Tucked in the
corner of northern Europe, Norway
is a small Nordic country with more international influence than one might
expect. With a landmass of 324,200 sq.
km, which is a bit larger than the state of New Mexico, and a population of 4.6
million citizens (CIA World Fact Book, 2007), the unassuming size of Norway may
indicate that the country could insignificantly impact global issues of
international relations and peace.
However, this is not the case with Norway. Norway’s role as a peace
facilitator in wars and conflicts across the world has made this small country
into a global paradigm of peace. Rather
than entering a conflict in a “big brother” type role and making peace between
conflicting groups, Norwegian foreign policy works in cooperation with private
citizens and non-governmental peace-advocate groups. This unique blend of government and private
institutions creates the Norwegian brand of peace: friendship to all sides of a conflict, and help to
build dialogue and peace first at the grass-roots level. Although some superpowers may scoff or
criticize this approach because of its time consuming nature, the strategies
used by Norway
has made incredible impact and progress in peace efforts through research and
development aid in countries worldwide.
Since
Norway’s peaceful secession
from Sweden
in 1905, it transformed itself from an economically struggling country seeking
to establish itself as an independent nation to a highly-revered paradigm of
social welfare and safe haven for all. Norway’s ideals
of democracy, human rights, equality, and peace permeate every aspect of Nordic
society, especially those of quality education, universal health care, and
diplomacy. According to the UN Human
Development Index of 2005, Norway
ranked as the number one most livable country in the world. Norwegians could choose simply to maintain
this high standard of living, take care of its own citizens, and mind their own
affairs. However, Norwegians as a group
and as individuals channel incredible amounts of time, money, and energy into
achieving peace in conflicts all over the world. But why does Norway choose to invest so much in these conflicts? According to Mr. Jan Petersen, Minister of
Foreign Affairs: “The main answer is that, like many others, we feel we have a
moral obligation to contribute to the peaceful resolution of conflicts around
the world” (Petersen, 2005).
“It
is a particularity of Norway’s
civil society that no one has a monopoly of over bureaucracy and diplomacy,”
says Gunnar Stålsett, the former Bishop of Oslo. “Rather, the government cooperates closely
with organizations like churches and trade unions” (Ford, 2000). Instead of the Norwegian government simply
stepping into a conflict and wielding its authority as a neutral party to make peace between enemies, the
Norwegian foreign policy works in cooperation with groups such as the International
Peace Research Institute in Oslo (PRIO), Norwegian Red Cross, Nansen Dialogue
Project and Norwegian Church Aid (NCA) at the heart of the conflict with those
directly involved to find and build the peace. As a small country with a small foreign
service, “Norway’s
global ambitions as a peacemaker have forced it to outsource its diplomacy to
nongovernmental organizations” (Ford, 2000).
Humanitarian groups like NCA find and build the contacts with the people
directly involved on all sides of a conflict, and the government provides the
funding for the peace process. Norway’s
history reinforces their intentions: no colonial past, no hidden agenda, no aim
to fly its flag in every country it helps (Hansen, 2005). Points out Dan Smith, director of PRIO: “Norway
hasn’t done much harm to anyone for 1,100 years,” since the days of the Vikings
(Ford, 2000).
However, money and
Norway’s reputation are not enough to bring enemy parties together: “…it is
only when Norwegians have been closely involved in a country over a long enough
period to have made contacts who trust them that [Norway] can help” (Ford, 2000). Jan Egeland, UN Undersecretary-General for
Humanitarian Affairs and inventor of the Norwegian model of
government-humanitarian organization cooperation, quotes: “I call it venture
capital for peace… the costs are low, and the potential rewards are so high
that even one success in 100 makes it worthwhile” (Ford, 2000). In this paper, I will study Norway’s role in peace facilitation in civil war
conflicts through two case studies: Norwegian Church Aid in Sudan and the
Nansen Dialogue Project in the Balkans.
