Dear Commissioners, dear Supporters of the Lancet-UiO Commission on Global Governance for Health,
I am pleased and honoured to welcome you all to the first meeting of the Commission on global governance for health. I am welcoming you on behalf of the University of Oslo, on behalf of The Lancet, and on behalf of the Dean of Harvard School of Public Health, Julio Frenk, who will talk to us later today through a recorded message. It is truly exciting to see you seated around the table, having come from far and near, and being ready for the important task that lies ahead of us. A task that, if fulfilled, aspires to change the way we think about health – and about the protection and creation of health - in the larger political and societal context.
My task at this point in time – embodied in this welcoming address – is a much smaller one, albeit important enough: I will make an attempt to bring you the coordinates – the backdrop for your stay here in Oslo. I will try to respond up front to the questions that I am convinced are now on your minds – the very same questions that might have been tormenting you during your long trip to the cold and dark outpost of winterly Norway. I am referring to the questions of where, who, and why.
First, the where. Why was the capital of Norway chosen as the headquarter and venue for this endeavour, why the University of Oslo, why this very building?
We all acknowledge the hard facts – that Norway is a small country populationwise, a remote country geographically, and a country without any semblance of a military might. Yet, we do have ambitions on the international scene. These ambitions were very much in evidence already scores of years ago, even before luck stroke and we became one of the wealthiest nations in the world due to our oil resources. What we experience, somewhat paradoxically, is that our ambitions on the international scene are kindled and nurtured by the fact that we lack hard power. The very lack of hard power provides ample opportunities to exert soft power – the ability to influence policies for the betterment of the society. Our support and enthusiasm for the present commission should be viewed in this context.
This line of thinking resonates perfectly with Norway’s foreign policy which is set to “make a difference” on the international scene. This ambition on the part of the government translates into a substantial investment in foreign aid (currently amounting to about 1% of the gross national product) and into a preparedness to help resolve political conflicts worldwide.
Obviously, our international engagement is also very much part of our commitment derived from acting as the host country for the Nobel Peace Prize. Two days ago I attended the award ceremony in Oslo Town Hall where three women – two from Liberia and one from Yemen – accepted the 2011 Nobel Peace Prizes. The prizes were awarded for their non-violent struggle for the safety of women and for women’s rights to full participation in peace-building work. It was a moving ceremony but also one that squarely reproached the international community for not caring enough, for not showing enough empathy. Tawakkol Karman complained that the youth revolution in Yemen “…did not get the international understanding, support or attention of the other revolutions in the region. This should haunt the world's conscience because it challenges the very idea of fairness and justice.” She went on to conclude that “The democratic world, which has told us a lot about the virtues of democracy and good governance, should not be indifferent to what is happening in Yemen and Syria, and before that in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya”.
Indifference, indeed. Indifference, as opposed to empathy across geographical and cultural divides. This is the tension that unites us here today. And this is the tension that stood as a central theme in Elie Wiesel’s acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize on the 10th of December 1986, exactly 25 years ago. “The opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference” was his message to the world. Later today we will visit the University’s Aula – a mere stone’s throw from here – where Wiesel spoke in 1986 and where the Peace Prize was handed out until 1989.
Fighting indifference and promoting empathy was also the the mission of another Nobel Peace Prize laureate – our own Fridtjof Nansen. He was born in 1861, and we have celebrated his 150 years anniversary this autumn. Fridtjof Nansen was elected Rector of this university in 1919, but was too busy to take office. Nansen started out as a preeminent brain scientist, but went on to become a polar explorer and oceanographer. Crowning his career, in 1922 he was awarded the Nobel peace prize for his humanitarian efforts in post-revolution Russia. His name is still remembered in Russia, as I have realized during my several trips to that country over the past few years. Through what was later called Nansen passports, Fridtjof Nansen helped thousands of refugees to a safe future. As a polar explorer and oceanographer, Nansen had travelled a world where national borders were irrelevant, and it was obvious to him that people should not suffer because of these.
Fairness and justice - regardless of borders - has been a central theme from Nansen to this year’s Nobel Laureates – and a theme that I believe will be a recurrent one in our work ahead.
