Lecture by President of the Republic Tarja Halonen at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI) in Oslo on 26.10.2000

(check against delivery) CRISES AND CRISIS MANAGEMENT

It is a great pleasure and honour to be here at the Nobel House to address you as a guest of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs. Both institutions are world-renowned and have left indelible marks on history.

The international system has been changing very rapidly in the last ten years. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union we have gone over to a multipolar system, in which, however, one actor is clearly more powerful than the others. Parallel to this we can see two major trends gaining strength: "global politics" and "local politics".

Global politics concentrates on matters of concern to the whole world, such as global warming and removing barriers to trade, and thus strengthens the mutual dependence of states. Local politics, on the other hand, arises from local interests and is founded on a demand for various communities to enjoy the right of self-determination and ethnic unity.

According to our neighbouring country´s renowned Stockholm International Peace Research Institute´s yearbook, there were 27 major armed conflicts in the world in 1999 and all but two of them were internal. Thus the origins of political violence have to a growing degree shifted from relations between states to relations between communities within the borders of a state.

When wars are internal - either between governments and various communities or pitting one community against another - the belligerents involved are numerous and of many kinds. The main category of parties to conflicts comprises non-state actors and those politically organised around ethnic and religious differences. Overdone nationalism likewise acts as a political catalyst in many conflicts. We can speak of ethnopolitical conflicts.

The belief that various religious, linguistic and other communities automatically identify with the state and will assimilate with the majority population has proved false. Attempts from above to create a national identity and globalisation have increased people´s awareness of ethnic and cultural differences. Indeed, they may have even been a contributory factor in the genesis of ethnopolitical conflicts. If people do not feel that a state is their national home, they will look for one elsewhere.

In addition to the growing number of ethnopolitical actors, there are four factors that especially characterise present-day conflicts:

- Conflicts persist for a long time; in many cases they can be called "protracted". The reasons for this include the support of outside actors and the easy availability of weapons.
- It is difficult to tell different actors apart. For example, it is sometimes impossible to distinguish mercenary forces from regular armies, because they operate together or the borderline between them is blurred. Besides that, war economies give rise to groups which operate in the no-man´s land between state and non-state actors as they exploit situations of conflict.

- It is primarily civilian populations that suffer the consequences of conflicts. We have seen far too many examples of ethnic cleansing, people being made refugees and mass rape.

- Conflicts are difficult to resolve: local interests, the persistent character of violence, the diversity of actors involved and the inability of the international system to respond in the right way and with sufficient swiftness are all major obstacles to finding a solution.

The many factors that contribute to causing conflicts should be analysed case-by-case to enable us to prevent and resolve armed clashes. Whether various pressures turn into political conflicts between social groups depends on the ability of societies to mitigate, by political and economic means, any differences that arise within them.

The paramount factor in conflict prevention is a stable society, which guarantees people´s security in the broad sense. This includes democracy, respect for human rights, economic and social justice and the rule of law. Wars between democratic states are less likely to happen and these states are internally stable. In my assessment, relations between democratic states and other actors are also a contributory factor in this respect.

Reducing poverty and want is the second central factor in preventing conflicts. Poverty and want can drive people to seek violent solutions, besides which they weaken a community´s ability to solve problems peacefully.

The third component of conflict prevention that I want to mention is arms control. In the prevention of local and regional conflicts, halting the proliferation of light weapons is of central importance. I am pleased to note that growing international attention has been paid to this matter in recent times.

Once a crisis has erupted, the international community must take care of the people who have become victims, try to contain the crisis, open a channel for dialogue between the parties involved and, if necessary, propose a peace plan or some other peaceful solution. The importance of outside mediation has grown, because ethnopolitical conflicts are rarely solved through any negotiation process that the parties themselves manage to get going.

Outside instances can try to help resolve the conflict either by means of active sanctions or merely by promoting communication between the parties.

Alongside regional actors and the great powers´ "carrot and stick" model, there is a need for unofficial, low-profile mediation attempts with the aim of establishing a communication link and a relationship of trust between the parties. Here there is also a role not only for states, but also for NGOs, which can provide channels for the parties to the conflict to meet each other, either as an alternative to negotiations and mediation attempts on a high political level or alongside them. It was in an informal mediation process of this kind that the "Declaration of Principles" between Israel and the Palestinians had its origin.

Low-profile mediation can have several advantages compared with the high-level kind. Different groups of actors can participate in the conflict-resolution process. This is important in, for example, situations where not all parties are officially recognised as being part of the conflict. It permits discussion of themes that do not come up in official negotiations, but which are nevertheless important if a permanent solution to the conflict is to be found; one example of this would be issues related to the actors´ identity and security. It also allows the contribution of civil society to be channelled into the process at an early stage, before reconstruction begins.

Military crisis management has become the most talked-about means of dealing with crises in recent times. It is essential here to note the clear distinction between military crisis management and warfare. The use of force in crisis-management operations is both exceptional and limited and is resorted to only in compelling circumstances. For example, the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia last year may well have been necessary and warranted, but I would see it as a war operation rather than crisis management. By contrast, the KFOR operation is clearly crisis management.

As the character of crises has changed, so also has that of military crisis-management operations. It has become more rare for an operation to be carried out in a situation where the parties to the crisis have agreed a ceasefire and want the international community, especially the United Nations, to deploy forces to monitor it. The aim with increasingly many crisis-management operations is to stabilise the situation, prevent armed hostilities from continuing and even separate the warring factions. Today´s peacekeeper is increasingly likely to be between or among two mutually-hostile groups to prevent them from attacking each other. Their presence, backed up by authorisation to use appropriate force, is generally enough to achieve this.

