LATEST ARTICLES

Uruguayan Independence Day Celebrated in The Hague

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
Uruguayan Independence Day Celebrated in The Hague

The Embassy of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay marked his country’s Independence Day with a grand and festive reception. Held on August 27 at the Leonardo Royal Hotel in The Hague, the event drew over 200 distinguished guests from various sectors of Dutch society.

Ambassadors, chiefs of international missions, diplomats, academics, business leaders, and representatives from the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, along with members of the Uruguayan community, all responded to H.E. Ambassador Dr. Álvaro González Otero’s invitation to celebrate ‘Día de la Independencia’—Uruguay’s National Day, commemorating its independence from Brazil in 1825.

H.E. Dr. Álvaro González Otero, Ambassador of Uruguay. National Day 2024 The Hague.

After nearly 200 years of conflict and civil unrest under Spanish and then Brazilian rule, Uruguay has emerged as a country renowned for its welcoming people, stunning landscapes, first-class meat production, and high-quality wine. In recent decades, Uruguayans have enjoyed a stable democracy, a steady improvement in living conditions, and overall well-being.

In a packed room with an animated audience, Ambassador González Otero took the microphone to thank all the attendees for their sincere affection for his people and country. He then proudly expressed:

“Two years have quickly passed since I arrived in this lovely kingdom. Since then, we have started to shift the focus of the Embassy, placing more emphasis on our bilateral relations. The Netherlands and Uruguay have more in common than people might imagine. We share international principles, landscapes, agricultural production, developed services, qualified exports, and a progressive lifestyle.

We also share strong commitments to the well-being of our citizens and visitors, the protection of human rights, environmental sustainability, progressive social policies, and significant efforts towards renewable energy and climate action. Both countries also emphasize education, democratic governance, and active participation in international organizations promoting peace and development. So, we will keep working to boost our bilateral relations.”

Uruguay National Day, August 27 at the Leonardo Royal Hotel in The Hague.
From the Embassy of Uruguay, Counsellor Pablo Bayarres, Ambassador Gonzalez Otero and Hans Akerboom, Deputy Director Protocol and Host Country Affairs from the Netherlands.

Ambassador González Otero then listed some of the most relevant initiatives undertaken by the Embassy over the last few months:

– Uruguayan participation in the World Hydrogen Summit 2024: Led by the Minister of Industry, Energy, and Mining, Ms. Elisa Facio, with over 50 representatives from various sectors of the public and private sectors.

– Active participation in the “26th World Energy Congress.”

– Cooperation Project with Delft Institute for Water Education: Since 2011, Uruguayan professionals specializing in water resources have participated in the Delft Institute program for advanced training. Initially, the program began with 40 scholarships, resulting in 37 professionals successfully completing their studies. This early success led to the program’s relocation and implementation at the Technological University of Uruguay, now featuring regional participation. The program has since had two new editions in 2022 and 2024, expanding to include 17 professionals from Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, and Peru. This development has transformed Uruguay into a regional hub in the field of water resource education.

– Uruguay’s status as one of the 32 signing states of the Ljubljana – The Hague Convention in February 2024.

– Positioning Uruguay as a potential living and working destination for Dutch farmers.

– Interactions with RVO and Port of Rotterdam related to port cooperation.

– Exploring and initiating new cooperation projects with Westland Municipality and Wageningen University.

– Meetings with private sector actors related to agribusiness.

– Preparation for the Capitan Miranda’s visit to Amsterdam: Uruguay’s school tall ship has already confirmed its participation in Sail Amsterdam 2025.

– Multilateral achievements: The Embassy has made progress in multilateral areas, including ongoing contributions and work with international organizations based in The Hague: the ICJ, ICC, OPCW, HCCH, and the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Additionally, a closer relationship with The Hague Academy of International Law has been pursued. Significant advances have also been made through the coordinated work of the GRULAC Group in relation to various international organizations.

H.E. Mr. Fernando Arias, OPCW Director General , Ambassador Gonzalez Otero and Mr Arias spouse, Patricia van Oordt.

Following his remarks, Ambassador González Otero invited the audience to watch a short video about Uruguay, which made a great impression on those present. He expressed, “Uruguay is an exceptional country that has developed a dynamic and robust culture, shaped by a fascinating blend of gaucho traditions, European influences, and the unique Rioplatense spirit. Tango, folklore, candombe, and milonga are examples of its rich artistic musical expression. Uruguayan gastronomy, featuring high-quality meat, wine, and dairy products, especially the beloved ‘dulce de leche,’ delights palates and consistently wins prestigious awards worldwide.”

“The work we have done does not mean we are satisfied; we want to continue advancing in a deeper process. The bilateral relationship is already strong, but the potential to strengthen bonds in several key areas is even greater.”

The Ambassador of Uruguay, H.E. Alvaro Gonzalez Otero and the President of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, Judge Graciela Gatti Santana with her husband Mr Gustavo Segovia.

The event was conceived to showcase the rich and diverse culture of Uruguay, a nation with a population of approximately 3,495,527 as of 2022.

The national anthems of Uruguay and the Netherlands were performed by the Uruguayan opera singer Sara de los Campos. After the ambassador’s speech, the Embassy paid tribute to two influential musicians: José “El Sabalero” Carbajal and Jaime Roos, who both lived in the Netherlands. Jaime Roos settled in Amsterdam in 1978, where he played bass in several salsa, rock, and jazz groups. He had a son and remained in the Netherlands until 1984 when he returned to Uruguay.

Carbajal spent his days in the Netherlands with his wife, Anke van Haastrecht, and their two children. Anke was invited to share some special stories from their life together.

Uruguayan opera singer Sara de los Campos.
Uruguayan drummers Luis Gradin, Marcelo Terra, and Nicolás Sánchez.

The enthusiastic audience enjoyed an authentic performance by talented Uruguayan drummers Luis Gradin, Marcelo Terra, and Nicolás Sánchez. The celebration continued with Uruguayan wine, classic savory empanadas, and dulce de leche, which delighted the crowded room and completed the great celebration.

Ambassador González Otero concluded the event by thanking his Embassy team: Counselor Pablo Bayarres, Chancellor Gustavo Morales, his assistant Juan Diego, and Martha Hernández and Sofía Anastasiou. He then led a warm toast for the people of the Netherlands, Uruguay, and the necessary and desired peace in the world.

China: A New Actor in the Contemporary Multipolar World

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
China: A New Actor in the Contemporary Multipolar World

By Mariarosaria Iorio, Political Analyst

I. The post-cold war world  

International relations are nowadays characterised by major changes that started at the end of the 80s with the fall of the Berlin Wall.  Indeed, the end of the cold war was marked by the dislocation of the two main political blocks, namely the Soviet Union and the Western World. Such a dislocation resulted in the marginalization of the post-war multilateral system embodied in the United Nations, and the standstill of the multilateral trade negotiations in the late 90s in the context of the World Trade Organisation.  New lines of political thought have been facing each other since then, while reshaping the post-cold war world in a number of fragmented and variable sub-blocks of countries. 

The United States decided to put itself first by concentrating on its internal affairs, while withdrawing from international affairs.  

