Researchers disagree whether aid is a good lubricant for peace. Norway is currently involved in 13 different peace processes all over the world and the government will spend even more money on peace next year. Several researchers however want thorough evaluations of the peace efforts and think the accompanying aid money often can create new conflicts.

Norway is currently involved in 13 different peace processes all over the world and the government will spend even more money on peace next year. Several researchers however want thorough evaluations of the peace efforts and think the accompanying aid money often can create new conflicts.

– The only peace process that has been subject to thorough analysis outside the MFA, is the Middle East process. We need thorough reviews of processes also in other places of the world to see what the results really are and what the money has been spent on, says Hilde Henriksen Waage, professor at the University of Oslo (UiO). Money for peace and reconciliation has never been looked into by the Auditor General, and Waage wants comprehensive and thorough evaluations of Norwegian peace engagement and spending.

– During my studies of the Oslo process, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs wanted to keep the spending of Norwegian aid money out of my analysis. They only let me analyze the political process and did not allow me to study the links between Norwegian peace diplomacy and the spending of aid money, which was what I wanted to do. Waage has studied the Oslo process in detail and presented a research report some years ago that was very critical of Norway’s role in the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

Money pulverized

According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “the total aid to peace and reconciliation work, human rights, democracy and humanitarian aid will be more than 4.4 billion NOK in 2008”. The Peace and Reconciliation Section at the ministry has since 2005 doubled its funding, in 2008 they have been budgeted 820 million NOK. The increase for pure peace and reconciliation projects is 306 million NOK. But how much money is spent on peace processes, Bistandsaktuelt has not succeeded to get an overview over, because, according to the MFA, it is time-consuming to find out, among other things because the money is channeled through different posts.

– The money is pulverized and it is impossible to get a comprehensive and good overview of the aid billions that have been spent. Neither is it possible to get an overview of the results of Norwegian spending in this field. One must be allowed to ask whether it has resulted in peace and economic development, she says, and thinks that with regard to the Middle East, the answer is no on both questions.

– The Palestinians have never had it as bad as now, both economically and politically, and we have statistics on that. This is because the Oslo agreement did not work according to its intentions. One may ask whether the kind of agreement negotiated by Norway is more harmful than beneficial.

Norway lacks power

– Norway couldn’t do anything about the unequal power relation between Israel and the PLO because Norway is a small country and did not manage to put pressure on the strongest party, Israel. Thus, Norway chose to stay and secure a role for Norwegian peace diplomacy, Waage says. Several researchers question the idea that Norway can achieve more because it is a small country.

– Norway has no heavy instruments of power and is thus in a bad position to exert pressure, thinks Oeyvind Oesterud, professor in political science at the University of Oslo.

– It is difficult to imagine that Norway has political and academic expertise to get involved with everything one engages in. One faces fantastically complex situations, says Helge Pharo, professor in history at the UiO.

– New research seems to show that one doesn’t get anywhere without power. If one is not a superpower, one cannot put power behind an agreement or process. Then one can try with “bribes”.

Aid as instrument of power

Bribes?

– Yes, that means aid. One can use aid to create alliances, buy clients, influence and power. But if it has any favorable effect in the long run is highly uncertain, Pharo says.

– One needs to ask whether the favorable short-term effect is so important that it is reasonable to spend as much as one does on the processes. And are the long-term effects negative if one fails with a process or gives money to the wrong groups, so that one really should not have channeled money into a process, Pharo asks. Waage shows that this happened during the peace process in the Middle East.

– In the Palestinian areas, aid increased from microscopic support in the entire post-war era to 150 million US dollars at the donor conference after the peace agreement in 1993. That was 20 times more than the average of what the other rich donors gave. Waage thinks that the most important reason was the role Norway itself had played in the peace process and that the money was thus also important support for Norwegian peace diplomacy.

– One believed that the money contributed to the peace process because economic development leads to peace. Norway has spent more than two billion NOK to build up the Palestinian areas. The money contributed to increase patron-client relations, corruption and internal conflict and tension.

In the same purse

In a press release about Norway’s peace and reconci-liation work, the foreign minister says, “we would like to see our political efforts and humanitarian efforts better linked. The many measures must thus be tailored in relation to both geography and situation, among other things in relation to Sudan, Afghanistan and the Middle East”. Further, one also increases aid for development and peace building in countries that have recently come out of a crisis or conflict. The MFA thus closely links peace work, development and humanitarian aid, in line with the old idea that economic crises are the root of conflict. Norway is involved in different ways in peace work; in peace negotiations, peace processes and UN peace operations, and has in addition different roles, more or less central. And aid money, usually quite a lot, accompanies peace engagement.

“Peace lubricant”

– It looks like aid is used to make peace agreements more attractive, thinks Axel Borchgrevink, researcher at the Norwegian Institute for International Affairs (NUPI).

