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.

European Union and the Emergence of a Common Intelligence Architecture. Implications for Romania

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
European Union and the Emergence of a Common Intelligence Architecture. Implications for Romania

“The greatest enemy of intelligence analysis is not deception, but the assumptions we fail to question.”
Richard J. Heuer Jr.

By Lieutenant General (ret) Corneliu Pivariu

The accelerated transformations of the international environment in recent years — the prolonged conflict in Ukraine, geopolitical volatility in the Middle East, the intensification of hybrid operations, and the proliferation of external interference in democratic processes — have brought back to the forefront an old structural problem of the European Union: the absence of a coherent capacity for strategic assessment and risk anticipation. Although the EU benefits from complex institutions, diverse analytical tools, and a broad network of specialized agencies, it does not possess an integrated intelligence architecture comparable to that of major powers.

In this context, the European Commission has begun exploring the creation of an analytical intelligence cell — a body placed under the authority of the Commission’s Secretariat-General, designed to provide an internal capacity for strategic analysis. The initiative became public through reports from the Financial Times, Reuters, Euronews, and DefenseNews, triggering a complex wave of interpretations, debates, and institutional reactions.

Although the international press has speculated about the emergence of “a European spy agency,” the project has no connection with expanding the EU’s operative competences. It does not seek to collect classified information, conduct surveillance, engage in espionage[1], or run clandestine operations — activities that remain strictly within the remit of the Member States. The real objective is the consolidation of EU capacity to integrate, interpret, and anticipate information in ways that reduce vulnerability and strategic dependence in the field of informational security.

This analysis examines, from a professional and academic perspective, the potential of this initiative to shape how the EU understands threats, manages risks, and develops strategic autonomy. It also explores the implications for Romania — a state located on the Union’s eastern frontier, in a region marked by conflict, hybrid risks, informational competition, and rapid geopolitical developments.

Legal and Institutional Framework

The creation of an intelligence cell within the European Commission must be understood within the strict parameters of the EU’s legal framework, which defines the Union’s institutional possibilities and constraints. Article 4(2) of the Treaty on European Union is explicit: “national security remains the sole responsibility of each Member State.”

This provision constitutes the foundation of the entire European security architecture and firmly limits any institutional ambition to expand competences in the field of operative intelligence. Consequently:

  • *The European Union cannot obligatorily collect classified information from Member States;
  • *it cannot conduct clandestine operations;
  • *it cannot coordinate espionage activities;
  • *it cannot establish an operative structure similar to national intelligence services.

Within this restrictive framework, the only available room for manoeuvre is the development of analytical, not collection, capacity.

This explains why the project focuses on the least sensitive yet essential segment: the integration and interpretation of available information.

At EU level, the existing analytical structure is EU INTCEN, part of the European External Action Service (EEAS). INTCEN operates under an intergovernmental logic, based on voluntary information exchange — primarily OSINT and limited classified contributions from Member States. Its mandate is predominantly focused on supporting EU foreign policy and crisis management, while also producing assessments of threats that may affect the Union’s internal security. However, it does not hold operative competences nor functions comparable to national intelligence services.

In this context, the idea of a new analytical cell under the Commission has emerged — not as a replica of INTCEN, but as a complementary mechanism focused on strengthening the Union’s internal resilience: monitoring foreign interference, analysing systemic vulnerabilities, supporting cybersecurity policies, and integrating data from the Commission’s numerous directorates-general. The new structure would have a predominantly analytical and coordinative role, without operative competences or functions associated with national intelligence services.

Probable Architecture and Functional Logic

The structure taking shape under the concept of an “EU Intelligence Cell” can best be described as an integrated hub for strategic analysis, meant to provide EU political leadership with faster, more coherent, and more in-depth understanding of the risks facing the Union. In the absence of operative competences, the added value of this cell would lie in:

  • its capacity to integrate multiple sources of information, both internal and open-source;
  • cross-sectoral risk analysis, connecting energy, digital, democratic, and economic security;
  • anticipation of hybrid risks;
  • delivery of coherent, data-driven briefings directly to the Commission’s leadership.

This architecture would remain fully dependent on cooperation with Member States, with INTCEN, and with the EU’s technical networks (CERT-EU, Joint Research Centre).

The fundamental difference compared to INTCEN lies in its mandate and institutional positioning: INTCEN primarily supports EU foreign policy and intergovernmental intelligence cooperation, while the new cell would play an analytical role focused on the Union’s internal dimension — namely democratic resilience, protection of digital infrastructure, and integration of information originating from the Commission’s technical structures. This does not imply operative competences, but rather an enhanced analytical and coordinative capacity in emerging domains of internal vulnerability.

