Thus , peace aside from being a necessity for the welfare of every country also became its "springboard" to the international arena. Peace as a springboard in the international arena manifests in the degree of importance Norway attaches to UN.

United Nations is the second world wide organization after the League of Nations proved to be inefficient in preventing a Second World War. In the infancy stage of the new United Nations, one could see that one of those pushing for its institution was the then Foreign Minister of Norway Trygve Lie. The rationale behind it is that through the United Nations, it will be possible to prevent a Third World War through regulation in the United Nations Security Council. So the permanent members of this body are the world's powers. UN is seen( not just for promoting world peace) but moreover , in the Norwegian perspective, Norway's external security. Thus , the United Nations is given much importance by the Norwegian Government. (Burgess, P.) (UN came first before NATO and this interest in Security through the United Nations changed after it allied itself with NATO) In the forthcoming years, UN still is an important institution for Norway since it became the major vehicle for projection as the international peacemaker.

One could see the great importance and support of Norway to the United Nations through its financial support of the organization. Norway allots at least .7% of its GDP in multilateral organizations such as UNDP, UNICEF, UNHCR etc. Also, Norway has participated in various peacekeeping missions of the organization. In 1964, a number of Norwegian contingents can be deputized by the United Nations through the Storting's approval. Since 1947, Norway has contributed to 30 peace operations in countries such as Korea, Congo, Guatemala, El Salvador, East Timor, former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Angola etc. amounting to at least 60,000 people since 1947 or at least 1% of its population. The number of the deputized volunteers increased in the 1990s as UN involvement in various conflict areas increased. More recently, there was a move from the Norwegian Government to put a "Task Force for International Operations " an integral part of their armed forces. Currently, Norway is a part of the rotating member of the UN Security Council making it a part of the decision-making body. Thus, its commitment and involvement to the United Nations gives it a niche in international politics . (Norwegian Foreign Policy in the 20th C.)

More recently, it has been accorded a greater role in the international scene as the peacemaker. The international peacemaker image was an overnight change after the announcement of the Oslo Accords containing the Declaration of Principles which became the framework of subsequent negotiations between the Palestinian Liberation Organization and the Israeli Government. The PLO-Israeli Accord in Oslo was totally unexpected in 1993 since this has been a long-standing conflict and simultaneously, negotiations going-on in US were unsuccessful.

This agreement was made possible by a back channel , a Norwegian Research Institute , the FAFO Institute for Applied Sciences providing for a private means of negotiation with not so much media pressure. Reports would say that Terje Larsen and Mona Juul were responsible for making communication between the two parties.

Since 1993, Norway has sponsored a lot of peace talks in all continents , from Latin America, South Africa, Europe, South East Asia giving it prestige in the international community. To mention a few, these are Colombia, Guatemala , Eritrea/Ethiopia , El Salvador, etc.

Currently , the source of media exposure of the Norwegian peacekeeping and peacemaking adventure is in South Asia . In Sri Lanka, Norway was able to make the parties sign a ceasefire agreement since the war between the Tamil Tigers and Sri Lanka Government has been a long standing war.

Norway, according to its claims and literature , that it is through the Norwegian model , consisting of a triumvirate of the government, the academe and the NGOs led to its successful mediation (successful because it was able to forge an agreement ) in Guatemala and PLO-Israel conflict. (Mellgren, D.)

NGOs , in these cases, have established connections with the Norwegians through the Norwegian Aid and Norwegian Church Aid. These donors channel aid through local NGOs which then establishes links with the counterpart Norwegian NGOs. To what degree does these NGOs contribute to the peace process?

How did the Norwegian model, and the NGO involvement, work for some of the countries where Norway was attached as a peacemaker?

In the PLO-Israel conflict, Norway is said to have a good networking with the local NGOs in Palestine and Israel and the Norwegian counterparts. The Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions has cooperated closely with an Israeli trade union Histadrut. Furthermore, in the state level, Norwegian politicians , particularly from the labor movement and from Christian circles, have had close relationship with Christian colleagues. In the Palestinian side, Yasser Arafat met with labor party leaders of the Norwegian government along with Foreign Minister Knut Freydenlund. This initial recognition of the Palestinian cause and the Israel's made Norway a suitable choice between the parties as mediator.

After the unsuccessful peace conference in Madrid, Jan Egeland and Mona Juul of the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Terje Rod Larsen of the FAFO Institute for Applied Social Science conceptualized a sort of a back channel which is hidden from media attention and superpower interference, for the talks between Israel and PLO. Negotiators were Yair Hirscfeld and Ron Pundak for Israel and Abu Ala and Hassan Asfour for the Palestinans. The back chaneling efforts led to the signing of the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self Government of Palestine. The NGO coordination was not broken as noted by several project cooperation between the Palestinians and Israeli such as the "People to People Cooperation Project" managed also by FAFO.

