Sri Lanka: New Norwegian Peace Envoy Hanssen-Bauer takes over

[Harold F. Schiffman]

>>From Tamilweek.com
New Norwegian Peace Envoy Hanssen - Bauer takes over
April 2, 2006 at 5:19 pm  Filed under News Analysis, Politics, Peace
Process

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 Solheims 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 - Bauers 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 - Bauers 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 Ive 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 Ive 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 Solheims 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 Solheims successor? This is what Erik had to say of the man
stepping into his sappaathu. Mr Hanssen-Bauers 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 Lyce 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.

Norways 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 Oslos 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.
Oslos 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 successors 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 MPs. 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 Wickremasinghes.

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 Samaraweeras 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. Norways 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 nationif 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 Osllos objectives. The nature and role
of Norways 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. Norways
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 Councils 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 Norways 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. It 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.

http://tamilweek.com/news-features/archives/248