Recent developments in Brussels suggest tensions regarding the delineation of competences: the EEAS fears a diminution of its role, while Member States are concerned with maintaining control over sensitive information. At the same time, the Commission benefits from favourable terrain, as the domains of democratic resilience and digital security already fall under its supranational competences.

Extending INTCEN’s mandate is not feasible, not only because of the EEAS’s institutional limitations, but also due to the EU’s political configuration. France wants INTCEN to remain an instrument of foreign policy aligned with its own vision of strategic autonomy, while Germany favours a decentralised architecture and is wary of any centralisation of intelligence at European level. Nordic and Central-Eastern European states are concerned with transparency, institutional balance, and preventing excessive concentration of analytical power within the EEAS. In this context, placing a new analytical cell under the Commission is perceived as the least politically sensitive option and the one most compatible with its existing competences: internal resilience, cybersecurity, combating foreign interference, and analysing systemic vulnerabilities of the EU.

Thus, the future architecture will depend on the institutional balance that will be negotiated in 2025–2026 between the Commission, the Council, the EEAS, and the Member States. Ultimately, it will reflect not only this institutional balance, but also the level of strategic ambition that Member States are willing to allow the Commission in the field of internal resilience.

The Strategic Rationale of the Initiative

The creation of an analytical cell within the European Commission is not a spectacular innovation, but rather a response to three major developments:

Lessons from the War in Ukraine

The EU was profoundly dependent on American and British intelligence. The absence of an internal anticipatory capacity meant that institutional reactions were at times slow, fragmented, or reactive. This dependency triggered broad debates on the Union’s analytical — not operative — autonomy.

Intensification of Hybrid Risks

Russian and Chinese interference, cyberattacks, information manipulation, the instrumentalization of diaspora communities, and delegitimization campaigns have reached unprecedented levels. The EU has realized that it cannot manage these risks exclusively through dispersed technical structures.

The Need for a Common Culture of Anticipation

Member States possess different institutional cultures and divergent analytical standards. In the absence of a shared framework, the EU remains vulnerable to fragmentation and delayed reactions.

In essence, the initiative does not aim to create a European intelligence service, but to obtain a minimal degree of analytical autonomy — without which the EU remains dependent on the assessments of major powers.

Reactions, Sensitivities, and Risks

Member States view the initiative through the prism of their own interests and concerns. Nordic and Benelux countries are the most open, considering that a common architecture strengthens collective resilience. France and Germany are cautious but inclined to offer support, provided that control over sensitive data is preserved.

Eastern frontier states, including Romania, perceive the initiative as both an opportunity and a potential source of tension with national intelligence services. The most significant risks include:

  • *overlap between the Commission and EEAS;
  • *lack of clarity in the mandate;
  • *politicization of analysis;
  • *resistance from national intelligence services;
  • *insufficient definition of information flows and caveats[2].

Implications for Romania

For Romania, the project presents a dual opportunity. On one hand, it can actively contribute to shaping the new European analytical architecture, strengthening its profile as an eastern-flank state with meaningful expertise in managing hybrid risks and Russian interference. On the other hand, it must strictly protect the sovereignty of operative information, maintaining a clear distinction between European-level analysis and sensitive national intelligence flows.

Romania can benefit through:

  • *seconding experts specialized in hybrid risk analysis;
  • *promoting strategic issues related to the Black Sea;
  • *establishing a national interinstitutional liaison point;
  • *strengthening its own OSINT capacities;
  • *rapid access to integrated European assessments.

At the same time, Bucharest must articulate a clear set of caveats regarding data that may be shared. Any sharing of operative information should be avoided.

The Commission’s initiative to develop its own analytical capacity does not represent an attempt to centralize European espionage, but an effort to modernize the Union’s culture of strategic anticipation. In an era of hybrid threats, information manipulation, and cyberattacks, the ability to rapidly understand and integrate data from multiple sources becomes a fundamental component of European resilience.

Europe cannot afford to remain without a common architecture for strategic assessment. Without it, the continent remains dependent, fragmented, and vulnerable to pressures from state and non-state actors.

For Romania, the moment is favourable: it can influence the direction of the project, promote the priorities of the eastern frontier, and strengthen its profile within the European security architecture — provided that it firmly protects its informational sovereignty.