These two case studies are by no means exclusive of Norwegian aid, but
only two examples of how Norwegian efforts are helping to build peace in these
war-ravaged countries.
Norwegian Church Aid in Sudan
Since its
foundation in 1945, the Norwegian Church Aid has been involved in providing aid
to international crises and conflicts.
NCA, or “Kirkensnødhjelp”
as it is named in Norwegian, coordinated the Norwegian church
social aid for people in need after World War II. The organization soon deployed their aid to
help not only refugees of war-torn Germany
and Austria, but also to
flood victims in India,
earthquake survivors in Algeria,
and war refugees from Congo. NCA discovered their inspiration in a
well-known Christian parable:
A tradition had begun: helping those who are forgotten
by others. The Christian notion of mercy was Norwegian Church Aid's driving
force from the very start. Jesus’ story of the Good Samaritan gave us a model
to work with. And Jesus went further. He showed his solidarity with those
suffering by saying that what we do towards the starving, towards strangers,
towards the sick, we do towards Him. (History of NCA, 2004)
Since
then, NCA has expanded its aid from catastrophe work to include long-term
development projects, creation of the world-embracing ecumenical network called
“ACT: Action of Churches Together”, and campaigns and programs based in 70
countries across four continents.
Norwegian Church Aid is funded by two main sources: private citizens and
the Norwegian authorities, and currently receives the highest public allowances
in Norway
(History of NCA, 2004). This funding
allows NCA to create a sufficient budget to effectively build and support
programs in regions all over the world.
One
of Norwegian Church Aid regional programs focuses on the brutal civil war between
north and south Sudan, and
the current fighting located in the Darfur province of western Sudan. Government-supported Muslim militia from
northern Sudan, collectively known as the “Janjaweed,” systematically attacked
and eliminated villages of African tribal farmers in the southern region of the
Sudan. The Janjaweed considers itself as
“Arab” in the sense that it embraces Arabic culture and language rather than
the “Africans,” who retain their indigenous languages and otherwise virtually
indistinguishable physically (savedarfur.org, 2007). According to SaveDarfur.org, “Not since the Rwanda genocide of 1994 has the
world seen such a calculated campaign of slaughter, rape, starvation and
displacement” (savedarfur.org, 2007).
Two million Sudanese thus far have been affected in this tragic ethnic
cleansing: an estimate of over 200,000 people murdered, 1.6 million displaced
from their homes and living in shoddy camps, and at least 200,000 fled to
neighboring Chad
(savedarfur.org, 2007). Violence
continues to escalate, and many humanitarian groups have left because they
cannot protect their workers.
How does Norwegian Church Aid fit
into this conflict? On January 25, 2005,
the United Nations Commission of Inquiry found the Sudanese government
responsible for conducting “…indiscriminate attacks, including killing
of civilians, torture, enforced disappearances, destruction of villages, rape
and other forms of sexual violence, pillaging and forced displacement” (UN News Centre, 2005). While other humanitarian agencies left in
order to shelter their workers from harm, the NCA remains in the heart of Darfur, providing food and medical services to refugees
and internally displaced persons (IDPs).
NCA was forced to suspend all activity where violence is currently
escalating, but they continue to support refugee camps to the best of their
ability. Anne Lise Fossland, Norwegian
Church Aid’s representative in the Sudan, notes:
We find the situation extremely worrying…People are
lying under trees, they have lost absolutely everything. The situation could
soon become desperate, and it is impossible to get aid out to these regions in
the current climate. The tragedy of Darfur is
far from over... (“NCA
will not pull out of Darfur”, 2004).
NCA’s dedication and commitment to support the Sudanese people directly
affected by this 21-year civil war reflects the Norwegian grass-roots approach
to diplomacy:
We still want to work on a grass root level,
helping individuals, villages or slum areas.