Europe, the old continent, looks for an efficient strategy towards autonomy from the United States.  Europe also tries, not without difficulty, to create a more cohesive internal and external political approach.  The reality is however evolving rather more towards fragmentation of Europe in favour of European National fragmented interests. Such a fragmentation is the natural consequence of the decadence of the European Institutional and collective actions to the advantage of individual Sates actions and interests.   In sum, what seemed to be a structured and coherent European Union block fighting for the promotion of its economic and political values all over the world has somehow become an alliance at variable geometry both internally and externally.  The disorganisation of the leadership results in a chaotic and unpredictable European External and Internal action. 

Thereof, the empty influence spaces left on the international relations scene has given new international actors the opportunity to emerge.  

Meanwhile, the fragmentation of the European Institutions has also impacted the EU-USA relations within NATO, and affected the security and peace sphere.  Security issues have been on and off on the European agenda.    

In this context, Russia that has lost its empire in the 80s looks now for a new power game. In spite of the disruption of the Soviet Union, Russia attempts either by influence or by force to exercise power in its ancient affiliate countries.  Russia that was supposed to be defeated with the fall of the Berlin Wall takes back its role of opponent to the Western World on the international scene at least as it concerns the international affairs philosophy.  Thus, creating a tension aimed at restoring its power in the world.   

The group of emerging and developing economies that constitute a new variable block with a large portion of population employed in agriculture have emerged as new actors in the world’s geo-political discourses.  At the head of this block on the international scene, there is China.  The shaky international leadership context has indeed given China a new space. China’s   communist past combined with its market-based economic strategy gives it a particular position.  

China is The One that can communicate to Russia. China is also The One that can have an influence on the Western economic and political scene as China owns a big part of Western Foreign Debt  

China embeds a horizontal strategy in both its trade and development policies, while producing at low wages.  Its production system coupled with its pragmatic political approach has reshaped the international power structure.  The top-down approach of the Western World faces now the competition created by the horizontal win-win approach proposed by China in both developing and industrialized countries.

Indeed, as a result of the decline of the Western World global hegemony based on market access and economic and social liberalism as a means to ensure economic growth and promote economic development, the vision promoted by China’s discourse, centred on the protection of livelihoods and local sovereign choices finds new adepts.  Furthermore, China has successfully attempted to promote a trade-off approach to international cooperation during the last 20 years.  A cooperation that does not interfere in internal affairs of partner countries as it has often reproached to the Western countries involved in international cooperation.  

As the developing countries leader, China positions itself as the spoke country for the poor.  As a new world powerful economic actor China plays as the guarantor of the Western Economic stability.  China positions itself as the bridge between the rich and the poor.  It is representing a different hegemonic game that only changes in its discourse, while still pursuing its own interests and influence zones.  Such a situation poses the question of the values that the international regime wants to embrace.  Indeed, this changing world results in an increased number of conflicts – be new or historical conflicts.  

The dislocation of the traditional leaders of the international relations has definitely created a chaotic and unpredictable scenario.  Chaos has in some cases been chosen as a political strategy to disrupt the post-1945 international regime. Such a disruption has benefitted new actors, and given space to new lines of thought.  These new lines of thought have attacked the existing international framework but has not yet succeeded in creating a new regime.  The increasing unbalance of power and the lack of leadership on the international political scene is risky. 

The reduction by choice of leadership of the United States has indeed resulted in the weakening of the values emerged as a result of the dramatic experience of Second World War, namely freedom of thought and freedom of speech to mention only a few.   We are now facing a much more authoritarian world with force used as a means to manage the political arena.  Dialogue seems to be a rather consuming exercise that has left its place to the use of force.  Force is no longer seen as the last option but rather the opening act for political dialogue.  Nationalism and individual interests are now at the centre of the political game. This trend is taking the world to instability and conflict.  

The peoples of the world are more and more questioning the existing system. People’s needs and expectations are not met.  The new emerged actors, such as China have given the hope of a possible change in the present international system without fundamentally questioning its rationale but rather trying to rip a slate of the cake.  

The struggle for influence among countries has not succeeded in building a peaceful and stable world. Citizens will have to face the challenge of building a new era of peace and stability worldwide.

Derrière les murs du Palais de la Paix : permanence et changements de la Cour internationale de Justice

Editor
-
0
Derrière les murs du Palais de la Paix : permanence et changements de la Cour internationale de Justice

S.E. M. Philippe Couvreur est arrivé à La Haye en avril 1982, où il a d’abord occupé le poste d’assistant spécial aux bureaux du greffier et du greffier adjoint de la Cour internationale de Justice.

