Belém—30th Conference of the Parties (COP30). Credit: Antônio Scorza/COP30

By Erik Solheim
OSLO, Norway, Nov 11 2025 (IPS)

When world leaders now gather in Belém, Brazil for the UN climate conference, expectations will be modest. Few believe the meeting will produce any breakthroughs. The United States is retreating from climate engagement. Europe is distracted. The UN is struggling to keep relevant in the 21st century.

But step outside the negotiation tents, and a different story unfolds—one of quiet revolutions, technological leaps, and a new geography of leadership. The green transformation of the world is no longer being designed in Western capitals. It is being built, at scale, in the Global South.

Ten years ago, anyone seeking inspiration on climate policy went to Brussels, Berlin or Paris. Today, you go to Beijing, Delhi or Jakarta. The center of gravity has shifted. China and India are now the twin engines of the global green economy, with Brazil, Vietnam and Indonesia closely behind.

Erik Solheim

China has made the green transition its biggest business opportunity, turning green action into jobs, prosperity and global leadership. China is now making more money from exporting green technology than America makes from exporting fossil fuels.

India, too, is reshaping what green development looks like. I was in Andhra Pradesh last month, when I visited a wonderful six-gigawatt integrated energy park—solar, wind, and pumped storage. It delivers round-the-clock clean power. There is nothing like that in the West. In another state, Tamil Nadu, an ecotourism circuit is protecting mangroves and marine ecosystems while creating local jobs in tourism. The western state of Gujarat, long a laboratory for industrial innovation, has committed to 100 gigawatts of renewables by 2030, with the captains of Indian business – Adani and Reliance – driving large-scale solar and wind investments with the state government.

These are not pilot projects. They are national strategies. And they are succeeding because the economics have flipped.

The cost of solar power has fallen by over 90 percent in the last decade, largely thanks to the intense competition between Chinese solar companies. Battery storage is now competitive with fossil fuels. What was once an environmental aspiration has become a financial inevitability. In Indian Gujarat, solar-plus-storage projects are already cheaper than coal. Switching to clean energy is no longer a cost—it is a saving.

That is why climate action today is driven not by diplomacy, but by economics. The question is no longer if countries will go green, but who will own the technologies and industries that make it possible.

Europe, long the moral voice of the climate agenda, now risks losing the industrial race. After years of blocking imports from developing countries on grounds of “inferior” green quality, it now complains that Chinese electric vehicles are too good— too cheap and too efficient. Europe cannot have it both ways. The world cannot build a green transition behind protectionist walls. The markets must open to the best technologies, wherever they are made.

President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil understands this new reality. That is why he chose Belém, deep in the Amazon, as the site for climate talks. The location itself is a statement: the future of climate policy lies in protecting the rainforests and empowering the people who live within them.

Forests are not just carbon sinks; they are living economies. When I was Norway’s environment minister, we partnered with Brazil and Indonesia to reward them for reducing deforestation. Later, Guyana joined our effort—a small South American nation where nearly the entire population is of Indian or African origin.

Guyana has since turned conservation into currency. Under its jurisdictional REDD+ programme, the country now sells verified carbon credits through the global aviation market known as CORSIA. In the third quarter of this year, these credits traded at USD 22.55 per tonne of CO₂ equivalent, with around one million credits sold through a procurement event led by IATA and Mercuria.

The proceeds go directly to forest communities—building schools, improving digital access, and funding small enterprises. It is proof that the carbon market can deliver real value when tied to real lives. You cannot protect nature against the will of local people. You can only protect it with them. Last year in Guyana, I watched children play soccer and cricket beneath the jungle canopy—a glimpse of life thriving in harmony with the forest, not at its expense.

That, ultimately, is what Belém should represent: not another round of procedural debates, but a vision for linking markets, nature and livelihoods.

The Global South has also sidestepped one of the West’s greatest political failures: climate denial. In India, there is no major political party—or public figure, cricket star or Bollywood artist—questioning the reality of climate change. Leaders may differ on ideology, but not on this. Across Asia, from China to Indonesia, climate action unites rather than divides. Because here, ecology and economy move together.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India puts it simply: by going green, we also go prosperous. President Xi Jinping of China and President Lula of Brazil share that same message—a vision that draws people in, instead of lecturing them. It is this integration of growth and sustainability that explains why the Global South is moving faster than most of the developed world.

