natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
What do we mean by dialogue in international relations? 
What do we mean by dialogue in international relations?
Why must we talk? 
Why must we talk?
Can we tolerate all views? 
Can we tolerate all views?
Should we tolerate all views? 
Should we tolerate all views?
For me, this discussion is fundamental, fascinating – and it is complex. 
For me, this discussion is fundamental, fascinating – and it is complex.
Because there are some big dilemmas her, questions where precise answers are hard to find. 
Because there are some big dilemmas her, questions where precise answers are hard to find.
Tolerance and dialogue relate to every one of us. 
Tolerance and dialogue relate to every one of us.
And they engage every one of us: at home, on the university campus, in the whole fabric of a nation. 
And they engage every one of us: at home, on the university campus, in the whole fabric of a nation.
And these concepts are just as relevant when applied in foreign policy. 
And these concepts are just as relevant when applied in foreign policy.
I have devoted much time defending and using dialogue as a tool in foreign policy. 
I have devoted much time defending and using dialogue as a tool in foreign policy.
There is no question in my mind that we must talk. 
There is no question in my mind that we must talk.
Two trends – or facts – explain this: 
Two trends – or facts – explain this:
Firstly: the urgent need to find of political solutions in many conflicts around the world. 
Firstly: the urgent need to find of political solutions in many conflicts around the world.
The fact is that very few conflicts can be fully resolved with military means. 
The fact is that very few conflicts can be fully resolved with military means.
They must be resolved politically. 
They must be resolved politically.
If we want political solutions we need to talk. 
If we want political solutions we need to talk.
Secondly: the immense costs of wars and violent conflicts. 
Secondly: the immense costs of wars and violent conflicts.
Over the past decade more than 740 000 people have died every year as a result of violence associated with armed conflicts or criminality. 
Over the past decade more than 740 000 people have died every year as a result of violence associated with armed conflicts or criminality.
Even more have been wounded, raped or assaulted. 
Even more have been wounded, raped or assaulted.
To me, these numbers are a reminder of why we must do all we can to resolve conflicts peacefully. 
To me, these numbers are a reminder of why we must do all we can to resolve conflicts peacefully.
Why we must talk. 
Why we must talk.
It is painful for those who have suffered to talk to their enemy. 
It is painful for those who have suffered to talk to their enemy.
Can you imagine how difficult it must be to face someone who may have been behind an attack on your village, who may have taken the lives of people close to you? 
Can you imagine how difficult it must be to face someone who may have been behind an attack on your village, who may have taken the lives of people close to you?
How painful it is for people to see even a third party talk to their enemy. 
How painful it is for people to see even a third party talk to their enemy.
This was the challenge Nelson Mandela faced after two decades in prison, when he insisted on resolving apartheid by talking to his opponent – as a human being. 
This was the challenge Nelson Mandela faced after two decades in prison, when he insisted on resolving apartheid by talking to his opponent – as a human being.
It was difficult, but it saved South Africa. 
It was difficult, but it saved South Africa.
But now, remember: Dialogue does not mean accepting the other parties’ positions, views and actions. 
But now, remember: Dialogue does not mean accepting the other parties’ positions, views and actions.
Or automatically making concessions, for that matter. 
Or automatically making concessions, for that matter.
The reason for talking is precisely what Israeli Prime Minister Rabin said at the start of the Oslo Process in the 1990s: 
The reason for talking is precisely what Israeli Prime Minister Rabin said at the start of the Oslo Process in the 1990s:
You don’t make peace with your friends; you make peace with your worst enemies. 
You don’t make peace with your friends; you make peace with your worst enemies.
Resolving differences is the aim of dialogue. 
Resolving differences is the aim of dialogue.
Listen, talk, see if it is possible to find a bridge, explore whether there is common ground on the other side. 
Listen, talk, see if it is possible to find a bridge, explore whether there is common ground on the other side.
This means that you can engage with your opponents without compromising your core values or interests. 
