transcurrents

New Norwegian Peace Envoy Hanssen – Bauer takes over

April 1st, 2006

by D.B.S. Jeyaraj

In recent times the most talked about Norwegian in Sri Lanka was Erik Solheim. It appears that very soon another of Solheim’s countrymen may compete keenly for that place. His name is Jon Hanssen Bauer, the man appointed as Norwegian special envoy to the Sri Lankan peace process.

Hanssen – Bauer undertaking his first ever official trip to Sri Lanka is scheduled to arrive in Colombo on Monday April 3rd. This visit is primarily a familiarisation tour.He is expected to meet with a cross section of Sri Lankans ranging from the Government of Sri Lanka (GOSL) to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) during his four day stay here.

Hanssen – Bauer’s predecessor Erik Solheim who is now the Norwegian minister of International Development is expected to be here on Thursday April 6th. It is very likely that Hanssen – Bauer’s stay may be extended further if he is required to accompany Erik Soheim in Sri Lanka . Though Solheim has ceased to be special envoy he remains the cabinet minister in charge of the Sudan and Sri Lankan peace processes.

Being special peace envoy to Sri Lanka for nearly six years it would be unrealistic to assume that Solheim will be relinquishing the reins totally. Given his personal involvement and the time and energy invested that simply is not on. Erik may have taken a backseat but he is certainly going to be the backseat driver for quite a while. In any case Jon does need some time to familiarise himself thoroughly with the complicated Sri Lankan situation.

Erik Solheim himself has been quick to point this out when the new appointment was announced. Explaining that the Sri Lankan project required a great deal of time Solheim stated that he was unable to devote that amount due to his ministerial duties. Solheim said in Oslo on that he no longer had time to work both as minister and as peace envoy, but he would still be very much involved in the Sri Lankan peace process.

“I will continue to work on Sri Lanka from day to day but not from hour to hour.For six years I’ve been able to put everything else aside for Sri Lanka. There has been no day for six years, including Christmas Day or Easter or holiday or whatever, when I’ve not been on the phone with someone in Sri Lanka, day and night,” Solheim said.”You cannot do that and at the same time take on new government responsibilities,” he added.

Though criticised and condemned – much of it unfairly – by various elements in Sri Lanka and abroad there is no disputing the fact that Erik Soheim discharged his duties as special envoy efficiently and constructively. The controversy surrounding him can be interpreted both ways. It could be argued on the one hand that the controversy was due to his faults and also to say on the other that it was because he was doing a good, impartial job.

Whatever his detractors may say Erik Solheim was the glue which kept both sides pasted to the ceasefire and committed to the peace dialogue albeit reluctantly. If Sri Lankans are enjoying the blessing of a no – war situation for more than four years it is mainly due to Oslo in general and Erik in particular.

A complete assessment of Solheim’s role in Sri Lanka can only be made when the Norway facilitated peace process reaches its logical conclusion. Until then we can be thankful for small mercies and the temporary absence of war is one such boon. For this many Tamils remain grateful.

While all Sri Lankans have suffered the consequences of war their respective experiences differ. It is the North – Eastern Tamils who have borne the brunt of past war and would have suffered greatly had war continued or broken out again. Mercifully this has not been so for more than 50 Poya days.

For this many Tamils are thankful to Norway. Erik Solheim in their eyes personifies the land of the midnight sun.Many Sinhala politicians and opinion makers rant and rail against Solheim but for most Tamils he is a great man who has accomplished a humane task well.

The beleaguered Tamils are sorely in need of saviours and Solheim is seen as one. Erik Soheim or most visiting dignitaries seldom meet the ordinary people. They usually meet insincere politicians and opinionated vested interests who parade around as shakers and movers of society.

Had Solheim taken the trouble to meet with ordinary Tamil people instead of the LTTE, EPDP and other Tamil “representatives” he would have been gratified and even overwhelmed by the regard and affection they had for him. Many saw him as the man who would deliver a just peace to the Tamils after a long, long journey.