None of this means diplomacy is irrelevant. The UN still matters. But its institutions must evolve to reflect the realities of the 21st century. The Security Council, frozen in 1945, still excludes India and Africa from permanent membership. Without reform, multilateralism risks losing its meaning.

Yet, while negotiations stall, transformation continues. From solar parks in Gujarat to high-speed rail across China, from mangrove tourism in Tamil Nadu to carbon markets in Guyana—climate leadership is happening in real economies, not in press releases.

Belém will not deliver a grand agreement. But it doesn’t need to. The world is already moving—faster than our diplomats.

The story of Belem will not be written in communiqués, but in kilowatts, credits, and communities.

The real climate leaders are no longer in Washington or Brussels.

They are in Beijing, Delhi, São Paulo, and Georgetown.

The future of climate action is already here.

It just speaks with a southern accent.

The author is the former Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme and Norway’s Minister for Environment and International Development.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

The nation which more than any other caused the climate crisis will leave it to the rest of the world to sort out the mess.

That is a takeaway from the US election last week.

Erik Solheim

This week the world comes together in Baku, Azerbaijan for the UN climate talks, on the eve of the hottest year since the 1200s. The meeting takes place a week after a flood which took more than 200 lifes in one of the world´s most developed states, Spain. The last years have seen wildfires in the Amazon, and in California, Greece and Turkey. Floods have caused massive damage in Pakistan and China. Northern India experienced 52 degrees last Summer in areas where very few people have access to air condition.

From every indicator – its time to act. To act now!

The bad news is that the world ´s most powerful leader believes we should do nothing.

The good news is that this matters much less than we tend to think.

Of course Trumps victory will make it more challenging to find compromises on financing and other issues in Baku. Leaders will ask why their nation shall act or indeed pay, if the US doesnt. Global climate diplomacy will be in jeopardy. We will probably also see a roll back of the financial support for domestic climate action in the US introduced by Biden . Trump will withdraw the US from the Paris agreement, may be even from the UN Climate Convention.

But still there is hope. I am confident we will win the struggle. Here is why:

Most importantly it´s China, India and Europe which are leading on climate, not the US, even under Biden. China is the indispensible nation for climate action not the US. Last year China contributed 2/3 of all global renewable energy. It produced 60% or more of everything green – electric cars, buses and batteries, solar panels and wind mills, hydropower and high speed rail. China is also the world´s largest tree planter, by far.

India is aiming for 500 gigawatt of solar, wind and hydro by 2030. Prime minister Modi is launching «green missions» for India by the day, for instance a program for ten million homes with solar panels. Indian states like Gujarat have massive green ambitions.

Indonesia, the second largest rain forest nation, has drastically reduced deforestation. Brazil is following.

Europe was once the climate leader, even if it is now surpassed by Asia. The Green New Deal brings green development to Europe.

China, India, Europe and many more dont act on climate to please America. They act because climate change is a huge threat to their nations. They act because climate action is an enormous opportunity for green jobs, profits and prosperity.

The world can do well without the US

Secondly the forces fighting for a cooler world are also strong in the US itself.

Powerful American states support climate action. California, New York and many other states will not relinqush green efforts, but probably fight Trump tooth and nail. The economy of California alone is among the ten biggest in the world.

Business is leading the charge, not the government. No major US business saluted when Trump last time took US out of Paris agreement. US business see opportunities for profits and jobs in climate action The efforts of the US tech industry to source green power for its data center is more important than most government programs.

Business will be lukewarm to Trump´s desire to curb US climate action. He has portrayed the shift to electric cars as a «win for Beijing». The opposite is obviously the case. If Detroit doesnt start turning out electic cars, China will capture the entire global market. The Chinese domestic car market is already bigger then the American, and its electric. Buses, scooters and taxis, half of all new cars in China, are now electric.

