Peace and Development - Why should we engage?

Director General,
Honourable Ministers,
Your Excellencies,
Ladies and gentlemen,

Let me begin by thanking you for this opportunity to address this distinguished audience. The Indian Council for World Affairs embodies India’s long tradition and high standards of political reasoning and argument, so succinctly outlined in Amartya Sen’s book The Argumentative Indian. I feel both honoured and somewhat humble to be speaking to you today.

Peace and development are crucial prerequisites for the maintenance of human dignity. I am therefore particularly pleased to be able to share with this forum some reflections on peace and development, which are, of course, mutually reinforcing.

I would like to start by saying a few words about Norway, after which I will comment on why we should engage in challenging fields such as conflict prevention and poverty alleviation. I will consider Norway’s engagement in peace efforts, and finally say a few words about development.

Norway and India differ vastly – in historical depth, in size, climate and, not least, in cultural composition.

Having gained independence from Sweden in 1905, my country is a young nation state. Today, we are 4.6 million people, about as many people as live in Delhi’s southern suburbs. Some 365 000 of our inhabitants, or about 8 per cent of our population, are of foreign origin. Eighty-two per cent of these are first-generation immigrants. Seven thousand are from India.

Our economy is small and open. Norway’s share of world trade is 1 per cent. Traditionally, our trade and wealth have been based on the export of services (such as shipping) and raw materials like timber and fish.

We continue to be dependent on natural resources. Fisheries remain an important sector in Norway’s economy, and we still export a lot of fish. But, technological innovation has shifted priorities, and that in turn has changed my country’s international position.

Today, we are an energy surplus nation. Above all, we exploit, and export, hydropower, oil and gas. Norway is the sixth-largest producer of oil in the world, and the third-largest oil exporter behind Saudi Arabia and Russia.

Revenue from petroleum today constitutes one-quarter of our gross domestic product (GDP), one-third of our government revenues, and half of our total export earnings.

The petroleum sector significantly contributes to Norway’s per capita GDP being around 60 000 US dollars. Inflation has been stable at below 1 per cent for several years, which has contributed to our high employment rate of some 96 per cent.

In short, Norway is a small country rich in resources and rich in revenue terms. With less than 5 million inhabitants it largely remains a culturally homogenous society. It is also relatively egalitarian. And it is a society in which there is broad consensus on the value of sharing and the need for solidarity, both at home and abroad. This is why we seriously engage in international development cooperation. This is why we actively engage to promote international peace.

India is a country of continental proportions. It is an established regional power. It is the second most populous country in the world. It is a land of great diversity and infinite variety.

Visiting Mumbai, Agra and Delhi over the last three days, I have come to realize that India is a civilisation as much as a nation. It is a social space in which the prefix ‘multi’ must be abundantly applied in any effort at description; multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, multi-religious, multi-regional and multi-layered. It is also a political place in which I have seen its unity expressed despite its impressive, immediate and assertive diversity.

But more than anything, what I will remember from this visit, is India’s beauty – the beauty of its people, its culture and its scenery.

Mr President,
It is difficult to compare our two nations. I believe, however, that focusing on what we share is more important than dwelling on where we diverge.

Where do India and Norway meet? For the purpose of this event, let me briefly mention three prominent features;

we meet on a tradition of a democratic polity,
we meet in a political will to engage and
we meet in a participatory approach to addressing challenges.

This, I would suggest, justifies the claim that what India and Norway share today is an attitude. An attitude premised on two sets of core values – the importance of social inclusion, and a commitment to ensuring dignity for all.

Why should we engage?

India’s towering spiritual leader, Mahatma Gandhi, said that you “should be the change you wish to see in the world”.

Over the last 15 years the world has witnessed over 100 violent conflicts. More than 30 still go on. Almost all originated at the domestic level within states, rather than between them. These conflicts have produced 12 million refugees, and internally displaced another 25 million people.