This means that you can engage with your opponents without compromising your core values or interests.
You don’t need to be neutral to talk. 
You don’t need to be neutral to talk.
Nelson Mandela was never neutral. 
Nelson Mandela was never neutral.
And diplomats who took part in the Oslo Process saw how Rabin defended Israel’s interests. 
And diplomats who took part in the Oslo Process saw how Rabin defended Israel’s interests.
But dialogue means that you are willing to see whether there is a platform to work from. 
But dialogue means that you are willing to see whether there is a platform to work from.
It means that you want to find political solutions that can prevent or end human suffering. 
It means that you want to find political solutions that can prevent or end human suffering.
And – of course – you must accept your counterpart’s fundamental right to have a completely different point of view. 
And – of course – you must accept your counterpart’s fundamental right to have a completely different point of view.
This may be difficult – as we all know – at home, at university, in a country, and in international politics. 
This may be difficult – as we all know – at home, at university, in a country, and in international politics.
So what is the clue, the beauty, the challenge of dialogue? 
So what is the clue, the beauty, the challenge of dialogue?
Let me use a few examples that show in different ways both how we can talk, and why we should talk. 
Let me use a few examples that show in different ways both how we can talk, and why we should talk.
Firstly: Myanmar. 
Firstly: Myanmar.
Why Myanmar? 
Why Myanmar?
Because it is an example of how dialogue may lead to further positive steps, literally step-by-step. 
Because it is an example of how dialogue may lead to further positive steps, literally step-by-step.
We have all been struck by the swift changes taking place in Myanmar. 
We have all been struck by the swift changes taking place in Myanmar.
A year and a half ago, it was controversial to even talk to the political leadership. 
A year and a half ago, it was controversial to even talk to the political leadership.
For Norway it was important, in the early stages, to meet with the leaders. 
For Norway it was important, in the early stages, to meet with the leaders.
We wanted to find out, first hand, if their intention of moving toward democracy was genuine. 
We wanted to find out, first hand, if their intention of moving toward democracy was genuine.
We found that there was reason to engage with the country's government. 
We found that there was reason to engage with the country's government.
I believe we would not have been where we are today without countries taking the political risk of believing that the regime was sincere in its willingness to shift from military to civilian rule. 
I believe we would not have been where we are today without countries taking the political risk of believing that the regime was sincere in its willingness to shift from military to civilian rule.
Let me take another example: Colombia. 
Let me take another example: Colombia.
Because it shows how dialogue takes courage. 
Because it shows how dialogue takes courage.
For more than 50, years Colombia has had an internal conflict with enormous consequences for its people. 
For more than 50, years Colombia has had an internal conflict with enormous consequences for its people.
Thousands have been killed. 
Thousands have been killed.
Grave violations of human rights have taken place. 
Grave violations of human rights have taken place.
Millions have been internally displaced. 
Millions have been internally displaced.
Last month, in Oslo, the FARC and the Government of Colombia met officially with the ambition of reaching a negotiated peace agreement. 
Last month, in Oslo, the FARC and the Government of Colombia met officially with the ambition of reaching a negotiated peace agreement.
Norway is facilitating these peace talks, together with Cuba. 
Norway is facilitating these peace talks, together with Cuba.
For the first time in over a decade, representatives from the two parties – who have been trying for years to kill each other, also on an individual basis – sat down around the same table to talk. 
For the first time in over a decade, representatives from the two parties – who have been trying for years to kill each other, also on an individual basis – sat down around the same table to talk.
A brave decision by the parties. 
A brave decision by the parties.
It has taken a lot of courage. 
It has taken a lot of courage.
And let me mention a third example: the Middle East. 
And let me mention a third example: the Middle East.
When looking at the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, there are many examples I could take from what is sometimes called the “mother of all conflicts”. 
When looking at the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, there are many examples I could take from what is sometimes called the “mother of all conflicts”.
Norway is a strong supporter of a two-state solution. 