Noone who switched from gasolin to electric cars has ever returned. The electric cars are more hight tech, pollute less, make less noise and create a better driving experience. The global trend is towards electric cars.

US business will of course be vary to leave the market for electric cars or green energy totally in the hands of China.

Thirdly, while many feel despondant today, nothing stands still in politics. A majority of Americans said they dont like Trump, even on the day they elected him. Problem for the Democrats – they are even less loved.

On election day Americans endorsed abortion in referendum after referendum. Even very conservative states supported European style welfare policies in referendums. Minimum wages fared similarly well. 57% of the voters in deeply Republican Florida even wanted abortion up to 24 weeks, a non starter in liberal Europe.

All action creates counter action. The global and US anger Trump will cause may be exactly what a fairly docile global green movement needs?

Environmentalist need to be more people centered, and we will win.

Lastly the election of Trump may paradoxically create a more peaceful world and that will help the climate movement. He strongly argued in his campaign that the US should focus on its own borders, not on everyone else borders. The time of the Neocons, both democratic and Republican, who couldnt see a war they didnt like, may be over? Trump may focus US resources on real American foreign policy needs, not believing as the Neocons that every square meter of planet Earth is an American Security risk you neeed to fight for.

The war in Ukraine may end? There is very little reason to believe Ukraine will be in a stronger negotiation position down the road. Continued war will only bring more death and destruction. A compromise now will be painful for Ukraine but is in all likelihood the least bad outcome. Trump may bring that and then Climate will again be more centre stage in global politics.

At the end of the day the election of Trump signals that US decline as the dominant world power will accellerate. His protectionist economic policy will make US business less competitive. Decreased migration will reduce economic growth. Trump is less likely than Biden to be able to make allies. Domestic turmoil and polarization will continue. The global trend towards a multipolar world dominated by the Global South will speed up. After a century of US dominance in world affairs, the ascent of Asia is not necessarily bad for the planet?

Erik Solheim is a Norwegian diplomat and former politician. He served in the Norwegian government from 2005 to 2012 as Minister of International Development and Minister of the Environment, and as Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations and Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme from 2016 to 2018

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

According to the UN, renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, emit little to no greenhouse gases, are readily available and in most cases cheaper than coal, oil or gas. Credit: UN

By Erik Solheim
OSLO, Norway, Apr 6 2024 (IPS)

In the deserts of Gujarat, something remarkable is happening. On my recent visit I saw hundreds of trucks moving under the warm Indian sun. Thousands of hardworking young people from all corners of Bharat, as Indians now often call their nation, are turning around the previously empty and harsh landscape.

This is where the world’s largest combined solar and wind plant is coming up.

When completed, it will produce 30 gigawatt of wonderful clean and green energy. That is as much as the total hydropower production of my home country Norway. We are 100% fueled by hydro in our net, a rich nation in a cold climate, consuming far too much energy.

The Gujarat miracle is the work of the Adani Group. Gautam Adani told me his moving personal story. They were eight siblings living with parents in one room in Ahmedabad. There was no electricity so if he wished to study after dark he had to go outdoors, reading under the street lamps. At the age of 14, he left home and started business. Now he is one of the richest in India and very high on the global list also.

Erik Solheim

Move on to Indonesia.

Last year, the second largest rain forest nation saw close to zero deforestation, an enormous service to Mother Earth. It happened because the Indonesian government put in place all the right policies for forest conservation and because Indonesian big business realized they can do fine without deforestation.

Take for example, RGE (Royal Golden Eagle) Group, one of the world’s biggest paper and pulp companies. RGE has decided they will have no deforestation in their value chains. They can make their paper tissues, packaging materials, viscose clothes and the palm oil business without cutting virgin trees. RGE even protects a vast intact rain forest in the island of Sumatra. It does it well with fire brigades and helicopters on standby in case of any challenge.

And of course – it’s China. China last year invested mindboggling 890 billion dollars in renewables. That’s as much as the total economy of Turkey or Switzerland. China last year added more solar energy in one year than the second biggest solar nation, the US, has done in its entire history.