Military measures may be needed to calm down a situation, but they do not lend themselves to resolving political conflicts. For that we need civilian crisis-management instruments. In practice this means, for example, an effective educational system, a dependable legal system and good police and rescue services. A well-functioning economy is likewise especially important. These things may not be as spectacular as military operations, but their effect is more lasting and using them is more effective and less expensive than military measures. I have on numerous occasions emphasised the primacy of civilian measures in the totality of crisis management, especially in relation to developing the European Union´s capabilities in this respect.

In this context, let me say a few words about the European Union´s ongoing efforts to develop its ability to manage crises. Several different premises can be seen to underlie discussion of this theme. We can trace one of them back to the late 1940s, which saw the earliest efforts to base the defence of Western Europe on the region´s own resources. This theme has been returned to several times since the end of the Cold War and a range of alternative solutions have been put forward.

The second starting point is the need, thrown up by practical experience, to develop the EU´s ability to manage crises in adjacent regions. Events in the Balkans in the 1990s showed us that the EU still has a lot to do to become a credible actor.

The third consideration that we can identify is concern about the future of the European Union: the world´s most important integration process is "destined" to develop its external relations and will have to have a credible set of instruments at its disposal. Effective crisis management is part of this set.

Although in the background to developing a capacity for crisis management we can see earlier and perhaps also present-day aspirations to develop a capability to defend our own region, I regard the work now being done as first and foremost development of a crisis-management capability. We are developing an ability to handle demanding crisis-management tasks, and not an ability to launch war operations against a state.

A capacity to manage crises and especially to prevent them should be developed in close world-wide collaboration with different organisations. I consider it very important that the EU´s crisis-management capability is developed in a spirit of multilateralism. Participation in UN operations should be a natural part of the EU´s crisis-management policy.

The EU enjoys many advantages in crisis-management work, not least thanks to its many sectors of operation and economic resources. However, we cannot overlook other European actors like the OSCE and the Council of Europe. Both of them have a lot of skill, ability and experience in crisis prevention and management. To be frank, they are better than the EU in some areas.

The OSCE´s broad membership base is mostly an advantage. In addition to that, it is flexible and efficient in the acute stage of crises. The OSCE has been designed for use also in real peacekeeping tasks, although it has not been done, but in some situations this, too, could prove necessary. The fact that the OSCE is the first to be put in place in the acute stage of a conflict may perhaps contribute to people quickly demanding its withdrawal once conditions have returned to normal.

The Council of Europe with its requirements for admission represents a certain beginning of stable democracy in the member state in question. However, with the problems of Russia and certain other of the states that came into being on the territory of the former Soviet Union this borderline has to some degree weakened. Nevertheless, an individual-based right of complaint in instances of violation of human rights is such a unique thing that it would pay us to take warm care of both the Council of Europe and its Court of Human Rights.

Development of the EU´s capacity for crisis management is being done in close collaboration with NATO. The basic reason for this is that 11 of the 15 member states are also in NATO. In addition to that, the other countries, including Finland and Sweden, are actively participating in the Partnership for Peace programme. The EU´s operations are not intended to weaken, much less supplant, those of NATO.

I also want to emphasise the openness of EU crisis management to non-EU European countries, such as Norway. Cooperation must be developed also with other countries, including Russia.

Despite cooperation and good will, even the best efforts to prevent and manage crises can prove useless. Situations can arise, and they have arisen, in which human rights are flagrantly violated, states are unable or unwilling to bear responsibility for their own citizens or, in the worst case, turn against their own people or some of them. The inability and unwillingness of states to meet their obligations towards individuals are grounds for considering the need and justification for outside intervention.

In situations like this, the sovereignty of states and universal human rights are weighed against each other in the balance. The international community must defend both humanity and sovereignty. The problem is to decide which principle takes precedence when they are in conflict with each other. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in his report to the UN Millennium Summit that "surely no legal principle, not even sovereignty, can ever shield crimes against humanity". Then the international community has to deliberate possibilities and means of intervention.

There are numerous forms of intervention from diplomacy to armed action. However, it is armed intervention and its justification that has assumed centre stage in the present debate. The very dangerous side-effects of this medicine seem difficult to avoid. What must take pride of place is pre-emptive action and early warning as well as international cooperation to prevent crises from erupting. We also have peaceful diplomatic, political, legal and trade-related means of intervention. These are less expensive, often more effective and more pleasant for everyone than military actions.

There is no clear legal foundation for armed intervention. We need common rules of the game. Ground rules like these and even taking about them add clarity to situations in which intervention would be needed. It would also make it easier to predict situations of the kind that lead to military intervention and prevent them from arising in the first place. The natural place for discussing ground rules is the UN.

The UN must be recognised as the primary global actor, it must be listened to and its resources guaranteed. In the UN Charter, member states have assigned primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security to the Security Council. It is expected to take collective measures to eliminate threats to peace or prevent such threats from even emerging. In order to shoulder this responsibility, the members of the Security Council must rise above their national interests and act for the common good.

We must strengthen the UN system and enhance the effectiveness of the Security Council. As part of this work, the composition of the Security Council must be altered to reflect a changed world. The UN Millennium Summit and Kofi Annan´s report "We the Peoples" are important milestones on the road of strengthening the UN.

I congratulate Norway on having won a seat on the Security Council from the beginning of next year. I would also like to say that I expect Norway to make a significant contribution to strengthening the UN and developing its effectiveness.