Brașov, November, 17, 2025

Selective Bibliography

Journalistic and Institutional Sources

  1. Financial Times. “EU to set up new intelligence unit under Ursula von der Leyen.” 11 Nov. 2025. Financial Times+.
  2. Reuters. “EU to set up new intelligence unit under Ursula von der Leyen – FT reports.” 11 Nov. 2025.
  3. Höller, Linus. “The European Union wants its own intelligence branch.” DefenseNews, 12 Nov. 2025.
  4. Euronews. “Is the EU spy unit about to become reality? Von der Leyen wants her own secret service.” 11 Nov. 2025.
  5. Moutseras, Efthymios. INTCEN’s Strategic Role in a New Security Era. Research Paper No. 109, KEDISA, Nov. 2024.
  6. European External Action Service (EEAS). Annual Progress Report on the Implementation of the Strategic Compass for Security and Defence. July 2024.
  7. European External Action Service (EEAS). A Strategic Compass for Security and Defence. 2022.
  8. European External Action Service (EEAS). “The Diplomatic Service of the European Union.” [Website]. Accessed 2025.
  9. European Union. EU INTCEN Factsheet. 5 Feb. 2015. Statewatch.org.
  10. European Parliament – Research Service (EPRS). The EU’s Intelligence and Situation Centre (INTCEN): State of Play. Briefing Paper, Oct. 2023.

Foundational Theoretical Works

  1. Kent, Sherman. Strategic Intelligence for American World Policy. Princeton University Press, 1949.
    Heuer, Richards J. Jr. Psychology of Intelligence Analysis. CIA Center for the Study of Intelligence, 1999.
    Lowenthal, Mark M. Intelligence: From Secrets to Policy. CQ Press, 2019.
    Omand, David. Securing the State. Hurst Publishers, 2010.
    Rid, Thomas. Active Measures: The Secret History of Disinformation and Political Warfare. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2020.

[1] The term “espionage” is used here in its operative sense — referring to clandestine information-gathering activities (undercover HUMINT, covert operations, infiltration). The press often employs this term metaphorically when describing European analytical structures; however, the EU does not conduct and cannot conduct such actions, as it lacks any operative competences comparable to those of national intelligence services.

[2] In NATO, EU, and wider Western intelligence documentation, “caveats” represent additional restrictions applied on top of the classification level (SECRET, CONFIDENTIAL, etc.), determining how information may be handled and disseminated. Common examples include: NOFORN (prohibits dissemination to foreign nationals), ORCON (redistribution permitted only with the originator’s consent), REL TO EU/NATO (release limited to designated partners), LIMDIS (limited distribution to a restricted group), or EU-specific markings such as EU RESTRICTED, EU CONFIDENTIAL, and LIMITE. These caveats serve to protect the source, operational context, and integrity of the information within a multinational environment.

Venezuela Voice in The Hague

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
Venezuela Voice in The Hague

An open conversation with Ambassador Constant-Rosales on Venezuela’s International Challenges and Commitments

Diplomat Magazine held an open and timely conversation with H.E. Mr. Hector Constant-Rosales, Ambassador of Venezuela to the Multilateral Organizations in The Hague. At a moment when Venezuela is simultaneously engaged in major cases before both the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court—while remaining active in institutions such as the OPCW, the Permanent Court of Arbitration, and the HCCH—the country’s diplomatic work in The Hague is particularly consequential.

This interview takes place against a complex national and international backdrop: a longstanding government under President Nicolás Maduro, strong internal political opposition, far-reaching economic sanctions, and ongoing military warnings from abroad. With these dynamics shaping Venezuela’s global posture, we sought to understand how its multilateral engagement looks from the Venezuelan perspective.

Ambassador Constant-Rosales reflects on Venezuela’s historical tradition of multilateralism, its legal priorities, its approach to peacebuilding and disarmament, and the challenges of maintaining an active presence in international organizations amid political and economic constraints. He also speaks about the role of cultural diplomacy—most recently exemplified in the musical performance of Maestro Cheo Hurtado—in advancing dialogue and showcasing Venezuela’s identity on the world stage.

How does Venezuela view its participation and contribution to the main international organizations headquartered in The Hague?

Venezuela has a long tradition of multilateralism since its independence. Simón Bolívar’s call for the Congress of Panama in 1826 represented the genesis of American and global multilateralism, based on the principles of freedom and sovereignty. It is these same principles that inspire Venezuela’s actions in the international organizations in The Hague, which today are framed by a clear respect for international law. I emphasize this last point because we are in a historical context in which we are witnessing a decline in compliance with legal norms, which weakens the international system and jeopardizes peaceful coexistence itself. In our case, we promote multilateral action in accordance with international law, but also strongly condemn injustices and double standards.

