Norway leads on soft power diplomacy

In the aftermath of the Cold War, small states got the opportunity to play a more significant role in international peace diplomacy. Suddenly, there was room for more than the two superpowers and a few more states in the resolution of conflicts.

Norway was among the countries to seize the opportunity – punching far above its weight, considering it has a population of less than five million.

The 1993 Oslo Accords, then a milestone in the history of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, put Norway on the map as a successful peace mediator. Norwegian peace diplomacy, however, did not start with the Oslo Accords, but with the 1990 peace process in Guatemala. Norway was also active in Sri Lanka, helping conclude a temporary ceasefire in 2002.

This led Norway, the land of the Nobel Peace Prize, to view itself as a peace nation exercising “soft power” diplomacy, or reputational authority.

Jan Egeland, as deputy foreign minister from 1990 to 1997, was a key figure in the development of Norwegian peace diplomacy. In particular, he played a central part in the secret negotiations between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) leading to the Oslo Accords. Why did Norway initiate so many peace processes?
“We saw the end of the Cold War as a possibility. We had free economic means and we had the NGOs and research institutes to cooperate with, but we didn‘t know we would succeed. The Norwegian channel leading to the Oslo Accords was supposed to be secret indefinitely. And the peace agreement in Guatemala was never thought to be international news. But, suddenly, Norwegian diplomats in London, Washington and other important cities got access to all the key figures on the international scene to brief on ‘Norwegian peace diplomacy‘,” he says.

The situation today is different than it was 20 years ago, however. “Norway played a central role in part because there were few contributors compared to now. Except for the UN, there were only a handful of countries and organisations that were focusing on international peace mediation. Today, there are probably more than a hundred,” says Egeland. After the Norwegian foreign ministry, Egeland went on to work as the UN Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator from 2003 to 2006, drawing attention to humanitarian emergencies worldwide.

As Norway built up its capacity for peace facilitation in the 90s, many others wanted to play similar roles. “I have given lots of interviews to PhD students, diplomats and members of NGOs seeking to find out how their country, university or institution could play a similar role to Norway as an organiser,” says Egeland.

In her thesis on Norwegian peace diplomacy, Linn Marianne Larssen, from the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at the University of London, outlines the various benefits of a small country in peace diplomacy:

• Limited capabilities: Small, limited material capabilities facilitate the role as peace mediator. This can be turned into a “comparative advantage” for Norway internationally.
• Unthreatening: No perceived great power interests and no means to coerce the parties to a conflict make small countries more trusted, as their intentions are viewed as more legitimate and their involvement non-threatening.
• Peaceful: A culture of peace and moral values are attractive to others, and, for a country with both, its foreign policies are perceived as credible and legitimate.

Good international citizens

The concept of soft power was developed by Joseph Nye, a professor of political science at Harvard and one of the world’s most influential scholars of international relations. During Bill Clinton’s presidency in the 90s, the focus was put on liberal values such as compromise, dialogue and multilateralism. Hard power, like economic resources and military strength, was still important, but it was challenged by the belief that soft power could be as efficient – or even better – in some conflicts. Soft power relies on credibility – which was exactly what Norway managed to take advantage of.

During the Cold War, Sweden was known as the active peacemaker among the Nordic countries. Former prime minister Olof Palme, for instance, played a key role as mediator between Iran and Iraq in the 80s.
“It is a paradox that Sweden abdicated this role in the 90s and Norway took it over,” says Egeland. He points out that The Netherlands also was active internationally at the time, while NGOs such as Norwegian Church Aid played a significant part in the peace efforts in Mali, Sudan and elsewhere.

Peace researcher Carmen Wunderlich, from the Peace Research Institute Frankfurt (PRIF), agrees that Norway has overtaken the role as peacekeeping-nation from Sweden, but notes that the countries internationally are seen as rather similar. “I think small states can have considerable influence through soft power, for example, by being a critical voice or by providing expertise and information. When I think about Norway I think about the recent critique of the UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon for being too passive. This is typical for how small actors can have influence on the international arena – but it requires boost of an image as a ‘good international citizen,’ she says. The question is whether small states can function as a so-called moral-norm entrepreneur and whether they are able to transport this image to the world and function as a credible role model.

After the September 11 attacks and the US war on terror, many have argued that the era of soft power was over. But, according to Wunderlich, soft power is more important than ever: “The background for giving the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama is that soft power is gaining a bigger role, functioning as a counterweight against hard power politics. I think the only thing that really helps to prevent terror is information and cooperation, and this is exactly what the Scandinavian countries are good at,” says Wunderlich.