In Latin America, Guatemala has sucessfully ended thirty years of internal conflict with the armed group Unidad Revolucionaria Nacional Guatemalteca ( URNG ). The URNG is one of the groups with a socialist orientation in Central America along with the Sandinistas of Nicaragua, FMLR of El Salvador , etc. It was born out of the clamor for fair distribution of economic resources to Mayan people.At the height of the insurgency , fighters numbered from 6000 to 8000, and its peoples support estimated from 250,000-500,000.

The Norwegian church aid had been working in Central America since 1976. The church in Guatemala helped the URNG arrange for talks in 1989 and sought Gunnar Stalsett's help , then the head of the Lutheran World Federation. Gunnar contacted the Norwegian Foreign Ministry if they are willing to sponsor talks .The Lutheran World Federation (LWF) originally sponsored talks between the Guatemalan government and the Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unity (URNG) in March 1990 in Norway, at which the Oslo Peace Accord was signed that inaugurated the Guatemalan peace process. (Krovel R., 2000)

With the advent of the 90s , negotiations were resumed and after a series of talks signed an 11 point agenda that included accords on the return of refugees, the rights of indigenous people, the agrarian situation, the role of the armed forces in a civil society, the integration of the insurgents into civil society, a definite cease fire, reforms to Guatemala’s Constitution and the demobilization of the guerrilla forces.

It can be said, to a certain degree, that diplomatic ties through NGO networks helps in the conflict mediation process. In some cases , however, Norway maybe involved as facilitator by virtue of its membership in an international organization such as the United Nations, or group of states assisting the peace process such as "Friends of IGAD" etc. Norway's participation in Eritrea-Ethiopia conflict, Sudan and Colombia is of this nature.

In Guatemala , it can be said that the URNG surrendered . Moreover, even in the peace process, the military group is showing some weakness leading to its initiation of the peace process with the help of the church. It may be said also that in Guatemala, the round of talks discussing the eleven point agreement were held in several countries. It is not only in Norway but also other members of the group "Friends of Guatemala". Talks were held in Mexico , Spain etc. Thus , it has been an issue within this group, that there is a competition in which venue should the final signing of the series of agreements should take place. Thus , there is a competition among countries on who is the real peacemaker in the process. On a brighter note, though there is competition among these countries, it just goes to show that any effort to attain long and lasting peace is a concerted effort , not just of the two parties but also from a variety of groups. Also, UN's involvement increased , through its appointment of a moderator Jean Arnault and through the establishment of MINUGUA (UN monitoring mission in Guatemala) with an oversight function of how the parties have abide by the terms of agreements in human rights . (Krovel R., 2000)

In the case of the Eritrea-Ehiopia conflict, UN seems to be successful since there are no "great powers" interest in the dispute. The boundary or the geographic implications of the conflict would not affect the geopolitical interests of any of the "great powers". Thus UN can assert its supremacy in any case and still gather support of its actions from these powers. Contrast this with the situation in PLO- Israel and one could understand the inaction of the Security Council .Though it has issued resolutions condemning the acts of Israel's occupation of Palestinian lands, this resolutions have no "tooth" because it cannot impose sanctions in Israel. Since the primary "super power" holding stakes in the PLO-Israel conflict is the United States, it has prevented the body from formulating a number of resolutions which could have alleviated the conflict.

In the case of the Colombian conflict, it is obvious that the parties contracting are not willing to make any concessions since the willingness of Pastrana to push through with the negotiations is not reciprocated by the FARC (rand publication). Jan Egeland mentioned several factors why the Colombian case will have difficulty in reaching a peace pact with the rebel groups. First, the rebel group has a high level of financial reserves through narco-trafficking and FARC is the largest in number among insurgent groups in Central America with an estimated 32,000 combatants. Also , there is a high level of criminal violence relative to political violence. (Ruiz, 2002)

In the case of Sudan , there are different groups who have signalled willingness to mediate between the parties such as IGAD and Egypt and Kenya. However, these groups have failed to address the roots of the conflict and does not have a concrete institutional base to anchor mediation process.

One factor has been isolated in the discussion of why majority of these peace processes facilitated by Norway broke down . Though Norway is not under any pressure from the international community, the governments of these parties are under pressure since all of these rebel groups are in the US list of world terrorists. (US Committee for a Free Lebanon)The degree of support that US gives these governments directs the approach of these countries with the rebel groups. For instance, Israel is one of the major recipients of US military aid. One would not find the rationale for Israel to use these arms to defend the contested territories. In a different case, when Ethiopia no longer received military aid, that was only the time that it opted to cooperate with the peace talks. US has constantly supported SPLA in the Sudan conflict since its government has supported Iraq in several cases (ARAB North). It is also for the maintenance of regional security that US is also supportive of the peace process in Colombia and Guatemala. Thus, it did not stall the peace process and even offered aid to Colombia.