Chinese companies produced solar panels ten times the size of Norwegian hydropower and added well over half of all global wind or hydro energy. China accounts for 60% of the world’s metro lines, electric batteries and cars, 70 % of the high speed rail. More than 95% of all electric buses are running on Chinese roads. China is the indispensable nation for global climate action. No one can go green at an acceptable cost without China.

What do India, Indonesia and China have in common?
They are the three largest developing nations.

At the climate talks in Glasgow and Dubai, and for sure also later this year in Baku, intellectually lazy negotiators and commentators speak as if the West is leading the world on the environment.
They get it dead wrong. Europe was leading, ten years ago. Now it’s time the West starts learning. Asia is leading.

India, Indonesia and China do not focus on climate only as a problem. Their leaders Modi, Xi and Prabowo see climate as an opportunity. Taking climate action make economic, not only ecological, sense. They can create jobs and prosperity, leave poverty behind, by going green.

Ola, the Uber of India, captures this in a fun slogan “Tesla for the West, Ola for the rest”. They believe they can make high quality, low cost, electric scooters and later cars, capturing global markets.

China had few stocks in the old automobile industry. When Western car makers were sleeping or even cheating on their emission records, China built the world’s dominant electric car ecosystem. BYD recently overtook Tesla as the largest electric car brand. CATL is the lead electric battery maker. Last year China passed Japan as the number one exporter of cars. Going electric makes perfect business as well as environment sense for China.

For the first time in human history there is a green pathway to prosperity.

The price for solar has fallen by 90% in a decade, mainly thanks to China. The price of wind energy nearly as much. For two hundred years after the Industrial revolution in the 1780s any nation which wanted to develop, could only do it through fossils. Now solar is cheaper than coal. Everywhere. A nation moving from coal to solar saves money. Going green is not a cost.

In January, prime minister Modi launched an innovative program for ten million Indian homes installing roof top solar. The owner of the house register the interest digitally. The utility company, the state and the banks cover the risk, not the owner. The size is astonishing.

The divide between these realities and the climate talks could hardly be wider. Last year in Dubai the focus was on loss and reparatioins. This is a completely fair demand, American emissions per capita up to today are 25 times Indian, 8 times the Chinese and the divide is even greater if we compare to Africa or small islands development states.

No one should ever blame developing nations for the climate calamities.

The weakness of this approach is however not that It’s not fair, but that it will not lead to the promised land. The money allotted by the West will be much below expectations, not even in the proximity of what is needed. Worse, the money distributed through global institutions will be slow, bureaucratic and often inadequate.

There is much talk of reforms of the global financial institutions. There has been a lot of ideas about reform of the UN also. Not one meaningful reform has happened over the last decade. The world’s largest nation, soon to become the world’s third largest economy, India, is not even on the UN security council. Anyone looking for Indonesians in the UN or global institutions need to mobilize the CIA to find them !

Reforms need support, but they will be slow, if at all they happen.

I was minister of International Development of Norway for nearly seven years. We brought Norwegian aid to 1%, the highest in the world. But if development assistance was what created prosperity some African nations would be the most developed countries on earth. India, Indonesia and China, add Korea, Singapore or Vietnam, have received very limited aid. They have got access to markets and developed strong domestic states and industries. What would Korea be without Hyundai and Samsung? This is also how the green transformation will happen this century.

The fast way to green developments run through private investment and the carbon markets, voluntary or not. This money is much larger and a lot more flexible and fast than aid. Any developing nation is best advised to build on domestic strengths and to tap into these capital flows.

Admitted the Asian giants have a few advantages. They have strong states with development-oriented leaders dedicated to the green transformation. They have huge home markets. The populations of India, China and the African continent are largely the same.

But India is one market from Tamil Nadu to Arunachal Pradesh and China one market from Guangdong to Heilongjiang. Africa comprises 54 separate states. When you succeed in the large and price conscious Indian or Chinese markets, the price is normally low and the quality high. That makes you globally competitive.

Asia also has higher level of education and China a large highly educated working class.

But still the green transformation is a huge opportunity more than a problem for developing nations. Going green now saves money. It makes it possible to leap frog into the renewable future without building the fossil infrastructure first. Even the poorest nations can develop a digital economy without putting up phone lines.