However, we also want to strengthen churches and other popular
organizations in their ability to solve the population’s problems, and to
become spokesmen for these issues. (History
of NCA, 2007)
As
of January 9, 2005, the Sudan
found peace in a treaty signed between the Sudanese government and the Sudanese
People’s Liberation Movement, signaling the end of the 21-year-long civil war. It is a relief that the war is over, but the
challenges are far from being solved: brutal violence is still in Darfur, rebuilding the socioeconomic sector of the
country, and AIDS and the HIV virus run rampant throughout the population. Because Norway played such a central role
in finding the end of the Sudanese conflict, the NCA and other Norwegian groups
will continue to provide support for local authorities and organizations
(“Sudanese Peace Treaty Signed”, 2005).
In addition to sending supplies of vehicles, water drilling equipment,
8500 water tanks, plastic sheeting for more than 5000 people, and 14 tons of
emergency ration biscuits (“More Aid to Darfur”, 2004), NCA will work closely
with the international ecumenical group “Action of Churches Together” to
provide accurate health training to encourage health and hygiene in Darfur
camps. It is a time of rebuilding peace
in the Sudan, and with the
help of Norwegian Church Aid and other humanitarian groups, peace can bridge
the differences between northern and southern Sudan.
Norwegian
Church Aid and its work in the Sudan
is merely one example of Norway’s
approach to peace. With a significant
number of organizations dedicated to building peace and democracy headquartered
in Norway
including the International Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) and the
Nansen-Dialogue Network, Norwegian foreign policy collaborates with such groups
to find peace in the world’s enduring conflicts. This combination of the Norwegian government
and its people working together is unique—it is this cooperation that brings
those involved in a conflict to request Norway’s help. It isn’t the government seeking to build
their global status, or individuals in search of international fame. Rather, Norway finds that helping others
achieve peace is simply a contribution that they can make to the world.
Nansen Academy in the Balkans
Finding peace is a
complicated and delicate situation in the midst of conflict, but the key to
finding peace is to continue building
the peace. Norway remains in the area of
conflict after the peace accords, giving support and aid at the grassroots
level to ensure the building of a successful and healthy democracy. One area that Norwegian efforts have focused
on is the war-torn area of the former Yugoslavia, known as the Balkan
states. The role of peacebuilding and
dialogue is a hallmark of Norwegian foreign policy. According to State Secretary Vidar Helgesen, who
spoke during the seminar on Dialogue, Peacebuilding, and Norwegian foreign
policy in Oslo
on June 5, 2002:
…Being a small
country, Norway
is not in a position to impose its views on others. To make our mark, dialogue must be our
strategy. Peacebuilding is therefore, in
our own interest, one of our foreign policy goals. And dialogue is the method we use to work
towards this goal. (Helgesen, 2002)
So what happened in the Balkans,
and how did Norway
get involved? The bitter conflicts in
the former Yugoslavia
have been a significant issue for centuries.
The word “Balkan” comes from the Turkish word for “mountain,” and the
word has been used to describe the region since the early 19th
century, which includes the current countries of Slovenia,
Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina,
Serbia, Montenegro, Albania,
and Macedonia
(BBC, 2003). The Balkan states are
located in southeastern Europe, invaded by the
Ottoman Turks at the end of the 14th century and resulting in
Turkish rule for 500 years. The
beginning of the 20th century marked the crumbling of the Ottoman Empire. A
wave of nationalism flooded the Balkan states, and war broke out in 1912 when
Montenegrin troops crossed the Ottoman border.
Days after, Serbia, Bulgaria, and Greece
joined the war effort, driving the Turks out of Kosovo,
Macedonia, and Albania. Later the Serbs turned against the Bulgaria and occupied Kosovo and Macedonia. When Franz Ferdinand, the Austro-Hungarian
emperor’s heir, was sent to subdue the unrest in the region, he was shot in Sarajevo by a Serb
nationalist, triggering World War I (BBC News, 2003). After the war, the Versailles
treaty set new state boundaries in the Balkans, and the Kingdom of Croats,
Serbs and Slovenes was founded. In 1929,
King Alexander I changed the name to Yugoslavia, the land of southern
Slavs.