Il a ensuite exercé les fonctions de Secrétaire, Premier Secrétaire et Secrétaire juridique principal, avant d’être élu Greffier de la Cour en 2000, et réélu en 2007 et 2014. Pour marquer l’anniversaire de ses débuts à la Cour, il y a 35 ans, Diplomat Magazine l’a invité à témoigner de son expérience unique au service de cette institution, des évolutions qu’il a pu y observer, et à partager le regard qu’il porte sur les changements qui ont marqué la Cour et La Haye au cours des trois dernières décennies.
Philippe Couvreur avec le Pape Jean-Paul II prise le 13 mai 1985.
Je suis arrivé à La Haye en avril 1982 — de façon aussi inattendue que j’avais entamé des études de droit treize ans auparavant (mais c’est là une autre histoire…) — pour occuper un poste temporaire à la Cour internationale de Justice. La Cour était alors la seule institution judiciaire internationale existante au plan universel. Son activité, particulièrement faible à la fin des années 1970, ne pouvait en ce temps-là guère laisser présager du succès que rencontrerait la Cour dans les décennies à venir. Mon bienveillant maître de Louvain, le professeur Paul de Visscher, fils du célèbre internationaliste Charles de Visscher, unique juge belge à la Cour, m’avait prédit des jours aussi sereins qu’heureux, écoulés à lire et à écrire des ouvrages dans la solitude des imposants murs de la bibliothèque du Palais de la Paix…
Les mémoires ont été dûment déposés dans l’affaire El Salvador c. Honduras dans la salle Bol le 1 juin 1988, l’affaire du Différend frontalier terrestre, insulaire et maritime.
En rejoignant la Cour, un frais matin d’avril, dont je garde un souvenir très précis, le jeune juriste que j’étais découvrit, non sans étonnement, une organisation de taille très modeste, le Greffe, qui en est l’organe administratif, alors composé de moins d’une quarantaine de fonctionnaires. Le fonctionnement de la Cour reposait entièrement sur cette équipe restreinte de personnel permanent, auquel s’ajoutait, selon que de besoin, un personnel temporaire pour faire face au surcroît de travaux linguistiques et de sténodactylographie lors des sessions (publiques et privées) de la Cour. Je me rappelle avoir été frappé par la personnalité haute en couleur de certains de ces traducteurs indépendants, dont la grande culture littéraire m’émerveillait. Cette structure très économique du Greffe impliquait une grande polyvalence de ses membres, et les Secrétaires de la Cour — ses fonctionnaires supérieurs — étaient appelés, en sus de leurs travaux de recherches juridiques, de préparation des documents de la Cour, et de rédaction de la correspondance diplomatique, à assumer eux-mêmes l’essentiel des tâches linguistiques (traduction et interprétation) et d’information, ainsi que la supervision de nombreuses activités administratives et logistiques.
La Grande salle de Justice, l’affaire Relative au Timor Oriental (Portugal c. Australie) Arrêt du 30 juin 1995.
Il n’était nullement rare qu’un nouveau venu comme moi ait à passer week-ends et nuits blanches au Palais de la Paix à effectuer les travaux les plus divers… allant jusqu’à imprimer et polycopier, sur de vieilles machines à stencils ronéotype, des décisions dont la Cour devait donner la lecture en séance publique le lendemain ! Dès mon arrivée au Greffe, j’ai eu le bonheur et le privilège d’être initié et associé à l’ensemble des fonctions de l’institution sous la patiente supervision de personnalités d’exception, tels que MM. Torres Bernárdez et Pillepich, alors respectivement Greffier et Greffier adjoint. J’en ai retiré le plus grand bénéfice, puisque cette immersion sans préparation dans toutes les facettes de l’activité du Greffe m’a permis d’acquérir de ce dernier une connaissance unique — de l’intérieur — et sous tous ses aspects —, un acquis particulièrement précieux au moment où j’ai été amené, bien des années plus tard, à assumer la délicate responsabilité d’en assurer la gestion au plus haut niveau. Devenir un fonctionnaire du Greffe au début des années 1980 signifiait accepter de se couler sans discussion dans un moule à tous égards exigeant, et se donner corps et âme, avec humilité et discrétion, à l’institution, sans penser à soi ni parler de soi. Depuis ces années d’initiation, j’ai été le témoin de profondes transformations de la Cour, rendues inévitables à la fois pour répondre à l’accroissement considérable de ses activités, avec la disparition du monde bipolaire qui avait relégué le règlement judiciaire à un rôle quelque peu marginal, et pour saisir les opportunités nouvelles offertes, notamment, par le progrès des technologies et de la communication. Entre 1982 et aujourd’hui, le nombre de fonctionnaires a ainsi presque triplé (il a quasiment doublé depuis l’an 2000, année de ma première élection en tant que Greffier). L’organisation du travail a été progressivement spécialisée entre les divers départements, juridique, linguistique et chargé de l’information, qui furent créés en 1997, et les services techniques. Par ailleurs, les Membres de la Cour ne disposèrent pas, pendant longtemps, de « référendaires » — ils s’y sont d’ailleurs longtemps refusés—, et l’assistance apportée aux juges en matière judiciaire était principalement répartie entre les fonctionnaires du Département des affaires juridiques.
H.E. Philippe Couvreur avec la Reine Beatrix photo prise pendant le 50 eme anniversaire de la Cour (18-04-1996).
Les cinq premiers postes de juristes référendaires ne furent obtenus de l’Assemblée générale et créés qu’en 2002, à l’issue de difficiles négociations que je me souviens avoir menées avec beaucoup de plaisir et d’intérêt ; le nombre de ces postes s’est progressivement accru, pour s’élever à quinze aujourd’hui. Les divers développements qui ont marqué le monde au cours des dernières décennies n’ont pas manqué de soulever pour la Cour de nouveaux défis. Comme c’est le cas pour toute institution, elle n’a pu les relever en faisant table rase des enseignements de son histoire ni, à l’inverse, en ne saisissant pas toutes les opportunités offertes par le temps présent. A ces différents égards, la Cour est certainement parvenue, au fil des ans, à assurer un équilibre, toujours délicat, entre changements et continuité. La continuité de la Cour est bien sûr inscrite dans son Statut, qui fait partie intégrante de la Charte des Nations Unies, et reflétée dans ses méthodes judiciaires, qui ont été très largement élaborées par sa devancière, la Cour permanente de Justice internationale, et héritées d’elle. Cette continuité historique était particulièrement présente lorsque j’ai rejoint le Greffe. Ainsi, en manière d’anecdote, divers hauts fonctionnaires alors en poste avaient eux-mêmes côtoyé, au début de leur carrière, d’anciens fonctionnaires de la Cour permanente. Tous nourrissaient à l’égard de cette dernière le plus grand respect. Il régnait d’ailleurs dans les couloirs du Palais de la Paix une atmosphère feutrée et délicieusement surannée, évocatrice de la défunte Société des Nations. Je me souviens en avoir encore utilisé maintes fournitures de bureau ! La continuité jurisprudentielle et procédurale entre les deux Cours constitue pour les Etats une garantie importante de sécurité et de prévisibilité juridiques. Cette continuité, juridique et historique, de même que l’expérience accumulée en plus de quatre-vingt-dix ans d’exercice de la fonction judiciaire, sont pour la Cour un facteur crucial de légitimité.
H.E. Philippe Couvreur vec le Roi Willem-Alexander photo prise pendant le 70 eme anniversaire de la Cour (20-04-2016).
En même temps, la Cour a eu, à l’évidence, à s’adapter aux changements du monde réel dans lequel elle opère, comme aux nécessités et opportunités nouvelles de chaque époque traversée. L’une des transformations notoires auxquelles j’ai assisté fut l’ouverture croissante de la Cour sur l’extérieur : longtemps à l’écart, à dessein, des organes politiques des Nations Unies, la Cour a souhaité se faire plus et mieux entendre de ces organes et des Etats membres. Elle a ainsi rompu avec ce qui était parfois perçu comme un « splendide isolement » au sein des Nations Unies, même si elle défend toujours jalousement son autonomie. La Cour doit en outre désormais également tenir compte des nombreuses autres juridictions, internationales ou régionales, qui ont été créées ces dernières années, et veiller, autant que possible, à assurer l’harmonie du « concert judiciaire » que permet ce foisonnement de cours et tribunaux sur la scène internationale. Davantage ouverte sur la communauté internationale et ses réalités, la Cour s’est montrée de plus en plus attentive, non seulement à sa place dans l’Organisation des Nations Unies, mais aussi à la poursuite des objectifs de celle-ci et à sa mission propre au service du règlement pacifique des différends internationaux. Des différends de plus en plus complexes, tant juridiquement que factuellement, en même temps que politiquement plus denses, lui ont été soumis. En révisant constamment, selon que de besoin, ses méthodes de travail, elle a su les résoudre rapidement et efficacement, à un coût particulièrement modeste pour la communauté internationale, tout en assurant le développement du droit. Enfin, pour conclure sur une note plus prosaïque, mais qui est loin d’être négligeable, je ne peux taire la chance que j’ai eue de connaître l’extraordinaire développement de la ville de La Haye au cours des 35 dernières années. Celle-ci offre aujourd’hui à la Cour, comme aux nombreuses institutions internationales qui s’y sont installées à sa suite, une qualité de vie et un cadre de travail uniques, qui sont très loin de ressembler à ce que j’ai trouvé en y arrivant. A l’image de l’imposante stature du Palais de la Paix où elle siège, symbole mondialement connu de la justice internationale, la Cour est une institution solidement établie. En dépit des périodes de doute ou de désaffection qu’elle a traversées par le passé, son rôle est unanimement salué au sein de la communauté internationale et le recours à ses services par les Etats n’a jamais été aussi soutenu. 35 ans après, je continue de mesurer chaque jour le privilège qui est le mien de servir au mieux de mes capacités l’organe judiciaire principal des Nations Unies. —– Les photos dans l’article sont une courtoisie de la Cour International de Justice.

Why Greenland is important for both the EU and the US?

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
Why Greenland is important for both the EU and the US?