What are the principal goals and projects your Mission is currently advancing within these institutions?

Two main cases constitutes our priorities. On the one hand, we have presented to the International Court of Justice Venezuela’s historical truth regarding its inalienable right to the territory of Guayana Esequiba. On the other hand, we are currently developing the case known as “Venezuela II” within the framework of the International Criminal Court, related to the flagrant crimes that have been committed against the human rights of the Venezuelan population as a result of the imposition of unilateral coercive measures. At the beginning of the presentation of the case in 2020, Venezuela seemed to be an isolated voice, but today, when even the Court itself faces illegal sanctions, there is a greater understanding of the scope and illegality of this type of hegemonic practice, which has not been sufficiently theorized. I am sure that this case will set some extremely important legal precedents in the near future. Of course, Venezuela also actively participates in other forums such as the Permanent Court of Arbitration and the HCCH, being one of the first countries in the world to have implemented the electronic Hague Apostille, which is a huge step forward of which we are proud. As for the OPCW, we support technical action in favor of global chemical disarmament and are currently promoting a vision of respect for the sovereign will of States in the election of members of the Executive Council.

How does Venezuela approach international law, disarmament, and global justice from the perspective of sovereignty and peacebuilding?

For two decades, my country has been known for taking a very strong stance against disrespect for international law and against the maintenance of living conditions that oppress the vast majority. We have strong roots in the Global South and are committed to that identity. That is why we are signatories to and participants in the Conventions on Disarmament, because we believe in a world of peace built on the principles of the United Nations Charter, and not on the basis of invasions and military solutions such as those that have occurred in recent years in the Middle East, which disrupt the global order and generate misery and pain. A tragic example is the ongoing genocide in Palestine, which violates the most basic principles of humanity and had to exceed 60,000 deaths in just two years to generate massive global interest. We also do not accept the current armed deployment in Caribbean waters that threatens the Zone of Peace of Latin America and the Caribbean and constitutes a direct threat to the security of the region. For 26 years, Venezuela has implemented what we call the “Bolivarian Peace Diplomacy,” which is a way of summarizing our global action from the example of our Liberator Simón Bolívar, whose international vision was avant-garde, together with the need to preserve true peace, which is only possible through social justice.

What are the main diplomatic or institutional challenges you have encountered in representing Venezuela in these multilateral settings?

To summarize this answer, I would say that there are at least two major challenges at present: one political and the other economic. The economic challenge is related to the obstacles posed by unilateral coercive measures to our participation in multilateral organizations, as Venezuela has lost its voting rights in many of them. However, from a position of dignity, this situation has reinforced our conviction to denounce and point out those responsible for such illegality and has also given us the satisfaction of continuing to see our multilateral proposals and projects approved thanks to the solidarity and respect of our many allies around the world. On the political challenge, it has been interesting to have to deal with a certain negative image and prejudices created in a biased manner about Venezuela for years. Unfortunately, large transnational media outlets have participated in a sustained campaign of discrediting and lying about my country, which has had harmful effects in discriminating against Venezuela and its people, hiding the country’s many geographical, tourist, social, and cultural assets, as well as the smiles and resilience of its people.

In your view, how can cultural diplomacy — such as the recent presentation of Maestro Cheo Hurtado — complement Venezuela’s multilateral engagement?

Precisely, as former Ambassador to UNESCO, I have been able to experience firsthand the enormous power of cultural diplomacy to build bridges, maintain dialogue, and preserve the cultural diversity of an identity as rich as Venezuela’s. During my nearly two years in The Hague, I have been able to organize at least two high-quality musical performances that have connected with Dutch audiences and showcased the beauty of my homeland through its music. We will continue to move forward in this regard, ensuring that our multilateral commitment is also a cultural commitment, for which I am grateful for the ongoing support of Diplomat Magazine.

The 2025 Hungarian National Day of Commemoration

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
The 2025 Hungarian National Day of Commemoration

The Hungarian National Day commemoration, concert, and reception took place on 30 October 2025 at the Kloosterkerk in The Hague.

By Roy Lie Atjam

H.E. Ambassador Dániel Horogszegi Szilágyi-Landeck opened the evening with a commemorative welcome speech, followed by a festive concert featuring outstanding artists from the Liszt Ferenc Academy of Music. The event attracted a significant crowd among them  Ambassadors and diplomats of India, Malta, Kosovo, Philippines,Turkey, El Salvador, Portugal, Burundi, and embodied a spirit of remembrance and celebration.