More than one billion people live on less than one dollar a day. Around 20 000 people die every day because of poverty. The richest 20 per cent in the world receive 74 per cent of the world’s income, while the poorest 20 per cent receive around 2 per cent.

So what does this have to do with you and me? Why should we care about people that we don’t even know, and who might live far away from us? Why should we engage?

We engage simply because it is the right thing to do.

We engage because our own wellbeing is closely linked to making ethically sound decisions. It is enlightened self interest. Through caring about other people we enhance our own life quality.

We engage because we believe that we have a moral and political obligation to do so. Peace and dignity remain elusive for far too many people. Never before has the world been so rich in material terms. Or in new opportunities. We have a responsibility to act.

We engage because we are a part of a greater whole. The belief which half a century ago gave birth to the Charter of the United Nations was in a humane world order that is based on mutual respect and solidarity. Through our membership of the United Nations, we commit to upholding values that are for the common good. Values that relate to fundamental freedoms, such as freedom from want and freedom from fear.

Finally, we engage because we believe that your security, and mine, are closely intertwined. By helping to ensure your dignity, I simultaneously enhance my own security. In an era of globalisation, international engagement in promoting peace has become part and parcel of Norway’s security policy. By helping others, we are helping ourselves.

I have been visiting schools in Norway this year to talk about poverty, development and the importance of human dignity. By the young people I meet, I am often struck by their global awareness and perspectives, and by their eagerness and even impatience to find sustainable solutions to the world’s challenges.

It is clear that a better future for all is within our grasp, as long as we – that is the international community – show the courage and the leadership to create a more just world.

Distinguished audience,
Pursuing global peace has been a policy priority for successive Norwegian governments. The same pertains to the enhancement of human dignity. This is why we have directly engaged in peace and reconciliation processes in a number of countries. Our involvement in Sri Lanka, Sudan and the Middle East is well known. Some of you may also be familiar with the roles Norway plays in the Philippines, Colombia and Haiti.

But, more often than not, Norway seeks to promote peace by supporting other actors, such as the UN, regional organisations, NGOs and other governments, rather than going it alone.

Much of what Norway does is only possible thanks to international cooperation. Where Norway plays a more prominent role, it is always at the explicit request of the parties involved, and only where we believe that we can make a positive contribution.

How do we engage?

There are of course no easy answers to this.

Countries have different historical legacies and geographical features. They are at different stages of economic development. They have different public policies and different patterns of internal interaction and international exposure. The sources of violent conflict reflect this diversity and complexity. This is what makes every conflict theatre unique.

So, what are the defining traits of Norway’s approach to conflict management and the facilitation of peace processes? Why do so many parties to violent conflict request Norwegian involvement in peace processes?

Let me mention four salient points:

Firstly, Norway is willing to enter into long-term commitments. We have a consistent policy on peace efforts. We do our utmost to ensure that we are perceived of as an effective and reliable actor. And there is broad domestic consensus on our policy for peace and reconciliation.

Secondly, Norway believes that cooperation with non-state actors is important. Several processes are being handled jointly by the Norwegian Government and national and international NGOs.

Thirdly, our close relations with central actors in the international arena, and our transparent economic and political interests, make us an acceptable third party in many situations.

And, fourthly, we are aware of the vital interplay between emergency aid, development cooperation and peace-building efforts.

When Norway accepts a third-party role in a particular peace process, we do so on the basis of solidarity, respect and impartiality. As I alluded to earlier, we accept involvement on the basis of the strength and merit of our values. We are consistent in promoting respect for human rights. We uphold and defend the primacy of international humanitarian law. We are not neutral, as we take a clear stand on these important issues, but we always seek to be impartial in our role as peace facilitator.

Distinguished audience,

We know that most mass violence is the result of deliberate political decisions. We also know that, like international conflict, internal conflict – whether in the form of civil wars, armed insurrections or violent secessionist movements – always revolves around relations of power.

However, two other powerful elements also frequently play a role in internal conflicts. One is identity. That is, the mobilisation of people based on race, religion, culture or language. The other is the distribution of economic, social and political resources within society.