Now Erik Solheim steps back while Jon Hanssen – Bauer steps forward. This change of roles has in a way upgraded Norwegian involvement. Earlier Erik served as special envoy while the “Government level” participation was by deputy foreign minister Vidar Helgessen. But now Solheim as full fledged Cabinet minister will provide the Government level participation.

Thus the Norwegian role is upgraded. Soheim the cabinet minster in charge of the Lankan peace process is also International Development minister.He wields considerable influence in distributing funds to Sri Lanka. Solheim is also eighth ranking in seniority in a Government of 19 ministers.

What sort of man is Solheim’s successor? This is what Erik had to say of the man stepping into his “sappaathu”. “Mr Hanssen-Bauer’s academic and practical experience mean he is highly qualified. He has engaged in peace and reconciliation work in many countries. I am convinced that he will do a good job for the parties,” Mr. Erik Solheim was quoted as saying.

53 year old Jon Hanssen – Bauer was born in 1952. He will turn 54 on April 5 the the very same date on which the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna commenced its insurgency of 1971.Bauer is a highly qualified man even by Norwegian standards. He got his first degree at Lycée Corneille in Rouen, France in 1972. His Masters (1982) in Social Anthropology was at the University of Oslo with French and History as Supporting subjects.The Ph D equivalent Researcher II was obtained in 1986.

From 1983 to 88 Hanssen – Bauer was at the Work Research Institute, Oslo . He was Research fellow on organisational design, working environment, safety, and human resource development in the oil and gas industry in Norway.From 1988 to 93 he was at the Norwegian Work Life Centre working as Project Manager in industrial development and change.

Hanssen – Bauer moved to peacemaking terrain in 1993 when he joined the Fafo Institute for Applied International Studies, Oslo.Fafo was initially founded and funded by trade unions. Later a partnership with major industries also came into being. At one point the Government stepped in with grants and projects.

Norway’s decision to be a peacemongering nation necessitated a massive outreach into the nooks and corners of the globe. This placed a tremendous burden on its Foreign Ministry. This required therefore was a delegation and disbursement of research and key functions to other agencies and organizations. Even before “outsourcing” became fashionable in the West the Scandinavian nation had begun outsourcing duties, studies and tasks.

The Fafo institute for Applied International Studies became an important component of Oslo’s peacemaking policy. It began providing an input of research and analysis.Apparently Hanssen – Bauer found his niche there. He served in many capacities during his 12 year stint there.

1993 – 1998 Research Director; 1997 – 1998 he was Resident Regional Representative for Fafo in the Middle East and stationed in Jerusalem ; 1998 – 2005 Managing Directorof Fafo; Jon was also from 1994 – 2003 the Programme Director of the Israeli-Palestinian People-to-People Programme. From 1994 – 2005 he was Adviser to the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the Middle East peace process and Palestinian refugees.

He left the Fafo Institute for Applied International Studies, Oslo and took up duties at the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2005.Hanssen – Bauer was Senior Adviser in Section for Peace and Reconciliation, responsible for research and development strategy. Now he is the new Sri Lankan special envoy.

Unlike in Sri Lanka there has been a certain consistency on foreign policy in Norway regardless of changing Governments or bureaucrats. This has been particularly so in relation to overall peacemaking or peace facilitating. Oslo’s Sri Lanka policy is a good illustration.

The Prime Minister may be Jagland, Bondevik or Stoltenberg; The foreign Minister may be Knut Volleback, Jan Peterssen or Jonas Gahr Storre, The Ambassador may be Jon Westborg or Hans Brattskar, the special envoy may be Erik Solheim or Jon Hanssen – Bauer. Whatever these changes policy on Sri Lanka remains the same.

While the substance remains unchanged the style may change in accordance with the approaches and attitudes of the respective players. Solheim for instance was basically a trade unionist and politician.He has been MP for many years. His Sri Lankan assignment was a hands on learning exercise. His strong point was the rapport he built up with Velupillai Prabakharan, Anton Balasingham, Ranil Wickremasinghe, GL Peiris, Milinda Moragoda, Rauff Hakeem etc.
.
Jon Hanssen – Bauer has more of an academic background. He is different from Solheim in that respect. But he too has obtained valuable experience and insight into peacemaking through his middle – east assignments. Hanssen – Bauer has also done much research and writing particularly about Palestinian refugees and Jordan.Thus he would be bringing with him a difference to Sri Lanka. It would however take some time for him to build up rapport with the key players.