US intervention and pressure in countries which it supports has direct correlation in the capability of the UN security council to address these conflicts. This is clearly manifested in the case of PLO-Israel , though the UN would want to intervene and pass action, it has limited authority because of US voice in the security council . Thus , leadership in the UN security council of Norway is limited in its power and subject to concurrence of great powers. Norway may be influential but its capability is limited.

In sum, the success of mediation efforts is dependent upon many variables. First, the internal state of affairs of the warring parties are ready to compromise for peace. Second, the degree to which the international community gives support in the process and third , the extent to which the US will intervene in the process.

Any engagement of Norway to the peace process is subject to these factors. The Norwegian approach to the conflict, that of strengthening the NGOs and civil society is essential to peacebuilding (creation of an environment wherein peace would thrive) and not just for back channeling to forge an agreement. (The usual claim of its ministers is that the success of mediation is through back channels). (Wallrassen, 1999)

It is important to note, that in order for the channels through NGOs to work, the network that Norway should connect to is the one that has direct concerns for the peace process . Secondly , the connections should in itself know which body to pressure to have a direct influence to the "think-tanks" and knows the strategies to be able to take part in decision-making. Third, the NGOs should have a wide base of support from the people. as in the case of Guatemala wherein the church is influential in the sense that the rebels themselves subscribe to this religion and second, it has access to the people which enabled it to amass support for the peace process. (Milbrath, 1967) Thus , the NGOs that should establish connections with Norway should not focus its strength and agenda to peacebuilding per se but one which is directed to influence and pressure the panels and at the same time enjoy popular support.

Currently, Norway is actively involved in the peace process in Sri Lanka. Norway is a mediator in the process , its former representative was Erik Solheim whose role is more of a special envoy between the parties. Recently , the negotiator was changed upon the request of the Sri Lankan Government , and the new negotiator was Jagland. The Foreign Ministry of Norway actively pursued means for the side to finally meet for negotiations. Recently , efforts paid off and negotiations are currently taking place in Thailand. Assessing the conflict in Sri Lanka, which is between the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) and the Sinhalese Government, the internal situation is not yet ready to make peace agreement with the rebel group. First, the law putting a ban on LTTE was not yet repealed though it is negotiating already in the peace talks and LTTE is actually showing willingness in the process as shown in its series of unilateral declaration of ceasefire.

Second, the government is still engaged with strengthening the military as a possible solution to the Tamil Problem.Third , there are several countries which has labeled the LTTE as terrorists including US and Britain. UN cannot also make a decisive role because of India's objection as a major power in the region. Furthermore, the solutions it will give to the problem will be bound by its mandate to protect the state system.

US is still a major factor since it is the largest export market of Sri Lanka , it has economic control through financing institutions and military aid. Sri Lanka however, will be important to the US since its waters are near US geopolotical concerns.(Sri Jayantha, 2001)

If Norway will be given the role of a facilitator in the Philippines, it will not be successful since the internal situation is not "ripe" to push for a peace process. First , the legal frameworks for the negotiations are viewed differently. The GRP panel sees that the framework for negotiations should be within the bounds of the 1987 constitution . However, the NDF panel sees the Hague Joint Declaration as the legal framework for the negotiations.

Second, the US factor is ever present . The US has declared the NDF as terrorists. Unless US will stop giving military aid to the Arroyo government, there will be no military stalemate (as in the case of El Salvador where US withdrew its support to government).

Third, though we have local lobbyists and pressure groups who are supportive of a peace process (Gaston Ortigas Institute and Peace Studies Institute), the think-tanks of the GRP , mainly the military should change its stance.

Norway may have also the motives for pushing an agreement such as the affirmation of its title as world peacemaker and the protection of its business interests in the Philippines such as its fish export, commercial fleet, shares in 37 companies and gas exploration in the Malampaya but it is gravely limited by its role as host and lack of necessary local support of NGOs if it intends to follow its back channel formula.

Norway has not established its NGO networks in the local scene as can be seen in its aid data.

Net bilateral Aid (2001)

Share out of total Funds channeled Foundations,Res.

bilateral transfers though local NGOs Institites

Ethiopia 0.5% * 902 550

Eritrea 1.9% * 3 180 ------

Sudan 1.5%

-------- ------

Colombia 0.8% 1 800 1 771

Sri Lanka 1.7% 12 873 50

Philippines 0.2% --------

* Bilateral transfer in these countries were greatly reduced due to the outbreak of the conflict and aid was channeled through UN

In sum, Norway's track record as facilitator is not that excellent, as some would claim. In the first place, its success , with the use of the Norwegian model , is of a limited nature . The NGOs are influential if its aims are to influence their own governments, to advocate for change within their own regions, facilitate in building a community wherein peace could thrive even without the effort of peacekeeping missions. The key for Norway , is to carefully choose those NGOs which have clear goals with regards to peace process and has a mechanism to influence the think-tanks of the panels. NGOs are effective, but the success is subject to state politics.