Greenland’s special status is not exception in Europe

By Ingelise de Boer / Vandaagenmorgen.nl

Greenland is not a member of the European Union—in fact, the country left the EU in 1985 after a referendum. But even though they are no longer part of it, Greenlanders remain connected to the EU as part of the Kingdom of Denmark. Greenland is not the only territory outside of continental Europe that has such a special relationship with the EU. The Caribbean islands that are part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands have a similar status.

Not in the EU, but with a special status

In European jargon, these are Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs). These countries have varying degrees of ties to an EU member state—Denmark, France, or the Netherlands—but are not part of the EU. They usually have considerable autonomy, for example, in economic and healthcare matters. The OCTs do have a special bond with the EU and receive funding based on multiannual cooperation plans, including in areas such as renewable energy and water management. Despite their small size and population, the OCTs play a crucial role as strategic outposts of the EU. They are therefore of great political importance.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands has six OCTs: the Caribbean countries (Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten) and the special municipalities (Bonaire, Saba, and Sint Eustatius). France has six overseas territories, including New Caledonia in the Pacific Ocean. For Denmark, this is Greenland.

In the EU, but outside Europe

In addition, there are islands and territories that lie outside continental Europe, yet are fully part of the EU. The euro is used there, and all European rules and laws apply. These areas, formally called “outermost regions,” are home to approximately five million EU citizens. They are also entitled to the same benefits as countries on the European mainland, such as regional development subsidies and support for farmers. EU support there addresses challenges related to, among other things, remoteness, small size, or economic dependence on a limited number of products.

Examples of these areas include the Canary Islands, well-known to Dutch holidaymakers and belonging to Spain, and the Portuguese islands of Madeira and the Azores. France also has several of these regions, such as Réunion in the Indian Ocean and Saint-Martin, the French part of the island of Sint Maarten, which is part of the Dutch province of Sint Maarten.

Elections & Democracy, Interview with Marijn van Ballegooijen

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
Elections & Democracy, Interview with Marijn van Ballegooijen

Youth Engagement Starts at the Local Level – Marijn van Ballegooijen

In our interview with Marijn van Ballegooijen, alderman in Amstelveen and member of the social-democratic party, we explored the strategic dynamics of Dutch local governance. With years of hands-on experience in housing, social services and citizen participation, he brings a grounded perspective shaped by the Dutch tradition of cooperation.

The Netherlands is home to a highly diverse political landscape with many parties. This almost always leads to coalition governments at both national and municipal levels. For van Ballegooijen, this is a strategic advantage. Coalitions demand collaboration across viewpoints, ensuring that no single party dominates decision-making and reflecting the country’s historic diversity of religious and social groups.

At the same time, he acknowledges the operational challenges that come with this system, particularly when it comes to citizen involvement. While national elections often see turnout rates approaching 75% and higher, participation in municipal elections typically falls to 50 – 60%. This concerns him deeply, given that municipalities manage many touchpoints of daily life including housing, education facilities, public spaces and social services. The lower turnout is especially pronounced among younger citizens who often hesitate to engage because they feel inexperienced or worry their opinions may be misunderstood. As van Ballegooijen put it: “They’re afraid to express their voices, they’re afraid of being misunderstood”.

Interview with Marijn van Ballegooijen.

One of the structural drivers behind this disconnect is the shift in media habits. Older residents still turn to traditional newspapers and television, while younger people stay informed through digital channels like TikTok and YouTube. Combined with the decline of local journalism, this creates an information gap that influences voter behavior and makes local politics feel distant for young people.

To bridge this gap, Amstelveen has implemented targeted initiatives to activate youth participation. The municipality created two youth councils for primary and secondary school students, giving them first-hand exposure to how the city council operates, makes decisions and collaborates. The secondary school council maintains direct contact with policymakers which gives young people a clear signal that their input has real value.

Marijn van Ballegooijen points to concrete successes that illustrate the impact of genuine engagement. Last year the city opened a new skating project after local teenagers requested it. The initiative, he noted, “turned out to be a huge success.” For him, the takeaway is straightforward. When young people are given authentic platforms and their contributions are taken seriously, they step up with enthusiasm. Effective youth participation requires real representation, real access and real influence.

Housing was another area where Marijn van Ballegooijen   emphasized the need for policy modernization. Amstelveen’s housing market has widened economic inequality between wealthy homeowners who benefit from rising property values, low income families supported by social housing, and middle-class households that face shrinking purchasing power. Housing corporations cannot meet current demand, and existing policies such as homeowner tax breaks continue to push prices up instead of improving affordability for all residents.

Taken together, these insights strengthened our understanding of how local democracy thrives on visibility, active participation and mutual trust. Our conversation with van Ballegooijen highlighted how quickly young people lose connection when information is limited or when political processes feel remote. Yet we saw just as clearly that when young residents are informed, valued and empowered to contribute, their engagement grows rapidly.

For us, this discussion underscored a core message for the future of local democracy. Empowering youth is not about symbolic outreach. It is about opening the door, pulling up a seat at the table and ensuring their ideas translate into real outcomes. When that happens, communities become stronger, more responsive and better prepared for the challenges of tomorrow.

This article is produced by Taeyun Kim, Alexandra Osina, Charahja van Broekhoven, Veronika Martemianova, Maria Barasorda, Matvii Drotsyk, Longrui Deng, Barbara Gama, participants of the Dutch organization Stichting Bright Future, as part of the European Union’s “Participate & Promote Democracy” youth Participation project, in collaboration with Diplomat Magazine and young members of the Armenian partner organization Promising Youth.

A New Stage of Modernisation: President Tokayev Sets Kazakhstan’s Reform Agenda

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
A New Stage of Modernisation: President Tokayev Sets Kazakhstan’s Reform Agenda

By John Dunkelgrün

Kazakhstan has been independent for almost 35 years, having been a one of the Soviet Republics within the USSR for nearly twice that duration. The transition to a market economy and democratic governance has proven challenging. Initiated by Kazakhstan’s first President, Nursultan Nazarbayev, economic development has advanced more rapidly than political and administrative reforms. This growth has been supported by the country’s vast reserves of oil, gas, and mineral resources. While individuals and businesses often respond faster to new opportunities than state institutions in the process of nation-building, steady progress continues.

In an interview by the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, entitled “Kazakhstan Has Entered a New Stage of Modernisation,” published in the Turkistan newspaper on 5 January 2026, he reaffirmed his commitment to transforming Kazakhstan into a state grounded in justice, the rule of law, and order. He confirmed that political reforms would continue and indicated that major constitutional changes would be submitted to a national referendum.

These themes were further constructively developed during the National Kurultai (Congress) on 20 January 2026, where President Tokayev outlined key directions for further developing of Kazakhstan’s political system, through a constitutional reform, including transition to a unicameral parliament, strengthening the role of parliamentarians, as well as enhancing the role of the youth in state development.

As Tim Marshall observed in his 2015 book, nations are shaped by their geography. Kazakhstan borders two of the world’s largest and most influential countries and is home to a significant Russian-speaking population. In its ambition to become a modern state with a fully integrated economy, Kazakhstan must carefully navigate a complex geopolitical environment. Rather than publicly aligning itself in international disputes, President Tokayev favors a balanced and discreet diplomatic approach.