The (limited) money which will flow from Western donors and from International institutions should resolutely be used to leverage private investment in solar, wind, hydropower and green industries. The anticipated risk investing in renewables in Congo is higher than in Vietnam. That difference must be covered by donor money.

Only for climate adaptation purposes where there is no business model, we should turn to grants.

I am looking forward to going to Baku. Maybe, it can be the watershed moment when the world realizes that in the 21st century Asian developing nations are providing the global green leadership? They have showed the world going green is an opportunity.

Erik Solheim is a Norwegian diplomat and former politician. He served in the Norwegian government from 2005 to 2012 as Minister of International Development and Minister of the Environment, and as Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations and Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme from 2016 to 2018

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A wind farm in Curacao. Credit: Desmond Brown/IPS

By Erik Solheim
UNITED NATIONS, Nov 3 2017 (IPS)

For too long, the relationship between prosperity and environment has been seen as a trade-off. Tackling pollution was considered an unwelcome cost on industry and a handicap to economic growth.

But global trends are demonstrating that this is no longer the case. It’s now clear that sustainable development is the only form of development that makes sense, including in financial and economic terms. The drive towards a pollution-free planet provides an opportunity to innovate and become more competitive.

With the UN Environment Assembly just over a month away, we now have the opportunity to dramatically step up our ambitions.

The rapidly falling cost of energy from renewable sources, such as wind and solar power, means that the countries leading the shift away from fossil fuels will reap the greatest benefits to their economies, as well as their environments. These countries will have better, faster transport networks and more flexible power grids.
The energy revolution currently unfolding is a game changer, as is the increased mobilization around climate. The rapidly falling cost of energy from renewable sources, such as wind and solar power, means that the countries leading the shift away from fossil fuels will reap the greatest benefits to their economies, as well as their environments. These countries will have better, faster transport networks and more flexible power grids.

With the transition to green and sustainable development under way, we now need to focus on how to intensify and accelerate these trends in order to protect the environment, combat climate change and curb pollution. As I see it, there are five critical pieces to this puzzle:

We need political leadership and partnerships. A global compact on pollution would ensure sustained engagement at the highest level and make prevention a priority for all. It would also encourage policymakers and other key partners, including the private sector, to integrate prevention into national and local planning, development processes, and business and finance strategies.

We need the right policies. Environmental governance needs to be strengthened – with targeted action on “hard-hitting” pollutants through risk assessments and enhanced implementation of environmental legislation, including multilateral environmental agreements, and other measures.

We need a new approach to managing our lives and economies.Sustainable consumption and production, through improved resource efficiency and lifestyle changes, should be promoted. Waste reduction and management must be prioritized.

We need to invest big. Mobilizing finance and investment in low-carbon opportunities and cleaner production and consumption will drive innovation and help to counter pollution. Increased funding is also needed for research, pollution monitoring, infrastructure, management and control.

We need advocacy for action. Citizens need to be informed and inspired to reduce their own pollution footprint and advocate for bold pollution-beating commitments from the public and private sectors.

With the UN Environment Assembly just over a month away, we now have the opportunity to dramatically step up our ambitions. Science is delivering great advances in our understanding of pollution and its impacts on people, economies and the environment. Citizens are more aware than ever before of how pollution affects their lives and they are demanding action on what has become a critical public health issue. At the same time, experts and businesses are developing the technology to tackle these problems at all scales, from local to global. Financiers are increasingly ready to support them, while international bodies and forums, including the United Nations, stand ready to help to channel this momentum and turn it into firm action.

Erik Solheim. UN Photo/Mark Garten

The responsibility for driving change on this broad front is shared among and within nations. Government policies and programmes will play a central role, both nationally and internationally. Businesses, consumers, investors, community groups and thought leaders must also be fully involved if we are to succeed. Technology and economic innovation are key, as is mobilizing finance at scale. Investments need to be harnessed to address climate and pollution challenges.

My report to the UN Environment Assembly examines the dimensions of pollution and identifies a way forward through a framework for action. I invite our partners in government, business, and civil society, as well as citizens around the world, to consider the report, act on its recommendations, and join us in the fight to beat pollution around the world.