This is also a theme that is firmly embedded in the new strategy plan for the University of Oslo.
In this plan we state that the University of Oslo should “transcend borders”. One of the key paragraphs reads as follows: “Many of the 21st century’s global challenges associated with areas such as climate, energy, health, poverty and violation of human rights observe neither disciplinary boundaries nor geographic borders. This gives a university such as the University of Oslo, which has a broad range of academic disciplines, a clear advantage.” By identifying health as a global challenge, our strategy plan serves as a prologue and justification for the present commission. And we do think that our breadth of expertise will inspire and inform the work that you as commissioners have agreed to undertake. Several of our own experts are with us here today and will constitute a resource group that will be introduced to you in due course.
We will also – in an upcoming meeting – seek the advice of academics from other Norwegian universities. So, at this point in my welcome address, I trust the question of where has been answered – hopefully to your partial satisfaction at least. In sum, your presence here today represents a logical and welcome extension of a century long history of transcending borders.
But why do we convene in this building – in Domus Academica? This building – completed in 1852 – is one of the most famous buildings in Norway, being part of the oldest campus of our university. Today, most of the faculties are located at the Blindern campus a few kilometers to the northwest. The Law Faculty is the only one that holds sway in this downtown campus. In fact, we find ourselves in the Court Room of Domus Academica. Belying its name, and as far as I know, this room was never used for court proceedings, but rather served as an important venue for meetings like the one we host today.
You are now in the building that houses the clock – facing our parade street – that enabled the famous playwright Henrik Ibsen to adjust his time. This he did every day at lunch time, when he strolled past on his way to Grand Café down the street. Today we like to see the symbolic meaning of this act - as an act forecasting the present day situation when the University of Oslo aspires to set the rhythm and pace of the nation’s cultural and scientific life.
You are now in the building that houses the Old Festive Hall of the university. This Hall – next door to this room – was where the National Assembly met for a number of years until their own building – Stortingsbygningen – was erected in 1866. In fact, the history of the University of Oslo is intextricably intertwined with the history of the Norwegian democracy. The establishment of this university in 1811 – 200 years ago this year – paved the way for Norway’s independency from Denmark in 1814. Predating our birth as a free nation, this university was instrumental in developing the Norwegian democracy and in building the welfare state that we have learned to appreciate.
Now our scope as university extends far beyond our own borders, as this meeting attests to.
Then comes the question of who. You – the commissioners – were selected first and foremost on the basis of your expertise, background and qualifications. We also strived to obtain the diversity required to address the complex issues at hand. You – the 15 commissioners – represent five different continents and many different languages and cultures. Together you will ensure that the questions raised will be discussed from a wide range of perspectives and with fresh eyes. You have been selected in the hope that consensus will emerge from pointed and frank debates – in the true spirit of John Henry Newman’s idea of a university. He famously stated that universities should be an arena for “collisions of minds with minds” – an arena where the force of these collisions should vitalize and empower, and bolster institutional autonomy. Speaking about autonomy: Let me emphasize at this point that this Commission is an academic, not political commission. It is free to decide its direction and define its scope of work, and there is no overt or hidden political agenda. Specifically, there is no direction from the Ministries that so generously support our work in financial terms.
Dear commissioners: we are extremely proud to have you here in Oslo. Thank you for agreeing to participate.
Finally, we are faced with the why. Why is there a need to address the issue of global governance for health? Why have you agreed to take part in this project, and is so doing subscribed to its importance? Why did my own university board decide to allocate substantial funding to this endeavour, close on the heels of the launch of this initiative? I think the answer is clear to all of us: this is a field where there is an urgent need for new knowledge and new policies. Julio Frenk, in his recorded message, will be expanding on this. My prediction is that the Commission will deem essential to discuss where to place responsibility and authority, how to promote and protect the health of populations, how to make global processes more health sensitive, and how to identify impediments to coherence between sector policies relevant for health. Although the background document offers a possible conceptual framework, we entrust you with the ultimate authority to define and develop this project.
Welcome, and let us enjoy the stimulating discussions ahead.