Every year - at least 740.000 people are killed by armed violence. That is almost one and a half times as many as the entire population of Oslo.

A majority of the killings occur outside of the traditional armed conflict.

A main question then to me, as a representative of the Red Cross, is how this fact will affect the Red Cross, our priorities, our actions and strategic choices.

In the 10 minutes I have at hand, I will not be able to give an exhaustive answer to these questions – but hopefully I will be able to give you an outline of our current thinking

The Red Cross was born on the battlefield. International Humanitarian Law and the Red Cross are interlinked and will forever be so.

But it also true that the Red Cross is a needs based and needs oriented humanitarian organisation – and when hundreds of thousands of people are killed by armed violence outside of conflict every year – it is our duty to address this humanitarian challenge. The numbers of killings have to be reduced.

This does not entail that we will decrease our focus upon the humanitarian challenges related to armed conflict.

The number of armed conflicts has declined over the last 15 years.

But massacres, terrorist attacks and other acts of one-sided violence has increased. The dominant pattern is constant violence against civilians.

Civilians continue to pay the highest price of armed conflict, due to both the methods and the means of warfare.

Although the landmine convention and the cluster munitions convention introduced a new principle of IHL; that all weapons must BY NATURE be able to distinguish between civilians and combatants, this is far from being universally recognized.

Weapons which pose a particular hazard to the civilian population are continuously used in armed conflict. And area weapons and bombs which are not individually guided are repeatedly used in densely populated areas.

The humanitarian challenges related to armed conflict are many and grave. And we therefore have to maintain our focus upon the further development of, and ensuring the respect for IHL.

The Norwegian Red Cross is currently working to develop the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement’s policy related to weapons. The aim is to have a less focus on the particular type of weapon, but rather the threat the totality of the weapons pose to the civilian population.

This is not achieved over night. But we are slowly getting there and in two weeks time this policy change hopefully will be adopted by the international Red Cross movement in Nairobi

And the week after I will chair a meeting with 23 National Societies in Cartagena, Colombia during the Review Conference to the Landmine Treaty to discuss how we can improve our work, both operationally and on the normative side.

The basis for the resolution is armed conflict. But as the realities on the ground dictate us, we have to broaden our focus to meet the humanitarian realities of today - armed violence does not only occur in armed conflicts.

I will raise one aspect of armed violence in particular: That of urban violence.

Countries at peace experience new forms of violence between armed groups taking place in urban areas.

Many civil society organisations, including national Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies are trying to prevent the violence, to deal with its effects and to defend people’s rights.

One cannot compare peaceful Oslo to the violence taking place in Mogadishu, Rio, Nairobi or Los Angeles. But armed violence is a growing problem here as well.

In 1995, a young man named Andreas Stavseth, 17 years old, was shot and killed in Oslo’s city centre. There were no disagreements prior to the incident, no arguing of fighting, just a sudden killing of a young man that was at the wrong place at the wrong time.

After the killing in Oslo, the Norwegian Red Cross took part in the project Stop the violence, aiming at creating safer local communities. Youth were particularly mobilised and over 250.000 handprints were collected nationally as a symbol of non-violence.

In Rio, the ICRC has initiated a pilot project which focus is three folded: They are trying to reach the arms bearers to change their behavior and offer alternative to violence through for example vocational training. They are in a dialogue with the police to teach them practical application of basic human rights.  And lastly the focus is of course upon providing assistance to the victims.

National Societies often respond to a wide range of acts of violence like suburban riots, clashes at sporting events or political gatherings, marital violence, the list could go on.

A lot has been done and a lot is being done by National Societies and other humanitarian organisations to prevent armed violence outside of armed conflict, but the question is how we can do better and more?

I believe we need to focus on three areas:

• Reducing the availability of weapons
• Reducing the vulnerability of the victims
• Changing the behaviour of the arms carriers

Allow me to elaborate as briefly as possible

At the normative level, an arms trade treaty has been discussed as the most important opportunity to reduce the availability of weapons. The lack of regulation in the arms trade must as a minimum be considered as unfortunate and a failure in the international legal system. It is unlikely that an arms trade treaty would solve the problem entirely. It will not remove the millions of weapon available all over the world. And it will not effectively address the illegal arms trade which is the real problem. But regardless of what it will actually achieve, it will definitely raise awareness of armed violence as a global problem and thus create a window of opportunity.

A comprehensive approach must also focus on reducing the vulnerability of victims. Effective measures are of course dependent on the context. It ranges from supporting children at risk of becoming child soldiers. Or providing alternative sources of safe water and fuel in communities where traditional sources of such supplies have become too dangerous to approach due to armed violence. It may be relevant to teach children about the risks of playing with abandoned arms or ammunition. Or it may include simple means at the community level like ensuring street lights, which may increase security drastically in urban areas.  

At the individual level, focus must be upon influencing the behaviour of those bearing weapons and their obligation to act in accordance with international norms.

In practical terms this would for example imply that military, security and police forces as well as non-state armed groups and other weapon bearers must be instructed in the practical application of IHL and human rights law. The ICRC has a long history in teaching regular armed forces and armed groups in the practical applicability of IHL, we must learn from these experiences to apply them to influence weapon bearers outside of armed conflict.

What we are talking about is to create a cultural change and that is why the International Red Cross Strategy towards 2020, lifts up as one out of three strategic aims – the need to promote a culture of non-violence and peace.

Allow me to conclude.
Armed violence is a major humanitarian challenge in armed conflict where IHL is applicable, and outside of armed conflicts where human rights and domestic law constitute the legal framework.

Our efforts must be based on the needs from society: Policies, programmes and activities must be developed to protect and meet the needs of all the victims of armed violence, regardless whether they occur within or outside armed conflict. This is a challenge for the international Red Cross, but even more so for the 186 National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies – many of which face these challenges every day.

My main conclusion is this: We need to do more and better. It is not sufficient to strengthen the normative framework. Our success is dependent on our ability to change attitudes, to reduce vulnerability and to provide sufficient assistance to the victims.