Link to report: https://papersmart.unon.org/resolution/uploads/25_19october.pdf

Excerpt:

By Shamshad Akhtar and Erik Solheim
BANGKOK, Thailand, Sep 4 2017 (IPS)

Senior government officials from across Asia and the Pacific will meet in Bangkok this week for the first-ever Asia-Pacific Ministerial Summit on the Environment. The high-level meeting is co-convened by the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UN ESCAP) and UN Environment and is a unique opportunity for the region’s environment leaders to discuss how they can work together towards a resource efficient and pollution-free Asia-Pacific.

Shamshad Akhtar

Resources such as fossil fuels, biomass, metals and minerals are essential to build economies. However, the region’s resource efficiency has regressed in recent years. Asia is unfortunately the least resource efficient region in the world. In 2015, we used one third more materials to produce each unit of GDP than in 1990. Developing countries use five times as many resources per dollar of GDP in comparison to rest of the world and10 times more than industrialized countries in the region. This inefficiency of resource use results into wastage and pollution further affecting the natural resources and public health which are the basic elements for ensuring sustainable economic growth.

As the speed and scale of economic growth continues to accelerate across the region, pollution has become a critical area for action. While the challenge of pollution is a global one, the impacts are overwhelmingly felt in developing countries. About 95 per cent of adults and children who are impacted by pollution-related illnesses live in low and middle-income countries. Asia and the Pacific produces more chemicals and waste than any other region in the world and accounts for the bulk – 25 out of 30 – of cities with highest levels of PM 2.5, the tiny atmospheric particulate matter that can cause respiratory and cardiovascular diseases and cancer. More than 80 per cent of our rivers are heavily polluted while five of the top land-based ocean plastic sources are from countries in our region. Estimates put the cost of marine pollution to regional economies at a staggering US$1.3 billion.

Erik Solheim

There are some profound changes underway in Asia and the Pacific. The region is experiencing the largest rural to urban migration in history. Developing these new urban areas with resource-efficient buildings, waste water and solid waste management systems can do much to advance this agenda. Advancing the “sharing economy” might mean we have better utilization of assets such as vehicles, houses or other assets, greatly reducing material inputs and pollution. The widespread move to renewable energy should rein in fossil fuel use. And advances in recycling, materials technology, 3D printing and manufacturing could also support greater resource circularity.

Moving to green technologies and eco innovation offer economic and employment opportunities. Renewable energy provided jobs for 9.8 million people worldwide in 2016. Waste can be converted into economic opportunities, including jobs. In Cebu City– the second-largest city in the Philippines, concerted Solid Waste Management has borne fruit: waste has been reduced by 30 per cent in 2012; treatment of organic waste in neigbourhoods has led to lower transportation costs and longer use period in landfills. The poor have largely benefited from hundreds of jobs that have been created.

At the policy level, it is vital that resource efficiency and pollution prevention targets are integrated into national development agendas, and targeted legal and regulatory measures to enforce resource efficiency standards should be established. For example, the Government of China has instituted a national system of legislation, rules and regulations that led to the adoption of a compulsory national cleaner production audit system that has been in place for more than 10 years. The direct economic benefits from this system is estimated to be more than $3 billion annually.

Further, we need an urgent reform of financial instruments. Too little capital is supporting the transition to green and resource efficient economy – major portion of current investments is still in high-carbon and resource-intensive, polluting economies. Polluter pay principle and environmental externalities are not yet fully integrated into pricing mechanisms and investment models. The availability of innovative financing mechanisms and integrated evaluation methods are important for upscaling and replicating resource-efficient practices. For example, the large-scale promotion of biogas plants in Viet Nam was made possible by harnessing global climate finance funds. Several countries in the region area are already emerging as leaders in the development of comprehensive, systemic approaches that embed sustainable finance at the heart of financial market development, such as Indonesia and Sri Lanka, and we should draw from the positive lessons learned from these experiences.

