’s humanitarian response capability.

We want to strengthen the UN’s capacity in conflict prevention and peace building. Norway’s participation in the Peacebuilding Commission will open a new arena. Stabilising and rebuilding failed or failing states is a huge and complex task.

And this is urgent. Fortunately, we see a trend towards democratic rule in a growing number of countries. But there is also an increase in the number of weak states that are unable to take care of their own people, unable to guarantee respect for human rights and unable to guarantee peace.

The Human Rights Commission should have a central place in our endeavours to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms. Unfortunately, the Commission has been undermined. It has lost credibility. States are seeking membership of the Commission, not to strengthen human rights but to protect themselves against criticism.

Now we need to set the ambitions straight for the Human Rights Council. We believe that the following elements are essential real improvements:

First, the Council should be a standing body with sufficient regular meetings throughout the year to allow urgent situations to be dealt with.

Second, it should have the ability to address serious human rights situations, and it should play a key role in thematic issues, setting standards and monitoring efforts.

Third, it should retain the system of special procedures and a strong level of NGO participation. The current practice of the Commission on Human Rights is a minimum and we should aim for enhanced NGO participation.

And we will not accept special privileges for the most powerful countries.

What I am saying is that we will not accept a weakening of the UN’s work for human rights.

I stress this today because the negotiations are not going well. There is little or no progress. In fact, there are even attempts to use these negotiations to weaken the human rights procedures and the human rights machinery. The High Commissioner for Human Rights told me two weeks ago about how the resource constraints impede her ability to do her job.

This is not acceptable. Again, we see that multilateralism is under pressure.

***

Dear friends,

Returning to my question: “If we were to negotiate the Universal Declaration on Human Rights today, would we succeed?”

I’m afraid the answer is probably no.

Human rights are still controversial, and with the current confrontation between North and the South in the UN, even the established order can be challenged.

However, human rights has become an important institution in international relations, and nourished by globalisation and the emergence of a global moral community, can only grow stronger.

In the preparations for establishing the Peacebuilding Commission the UN Secretariat has calculated the total financial contributions that member countries make to the UN system, including the voluntary contributions.

Norway is number seven on the list. This may make us proud and is indeed a proof that we put our money where our mouth is. But the fact that that Norway is, in real terms, the seventh largest financial contributor to the United Nations is not necessarily a good sign

If you look at the hard figures many wealthy and powerful countries are further down the list in terms of per capita contributions. If all member states lived up to their obligations, Norway would no longer be number seven.

The idea of multilateralism is not new, but we still have a long way to go to achieve it. And the UN has a long way to go to earn the confidence of its member countries. Nevertheless the problem remains that the international community tends to take the UN for granted, to expect its institutions and agencies to solve any problem, settle any conflict and at the same time to take the blame for any shortcomings.

The truth is that the UN’s efforts for peace, stability and development constitute an impressive merit list. While the League of Nations only lasted two decades, the UN is still thriving after sixty years as the only global tool in efforts to resolve international issues and conflicts. And the demands on its contributions continue to grow.

But we all know that, at the end of the day, the achievement of the UN depends on what the member states are capable or willing to do.

There is after all, not much the UN can do without its member countries.

That is why it is so important to drive the multilateral agenda forward, set new agendas, mobilise support for new approaches while consolidating what works.

There are big challenges ahead:

• The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
• Terrorism, where we have not even been able to agree on a definition of the very problem
• Transnational, organised crime
• Infectious diseases
• Environmental degradation
• The huge challenge of poverty.

All these are issues that cannot be resolved by a world community divided by mistrust.

So the UN is our most important tool for creating a better world. But this involves hard work. As Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., Republican Senator and US delegate to the UN, put it in 1955, a favourite quote of mine:

This organisation is created to keep you from going to hell. It is not created to take you to heaven.

That is still true today.

Thank you for your attention.