– It is easier to make the parties accept an agreement if one has some carrots. In recent year, many of the big recipients of Norwegian aid have not been cooperation countries, but countries where Norway has been engaged in peace processes. Examples include the Balkan, Afghanistan, Iraq and the Palestinian territories. Guatemala is another example where aid came as a result of Norwegian engagement in the peace process. The country is rich enough that Norway would not otherwise have contributed there. Borchgrevink thinks that such aid to secure an agreement runs a risk that the parties feel less committed to such agreements.

Side effects?

– Norway believes that money alleviates a conflict, but in reality, they have unforeseen consequen-ces that I think one needs to look into more closely, Oesterud says.

– There is research, among other produced by the British research institution Tiri, which says that aid into conflict areas may contribute to corruption, inequality, new rivalry, discontent and new conflicts. According to reports published by Tiri in 2007, big transfers have led to new tensions and conflicts in countries where Norway is engaged and gives a lot of aid, for example Afghanistan.

– It may be unfortunate to throw in too much money immediately after a peace agreement, because one often gets a boom, warns stein Toennesson, director at the Norwegian Institute for Peace research (PRIO) and points out that aid donors often run in packs.

– Actually, one should plan to put in resources after the first positive attention has subsided, after four-five years, he thinks. Toenneson thinks that one should be careful about being too focussed on big, visible results.

– I am afraid that the support in public opinion for spending resources on this field may disappear if the condition for efforts is that there must be made agreement where Norway gets great media attention for its role. One has some positive conse-quences, for example in Guate-mala, where the war came to an end. The Oslo agreement must be regarded a diplomatic success in its time, and in Sri Lanka one has saved lives in a period with cease-fire. In many other conflict areas, Norway has contributed in less visible ways, Toennesson says. Nevertheless, he thinks more evaluations of results of Norwegian peace work are nee-ded, but emphasizes that these must be done “with fine-tuned methodology”.
– To win trust as a peace player it is important to be able to show results, says Toennesson and thereby challenges Norwegian authorities.

Norwegian flags in 13 peace processes:

• As of today, Norway is actively involved in at least 13 peace processes.
• According to the MFA, Norway contributes to most peace processes in the world.
• Norway facilitates the peace processes in the Philippines and Sri Lanka.
• In 11 other conflict areas; Haiti, Somalia, Colombia, Nepal, Afghanistan, the Middle East, Sudan, Uganda, East Timor, Ethiopia/Eritrea and Burundi, Norway takes part in a more or less active role in the peace processes.
• Most of these processes have been going on for many years, as for example Sri Lanka, Haiti, the Middle East, Colombia.
• It is difficult to get an overview over how much money Norway has spent on these processes because the money is distributed on many different posts.

Total aid to peace and reconciliation work, human rights, democracy and humanitarian aid will, according to the MFA, be more than 4.4 billion NOK in 2008 and represent about 20 per cent of the total aid budget of 22.3 billion for 2008.

Status in the processes

• Sri Lanka: Norway has been facilitator since 2000. Cease-fire agreement negotiated in 2002. Establishment of separate Nordic civilian monitoring force. Negotiations started in 2002. Six rounds held in 2002-2003. Currently no direct negotiations between the parties. Today regular violations of the cease-fire agreement. Norway works on getting the parties back to the negotiation table.
• Philippines: Norway facilitator since 2001. No ongoing negotiations. Norway works on getting the parties together.
• Ethiopia/Eritrea: Norway’s role is unclear after six Norwegian diplomats where thrown out of Ethiopia. The border conflict still not solved.
• Haiti: Status: two negotiated agreements – one stability treaty and one election treaty – formed the basis for free and fair elections held in 2006. After the UN military operations (January/February 2007) against gangs in the slums, Norway has given support to stabilizing measures, organized both by the UN and others players. Significant progress in recent months with regard to political stability and security.
• Colombia: Since September 2005, Norway, Switzerland and Spain have had a role as companion countries in the dialogue between the government and the ELN. Norwegian work to get progress in the dialogue work is ongoing.
• Middle East (Israeli-Palestinian conflict): Norway facilitator in the 1990s. Now head of the donor forum. Conflict unsolved.
• Burundi: Since 2006, Norway has had a central role in the work of the UN peace building commission to assist for lasting peace.
• Sudan: Norway, together with the US and Great Britain, assisted peace talks in Sudan between the SPLM (Sudan People’s Liberation Movement) and the authorities in Khartoum. Breakthrough in 2005. This peace agreement has been the basis for further Norwegian and international efforts in Sudan, and has been one of the cornerstones in the work to create peace in Darfur and East Sudan. Norway, together with international partners, assisted the parties in the Darfur conflict in 2006. Here, the parties arrived at a peace agreement that has so far not taken effect.
• Nepal, Afghanistan, Uganda, Somalia, and East Timor: Norway plays active roles in peace and reconciliation work. Conflicts are still ongoing.

Source: Bistandsaktuelt, 16 November 2007.