Yet, as a famous Dutch footballer and folk philosopher once remarked, “Every problem is an opportunity.” Kazakhstan’s unique geographic location makes it a key land-based corridor between East and West, as well as between Russia and the South. Recognizing this potential, the government is investing heavily in road and rail infrastructure and is an active participant in China’s Belt and Road Initiative. President Tokayev views transit and logistics as central drivers of economic growth and diversification, reducing dependence on oil and gas.

He expects 2026 to be a crucial year, marked by significant constitutional reforms and major upgrades to the transit routes crossing this vast and strategically positioned country.

The Ambassador of the People’s Republic of China, H.E. Mr. Bo Shen

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
The Ambassador of the People’s Republic of China, H.E. Mr. Bo Shen

H.E. Mr. Bo Shen officially assumed his duties as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the People’s Republic of China to the Kingdom of the Netherlands after presenting his Letters of Credence to His Majesty King Willem-Alexander at Noordeinde Palace on 21 January.

Ambassador Shen brings to The Hague more than two decades of distinguished diplomatic service, with extensive experience in multilateral diplomacy and international organizations. Born in Shandong Province in February 1972, Ambassador Shen holds Bachelor’s degrees in Arts and Law from Shandong University and Peking University, reflecting a strong academic foundation in both humanities and legal affairs.

He began his career at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China in 1997, serving successively as Desk Officer, Attaché, and Third Secretary in the Department of International Organizations and Conferences. From 2003 to 2008, he was posted to New York as Second Secretary at the Permanent Mission of China to the United Nations, gaining first-hand experience in multilateral negotiations and UN affairs.

Between 2008 and 2013, Ambassador Shen returned to Beijing, where he served as Deputy Director and Director of Division within the same department at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. His expertise in international organizations was further deepened during his second tenure at the United Nations, from 2013 to 2018, when he served as Counsellor and Minister-Counsellor at China’s Permanent Mission.

From 2018 to 2022, Ambassador Shen held the position of Deputy Director-General of the Department of International Organizations and Conferences, before being promoted to Director-General from 2022 to 2025. In this capacity, he played a key role in shaping China’s engagement with multilateral institutions and global governance frameworks.

In 2025, he was appointed Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the People’s Republic of China to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, while concurrently serving as Permanent Representative of China to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), headquartered in The Hague.

Ambassador Shen is married. His appointment underscores the importance China attaches to its bilateral relations with the Netherlands and to its active participation in multilateral diplomacy, particularly in the field of international security and disarmament.

NATO’s cracks that will never heal

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
NATO’s cracks that will never heal

By Thanos Kalamidas

Whether Trump ever invades Greenland or not is almost beside the point. The damage is already done. The sentence has been spoken, the thought normalized, the unthinkable turned into a cocktail-party hypothetical. That alone should terrify anyone who still believes NATO is a sacred pact rather than a fragile agreement duct‑taped together by fear, memory and fading habits of trust.

NATO was never just a military alliance. It was a psychological contract. A vow that certain lines would never be crossed, certain ideas would never even be entertained. You don’t joke about annexing allies. You don’t float trial balloons about carving up friendly territory like a bored emperor scanning a map for his next hobby. You don’t treat sovereign partners as real estate listings. Once you do, the alliance stops being a family and becomes a hostage situation.

And that is the real wound, not to NATO’s tanks, not to its budgets, not even to its readiness reports but to its spine. Trust is the only weapon NATO has that cannot be manufactured. Missiles can be built. Soldiers can be trained. Strategies can be rewritten every decade. Trust, once poisoned becomes a slow, expensive disease that no summit communiqué can cure.

For seventy-five years NATO sold itself as predictability in an unpredictable world. A boring machine of consensus, paperwork, shared drills and mutual defence clauses written in the dry language of lawyers and the wet ink of history’s blood. Its power was not drama but reliability. You knew who was on which side. You knew the rules. You knew that if the worst happened no one would suddenly decide that alliances are optional and borders are merely polite suggestions. Now that certainty is gone.

When the leader of the alliance’s most powerful member casually questions the value of NATO flirts with abandoning it or toys with the idea of territorial acquisition from a partner, something fundamental collapses. Even if nothing happens. Even if it was “just rhetoric.” Even if the administration changes and a more civilized tone returns. The crack remains. Because allies do not listen only to what you do. They listen to what you consider doing.

Every European capital heard the message loud and clear, the United States is no longer a constant; it is a weather system. Sometimes sunny. Sometimes violent. Sometimes destructive. Always unpredictable. You can negotiate with an enemy. You can deter a rival. But you cannot build your survival strategy around a roulette wheel disguised as a superpower.

So NATO today exists in a strange limping state. Officially united. Practically nervous. Publicly loyal. Privately preparing for betrayal. Defence ministries are no longer asking how to coordinate with Washington; they are asking how to survive without it if necessary. Not out of ideology, but out of instinct. And that instinct is deadly to alliances.

Once partners begin planning for abandonment, cooperation turns transactional. Solidarity becomes conditional. Meetings become performances. Statements become theater. The famous Article 5 starts to read less like a guarantee and more like a clause written in disappearing ink.

Some argue that NATO has survived worse. Vietnam. Iraq. Trump before. Yes. But this is different in one crucial way: this time the threat is not disagreement over policy. It is disagreement over the very idea of alliance itself. The suggestion that loyalty is negotiable. That treaties are temporary. That partners are burdens unless they pay rent. That logic is not diplomacy. It is protection racket economics. And once that logic enters the bloodstream of global politics, it does not politely leave.

Even if future American presidents wrap themselves in Atlantic flags and recite speeches about shared values, European leaders will remember. Militaries will remember. Intelligence agencies will remember. The maps will be redrawn quietly; budgets shifted silently, doctrines rewritten in cautious language that translates to one brutal sentence: trust no one fully.

NATO will continue to exist, of course. Bureaucracies are immortal. Logos outlive principles. There will be summits, group photos and carefully choreographed smiles. But the soul of the alliance, the assumption that some things are simply unthinkable, has been punctured.

Greenland, in this context, is not geography. It is symbolism. It represents the moment when alliance stopped meaning “we stand together” and started meaning “we stand together unless something better comes along.” That is not an alliance. That is a marketplace. And marketplaces do not inspire soldiers to die for each other.

The tragedy is that NATO does not collapse with an explosion. It erodes. Quietly. Politely. With press releases and diplomatic language and carefully chosen words that hide the rot underneath. One day the building is still standing, the flag still flying, the anthem still playing, yet everyone inside knows the foundation is cracked and the exit signs are suddenly very important.

Trust, once lost, does not return with elections. It returns, if ever, with decades of consistent behaviour, humility, and restraint. Three qualities modern geopolitics treats as weaknesses.

So no, the real danger is not American troops landing in Greenland. The real danger is that NATO has already learned to imagine it. And once an alliance can imagine its own betrayal, it has already begun to die.

* * * * * * * * * *

About the author:

Thanos Kalamidas, retired journalist and columnist for various print and digital news-agencies and magazines.

Central Europe Forum for Freedom of Religion or Belief: HRWF to Lead High-Level Pre‑Launch in Washington D.C.

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
Central Europe Forum for Freedom of Religion or Belief: HRWF to Lead High-Level Pre‑Launch in Washington D.C.