Clearly, poverty alone does not cause war. Nor is inequality in itself a sufficient explanation for conflict. But unequal distribution of power and resources between groups that are also singled out in other ways can fuel a perception of gross injustice or violation of ‘rights’. This is a particularly potent mix, which often ignites violent upheaval, not least when perceived identity appears to be threatened.

Violent conflicts are often protracted. They have their winners and losers. They also have their conflict entrepreneurs, who are often the ones to play the singular identity card.

Identity is fundamental. By it, we define who we are. It also defines who others perceive us to be. Identity influences our thoughts and actions in many different ways.

Many contemporary political and social issues revolve around conflicting claims of disparate identities involving different groups. They are often argued along singular lines. This, as we have seen in Rwanda and in the Balkans, can be deadly. Likewise, polarisation into allegedly unique identities can be a central factor in fomenting sectarian confrontation.

But identity is a complicated matter. As individual human beings, we all have – at all times – multiple identities. I am Norwegian but I also have recent ancestors from England, from Sweden and from Denmark. I am a Norwegian Crown Prince, but I am also a husband, a father and a friend.

Culture matters. However, the critical question is how it matters. To single out one factor as a basis for defining a person is counter-productive and dangerous. It is imperative that we gain a clearer understanding of the plurality of human identity. We must learn to appreciate that they overlap and cut across each other.

Renewed or continued oppression fosters new conflict. Peace is impossible without a shared perception of justice.

In his autobiography, Nelson Mandela puts it this way: “…to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others”.

Let me now say a few words about development.

At the threshold of this millennium, the world’s governments united to make a remarkable promise to the victims of global poverty. They solemnly committed to making the Millennium Development Goals a reality by 2015. These targets include halving extreme poverty, cutting child deaths, providing all of the world’s children with education, rolling back infectious disease, and forging a new global partnership that delivers results.

These are ambitious objectives. They are also fundamental. They concern the very core of basic human rights. These rights – to education, to gender equality, to survival in childhood and to a decent standard of living – reflect the hopes and aspirations of all people. They are universal in nature. They are benchmarks for what we want to achieve in development terms, and a vital statement of our – the international community’s – intentions in committing to human rights and dignity for all.

Questions are sometimes raised as to whether the MDGs are affordable. My answer is that we cannot afford not to realise them.

The world is richer than ever before. We live in an age of unprecedented economic growth and technological innovation. There is, therefore, no reason why 30 per cent of the world’s population should live on less than a dollar a day.

Nor is there any reason why 10 million children a year should die before reaching the age of five. One in every four of those 10 million children is Indian. Reducing child mortality in India will constitute a major step towards meeting Millennium Development Goal 4 – to reduce the mortality rate of children under five by two-thirds by 2015 compared to the 1990 level.

Friday, the Crown Princess and I will visit a rural health clinic in Chomu outside Jaipur. Statistics show that India has already done much to combat its high child mortality rate. Whereas the under-five mortality rate was 202 per 1 000 live births in 1970, by 2003 this number had been reduced to 87. This is an impressive achievement.

I am particularly pleased that India and Norway have decided to work together in enhancing this positive trend and fulfilling MDG 4. Under the umbrella of the Norway-India Partnership Initiative, special efforts will be made in five Indian states over the next five years to reduce child mortality in India by 500 000 children annually.

Increasing opportunities for poor people to lead healthy lives, to see their children survive and get an education, - in short to escape poverty – will not diminish the wellbeing of those who are richer.

On the contrary, pursuing an efficient pro-poor policy will help to build shared prosperity, and will reinforce our collective security.

A common future built on a foundation of mass poverty in the midst of plenty is economically inefficient, politically unsustainable and morally indefensible. As Professor Jeffery Sachs puts it, “…the lives we save may truly include our own and our children’s in some future turn of fortune.”

Today we have the resources to succeed. Our generation is the first with a realistic chance of ending extreme poverty. The UN Charter provides us with direction. The MDGs crystallise what needs to be done. And our endorsement of these goals has indicated our willingness.

