Lessons from Oslo

The movie Oslo recounts the unofficial back-channel negotiation process, facilitated by a Norwegian couple, to build peace between Israel and Palestine that eventually led to the signing of the official Oslo Accords in 1993. The image of US President Bill Clinton witnessing the historic handshake between two bitter enemies Yitzhak Rabin, the prime minister of Israel, and Yasir Arafat, the chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization at the White House on September 13, 1993, has been a great symbol of optimism and peace.

The Oslo Accords would probably never have occurred had it not been for Mona Juul, a diplomat, and her husband Terje Rød-Larsen, a director of a think tank research foundation. The couple collaborated along with a handful of Palestinians, Israelis and Norwegians that were committed to exploring diplomatic back channels to change the realities and future between two conflicting peoples. Prepared with their diplomatic skills and principles, Mona and Terje were essential to facilitating the space for the back-channel negotiation process. Some say they were the ‘midwives’ of the Oslo Accords. Olso, the movie, is portrayed through the lens and perspective of this Norwegian couple that focuses on key individuals that contributed to the process.

To watch and think of Oslo in these present times context is an opportunity to reflect on facilitation as an art which serves as an impetus to peacebuilding processes. The movie transported me back some twenty years ago when as a student of conflict transformation, we listened to different perspectives from Israelis and Palestinians and together examined, critiqued, and learnt many aspects of the process. Most importantly, Oslo is an example for governments and leaders in situations of protracted conflict, such as the Naga case, to think more imaginatively and take out-of-the-box approaches in finding peace. Foremost, the human relationships based on trust between individuals in the negotiation process are keys to unlocking deadlocks. Without mutual respect and trust between the negotiators, the process will not move forward.

On June 11, the Nagaland Government officially notified the media that a Parliamentary Committee on Naga Political Issue, comprised of all sixty State Legislators and two Members of Parliament, had been formed. The notification stated that, “The Parliamentary Committee shall discuss matters relating to the Naga Political issue and play the role of Facilitator in the ongoing Peace Talks between the Government of India and the Naga Political Groups.” While appreciating their enthusiasm, there are inherent hurdles and practical questions of trust, intention and acceptance, and technical knowhow that need to be considered.

An independent facilitator, using a peacebuilding prism, needs to be trusted and accepted by the parties involved in the process. In this case, the Parliamentary Committee is by its nature political and not an independent body. Effective facilitation requires being committed to and focusing on the process, structuring, and supporting it while the content is left to the conflict parties and experts. From this peacebuilding perspective, the Parliamentary Committee as facilitators is expected, in principle, to remain impartial about the content, nor demand that the content be shared with them.

 The Parliamentary Committee needs to arrive at a working definition of what it means to “play the role of Facilitator” which will ensure that the peacebuilding process unfolds organically, is objective and unobstructed. 

 What was central to Mona and Terje’s motivation and approach was their genuine hope to see lasting peace between Israel and Palestine. Their commitment was based on their principle to facilitate and support the negotiations without getting involved in the contents of the negotiations.

History will remember if the Parliamentary Committee has the courage to exhibit wisdom and discernment!