Norway is a strong supporter of a two-state solution.
This is also the reason why we are supporters of internal Palestinian reconciliation. 
This is also the reason why we are supporters of internal Palestinian reconciliation.
The reason is obvious: It is a tragedy to be occupied, but it is an even greater tragedy to be a divided occupied people. 
The reason is obvious: It is a tragedy to be occupied, but it is an even greater tragedy to be a divided occupied people.
That is why Norway decided – back in 2006/07 – to normalise our diplomatic relations with the coalition Government that included Hamas. 
That is why Norway decided – back in 2006/07 – to normalise our diplomatic relations with the coalition Government that included Hamas.
As you may remember, most of the other Western countries decided not to do that. 
As you may remember, most of the other Western countries decided not to do that.
One of the consequences we see today is a continued split. 
One of the consequences we see today is a continued split.
Prior to 2006/07, the fact that Norwegian diplomats talked to Hamas representatives was a debated issue. 
Prior to 2006/07, the fact that Norwegian diplomats talked to Hamas representatives was a debated issue.
But they did – because it is our policy to talk to all stakeholders. 
But they did – because it is our policy to talk to all stakeholders.
This does not mean that we accept Hamas’s policies on various issues. 
This does not mean that we accept Hamas’s policies on various issues.
Talking to someone does not give them legitimacy. 
Talking to someone does not give them legitimacy.
But interestingly, those who don’t talk ask us what we speak about with these different groups. 
But interestingly, those who don’t talk ask us what we speak about with these different groups.
So they want someone to talk – but they do not want to take the political consequences themselves. 
So they want someone to talk – but they do not want to take the political consequences themselves.
Likewise it was right of us to start talking to the Muslim Brotherhood five or six years ago. 
Likewise it was right of us to start talking to the Muslim Brotherhood five or six years ago.
Because it has improved our understanding of the developments in Egypt and other countries that would later experience the Arab Spring. 
Because it has improved our understanding of the developments in Egypt and other countries that would later experience the Arab Spring.
But more importantly, through our discussions, the Muslim Brotherhood may have gained some new perspectives. 
But more importantly, through our discussions, the Muslim Brotherhood may have gained some new perspectives.
It is about nurturing tolerance. 
It is about nurturing tolerance.
Indonesia has also experienced serious incidents when dialogue has been difficult or has even seemed irrelevant. 
Indonesia has also experienced serious incidents when dialogue has been difficult or has even seemed irrelevant.
Especially in the face of people who are willing to use terrorism, fear and violence for extreme political views. 
Especially in the face of people who are willing to use terrorism, fear and violence for extreme political views.
Or in the face of the atrocities that struck our capital Oslo and the island of Utøya – were the Norwegian Labour Party’s youth organisation had its annual summer camp. 
Or in the face of the atrocities that struck our capital Oslo and the island of Utøya – were the Norwegian Labour Party’s youth organisation had its annual summer camp.
The nation was attacked by a single heavily armed man. 
The nation was attacked by a single heavily armed man.
Before I started working for the Norwegian Government in 2005, I was the leader of the AUF – the youth organisation that was gathered on Utøya. 
Before I started working for the Norwegian Government in 2005, I was the leader of the AUF – the youth organisation that was gathered on Utøya.
I knew many of the victims and their families personally. 
I knew many of the victims and their families personally.
First the terrorist placed a huge bomb at the government buildings in Oslo, later he went around the island shooting young people. 
First the terrorist placed a huge bomb at the government buildings in Oslo, later he went around the island shooting young people.
He killed 69 of them. 
He killed 69 of them.
The youngest was a 14-year-old girl. 
The youngest was a 14-year-old girl.
These attacks were by far the worst Norway has experienced since the Second World War. 
These attacks were by far the worst Norway has experienced since the Second World War.
The “lonely wolf” terrorist was a 33-year-old ethnic Norwegian – "one of us", you could say. 