World
War II brought much turmoil to the area, leading to a series of overlapping
civil wars and widespread atrocities: Serbs, Jews, gypsies, and anti-fascist
Croats were killed in Croatian concentration camps, Italy
took control of Montenegro
and German troops occupied Serbia. This soon led to Socialist Yugoslavia,
declared by communist Tito in 1945, and a federation of republics again
redefined the political boundaries: Croatia,
Montenegro, Serbia, Slovenia,
Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Macedonia
(BBC, 2003). Communist rule brought
stability to the region, but soon national and ethnic tensions grew as a result
of unequal development and an ever-increasing burden of debt.
Though
the inequality between the ethnic groups was strong during the greater part of
the 20th century, the intensity and animosity grew when nationalism
swept through the Balkans in the early 1990s.
When Croatia
broke away from the federation, the war brought about hundreds of thousands of
refugees and tore open wounds from the brutality of the 1940s. Serbs remaining in Yugoslavia
to build a greater Serbia
began to drive out Muslims from their homes, resulting in another illustration
of “ethnic cleansing” in world history.
War raged in Bosnia and Herzegovina—
the Bosnian Muslim government was surrounded by the Bosnian Serbs in the
capital of Sarajevo, and the Muslim army was
fighting in a bitter separate war with the Bosnian Croats in central Bosnia. The UN sent peacekeepers to contain the
situation of the multi-layered war between the varying ethnic groups, but
proved to be ineffective (BBC, 2003).
Norway entered
the conflict in 1994 when the situation seemed hopeless, a future without
peace. The media coverage of the
dramatic events unfolding in Bosnia
shocked and horrified Western audiences.
The conflict in Sarajevo struck a raw
nerve in Lillehammer, Norway—the
host of the 1994 Olympics—and it began a campaign of support for Sarajevo, who hosted the
Olympics only ten years earlier. The
campaign raised 70 million NOK, equivalent to approximately 11.2 million USD,
for solidarity projects in former Yugoslavia and other places
(Aarbakke, 2002). Though monetary
support was helpful, Norway
realized that money could not buy peace, and something more was needed to solve
the underlying problems that keep the conflict alive in the Balkans.
The Nansenskolen in Lillehammer (known as the Nansen Academy
in English) knew that it had the resources to take the first step in finding
peace in the Balkan conflicts. The
12-week program “Democracy, Human Rights, and Peaceful Conflict Resolution” was
developed as a joint project by the Nansen Academy, Norwegian Red Cross,
International Peace Institute, Oslo (PRIO), Norwegian Church Aid, with economic
support from the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration, Lillehammer Olympic Aid,
and the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Aarbakke, 2002). The project’s aim was to be “a serious
attempt to test the possibilities of pedagogy in peace work” (Aarbakke, 2002,
Ch.1), educating potential leaders in former Yugoslavia to obtain relative
information and training in democracy, human rights, and peaceful conflict
resolution to help build a successful democratic society.
The program was unique and groundbreaking. At first it was very difficult for the instructors and lecturers to gauge what type of balance of lectures, conversation, and free time was needed for the course, and participants “felt very much like everyday was an experiment” (Aarbakke, 2002, Ch.1). In the second year, the course went from a predominately classroom style to a more pedagogical style based partly on workshops and the Scandinavian “folkehøyskole” tradition of a “holistic view of the students and challenge them to grow individually, socially and academically” (folkehogskole.no, 2004). As the program progressed, inter-ethnic dialogue turned into the central concept around which everything else revolved. Dialogue was an essential element from the beginning of the course, but “the understanding of such dialogue went through a qualitative change after the first year… different kinds of dialogue approaches can result in quite different outcomes” (Aarbakke, 2002, Intro). Dialogue became the trademark of the Nansen Academy, and now a hallmark of Norwegian diplomacy and peacebuilding.