4 February 2026 / In person and online

On 4 February 2026, Human Rights Without Frontiers International (HRWF) will lead the pre‑launch of the Central Europe Forum for Freedom of Religion or Belief (FoRB), a new initiative aimed at strengthening evidence‑based dialogue and policy responses on freedom of religion or belief in Central Europe. The event will take place in person and online from 1:00 to 2:00 pm EST at the Kennedy Caucus Room, Russell Senate Office Building (SR‑325), Washington D.C., with seating limited.

The Forum will focus initially on Austria, Czechia, Slovakia and Hungary, adopting a country‑focused, thematically anchored, evidence‑based and solution‑driven approach. It is organized by HRWF in partnership with the International Religious Freedom (IRF)Secretariat, and follows an IRF Roundtable.

Leadership and Speakers

The Central Europe Forum for FoRB will be chaired by Willy Fautré, Founder and Director of Human Rights Without Frontiers International, with Hans Noot (HRWF Netherlands) serving as Vice‑Chair.

The keynote address will be delivered by Dr. Ján Figel (Slovakia), President of FORE Europe and former EU Special Envoy for the promotion of Freedom of Religion or Belief outside the EU, bringing extensive experience from European and international diplomacy.

Regional representatives participating in the Forum include:

  • Peter Zoehrer (Austria), FORE Europe
  • Kristyna Tomanova (Czechia), InterBelief Relief
  • Attila Miklovicz (Hungary), University of Pécs

International advisors to the Forum are:

  • David Burrowes, former Member of Parliament and UK Deputy Special Envoy for FoRB
  • Greg Mitchell, IRF Secretariat and IRF Roundtable
  • Dr. Brandon Taylorian, University of Lancashire

About Human Rights Without Frontiers

Human Rights Without Frontiers International (HRWF) is a Brussels‑based non‑governmental organization, founded in 1989 and operating internationally since 2001. The organization conducts research, monitoring, reporting and advocacy on human rights worldwide, with a strong focus on freedom of religion or belief, democracy and the rule of law. HRWF maintains a well‑known database of prisoners detained because of their religious or belief convictions and regularly engages with the European Union, United Nations, OSCE and Council of Europe.

HRWF’s founder and director, Willy Fautré, is a Belgian human rights defender with decades of experience in international advocacy, fact‑finding missions and policy engagement. He is a frequent speaker at international fora and a recognized expert on freedom of religion or belief and minority rights.

A Platform for Regional Engagement

The Central Europe Forum for Freedom of Religion or Belief aims to become a sustained platform for dialogue between civil society, academics, policymakers and international stakeholders. By grounding discussions in verified data and country‑specific analysis, the Forum seeks to contribute to practical recommendations and constructive engagement on FoRB challenges in Central Europe.

Registration is required due to limited seating. Refreshments will be provided.

Digital Democracy

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
Digital Democracy

A Vision for Solidarity

Mikal Tseggai is a dynamic Dutch politician dedicated to building a more equitable and just country where every individual has equal opportunities regardless of their background. Born in Haarlem in 1995, she developed a passion for public service early on, inspired by the impact of local government. She began her career in The Hague where she served as a municipal councilor from 2018 to 2023. Now a parliamentarian for the GroenLinks-PvdA alliance, she focuses on critical issues including vocational education (MBO), discrimination, racism, antisemitism, human trafficking and sex work policy.

With a clear vision of connection, Tseggai works to bridge different worlds and make sure the voices of younger generations are heard in Parliament. She underlines that opportunities in life too often depend on luck such as your last name, your income or your parents. She advocates for a system rooted in solidarity rather than chance. For her, taking a seat in Parliament is not about seeking permission but about claiming the space that rightfully belongs to young people in a healthy democracy.

Social Media, Youth Safety and Democracy

As a young MP, Mikal Tseggai navigates digital visibility with firm boundaries. Social media shapes her daily work by opening direct channels to citizens and exposing her to greater levels of public critique. She co-submitted a 2024 motion that emphasized the need for independent and inclusive media as essential pillars of democracy in an era dominated by algorithm-driven information. She warns against relying solely on platforms like TikTok or Instagram and supports free newspaper access for students to strengthen nuance and critical thinking that short-form feeds fail to provide.

One of her deepest concerns is the effect of digital misinformation on young people’s trust in democratic institutions. Algorithmic content often reinforces false narratives. Tseggai notes that many young people repeat inaccurate claims about topics like refugees or housing after encountering them on TikTok. She warns that relying only on short-form content creates a distorted picture of reality which erodes the shared understanding needed for meaningful public debate.

Despite these risks, she sees digital platforms as valuable tools for transparency. She and other young MPs run the TikTok account Kamergenoten to showcase parliamentary work in an accessible and engaging way for youth. Still, she emphasizes that online engagement must go hand in hand with reliable journalism. The initiative offering Dutch students free newspaper subscriptions is, in her view, a crucial step toward building resilient, critically minded citizens.

Tseggai also highlights the darker side of digital civic spaces where harassment and manipulation flourish. She faces rising levels of online hate and regularly reports serious threats to the police. She argues that social media companies must take greater responsibility for user safety and points to the removal of TikTok’s Dutch moderation team as a step backward. She supports limiting access to social media until ages 14-15 so that children can first develop the skills needed to navigate digital spaces safely.

When reflecting on the role of AI in politics she acknowledges that AI can improve accessibility by simplifying complex political texts, yet insists that political decision-making must remain firmly human-led. For her, technology strengthens democracy only when paired with critical thinking, traditional journalism and human oversight.

Interview with Mikal Tseggai. Participate & Promote Democracy Bright Future

Digital Literacy is the Key

Mikal Tseggai is a perfect example of a policymaker whose work demonstrates how political leadership can mediate the impact of digital platforms on democracy. As a young parliamentarian she understands the power of social media to create direct dialogue with citizens and how youth gain insight into parliamentary life through platforms like Kamergenoten. At the same time she recognizes the downsides of constant online exposure including misinformation, hate speech, weak moderation and echo chambers that shape opinions without people realizing it.

Young generations need strong journalism and solid media literacy to understand society clearly. This is what Tseggai fights for by advocating for safer online environments, better regulation and stronger knowledge that empowers users. In her vision of digital democracy, citizens are educated, protected and active. It is a vision where technology becomes an enhancer of democracy rather than a force that replaces human judgment, opening the door for more people to understand and participate in shaping their collective future.

This article is produced by Taeyun Kim, Alexandra Osina, Charahja van Broekhoven, Veronika Martemianova, Maria Barasorda, Matvii Drotsyk, Longrui Deng, Barbara Gama, participants in the Bright Future Foundation, as part of the European Union’s “Participate & Promote Democracy” Youth Participation project, in cooperation with Diplomat Magazine and young members of the Armenian partner organization Promising Youth.

Women in Politics: The Voice of Fairness in Dutch Democracy – Daniëlle Helene Hirsch

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
Women in Politics: The Voice of Fairness in Dutch Democracy – Daniëlle Helene Hirsch

Bright Future Democracy Project / Interview with Daniëlle Helene Hirsch

Daniëlle Helene Hirsch is a Dutch politician known for her lifelong commitment to fairness, sustainability and equality. Born in Amstelveen, the Netherlands, Hirsch built an impactful career long before entering politics. After studying economics, she worked across the world (in Mexico, Kenya and Paraguay), focusing on projects that merged international development with environmental protection. Her time abroad revealed the close link between inequality and environmental harm, showing her how those most affected by global decisions often have the least power to change them.