Like Soheim before him, Hanssen – Bauer will face a stiff challenge by those opposed to the Norwegian role among the Sinhala people. Unlike Solheim his successor’s task has been made more difficult because some of those so opposed are ruling the Country now. Mahinda Rajapakse who wanted New Delhi to replace Oslo is President. Mangala Samaraweera who derisively described Norway as ” a nation of salmon- eaters” is Foreign minister.

Even when “Oslo friendly” leaders like Chandrika Kumaratunga or Ranil Wickremasinghe were in power Norway and its representastives were treated shabbily. When Erik Solheim first visited the Kotte Parliament he was subjected to harsh criticism by some MP’s. None of the big guns in Government or opposition ranks chose to reprimand their colleagues or defend Solheim. As far as I recall only Veerasingham Anandasangaree spoke in support of Norway and Solheim.

One also sees various protest demonstrations against Norway opposite the Royal Norwegian Embassy premises. All these are allowed in the name of democracy but when other such acts are planned against those politicians in power they are banned or prevented. Also no speedy action was taken against those who engaged in anti – Norwegian violence like throwing a bomb at the Embassy premises.

Chandrika Kumaratunga and Lakshman Kadirgamar invited the Norwegians to come in and they came. They did not barge in or impose themselves on us.Yet the same Kumaratunga – Kadirgamar duo turned savagely against the Norwegians in general and Solheim in particular. They did many things to undermine the peace process when Wickremasinghe was Premier. Yet they did not have the guts to say “Quit Sri Lanka” when a new Government replaced that of Wickremasinghe’s.

The JVP breathed fire and brimstone against Oslo. Anything from Norway is taboo the crimson comrades screamed. But when Norway provided a generous grant to the cultural ministry the JVP minister Vijitha Herat was “teeth,lips and tongue” smiles when receiving the largesse. Out of power the JVP is again attacking Norway. Now it is Rajapakse and Samaraweera’s turn. The people are told to oppose Norway but the leaders themselves will be welcoming them.

In that sense those who have been consistently and genuinely opposing Norway involvement are much better. This column does not approve of their stance but respects their openness and consistency. The other hypocrites blowing hot and cold according to their whims and fancies are to be deplored. But if people are really opposed they should take it up with their Government which invited Norway and not attack the Norwegians. Rajapakse and Samaraweera were minsters in the Kumaratunga cabinet which invited Oslo first.They bear collective responsibility too.

Another crucial difference now is the fragility of the peace process itself. In the case of Solheim his initial role was bringing both sides together and help evolving the ceasefire. Thereafter it was continuing the peace process and maintaining the ceasefire. In the early years there was a lot of support for the ceasefire.Now the situation is different.

The Tamil people experiencing a respite from war – oriented violence are for the ceasefire still. But if the vocal supporters of the LTTE are to be believed the ceasefire is on its last legs. Pressure is being generated that the LTTE should go to war. Likewise some Sinhala hawks also clamour for war.

The situation was quite tense until the Geneva talks. It was these talks which helped reduce the tension. But the ceasefire will be strengthened only if what was agreed in Geneva is adhered to. This does not seem to be happening on ground. So despite the Geneva talks the possibility of a collapsing peace is very much on the cards.

Thus Jon Hanssen – Bauer faces a baptism of fire. The JVP – JHU demand for Norway to quit will be gathering momentum in the South. Hardliners on both sides of the ethnic divide will be urging an end to the “flawed” ceasefire. It is amidst this hostile atmosphere that Bauer will have to work. His priority is to appraise himself of the situation and build rapport with the important players. Norway’s facilitatory role is very necessary at this juncture.