Dialogue is a seemingly simple
concept, but it is important to recognize the different aspects of dialogue and
how they work together to empower people to openly and honestly communicate
with each other. According to the
mission statement of the Nansen Academy, Nansen Dialogue provides a neutral and
open space for people involved in a serious conflict to meet together
face-to-face for truthful and straightforward communication. The aim is to:
…break down enemy images, and to
increase understanding of each other’s positions, interests, and needs… the
focus is not on who is right or most guilty, but on how to build respect for
democratic principles , human rights, and peaceful conflict resolution for
future improvement of society. (nansendialog.net, 2005; Aarbakke, 2002, Ch.2)
This type of open dialogue was a
new concept for the ethnic groups of the former Yugoslavia. During the reign of the empire, the Ottomans
administratively classified people according to religion affiliation, and these
divisions were powerful social sanctions to keep the groups segregated. The political developments of the late 1980s
reinforced the segregation, and developed the “so-called ‘parallel system’ of
administration, whereby the Albanians, in their refusal to accept Serbian
domination, developed their own institutions to take care of fundamental tasks
that are normally the responsibility of the state” (Aarbakke, 2002, Ch.2). One participant of the course pointed out
that “Yugoslavia
was a monologue, not a dialogue, society.
The various parts do not recognize each other… In such an environment,
dialogue is impossible: if you have a different opinion, you keep silent—or
else you belong to the enemy. There is
ordering and obeying, but there is not negotiation” (Aarbakke, 2002, Ch.2).
The
Nansen Academy knew that it would take the
right ingredients to create honest and open dialogue between the different
parties represented in the Nansen course.
Though the Norwegian facilitators did not take a uniform approach to
dialogue, six fundamental elements emerged as the foundation of Nansen
Dialogue:
- Neutrality
- It is Not Enough to Be Right
- Always More Than Two Sides
- Humor
- Creativity
- From Positions to Interests
It is important to remember that
dialogue is not the end-all cure for conflicts: dialogue simply provides a
certain democratic method to approach issues of deep conflicts, and how it can
be applied to future conflicts. The six essentials
of Nansen dialogue have proven to be successful in opening up conversation
between differing groups, and a major ingredient in the Norwegian approach to
democracy.
The
first element of dialogue is neutrality.
Neutrality means to provide a safe place for all participants to have an
honest and candid conversation. For the
participants in the former Yugoslavia, finding neutrality meant for the program
students to be taken from their homeland environment in the Balkans and placed
all together on the small campus of the Nansen Academy in Lillehammer: “In
Norway, it was easier for the participants to see their similarities rather
than their differences, since the Norwegians were ‘the other’” (Aarbakke, 2002,
Ch.4). It was here—in a different
country, a different language, a different culture—that these people, who were
enemies at home, found solidarity in each other. The Nansen Academy
also uses English as the dialogue language.
Rather than using native language that gives some of the participants an
advantage, English provides a more equal opportunity to communicate their
frustrations and ideas (Bryn, 2005).
Neutrality provides the safe place for the parties to work out mutually
acceptable solutions in the conflict.
The
second element is “It Is Not Enough To Be Right”. Antagonism grows between people when arguing
who is right. People are usually
right—from their own standpoint (Bryn, 2005).
When discussing the historical rights to territory, each party looks to
undermine the arguments of their opponents.
Nansen Dialogue takes the opposite approach to focus on how to build a
common future so that all citizens can enjoy equal rights and
opportunities.