For over fifteen years, Hirsch served as director of Both ENDS, a Dutch non-governmental organisation, championing environmental justice and human rights. She worked hand-in-hand with local activists and grassroots movements around the world, advocating for climate action and social fairness. These years shaped her belief that real change comes not from confrontation, but from cooperation – a principle she carried with her into politics.

In 2023, Hirsch transitioned from activism to politics, winning a seat in the Dutch House of Representatives for the GroenLinks-PvdA alliance. Though she was not among the top-listed candidates, she earned her place through a surge of preference votes – a clear sign of public trust in her integrity and vision. Today, she channels her expertise in international trade and environmental activism into shaping fair, forward-looking policies for both the Netherlands and the global community. For Hirsch, politics is not about power or status – it is about giving a voice to those who are too often overlooked.

Defending Democracy and Diversity

To Daniëlle Hirsch, Dutch democracy still works, but it stands under growing pressure. She warns that the Netherlands has grown “too confident in its democratic stability,” calling it “naive” not to defend it more actively. Citizens, politicians and even the private sector, she says, too often take democracy for granted. Hirsch expresses deep concern about the “silence” of companies and the weakening of laws protecting climate, labor and the environment, as people turn their attention to the far right. 

Her feminist values shape her political lens. Hirsch views feminism as more than equality between men and women – it is about how decisions are made and whose voices are heard. True democracy, she says, requires that “the voices which are less well represented get enough airtime and enough power through the process to have an equal voice as those that normally dominate the conversation.”

This vision extends beyond gender to include minority and underrepresented communities. Hirsch thinks that equality is not merely numerical but structural – about influence, leadership, and decision-making power. While acknowledging progress, she criticizes the Netherlands as still “a fairly conservative country regarding women in politics,” pointing out the absence of a female prime minister and the “almost white” composition of political leadership – a reality she calls “ridiculous” and “shameful.”

Hirsch also highlights institutional biases that go beyond politics: for instance, the MijnNaamIsPeter campaign of 2022, which revealed there are more CEOs named Peter than female CEOs in the Netherlands. These ingrained biases, she notes, are not easy to dismantle. Some political parties have made strides toward gender balance, but others still exclude women entirely. For Hirsch, representation must be both quantitative and qualitative – women’s interests can be championed by both women and men, but they must be represented fairly and authentically.

Interview with Danielle Hirsch. By Democracy Bright Future.

To help women thrive in politics, Hirsch has created informal support networks (what she affectionately calls “witches’ circles”) where women encourage and empower each other away from the public eye. She believes these spaces are essential because being a woman in politics still demands “extra energy” to be taken seriously.

Like former Dutch politician Harry van Bommel, Hirsch believes democracy is still functioning, but only just. Both argue that democracy weakens when trust and participation decline. Hirsch adds another layer – it also fails when those with less power are not heard. For her, the protection of democracy begins with defending equal voices and fair procedures – the essence of her feminist philosophy.

Power Through Participation

For Daniëlle Hirsch, politics is not a pursuit of power – it is an act of participation. Guided by a principle she learned from her parents -“not to sit on the sidelines, but to actively try to improve the situation yourself” – she encourages active citizenship as a duty, not an option.

She recognizes the uphill climb for women in leadership, who often must “believe more in themselves than a man has to”. Yet she sees this as an opportunity, not a setback. Being underestimated, she notes, can open the door to “unexpected success”.

Hirsch insists that collective power is the key to overcoming institutional barriers: “You have to organize – and that’s on you”. Though she admits it may seem “unfair,” she believes that solidarity is the only way to create lasting change. “Against stronger forces, the only reaction is to hold on to each other,” she says, pointing to feminism as proof that unity can overcome entrenched power dynamics.

Her message goes beyond gender. Hirsch speaks directly to young people, urging them to stay engaged in shaping the world around them. She sees hope in their activism (from climate action to social justice) and reminds them that the most powerful tool for change remains participation. “Keep using your vote,” she urges.

Her optimism is practical, grounded in data and conviction: “Even on paper, it is proven that if you take care of women, young people, the planet, then your economy actually works better”.

For Hirsch, equality begins with awareness, grows through connection and flourishes with passion. She encourages people to act from joy, not duty: “Do something because you enjoy it. When you enjoy what you do, you are good at it – and that’s when you truly make a difference”.

Women at the Heart of Democracy

To Daniëlle Helene Hirsch, politics is not an aspiration to power but a call to action. Her career, from her fieldwork abroad to her leadership at Both ENDS and her current parliamentary role, illustrates a powerful truth: democracy thrives only when every voice is heard. She challenges the comfortable illusion that systems work simply because they exist, reminding us that democracy survives through participation, representation and shared responsibility.

Her journey shows that women’s involvement in democracy is not symbolic – it transforms how democracy itself operates. By ensuring decision-making includes those historically excluded, women strengthen both the fairness and resilience of democratic systems.

Hirsch’s feminism, rooted in collaboration rather than confrontation, reminds us that equality is not a secondary goal of democracy – it is its foundation. Her message is clear and urgent: when we speak up, organize and act collectively – not just for ourselves, but for those excluded from the conversation – real change begins.

In an era of widening divides and eroding trust, Hirsch’s hope is grounded in practice: fairness, equality and sustainability are not ideals, but everyday work. And, as she says:“If you do what you love, you get good at it. And if you get good at it, you can make a difference”.

This article has been created within the framework of the European Union’s “Participate and Promote Democracy” a project by young members of the Dutch organization Stichting Bright Future in collaboration with young members of the Armenian organization Promising Youth.

Women in Politics: Beyond Representation, Towards Real Change

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
Women in Politics: Beyond Representation, Towards Real Change

Bright Future Democracy Project / Interview with Harry van BommelWomen in politics,

Female participation in politics is no longer just about representation – it is about how societies debate, legislate, and drive change. Around the world, discussions on equal pay, parental leave, and workplace representation are now part of mainstream political conversations. Yet in most countries, true equality is still out of reach.

To explore this issue, we spoke with Harry van Bommel, a Dutch politician with nearly twenty years in parliament as a member of the Socialist Party (SP). He focused on foreign affairs and human rights, and also participated in international election missions with the OSCE, giving him a wide perspective on political systems.

Progress and Fragility

Harry van Bommel notes that the Netherlands has made progress in women’s political representation but warns that these gains remain fragile. Without strong legal backing and cultural change, they could easily be lost. He recalls that when he first entered parliament, women were rare and it was unusual for a woman to chair a committee. Today, female MPs are a structural part of Dutch political life.

“Women bring different emphases into politics,” – he says, – “often prioritising education, healthcare, and human rights – topics that directly affect daily life. Their presence ensures these issues are taken seriously in decision-making.”

He adds that women also challenge the traditional pace and style of debate, asking questions about long-term societal impacts rather than short-term political gains. “It is not just about numbers; it is about how debates are shaped, how priorities are set, and how inclusive legislation becomes”.  

Interview with Harry van Bommel. Participate & Promote Democracy Bright Future

The Role of Advocacy              

Harry van Bommel credits persistent advocacy from feminists and women leaders for these changes. “We had feminists on the front line who demanded that the position of women be taken seriously. Their efforts made gender equality part of broader political debates in the Netherlands.”

He sees the changes as both structural and cultural. Women in leadership challenge old stereotypes, encourage younger generations, and ensure policies reflect the needs of everyone, not just half the population.