Mr President
Development is about the future. When we, as the international community, seek to resolve violent conflicts, we must address the underlying causes of poverty and inequity. And we must meet humanitarian need. Stopping manifestations of violence is necessary, but never sufficient on its own.

Development operates on various levels. At the global level structured by international rules and regulations, it deals with for instance trade, debt and the movement of people. At the national level, it deals with, for example, democratic governance and capacity- building, and at the local level it deals with issues such as health, education and economic development.

Other development priorities include improving human rights protection and access to justice. Human dignity and pro-poor governance require representative government assemblies and legal frameworks that are consistent with international human rights norms and standards.

I am not only emphasising the primacy of democracy solely on ideological grounds. Rather, democratic participation is a prerequisite for a workable system to manage change, reform and conflicting interests. This means that we must assist in the development of norms, rules and institutions for dealing with conflicts of interest without resorting to violence. In countries in conflict, it is essential to strengthen systems of governance to ensure lasting peace.

This approach could make resorting to marginalisation, exclusion or violence redundant.

It is important to bear in mind, however, that democracy can take many forms. But participation and contestation remain essential features and no solution should be considered democratic without a meaningful level of both.

Living globally

In the modern world, ther, e is no real alternative to multilateralism. The international community must work together to create a world based on the rule of law and sanctity of contract, where solidarity and social responsibility are not limited by national boundaries, but extend across borders, continents and generations.

In order to build globally integrated, open societies for the 21st century, we need to reinforce constructive dialogue between peoples and cultures based on the belief that global diversity is a precious asset. We need to enhance the recognition that tolerance of those who are different is a hallmark of civilisation. Indeed, we need to impart an understanding that it is diversity that gives humanity its promise.

Mr President,

I have dwelt at length on the need for the international community to work together to empower the poor and build a more peaceful world. I have also outlined how Norway has defined and designed its national priorities to contribute to these aims.

Earlier this month, the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced that the Nobel Peace Prize 2006 had been awarded to the distinguished Professor Mohammad Yunus and the Grameen Bank, which he founded in 1976. This is a recent example of the momentous changes we as individuals can make. Professor Yunus and his institution were honoured for “their efforts to create economic and social development from below”.

Professor Yunus’s pioneering concept of micro credit, translated into action through the Grameen Bank, has given millions of poor people access to loans without collateral. The Bank has more than six million members, of which 96 per cent are women. It has customers in three-quarters of Bangladesh’s villages. It lends to nearly one million micro-enterprises, and recovers more than 5 billion US dollars every year. It has enabled the development of a myriad of innovative businesses.

Thirty years ago, micro credit was an unknown concept for the world’s financial establishments. Today, Professor Yunus’s innovation has been emulated in more than a hundred countries. According to the 2005 State of the Micro Credit Summit Campaign Report, 92 million families worldwide had made use of micro credit by the end of 2004. Of those, 73 per cent were extremely poor at the time they took up their first loan.

The establishment of Grameen Bank is a singularly impressive achievement, and it is not difficult to see its immediate relevance for enhancing human dignity and thereby helping to build a peaceful future.

In conclusion,

The American writer Mark Twain famously stated that India “is the sole country under the sun that all desire to see, and having seen once, would not trade that glimpse for the shows of all the rest of the globe combined”.

I have been in India for only a short while – three days. It has nevertheless been long enough to see a lot. It has also been long enough to acknowledge that visiting India is a humbling experience for those of us who come from smaller places. And it has been long enough for me to want to challenge one particular aspect of Mr Twain’s claim.

A single glimpse cannot do justice to the kaleidoscope of images I have seen in India. Indeed, it seems to me that every challenge humanity knows is present here. Moreover, from what I have seen and learnt it appears that the solution to every challenge can be found here too. This is so obviously evident in your confidence in democracy, your tolerance for diversity, and your willingness to embrace social change through inclusive dialogue and compromise. India truly has much to teach the world.

Thank you for your attention.