Nye adds, in an advice paper to South Korea (see text box), that “Norway also gains some soft power by its control of the Nobel Peace Prize. By giving it to Barack Obama, it reinforces the importance of what he called his new policy of engagement, which includes an important role for multilateral approaches”.

Split self-image

The position as a credible moral-norm entrepreneur has been strengthened in Norway due to its history of being a peaceful state and low level of political corruption. For the same reason, the founder of the Nobel Peace Prize, Alfred Nobel, decided that this prize would be awarded by Norway, rather than by Sweden, who awards the other Nobel prizes.

In 2009, Norway was, again, ranked by the UN as the best country in the world in which to live, based on criteria such as life expectancy, literacy, education and GDP per capita.

In 2008, the total Norwegian expenditure on foreign aid was 22.6 billion crowns, almost four billion US dollars and close to one percent of Norwegian GDP. The money was, according to the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD), used to support 110 countries.

In the Norwegian government budget for 2010, the plan is to increase spending so that Norway will reach its goal of using at least 1% GDP on foreign aid.

However, maintaining an image as a peace-promoting nation requires that the country does not have too many skeletons in the closet. When power is based on reputation, it is also vulnerable to badmouthing. Norway’s role as a facilitator to the peace process in Sri Lanka failed and civil war raged once again. In Ethiopia, six Norwegian diplomats were expelled, due to the Norwegian engagement in the Horn of Africa, which the Ethiopians had argued was destabilising the region and threatening their interests.

Many argue that Norway holds double standards, challenging the country’s self-image as a peace nation. Unlike Sweden, Norway is a member of NATO and participates in the war in Afghanistan. It is a major oil-producing country, with geo-political interests in many parts of the world. It is one of the largest weapon exporters in the world, relative to its population size. In absolute terms, however, Norway was only the 30th biggest exporter of major conventional weapons (not including small arms), in 2008, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

During the last couple of years, critics have emphasised that Norway is not as innocent as some might think. The controversial journalist, author and filmmaker Erling Borgen is one of them, suggesting that the Norwegian army and soldiers in Afghanistan may be an accomplice to war crimes and human rights violations due to not reporting about, or protesting against, things they have observed in the fields.

The peace negotiator and researcher Johan Galtung, among the most popular speakers on peace resolution in the world (see also article page 12), is one of the sharpest critics of the Norwegian peace diplomacy. “There is a notion in Norway that peace is something that arises when Norwegians are present. A combination of lack of knowledge and impatience makes these attempts amateurish and doomed to fail,” Galtung said to the Norwegian leftwing newspaper Klassekampen in October.

While Norway’s position as an influential peace nation was hugely exaggerated in the 90s, public opinion has now turned to the opposite extreme, according to Egeland. “Norwegians are obsessed with what other countries think about our role in the world. I often see exaggerations of the Norwegian significance both ways. There has at times been an extreme exaggeration of our role internationally, while at the same time there is a denial of our importance,” he says.

The truth, he continues, is that Norway is a miniature country militarywise and in peacekeeping or peace enforcement. Even in the country where we have our greatest military investment, Afghanistan, our role is small. At the same time, we are much bigger than, for example, Italy, Canada, France, Russia or China when it comes to multilateral assistance and cooperation. “We are often on a par with the US when it comes to contributing to UN agencies. Where there is international peace work going on, the chance is that Norway is one of the most significant contributors” he says.

He underlines that Norway plays an important role as a team player. “There are few peace processes in the world where Norway does not contribute directly or indirectly. Norway is also the country in the world that contributes most per capita to the UN financially,” says Egeland.

The future

During the next ten years, Egeland expects Norway to continue to be a privileged, rich contributor, with a broad political consensus around development aid – which cannot be taken for granted in today‘s world.

But he thinks Norway must realise that it will probably not be the most important third party to any more peace agreements. “We must be more active in the UN and make them become more efficient. There is a queue of countries that want to participate so I don‘t think we can repeat the Oslo Accords. There might not be more high profile agreements like in Mali, south Sudan or Guatemala” he says.

At the same time, Egeland points out two things Norway must avoid: overestimating its role in international peace diplomacy and underestimating its role in international peace diplomacy.
“In many occasions, a peace initiative depends on a relatively small amount of money. Sometimes it is necessary to collect one million US dollars in order to start negotiations during a war – a war that might already have had a price of one billion dollars. There have been cases where nobody has been able to pay the hotel bills for the warlords,” says Egeland.

“It is important to remember, though, that Norway has no possibility to force anyone to do something they don’t want to in the first place. We do not have coercive power like the US, large states in Europe, China, India and the UN through the Security Council. In this context we are a mosquito. The mistake I think we’ve made in Norway was first to overestimate our importance – while we now have become too critical – and underestimate our role. The truth lies somewhere between these two positions.”