International Influence  

International organisations also play a role in promoting gender equality. Harry van Bommel emphasizes that women’s rights are inseparable from human rights and stresses sharing successful examples globally. He believes that women in other countries, including Eastern Europe, will follow the Netherlands’ example and demand the same rights.

Challenges Remain

Despite progress, significant challenges persist. Issues such as equal pay, part-time work for men and women, and underrepresentation in certain fields, including the military, remain unresolved. Progress is uneven across political parties. For example, the orthodox Christian party SGP only recently allowed women in parliament due to legal pressure.

Mr. van Bommel stresses the importance of legal protections, like equal pay laws, which ensure that even if society shifts, women’s hard-won rights remain intact.

Cultural Change is Key

Full gender equality is not just about laws – it’s about culture. Politics is still male-dominated, and women’s contributions are sometimes overlooked. The Netherlands has yet to see a female prime minister. Harry van Bommel contends that the potential for meaningful change exists, yet cultural norms and party structures frequently undervalue the pivotal role of women in leading and shaping this transformation.

Public pressure, civic involvement, and education are essential. “Equality will not be achieved while women in leadership are seen as exceptional rather than standard,” – he says.

A Strong Democracy Requires Equality

Ultimately, gender equality is essential for a strong democracy. Laws provide a foundation, but their true meaning comes from participation, culture, and dialogue. Rights must be claimed, defended, and exercised. The political voice of women is no exception.

We truly believe that Dutch democracy will only reach its full promise when women are fully represented at all levels – from parliament to the prime minister’s office.

This article has been created within the framework of the European Union’s “Participate and Promote Democracy” a project by young members of the Dutch organization Stichting Bright Future in collaboration with young members of the Armenian organization Promising Youth.

ASEAN’s Multilateral Dilemma: Continuity and Change from NAM to BRICS

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
ASEAN’s Multilateral Dilemma: Continuity and Change from NAM to BRICS

No Asian Century without true multilateralism

By Evi Fitriani and Anis H. Bajrektarevic

ASEAN’s enduring strength has never been its ability to project power, but its capacity to manage diversity through restraint, process, and dialogue. In an increasingly polarised strategic environment, pressures to align more explicitly with emerging blocs such as BRICS risk diluting ASEAN’s long-standing emphasis on autonomy and consensus. For Southeast Asia, security is less about joining alternative power centres than about preserving decision-making space amid intensifying great-power rivalry. A revitalised non-aligned approach—adapted to contemporary challenges such as economic fragmentation, digital governance, and maritime security—offers ASEAN greater flexibility to engage all major actors without becoming dependent on any. In this sense, non-alignment is not a rejection of cooperation, but a pragmatic strategy to sustain ASEAN centrality in a multipolar, yet deeply contested, regional order.

Let us continue with a rather simply question: Why ASEAN’s security lies in non-alignment, not bloc membership?

For more than two decades, the “Asian Century” has been treated as an inevitability rather than a hypothesis. Yet inevitability is not strategy, and Asia’s economic rise has not produced commensurate strategic autonomy. As this author warned in No Asian Century, “growth without agency is not power.” It is exposure.

Nowhere is this clearer than in ASEAN’s strategic predicament.

The region is richer, more connected, and more central to global supply chains than ever. It is also more militarised, more contested, and more instrumentalised by external powers. This is not ascent; it is crowded relevance.

Consequentially, ASEAN is increasingly urged to anchor itself more firmly in BRICS—or, alternatively, to revive the logic of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). The choice is often framed as outdated idealism versus modern multipolar pragmatism. This framing is false.

BRICS: an alternative centre, not an alternative logic

BRICS markets itself as a corrective to Western dominance. In reality, it substitutes one form of centrality for another. The bloc is multipolar in composition but hierarchical in effect, shaped by stark asymmetries of power, demography and strategic ambition.

For ASEAN (and RI for that matter), deeper institutional attachment to BRICS would not mean insulation from great-power rivalry. It would mean internalising it. Sino-Indian competition, Russia’s confrontation with the Atlantic world, and the geopolitical agendas of newly admitted members are not externalities. They are the bloc’s operating environment.

As (one of the co-authors) observed, “multipolarity without rules multiplies friction.” For smaller and mid-sized states, friction is not leverage; it is vulnerability.

BRICS offers financial instruments and political visibility, but not protection in the sense ASEAN requires. Protection implies predictability, autonomy and room for manoeuvre. A bloc dominated by continental powers with unresolved rivalries offers none of these.

Non-alignment: misunderstood, not obsolete

Non-alignment is often caricatured as neutrality. Historically, it was the opposite: a strategy of autonomy (active peaceful coexistence – strategic equidistancing engagement, not a passive neutrality) in a system designed to deny it. NAM failed not because its premise was wrong, but because it lacked economic integration, technological depth and institutional discipline. Those deficits are not arguments against non-alignment today. They are arguments for upgrading it.

The contemporary international system increasingly resembles the one that gave rise to NAM: weaponised finance, sanctions as diplomacy, fractured trade regimes, and information warfare. In such a system, alignment reduces options; autonomy preserves them.

ASEAN already behaves as a de facto non-aligned actor—hedging, consensus-building, resisting exclusive security commitments. The problem is not doctrine; it is institutional confidence.

ASEAN’s real security deficit

ASEAN’s vulnerability is not military inferiority. It is structural dependence.        Security in 2026 is decided less by troop numbers than by: (i) control over supply chains and standards; (ii) digital and data sovereignty; (iii) food and energy resilience; and (iv) narrative and diplomatic bandwidth – to name but few most pressing ones.

Neither BRICS nor NAM can deliver these automatically. But BRICS constrains ASEAN’s room to build them independently, while non-alignment preserves that space. As No Asian Century (almost two decades old, but still highly relevant work) reminds us, “Asia’s problem is not lack of power, but lack of cohesion.” ASEAN’s cohesion is diluted, not strengthened, by bloc discipline.

(We are drifting from a Kantian promise of cooperative order into a Hobbesian reality of coerced choice. Rules increasingly yield to power, norms to narratives, and multilateralism to managed loyalty. In such a system, as Prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic has warned, the message to smaller states is blunt: comply or die. For actors like ASEAN, the challenge is not to moralise this shift, but to survive it—by preserving strategic autonomy in a world where alignment no longer guarantees protection, only obedience.)

Centrality must be defended, not donated

ASEAN’s strategic value lies in being indispensable, not aligned. The moment it becomes a junior partner in any camp, its celebrated “centrality” becomes rhetorical.

Selective engagement with BRICS is sensible. Conceptual renewal of non-alignment is necessary. Exclusive commitment to either is unnecessary—and risky.

There may be no Asian Century, as Bajrektarevic famously argued (long ago), because Asia has yet to decide whether it wants to be a subject or a venue of global politics. ASEAN’s answer to that question will determine its security more than any acronym it joins.

History rarely rewards those who choose sides early. It remembers those who made themselves unavoidable. Geneva/Jakarta 06 January 2026

About the authors:

Evi Fitriani, is the Dean of the FISIP, University of Indonesia, Jakarta

Prof. Dr. Anis H. Bajrektarevic

Prof Anis H. Bajrektarevic, is Chairperson and prof. Intl. Relations & Global Pol. Studies

123...885Page 1 of 885