The “lonely wolf” terrorist was a 33-year-old ethnic Norwegian – "one of us", you could say.
He has now received his sentence, after an open trial – in an ordinary public court – this summer, following the rules and procedures of our judicial system. 
He has now received his sentence, after an open trial – in an ordinary public court – this summer, following the rules and procedures of our judicial system.
Prime Minister Stoltenberg’s reaction immediately after the attacks was clear. 
Prime Minister Stoltenberg’s reaction immediately after the attacks was clear.
He said that Norway’s strongest weapon against terror was more openness and more democracy. 
He said that Norway’s strongest weapon against terror was more openness and more democracy.
The Norwegian public responded with immense grief, of course, but they did not call for extraordinary measures. 
The Norwegian public responded with immense grief, of course, but they did not call for extraordinary measures.
Many outside Norway – among the press, the public, and various experts – were surprised that his case was heard in an open trial, and that he is serving his sentence in a regular Norwegian prison. 
Many outside Norway – among the press, the public, and various experts – were surprised that his case was heard in an open trial, and that he is serving his sentence in a regular Norwegian prison.
People ask: Why not establish a special, closed legal setting? 
People ask: Why not establish a special, closed legal setting?
I have been frequently confronted with this question. 
I have been frequently confronted with this question.
I understand very well that it has been raised. 
I understand very well that it has been raised.
I believe this is a key issue: How should we – as independent nations and as an international community – fight violent political extremism. 
I believe this is a key issue: How should we – as independent nations and as an international community – fight violent political extremism.
This is at the heart of domestic and international politics. 
This is at the heart of domestic and international politics.
I also believe that experience has taught us important lessons that may be relevant for others – even though I would like to stress that every terrorist attacks is unique. 
I also believe that experience has taught us important lessons that may be relevant for others – even though I would like to stress that every terrorist attacks is unique.
One important lesson for us is this: 
One important lesson for us is this:
We must stick to our values, our convictions in the face of extremism. 
We must stick to our values, our convictions in the face of extremism.
Extremists want to lure us into betraying our values. 
Extremists want to lure us into betraying our values.
I think it is a mistake to treat crimes committed by extremists as exceptions, subject to special procedures. 
I think it is a mistake to treat crimes committed by extremists as exceptions, subject to special procedures.
Extremists must be held accountable in accordance with the law. 
Extremists must be held accountable in accordance with the law.
Hiding extremists from public view can de-humanise crimes that have been committed by real people. 
Hiding extremists from public view can de-humanise crimes that have been committed by real people.
By contrast, prosecuting extremists who have committed crimes in a public courtroom makes it all the more shockingly clear that it was as human beings that they undertook their horrific acts. 
By contrast, prosecuting extremists who have committed crimes in a public courtroom makes it all the more shockingly clear that it was as human beings that they undertook their horrific acts.
It also makes it clear that we must all work every day to combat extremist ideas and views. 
It also makes it clear that we must all work every day to combat extremist ideas and views.
Another lesson is this: It has been remarkable to see the confidence that young Norwegians — and especially the survivors of the massacre on the island — have expressed in Norway’s judicial system. 
Another lesson is this: It has been remarkable to see the confidence that young Norwegians — and especially the survivors of the massacre on the island — have expressed in Norway’s judicial system.
They know that a transparent political system – that is independent and based on the rule of law – cannot turn its back on its standard procedures. 
They know that a transparent political system – that is independent and based on the rule of law – cannot turn its back on its standard procedures.
I believe that these same basic principles hold true in the global fight against terrorism. 
I believe that these same basic principles hold true in the global fight against terrorism.
Now, is this a "soft" approach? 
Now, is this a "soft" approach?
I do not think so. 
I do not think so.
I believe it is only in a diverse and well-functioning democracy that such a position can be taken. 
I believe it is only in a diverse and well-functioning democracy that such a position can be taken.
Furthermore: is it naïve? 
Furthermore: is it naïve?