The truth is that whatever the posturing and pretensions by some ,the Country does need the Norwegians. The alternative is chaos and war. If Norway is kicked out or pulls out there is no one to fill the vacuum. Neither India nor Japan nor any other Country is prepared to fill in. In any case no replacement is possible without LTTE consent. Kilinochchi as is known roots firmly for Oslo. The Tamil people too want Norway. If the current peace process has any credibility in the eyes of the International cummunity as well as the Tamil people it is because of Norway.

Furthermore Sri Lanka will be made a “pariah nation”if any Colombo regime unilaterally expels Norway. No other Country will come in or be encouraged to come in. Many Sinhala hawks hallucinate that the US will step in and smash the LTTE if Norway is sent out and war commences.

The reality is that despite the impression of acting independently Norway is actually working in harmony with the USA and other key nations on Sri Lanka..With India unwilling to involve itself directly there is a Washington – New Delhi convergence on Oslo being in Sri Lanka .In that context Norway is a US projection into the region and India comprehends this fully.

One of the chief reasons why Norway is often maligned here in Sri Lanka is misunderstanding and suspicion of Osllo’s objectives. The nature and role of Norway’s peacemaking efforts are not comprehended positively. One cause is that the Norwegian role often supplements and complements the objectives of stronger nations in a global or regional context. This is a functional necessity.

This tendency though raising suspicion has on the other hand enabled Norway to become a global player far in excess of its size or strength.Oslo has also been compelled to coopt other agencies or outsource functions to other organizations because of this. The work is too great and the challenge too formidable for Norway to handle it alone. Despite the paranoia Norway seems to have accomplished quite a lot in the International arena.

A seminar comparing and contrasting the Indian and Norwegian roles in peacemaking was held last December in New Delhi . Former Ambassador and current Indian envoy Jon Westborg as well as Jon Hanssen – Bauer were two of the key speakers. The Norwegian approach was clearly explained and presented at the seminar. The Norwegian progress in global peacemaking was duly noted there.

” During the past ten years, Norway has been involved in various ways and to different degrees in peace and reconciliation processes in Asia (Sri Lanka, the Philippines & Aceh), in Africa (Ethiopia/Eritrea & Sudan), in Latin America (Guatemala, Colombia & Haiti), in the Middle East (the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians), and in Europe (Cyprus). Indonesia, Serbia and Somalia could also be added to the list. Norway’s role ranges from official facilitator of negotiations (Sri Lanka and the Philippines), to sponsor of a back channel for secret negotiations (the Middle East), to actor in an international coalition promoting such processes (e.g. as head of the Security Council’s consideration of Ethiopia/Eritrea and Somalia, as member of groups of friends in Colombia and Guatemala, as member of the troika supporting the peace process in Sudan, and as an actor in the Balkans), to supporter of the activities of other actors (Aceh), to provider of humanitarian assistance (e.g. Burma)”.

It was also observed that the Norwegian work for peace and reconciliation has the four following characteristics.

“1.Willingness to make long-term contributions. Norway has a consistent and predictable policy on development assistance and peace efforts based on solidarity and a long-term perspective. There is broad political consensus on foreign policy, which ensures consistency regardless of changing governments. Norway has also a demonstrated the will to talk to all parties in a conflict.

2.Flexible and ample resources. Norway makes both financial and human resources available for peace and reconciliation processes. These resources are also flexible, which enables Norway to become engaged quickly. Coupled with a substantial engagement in development assistance, we do not just support the negotiation process as such, but have also monitored peace agreements and are using development co-operation actively to implement peace agreements and prevent the re-emergence of conflict.

3.Close co-operation with Norwegian and international NGOs. In many cases, Norwegian NGOs have been our point of entry into peace and reconciliation processes. The extensive network that Norwegian NGOs have built through decades of humanitarian work has given access to areas where the official Norway has little or no presence. Norway also co-operates closely with several international NGOs.

4.Amicable relations with central actors in the international arena. Norway has close relations with the USA and good relations with other major actors such as the EU, Japan, Russia, India, Brazil and South Africa. Our position as a major contributor to the UN and our extensive development co-operation give us credibility in the international community. Norway has no colonial past. Our commitment to peacemaking is also perceived to be sincere because we do not have ulterior political or economic motives. Norway is aware that all conflicts are unique and require a tailored approach.”

