Twenty-second annual Nobel Peace Prize Forum

Keynote Address by President Martti Ahtisaari: “Striving for Peace: A Question of Will”

Minneapolis, 5 March 2010

Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Let me begin by thanking the Norwegian-American Colleges for organizing this 22nd Annual Nobel Peace Prize Forum and the 15th annual Nobel Peace Prize Festival. I sincerely hope that these events are inspirational for all of us.

I am delighted to be here in Minneapolis – this feels very much like being at home. I am very privileged to have been born in a Nordic Country and of my Scandinavian roots. I have 12,5 percent Norwegian blood and the same amount of Swedish heritage in me, which I believe might be the case for some of you as well.

**********

I want to begin my speech today by quoting from the Nobel speech I gave on 10 December 2008 in Oslo. What I in particular wanted to emphasize in that speech was: “Peace is a question of will. All conflicts can be resolved. Wars and conflicts are not inevitable.” I realize this may be a bold statement especially when it comes to conflict ridden areas such as the Middle East. It is however my firm belief that this statement applies to all conflicts in the world. For me it is simply intolerable to think that wars and conflicts should go on forever. Keys for preventing and ending conflicts do exist. The Nobel Peace Prize is inspired by the vision that individuals can challenge the fatalism that prevails amongst those who believe that the quest for peace is eternally elusive. For me personally the Nobel Prize offers a platform to highlight the urgent need to continue work to overcome the intolerable suffering of war.

We have heard, in the 2009 Human Security Report, that today’s wars generate far fewer deaths than in the past. This is of course something we should celebrate. However we also know that the 20-year decline in conflict numbers appears to have stalled and tens of thousands are still being killed each year by war-related violence with an even greater—though uncounted—toll from war-driven diseases and malnutrition. Crucially however, as the authors of the Human Security Report argue, there is no reason for undue pessimism. The evidence is clear that international action can play—and indeed has played—a critically important role in reducing the human costs of war. I want to go further and not only reduce the human costs of war, but also search for ways to prevent the occurrence of war and resolve violent conflict when it breaks out.

I was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for my efforts and results as a peace mediator to resolve international conflicts. In my speech today I will focus on peace mediation, keeping in mind how this is only part of the process for achieving sustainable peace. It is important to understand that the peace agreement is always just a beginning of a peace process. But it is the beginning that enables the process to begin. If the mediation process has been successful, it should give the parties the necessary building blocks to start working towards a peaceful society.

Before considering in more detail elements of successful peace mediation, we first need to be a little circumspect on the question of who in reality is needed and who will have the opportunity to engage in a conflict resolution. International engagement is usually a necessary but not a sufficient condition for a successful peace process. The reason for this is that mediators do not choose their conflict and it is a mistake to believe that if organisations such as United Nations, European Union, and African Union create a roster of mediators that these mediators will inevitably be acceptable to the parties. The notion of outside involvement in a peace process as a magic bullet disempowers the parties and ultimately ignores the fact that the only people that can make peace are the parties to the conflict, and just as they are responsible for the conflict and its consequences, so should they be given responsibility and recognition for the peace.

**********

Ladies and gentlemen,

To give you insights on what I see key in successful peace mediation, I will bring up five points I have learned during my experience in contexts where external mediation has been needed to resolve the situation. These points are based on the cases of Namibia’s independence process, the Aceh peace process and the Status process for Kosovo.

Peace agreement is only a beginning – ‘a peace agreement requires a comprehensive approach to peacebuilding rooted in poverty reduction and justice’

The work of a mediator and the signing of a peace agreement must be understood as being only one part of a much deeper process starting with conflict prevention and continuing through to peacebuilding. In more practical terms this means that poverty needs to be eradicated and human security provided for all.

Unfortunately the statistic show that most peace agreements fail within five years of the signature. A peace process does not take only a few years but might take generations. Let me take Aceh as an example. The conflict between the Government of Indonesia and the Free Aceh Movement lasted for over 30 years. In 2005 we managed to broker peace and the Memorandum of Understanding was signed in Helsinki in August 2005. After this we have been carefully following the implementation of the peace agreement. Five years following the signing, I and my colleagues remain to be committed to continue my involvement to see through a satisfactory implementation of the peace agreement, where Aceh will be a normalized, peaceful region of Indonesia, albeit with a special autonomy. Peacebuilding in Aceh, as in other parts of the world, requires reconciliation but also a firm commitment and will for local economic development and institution building.

 In Aceh, there are three critical pillars. These as could be encapsulated in the post tsunami slogan spelled out by Bill Clinton: To build (Return Reconstruction and Reintegration), to build back (Truth Reconciliation and Social Cohesion), and to build back better (Peace consolidation and conflict prevention).