Resource efficiency and pollution prevention must be recognized as an important target for action by science, technological and innovation systems. This is important for the ongoing development of technology, and for scaling up technologies. Research shows that developing countries could cut their annual energy demand by more than half, from 3.4 percent to 1.4 percent, over the next 12 years. This would leave energy consumption some 22 percent lower than it would otherwise have been – an abatement equivalent to the entire energy consumption in China today.

We need to move to a more resource efficient and pollution free growth path that supports and promotes healthy environments. The cost of inaction for managing resources efficiently and preventing pollution is too high and a threat to economies, livelihoods and health across the region.

Excerpt:

By Erik Solheim
OSLO, Apr 27 2009 (IPS)

Cut off contact with Hamas! Don’t talk to Israel! Keep away from Burma! Over the past few years there have been calls from many quarters to break off contact with regimes we don’t like. Few, however, seem to have a realistic idea of whether breaking off contact works, or what kind of regime it might work on.

In this context it is worth recalling the words of former Israeli foreign minister Moshe Dayan, more of a hawk than a dove: “If you want to make peace, you don’t talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies.”

Dialogue is not a goal in itself. The goal is to reduce conflict and save lives. We must be clear at all times about our basic values, which include respect for the individual, human rights, and democracy.

For more than 20 years, I have been a champion of human rights and democracy in Burma. A number of times I’ve thought that a major breakthrough was imminent, but I was always disappointed. At the end of January I was in Burma and saw with my own eyes that in many respects the country has stood still for the past several decades.

Since a military junta seized control of the country in 1988, the West’s response has been to isolate it. The regime has refused to implement political and economic reforms. It’s time to think of a new approach.

Isolation rarely leads to improvements in a country, but it often creates considerable problems for the people living there. Experience has shown that democratic development is closely linked to the emergence of a middle class. It is the middle class that has the resources to become politically engaged in promoting freedom of expression and other social progress, not the poor, whose hands are full trying to keep their children from going hungry. If a country is isolated from the rest of the world, no middle class will emerge, and achieving democratic development will be far more difficult.

According to President Jose Ramos-Horta of East Timor, if Indonesia had been isolated in the same way as Burma, it would still be a dictatorship and East Timor would not have won its independence in 2002. Democratic development has also been closely linked to the emergence of a middle class in Thailand, South Korea, and most other countries in East Asia.

Because of isolation, few Burmese receive any stimulus from the outside world, and fewer yet are aware of how far Burma lags behind neighbours like Thailand and China, both economically and technologically. If Burma’s military leaders are given more opportunity to travel abroad, they will be more likely to say as Mikhail Gorbachev once did: “We cannot live like this any longer.”

One of the hallmarks of Norway today is that we are nearly always willing to talk to everyone. This has given us a special role in a number of conflicts. Because we could talk to Hamas and were thus among the first to establish contact with the Palestinian National Unity Government, we have had unique access to the negotiations in the Middle East conflict. In Sri Lanka we were among the few who had contact with both the Tamil Tigers and the authorities. We met with the Nepalese Maoists before anyone else. Now the Maoists are represented in the national assembly and the prime minister is from their party. We talk to communist guerrillas in the Philippines, and have contact with rebel groups in Burundi and Sudan. When the parties in strife-torn Zimbabwe decided to establish a government of national unity, we started a dialogue with all of them

The fact we have contact with regimes and armed groups doesn’t mean that we accept their views but simply that we have an opportunity for dialogue.

The emergency relief effort that followed cyclone Nargis’ devastation of Burma last year showed that it was possible to get much-needed aid to the people of the country. The UN and NGOs did a wonderful job. The participants in the relief effort described the situation as a “humanitarian space”, which Norway, together with many other Western and Asian countries, has helped to fill. This space opened up because the UN secretary-general and the regime talked together.

Now it is essential that we help to preserve this space and eventually extend it to the rest of the country.

Burma is facing major challenges because of the financial crisis. The military regime is planning elections, which are certain to be neither free nor fair. Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi is still being kept under strict house arrest. Unfortunately there is little hope of any democratic breakthrough in the near future. We must take a longer, historical perspective; openness and dialogue are bound to be more effective than isolation. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Erik Solheim is Norwegian Minister of the Environment and International Development.

Excerpt: