Paul Manalo

The Motives Behind Norway’s ‘Offer of Good Offices’ by Paul Manalo

-          Norway, a country located on the northwestern edge of the European continent, officially became the venue for the peace process between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the National Democratic Front (NDF) last March 9, 2001 when both parties released a joint statement regarding the participation of the Nordic country as host and/or facilitator.

-          Consequently, when the peace talks resumed last April 27, 2001, it was held in Oslo, Norway. However, the gracious offer of the said country was cut short on June 13, 2001.

-          Thus, Norway’s six-year standing offer to host and/or facilitate the talks was put to use only for less than two (2) months.

-          What constitutes Norway’s ‘Offer of Good Offices’ is primarily participation as a host and/ or facilitator.  This means that the country has a less active role compared to other peace processes where it acted as a mediator.  Also part of the offer was financial support for the NDF, meaning, the Norwegian government paid for the expenses of the former when they were in Norway.  The government side, out of national pride according to Chief Negotiator Silvestre Bello, offered to pay for its own expenses.

Norway’s Political Gains (enhancement of its image as an international peace-lover in order to establish itself in international geopolitics)

-          Norway has sponsored many peace negotiations, until now. As stated earlier, Norway is or has become involved in peace processes in almost every part of the world.

-     In North America, the country acted as mediator in internal conflicts in Guatemala.

-     In South America, it participated in the negotiations in Colombia.

-     In Africa, it was instrumental in the peace processes between Ethiopia and Eritrea.

-     In the Middle East, Norway assisted in secret negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian   Liberation Organization (PLO) which eventually led to the famous ‘Oslo Agreement’.

-          In South Asia, it is currently sponsoring the talks between Sri Lanka and the Tamil Tigers. 

-          And lastly, in South East Asia, it hosted and/or facilitated the peace process between the GRP and the NDF, before the recess was unilaterally declared (Nicolas, 2001).

-          However, it should be noted that Norway was not at all times successful in these countries.  An example would be the case of Israel and the PLO, there are still disputes between these two parties.  Also, if the strictest sense of peace negotiations would be taken into account wherein both parties would lay down their concerns and try to settle them, it would not be true in the case of countries where the so-called agreements were just imposed on rebel groups.  But what is important in citing these instances is that Norway, in one way or another, was a part of it.  The point is, Norway makes itself involved in facilitation or mediation, no matter what the outcome is, as part of its quest for recognition by the international community.

-          The next proof of Norway’s goal to be remembered as a peace-loving nation is its granting of the Nobel Peace Prize.  The country’s high regards for international serenity is manifested in its annual award given to outstanding contributors for the preservation of peace.  However, the award is not only reflective of the country’s efforts for the promotion of peace and order, it also encourages other countries, institutions, and individuals to do the same.

-          Recent developments showed that Norway’s campaign of peace-building eventually led to its membership in the United Nations Security Council as a rotating member for 2 years (Nicolas, 2001). Such active participation is in line with the security council’s primary responsibility of maintaining international peace and security in behalf of all countries that are members of the United Nations. Being in the security council has a dual character.  First, it is a means to be influential in peace processes.  And next, it is one of the reasons why Norway actively participates in such processes.

-          The previous discussions all claim that Norway’s ‘offer of good offices’ is being offered because it is the country’s way to make its presence known in the world.  Therefore, it is important to remember that the other ways are not as effective.  According to Sandra Nicolas, the economic means is limited.  Although Norway has a higher Gross Domestic Product per head than the United States, its relatively small population of 4.5 million compared to that of the USA with close to 300 million limits its economic power.  Hence, even if the GDP per head of Norway at US$ 36,100 is higher than USA with only US$ 29,080, when these figures are multiplied by their respective population, USA dominates the competition.  On that account, the Nordic country would have to settle with ‘unconventional means’ to establish its place in international geopolitics.

Norway’s Economic Gains

-          One such reason is that there are numerous companies with ‘Norwegian interests’ in the Philippines. The term ‘Norwegian interests’ simply means that the companies have either parent companies in Norway, partly owned by Norwegians, and/or those that are affiliated to Norway.  These included companies from the shipping industry, recruitment and/or manning agencies, fish and other seafoods dealers, maritime training and consultancy firms, and chemical manufacturers. The author has enough reason to believe that Norway’s offer is partly due to the protection of its investments and companies here.  The Norwegian government must have deemed important that business transactions are not to be affected by internal conflicts.  And with that in mind, there is no better way to secure their businesses than to be involved in the possible solution to the problem.  And there’s an added bonus to this, if in case Norway is the venue where the peace process concludes, it is just right to hypothesize that the said country will reap the fruits of its efforts.  A possible benefit would be a special treatment or prioritizing their companies and not other foreign ones.