1)      Return, Reconstruction and Reintegration. – To build. In Aceh, financial needs of ex-combatants (Rebels) have been addressed through economic assistance programs. There has been a considerable shift from compensation assistance to an empowerment model. I welcome this as it addresses sustainable reintegration related to the fair and balanced treatment of all those affected by conflict, not only combatants. Such approach recognizes that reintegration is a social and economic process, and occurs at the community level.

2)     Truth, Reconciliation and Social Cohesion- To build back. In Aceh, considerable attention has been devoted to the issue of finding truth, reconciliation and social cohesion. The setting up, and following through of a Truth and Reconciliation Process is as important as it is painful, as we have seen elsewhere. Take South Africa as an example. There is not one model but many and each society needs to follow its own. At the same time, conflict torn societies need reconciliation, and healing. These aspects are sometimes less visible to international donors than the, for instance, construction of a port. Support for reconciliation is however building a societal foundation for peace. This cannot be done by any outsiders – only supporter by them.

3)     Peace consolidation and conflict prevention. – To build back better. In Aceh as elsewhere in this world, it is important that peace consolidation and conflict prevention are intimately linked with good governance, particularly the reform of the justice and security sector. These are preconditions for peace consolidation. This is the hard and detailed work that requires years, if not decades. Justice and security must be rooted in community level initiatives. These can include community mediation training, peace journalism and peace education. In Aceh a peace curriculum for all schools throughout Aceh has been developed.

The two pre-eminent concerns as mediator, firstly to prevent reoccurrence of the problem that caused the conflict in the first place and secondly to lay the foundations for reconciliation. Both demand a fully comprehensive approach. 

On the first issue of preventing reoccurrence, I have argued that a peace agreement has to be simpler than instructions for installation of home appliances.  It is important as a mediator that you prevent the parties adding too much to the deal.  But preventing reoccurrence also requires a much longer term and more profound process than simply the signing of a peace agreement. Too often we mistake the signing of an accord with the arrival of peace. In reality it is likely to be one step in a long term process of delivering on reconstruction and the development of a healthy state and society.  This tackling of the socio-economic root causes of the conflict is where the international community has been less successful, whether in the Balkans, in sub-Saharan Africa or Iraq.

The engagement of the ‘peacebuilding community’ and the infusion of millions of Euros and dollars in the form of conflict resolution projects have in some cases had a profoundly counterproductive effect. The interaction between external assistance and local politics is particularly complex in conflict and otherwise fragile contexts. The organization which I founded, Crisis Management Initiative, has analysed this in a number of contexts. As just one example, research in Nepal showed how donor-sponsored policy reforms could inadvertently fuel resentment among certain groups, increase social, political and economic exclusion, and thus risk that marginalised groups resort to violence to address their grievances. A shift away from the ‘standard’ aid modalities is required in order to ensure that government-defined development priorities do not represent the interests of only a narrow elite leading to an exacerbation of the very income disparities, exclusion and inequity that drive conflict and instability. In the context of what political scientists have called ‘hybrid’ or ‘mediated’ state structures, the call to ‘do no harm’ is not nearly as simple as it sounds and calls for a much more sophisticated understanding of power relations in the places where we inject external assistance.

Notwithstanding these complexities there remain some simple truths: peace agreements can only be sustained where there is economic opportunity.  And poverty reduction is an essential partner in peace building. It is our task to create a future and hope for regions and countries in crisis where young people suffer from unemployment and have little prospects of improving their lives. I therefore insist that we recognize that development is inherently political and that we work harder to find innovative solutions on how to get private sector engagement in post conflict settings.

Ladies and Gentlemen, these illustration show that peace is hard work requiring commitment, expertise, resources, and the will of conflict parties as well as the international donor community.

Values are an anchor for a mediator

I believe it is of critical importance to anchor peacemaking in our values. The most important resource that a mediator can rely on is his or her own values. As we know, some of these may be culturally bound but many of these are universal.

The complex task of mediation in Sudan is a case in point. We can see the problems that have been created for the Darfur mediation where the numerous parties have been able to ‘forum shop’ between mediators in order to dodge the basic principles and values that need to underpin the search for consensus. With recent somewhat positive developments on the Darfur front, we now face a crucial moment with Southern Sudan’s referendum on whether to remain part of Sudan. Of course good coordination among the international community will be vital. Ideally a single mediator with a clear and strong mandate should be nominated with the approval of the parties.

A mediator in a situation like Sudan, needs to be able to assert their independence which underlines their integrity. They also need to know what he or she wants from the process and in which direction he/she is guiding it. The frame around which a peace process is going to be negotiated should be clear to the parties and the mediator. This is what I mean by anchoring mediation in values. A mediator cannot and should not be absolutely neutral; he or she needs to support one party over the other if one party strongly misbehaves. But I do not mean that a mediator should impose their will or give one of the parties the feeling that they are being treated unfairly. In other words: the mediator should be “all-partial.”