Norwegian peacemaking diplomacy is not to be seen in isolation but as being integral to global consensus and will. Whatever Norway does has the stamp of international approval and legitimacy. Attempts to sideline or alienate Norway if successful can only affect Sri Lankas relations with the International community. This includes India and the USA.

Let us not forget that Oslo is doing a quadruple role here.Along with the USA, Japan and EU it is part of the quartet nominally in charge of the Sri Lankan peace process. It is the head of the monitoring mission which comprises Scandinavian and Nordic Countries. Norway is also the accredited facilitator of the peace process accepted by GOSL and LTTE. Finally Oslo is also the link between India and the peace process.

It was the Norwegian scholar and visionary Egeland who first had the idea that a small country like Norway might be better suited than more powerful nations to broker peace deals. He argued in his “Impotent Superpower:Potent Small State” book that Norway “had an unfulfilled potential for facilitating, bridge building and being a moral entrepreneur”.He also observed “The United States has big sticks and carrots it can use to mediate, but we are activist facilitators.”

Norwegians are realistic about their limitations. They know that their lack of strategic might diminishes the cutting edge of their peacemaking diplomacy. It is this void that Oslo needs the powerful nations to fill.The examples of Israel- Palestine, Yugoslavia etc demonstrate that. In Sri Lanka too Norway relies on the global and regional power to provide the cutting edge if and when required. This applies to both Colombo and Kilinochchi and may become more visible when a solution is in sight.

This situation also means that the big players want Norway to be here and that anyone going against this expectation will in the final analysis be taking on the world or the so called international community. The national socialists and neo – fascists urging the expulsion of Oslo must wake up to realities.

The controversial interview given to “Tehelka” by Erik Solheim is quite revealing about Norway’s role in Sri Lanka. Here are some excerpts:

Do you believe a negotiated solution is possible, given the history of aborted agreements and failure of peace initiatives in the last five decades between the Sinhalese and the Tamils?

I sincerely believe in a negotiated political solution. The Norwegian government is committed to actively promoting peace and reconciliation internationally. We will continue to give priority to facilitating the peace process in Sri Lanka as long as the parties request our efforts and we see that we can play a constructive role. I hope that the parties gain mutual confidence to take the peace process forward.

Do you think a solution is possible within a unitary state structure?

I take the view that the parties should not be blinded by the use of different terms and find a solution acceptable to all Sri Lankans.

What in your view are the legitimate grievances of Tamils?

There is broad agreement in the international community on support for Tamil rights to some form of self-rule or power sharing within a united Sri Lanka.

Do you agree with the view that trouble started with the controversial Ceylon Citizenship Act in 1948 disenfranchising thousands of Tamils, the declaration of Sinhala as official language, and the subsequent laws in education favouring the Sinhalese etc, resulting in the alienation of Tamils?

Both parties would have a different take on this issue. Norway is tasked to bring the parties to the table and assist them in finding a durable solution to the conflict. We have to be careful in our comments on historical matters, however important they may be.”

This then is the current scenario. The International community is firmly for the unity and territorial ntegrity of the Country. At the same time it wants the suffering Tamil people to share power and gain autonomy. Also the international community wants the current crisis to be resolved through negotiations and not war. Norway in this merely reflects the international community position. Oslo is at this point of time the instrument through which the International community wants the issue to be settled amicably.

It is against this backdrop that the Norwegian role in Sri Lanka has to be viewed.This column has in a broader sense been supportive of the Norwegian role here. When Oslo formally entered the peace process this column opined that” there was no way other than Norway” and welcomed it.

This column is of the same opinion still.I t is therefore in a spirit of positive expectation that this column bids welcome to the new facilitator Jon Hanssen – Bauer on the eve of his intended arrival in Sri Lanka.

[Vigeland Sculpture Park, Oslo, Norway - Picture by HA]

Entry Filed under: transCurrents