I do not believe that our response to the tragedy has made it more likely that anything like this will happen again. 
I do not believe that our response to the tragedy has made it more likely that anything like this will happen again.
I would like to sum up by underlining that democracy, tolerance and transparency are our best defence. 
I would like to sum up by underlining that democracy, tolerance and transparency are our best defence.
It seems that many of those who oppose dialogue in international relations wish they lived in a world that does not exist. 
It seems that many of those who oppose dialogue in international relations wish they lived in a world that does not exist.
My point is this: We must face the world as it is today – with all its global challenges. 
My point is this: We must face the world as it is today – with all its global challenges.
Some take the view that a so-called “clash of civilizations” makes it necessary to build higher walls to protect our society from global threats. 
Some take the view that a so-called “clash of civilizations” makes it necessary to build higher walls to protect our society from global threats.
Some maintain that the willingness to talk and find compromises is a sign of moral or military weakness. 
Some maintain that the willingness to talk and find compromises is a sign of moral or military weakness.
Neither represent a good way forward. 
Neither represent a good way forward.
As defenders of dialogue, we still retain the option of walking away rather than talking. 
As defenders of dialogue, we still retain the option of walking away rather than talking.
But we also believe that we shouldn’t be too quick to do so. 
But we also believe that we shouldn’t be too quick to do so.
Dialogue and tolerance are more important for our globalised world than ever, and I believe they are the starting point for finding political solutions. 
Dialogue and tolerance are more important for our globalised world than ever, and I believe they are the starting point for finding political solutions.
This is why, dear friends, we must continue to talk. 
This is why, dear friends, we must continue to talk.
Trimakasi. 
Trimakasi.
Tolerance and dialogue 
Tolerance and dialogue
Op-ed in Haaretz newspaper (Israel), 15 July 2012 
Op-ed in Haaretz newspaper (Israel), 15. juli 2012
As Prime Minister Stoltenberg has emphasised, anti-Semitism is completely unacceptable, and we want Norway to be a safe place for Jews, writes Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre. 
As Prime Minister Stoltenberg has emphasised, anti-Semitism is completely unacceptable, and we want Norway to be a safe place for Jews, skriver utenriksminister Jonas Gahr Støre denne artikkelen.
Speaking at the quayside in Oslo on International Holocaust Remembrance Day, Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg addressed Norway’s responsibility for what happened during the Holocaust. 
Speaking at the quayside in Oslo on International Holocaust Remembrance Day, Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg addressed Norway’s responsibility for what happened during the Holocaust.
“The murders were unquestionably carried out by the Nazis, but it was Norwegians who carried out the arrests. 
“The murders were unquestionably carried out by the Nazis, but it was Norwegians who carried out the arrests.
It was Norwegians who drove the trucks. 
It was Norwegians who drove the trucks.
And it happened in Norway,” he said. 
And it happened in Norway,” he said.
In 1940 there were about 2100 Jews in Norway. 
In 1940 there were about 2100 Jews in Norway.
In the course of the war, 772 Norwegian Jews and Jewish refugees were arrested and deported. 
In the course of the war, 772 Norwegian Jews and Jewish refugees were arrested and deported.
Only 34 of these survived. 
Only 34 of these survived.
The Prime Minister expressed our deepest apologies that this could happen on Norwegian soil. 
The Prime Minister expressed our deepest apologies that this could happen on Norwegian soil.
“But learning is just as important as apologising, and it is even more important for us to commit ourselves to combating attitudes and actions that rob us of our decency and humanity,” he commented. 
“But learning is just as important as apologising, and it is even more important for us to commit ourselves to combating attitudes and actions that rob us of our decency and humanity,” he commented.
With the aim of learning and combating intolerance, the Norwegian Government commissioned the first full-scale study of Norwegian attitudes toward Jews. 
With the aim of learning and combating intolerance, the Norwegian Government commissioned the first full-scale study of Norwegian attitudes toward Jews.