(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
Mediation attempts after mediation efforts coincide in Syria, and violence appears to be endless. Norway's response to this has been to involve itself by training armed Syrian rebel groups in Jordan.
Training many of these rebel groups has emerged as the only real option for action. But over the past week, two other places in the world have shown that there are other opportunities. In Colombia, the government and the leftist FARC guerrilla finally agreed on a peace agreement on 25. August. The following day, we could read on the Norwegian government's website that the Philippines and the Communist National Democratic Front of the Philippines have committed themselves to unilateral ceasefire without time limits pending a final peace agreement. In both of these processes, Norway has assisted as a neutral mediator.
This shows that diplomacy can work in practice. Now I will go into some arguments that it is precisely the peaceful, non-violent struggle that has worked best, and that the continued practice of this requires that our new role as a warrior state cease.
The government's preliminary line. So far, the Norwegian government has followed the same trend we have seen in recent years: The signals from the new long-term plan for the Armed Forces, as well as other state budgets, clearly indicate that the priorities are gradually becoming more and more in favor of hard military funds, and more and more at the expense of peace and reconciliation work. While the decision to buy 52 new F-35 fighters – which currently have estimated operating costs of NOK 252 billion – remains pending, the Government is choosing to reduce both aid and information support for non-governmental organizations.
This speaks to the priorities. Expensive fighter jets do not help any of the world's poor. Expensive fighters also do not create peace and stability when the war is out. Libya would not have been better off today if Norway had used F-35 fighters rather than F-16.
The point in the state budget of cutting information support for organizations that disseminate foreign policy issues and conduct important information work, goes directly beyond the ability to contribute alternative voices to the public and often consensus-based line. In the Government's original budget proposal for 2016, they first called for extensive reductions, and then proposed deleting the entire scheme. This was fortunately averted by the parliamentary majority. Instead of planned cuts of 50 million, the cut was "only" 31 million kroner, from 91 to 60 in total. There is no doubt that this will have far-reaching significance for the Norwegian debate on foreign policy. We already see today how consensual the debate on deterrence strategies, armaments and military participation is. If the opposition votes get even tighter financially, it will be very difficult to change this.
It is not just information support that is weakened in the state budget. The government has also achieved a dramatic cut in funding for work for peace, democracy and reconciliation. As much as NOK 250 million disappears here. This is especially serious when we see it in the perspective of the progress mentioned in the introduction. In Colombia, there has been a grotesque civil war for 50 years. The fighting between the government and paramilitary death squads on the one hand and the FARC guerrillas on the other has been extraordinarily violent, and it has proved impossible to get any clear military victory for any of the parties. Since 2012, Norway, among other things in collaboration with Cuba, has played a mediating role as host country for the negotiations. The peace work has taken place through a jointly appointed commission with members from both parties, which has looked at the causes and consequences of the conflict for the people of Colombia. The solutions have meant that both parties have had to give and take. Among other things, the FARC is required to demobilize its armed units, and the government has had to agree to land reforms and political representation for the left-wing opposition.
In the Philippines, perhaps even more surprising results have been seen. This conflict, like that in Colombia, has lasted for decades, and it has proved just as difficult to win militarily. The peace process has been going on here since 2001, where Norway has also contributed as a mediator. There have been several ceasefires since then, and progress has been slow. The breakthrough this time is that both parties agree to a unilateral renunciation of violence indefinitely, while working together to develop a program of social reform, not unlike what we saw in Colombia. Here, too, we see that dialogue is possible if it is done within a safe framework, where both parties see that they can benefit from it. It is therefore very worrying that the Government chooses to cut the budget item for work of this type.
Our victories as mediators in conflicts have been possible precisely because we have not been an aggressive power with an imperialist past.
A wasted chance in Syria. The contrast between the victories in Colombia and the Philippines and Norway's preliminary contribution to the Syrian civil war is great. Here, Norway has renounced the neutrality line and chosen side. In 2012, then-Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide proclaimed that the Syrian National Coalition, an umbrella organization for some of the rebel groups, was "the legitimate representative of the Syrian people." We are also participating in the EU's sanctions regime against Syria, without this being anchored in the UN. In May, it was also decided that Norway will train Syrian rebel groups in Jordan that will fight on Syrian soil. Although the groups will not fight against the Syrian government, there is no doubt that this is a clear interference in the civil war, even with a dubious mandate under international law.
This represents a double role for Norwegian involvement that cannot be continued in the long run. Our victories as mediators in conflicts have been possible precisely because we have not been an aggressive power with an imperialist past. Norway's credibility has, on the contrary, been based on the fact that we have sought negotiations rather than military solutions. Developments in recent years can be devastating for this. For example, it is unlikely that Norway will be able to play a credible mediating role in Syria. This will probably have to go to someone else. This is a great pity with the good results from Colombia and the Philippines fresh in my mind.
There are many ways to seek influence in international politics. It is clear that Norway has had more success with peaceful means than violent ones. For the time being, we are in an unfortunate split, with successful diplomatic advances on the one hand, and unsuccessful wars and cuts in peace work on the other. The latter should not be the defining factor for Norway in the future. In short, we need more of the Norway we have seen in Colombia and the Philippines, and less of the Norway that dropped hundreds of bombs on Libya, and which is now entering the direct civil war in Syria.
See also our other peace cases on Colombia: «Norway as guarantor in peace talks» and Terje Dragseth about literature festival in Medellin.