-          Aside from the Norwegian companies in the country, it is also relevant to look at the exports of Norway. Fish is Norway’s biggest export.  Semi manufactured products, chemicals and engineering products are the other goods.  According to Trine Juranli, there was no substantial increase in exports from the Philippines to Norway, no significant added investments, and jokingly, no drastic increase in the number of Filipinos in Norway.  She explained that the changes in these economic indicators include reasons other than just offering to be host and/or facilitator for the peace talks.  However, the author also believes that it is still premature to expect sudden changes in these indicators.  One must remember that Norway hosted and/or facilitated for barely two (2) months.  Given more time to participate, changes can be expected.  And going back to the possibility of a successful peace process held in Oslo, Norway, one can presume that this would result to special bilateral trade agreements, if not stronger economic relationship between the Philippines and Norway.

- Another economic motive behind Norway’s offer is that it is eyeing oil and gas explorations in the Philippines (Nicolas, 2001).  According to Ms. Nicolas’ article, the Nordic country is interested to develop the reported oil and gas reserves in Palawan, particularly the Malampaya natural gas fields with an estimated 78 billion cubic meter reserves. It is not far from reality that Norway might invest in the country given the rich resources up for grabs in Malampaya.  And it might be possible that Norway would ask for special considerations regarding the said plan from the Philippine government in return for its hosting job.

The Future of the Talks

-          However, what is important to remember is that the motives, whether political or economic, is not enough to predetermine the success of Norway as host and/or facilitator for the GRP-NDF Peace Process. Ergo, the reasons provided are not even half of the formula for success.  There are other factors that are more influential than these.

-          In the first place, Norway cannot act as a host and/or facilitator is there is no mutual consent and willingness from both parties.  The simple role of providing the venue requires the formal request of both parties, as stated by Ms. Juranli.  She relates that the only condition Norway imposes on countries needing their support is that there should be an agreement between the concerned parties.  In the case of the Philippines and the NDF, before Norway became host, there was a lot of concerns for both sides.  For the GRP, Mr. Bello cited that their problem was to find a place that is nearer than Netherlands, the previous venue.  Therefore, their problem is mainly due to distance. However, in accordance to the same article of Ms. Nicolas, she revealed that the government side has long been resisting talks abroad.  In contrast, the NDF is worried that if the peace talks would be held in the country, they might be assassinated one by one, as lamented by Professor Villegas.  According to him, the NDF would gladly accept any venue that is outside the country.  With all of these concerns being posed, both parties eventually came up with a decision to make Oslo, Norway, the next place for their talks.

-          Recently, these requirements are hard to attain.  For example, the current events led to a difference in opinion.  Chief Negotiator Bello looks forward to Norway’s eventual mediation while Professor Villegas stressed that Norway must stay neutral for it to maintain credibility as a host and/or facilitator.  He also expressed fear that if Norway mediates, it will side with the GRP.  He views the comment of Norway, ‘there is no room for murder in the peace process’ pertaining to the assassination of Congressman Aguinaldo by the NPA, as an act siding with the GRP.  Fortunately, according to the professor, Norway took back those words, for if not, the country would definitely lose its credibility and the NDF would not engage in the peace talks anymore.  Therefore, it is hard to come up with a mutual consent and willingness to make Norway as mediator.

-          Still another reason for the unguaranteed success of the talks if in case Norway mediates is its limited powers compared to the parties.  Once Norway moves to a role that is more active than what it is now, it can still only do so much.  The author believes that the GRP and the NDF has the final word on matters, not Norway.

-          The author acknowledges the fact that with Norway as facilitator, it can influence the outcome of the peace process to work for its own interests, however, its power is still limited.  The question of whether agreements can be forged was, is and will always be in the hands of the GRP and the NDF.  No matter how influential Norway becomes, the possible outcome is still in the hands of the parties concerned.  Any influence is futile as long as one party does not succumb to it.  One can speculate that if Norway does mediate, it can sway the government side.  And if the NDF detects a collaboration between the GRP and Norway, it is logical to assume that the NDF is likely to declare a recess and will think twice of resuming the talks.  Thus, no agreement can be forged if one side loses the willingness to pursue talks.

-          In a nutshell, the greatest of motives does not assure success at the very least.  What can be said is that with proper reasons, intentions and a genuine desire for world peace, one nation can make a difference.

-         Now that the peace talks between the GRP and the NDF is in standstill, one can only hope that once it resumes, agreements can be set, compromises be made and eventually, the conclusion for the quest of lasting internal peace and order.  And the real compliment for Norway is due when it becomes the final destination of the talks and that binding agreements are not only signed, but also implemented.