Engage with opponents – shake hands with the devil

We must inspire and transform with mediation. Mediation is not about accepting the status quo and working with it. It is about reaching out to seemingly implacable foes and seeking to reassure that the interests of the conflict parties can be met, but through a transformation. As I said during my Nobel acceptance speech, the Namibia experience taught that a durable solution can only be found if one is also prepared to engage in discussions with your political opponents. I do believe that the experience from the Namibia operation encouraged the government of South Africa to begin the process of democratic change.

I have made my career by talking to people that have at some points been branded as terrorist. For me this is the only way to have a successful peace mediation process. Reaching a solution that ends a conflict means talking to all those who are parties to the conflict.

Go beyond small elite ‘Peace requires engaging all parties with broad and multilevel participation in the peace process, including support for civil society’

We need to be open when resolving conflicts. All my peace assignments have taught me that a peace process is largely a matter of cooperation and partnership between different actors, parties to a conflict, other peace mediators, governments, the civic society and international organizations. The mediation does not actually take place only in the room where the usually old men are meeting. In the future we must be better able to achieve a broader participation in peace processes. Particularly, there is a need to ensure the engagement of women in all stages of a peace process.

Lasting peace and reconciliation need a constituency and this is only acquired through the participation of institutions outside of government. This is why I stress the importance of engaging civil society in an effective way, parallel and integral to a peace process. They are the clients of the conflict parties; they are essential institutions of society that will bear the burden of ensuring reconciliation. We have to be open to their concerns, even and especially if they do have different aspirations of the negotiating parties. Their involvement in the process is not a luxury but a necessity.

Therefore in preventing and resolving conflicts a conventional, purely state-centric approach is not an option in all cases. The transformation of society at all levels is not simply the monopoly of governments. Sometimes we have to challenge the conventional way of doing business. Non-governmental actors can play a pivotal role as facilitators or mediators. Here I cite my colleagues at the organisation I founded after my Finnish Presidency, Crisis Management Initiative.

Build the capacity of the next generation of peacemakers

Mediation in many parts of the world is carried out by seasoned and experienced practitioners. Frequently today’s peace mediators are people like myself, former Presidents, Foreign Ministers - and often men. Where this works, it is not of course a bad thing but we must be alert to cultivate the future generation of peace-makers. My generation has practiced mediation more as an art, and certainly mediation is a skill, but we should support its systematisation. I know from my experience that a mediation process has many technical aspects which the mediator alone cannot manage him or herself. Indeed a mediator should not pretend that he or she has all the answers to all the problems that occur in a peace process.

Take again the case of Sudan. In terms of the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement there are at least nine post-referendum issues that need to be sorted through: citizenship; currency; public service; status of the Joint Integrated Units (military units comprising soldiers from both Northern and Southern armies); agreements and international covenants (the primary issue being what happens to treaties and other agreements to which Sudan is a signatory); debts and assets oil concessions and production, transportation and exporting; water; and ownership (largely of land). Negotiations on these issues could result in an amendment to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (a “CPA-plus”) or an entirely new agreement. No mediator can be expert on all these issues. Mediators require the support of experts on specific issues. Although all eyes are often on the peace mediators, mediation support teams and other actors with a diverse range of expertise and experience are actors outside the direct negotiation process itself. I have never negotiated peace just by myself and the importance of a professional mediation team and support of the most important governmental actors of a specific conflict situation is far more important than the role that the mediator plays.

Important work is underway in the UN and now also the AU and EU to build rosters of such experts so that mediators can access the advice they need and do this fast.

The more readily available and tailored those instruments and expertise are, the more efficient we will become. There are outstanding young professionals in this field, and I certainly hope in this room today, that we need to mentor and give them the opportunity to practice, learn and build the capacity we need.

**************

Dear Friends,

I looked forward in my Nobel speech to the inauguration of the new President of the United States, in the hope that he would give high priority to the Middle East conflict during his first year in office. As we all know, President Obama succeeded me and was awarded with the Nobel Peace Prize last year. Personally I feel honored of being succeeded by this outstanding personality whose election to become the President of the United States shows how your society has a remarkable capability of change. It is therefore fitting for me to finish my speech today by recalling that it is in the Middle East above all where the credibility of the whole international community, and not just America, is at stake. And it is in the Middle East above all where I look forward to being proved correct in my confidence that all conflict can be settled. We should not accept any excuses from those in power. Peace, ladies and gentlemen, is a question of will.