The
third component of dialogue is to recognize there are always more than two
sides to a conflict. Rather than seeing
the conflict just between the Serb regime and the Kosovar Albanian guerrilla
force, then the intervention of NATO in 1999, dialogue allows participants to
recognize and address the multitude of opinions, interests, and motives of each
group. It also reveals the minor players
in the conflict: countries dreading a new wave of refugees, the arms industry,
the UN, the EU, the media, organizations involved in peace work (Aarbakke,
2002, Ch.2). A wider perspective of the
conflict and its elements is essential for reducing the tension between the
Albanian and Serb participants in the discussion group.
The
last three aspects of dialogue fit together: humor, creativity, and moving from
positions to interests. Jokes became the
most common icebreakers in the program, and according to program researcher Aarbakke,
“Black humor had in many cases become part of their survival skills” (Aarbakke,
2002, Ch.2). Creativity is necessary to
find alternative approaches to problems rather than taking rigid standpoints
without any flexibility. It’s more a
question of finding solutions that satisfy both parties rather than mutually
exclusive decisions. The sixth and final
ingredient in the Nansen brand of dialogue is moving from positions to
interests: “If participants are able to move from positions to interests, the
chances are greater that they can find the points of common interests that will
enable them to start a constructive dialogue” (Aarbakke, 2002, Ch.2). Rather than remaining in rigid positions,
taking the perspective of interests for all citizens with humor and creativity
leads to solutions that will result in peace instead of just compromise.
The
Nansen Academy’s “Democracy, Human Rights, and
Peaceful Conflict Resolution” was incredibly successful. Many of the participants felt empowered by
what they learned, the contacts and friendships formed, the stereotypes that
were shattered, and the enthusiasm to make positive changes back in their
homeland. The alumni of the program
started the first Nansen Dialogue Center (NDC) in Pristina, Kosovo, in
1997. Since then, ten more Nansen
Dialogue Centers have been established across the former Yugoslavia,
directed and operated by program alumni and local citizens to facilitate
dialogue in their native languages. The
Dialogue Centers turned into a network known as the Balkan Dialogue Project
(nansen-dialog.net, 2005), promoting national reconciliation, tolerance,
networking, dialogue, democracy, and peace throughout the Balkan states. Norway
still plays a significant role in supporting the Balkan Dialogue Project:
Norwegian Church Aid, Norwegian Democratic Institute, and the Norwegian
Ministry of Foreign Affairs generously fund the project’s activities and
administrative costs, and the Nansen
Academy holds regular
staff seminars and network meetings to ensure good communication and joint
strategic planning for the Project’s success.
Conclusion
The
Nansen Dialogue Network in the Balkans and Norwegian Church Aid in Sudan are
merely two examples of Norwegian aid in foreign conflicts. Norwegians can be found in peacebuilding
efforts all over the globe, working in Sri Lanka
to Guatemala, Namibia to Vietnam,
Ethiopia to Afghanistan. Geir Lundestad, director of the Norwegian
Nobel Institute notes: “Everywhere there is a crisis, there seems to be a
Norwegian” (Ford, 2000). Celebrating its
centennial of independence in 2005, Norway reflects on its efforts to promoting
human rights, democracy, and peace for the world. This small Scandinavian country does not have
the size or power enter a conflict as a peacemaker, just as a peace-helper
(Petersen, 2005). Norway sets the
example of peace—it shows how and why peace and dialogue work better than
conflict, and provides the opportunities for conflicting groups to find peace
on their own accords. Jan Egeland, UN
Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs states Norway’s
peaceful diplomacy in a simple and heartfelt statement:
…We can try to beg, to convince, to
propose, to suggest, to prod, and to help, but we never endeavor to say “Here
is a draft agreement.” We can help those
who are willing and able [to make peace] or willing and unable. But we have no sticks and a very small
carrot, so we cannot help those who are unwilling… and anyway, we haven’t made
peace anywhere. The parties have. We have just helped.” (Ford, 2000)
Though the time-consuming and
meticulous methods of the Norwegian approach to peace may not lead to the
spectacular advances in diplomatic accords, the Norwegian brand of peace leads
to a lasting transformation to a peaceful global society.