Further, the concert paid tribute to the national heroes of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, simultaneously celebrating the 150th anniversary of the Liszt Ferenc Academy of Music.

Part of the guests attending the concert in commemoration of the Hungarian National Day.

Featured performers include violinist Márta Ábrahám, pianist László Borbély, and pianist Máté Lachegyi, an alumnus of the Academy now residing in the Netherlands.

Attendees were treated to an engaging program of works by Liszt, Bartók, Hubay, Kodály, Dohnányi, and Brahms, showcasing the richness of Hungarian musical heritage and the unwavering spirit of freedom.

Márta Ábrahám, Hungarian violinist, performing at the commemoration concert for Hungary’s National Day.

To cap off the festive evening, guests were invited to a reception and a specially curated exhibition dedicated to Franz Liszt, presented by the Liszt Ferenc Academy of Music.

Time to Say Goodbye, See You Again

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
Time to Say Goodbye, See You Again

On 28 October, the Dean of the Diplomatic Corps in The Hague, H.E. Ms. Sahar Ghanem, Ambassador of Yemen, hosted a farewell ceremony for eight ambassadors concluding their missions in the Netherlands: H.E. Ms. Susannah Hayden Gordon of New Zealand, H.E. Mr. Kairat Abdrakhmanov of Kazakhstan, H.E. Mr. Roberto Calzadilla Sarmiento of Bolivia, H.E. Mr. Mayerfas of Indonesia, H.E. Mr. Tareque Muhammad of Bangladesh, H.E. Mr. Hiroshi Minami of Japan, as well as H.E. Mr. Francis Danti Kotia of Ghana and H.E. Mr. Jian Tan of the People’s Republic of China, who had already departed The Hague.

The gathering, marked by warm camaraderie and mutual respect, brought together colleagues ambassadors from across the diplomatic community to honour the departing envoys for their dedication, achievements, and friendship.

In her welcoming remarks, Ambassador Ghanem highlighted the significance of the occasion:

“We are bidding farewell to remarkable persons who have served with distinction and honour. Each of you has strengthened bilateral ties with the Netherlands and contributed to the objectives of multilateral cooperation. Your presence will be deeply missed.”

Ambassador Ghanem and H.E. Ms. Susannah Hayden Gordon, Ambassador of New Zealand.

H.E. Ms. Susannah Hayden Gordon – New Zealand

Ambassador Ghanem expressed her admiration, saying:

“We will continue having you in another capital, and maybe one day some of us will be in New Zealand. All the best, Excellency — you will be truly missed.”

Ambassador Gordon responded with gratitude and humour:

“It’s always a sad time in a posting when you have to start saying goodbye. I even asked if I could stay longer — my head office laughed and said this is one of the most sought-after ambassadorial positions in the world! It’s such a privilege because here we mix bilateral and multilateral work. The Dutch hosts are warm, and The Hague is a place where things truly get done. I’ll soon head our South and Southeast Asia Division, our busiest in the Foreign Ministry — so not much sleep ahead, but plenty of travel.”

H.E. Mr. Hiroshi Minami, Ambassador of Japan, H.E. Ms Franca Deza Ferreccio, Ambassador of Peru and H.E. Mr. Roberto Calzadilla Sarmiento, Ambassador of Bolivia.

H.E. Mr. Hiroshi Minami – Japan

Ambassador Ghanem recalled the many fond memories shared with Ambassador Minami:

“We will remember your wonderful receptions, your generosity, openness, and availability. You were active both multilaterally and bilaterally — that’s the beauty of this place and the connections you helped create.”

Ambassador Minami reflected on his three years in The Hague:

“This city has a unique atmosphere. It’s a hub for diplomats — a place where work and friendship blend naturally. I’ve enjoyed my time here immensely. After 43 years in the Foreign Ministry, this will be my final assignment before retirement, and I will always cherish the friendships I’ve made.”

H.E. Ms Sahar Ghanem and the Ambassador of Bangladesh, H.E. Mr. Tareque Muhammad.

H.E. Mr. Tareque Muhammad – Bangladesh

Ambassador Ghanem praised his active engagement:

“Your representation of Bangladesh, your energy, and the strong bonds you’ve built are very much appreciated. We wish you the best in your next chapter.”

Ambassador Muhammad shared:

“I’ve been here just over a year, but it’s been wonderful. Despite the weather, the camaraderie among diplomats keeps us warm — whether at the OPCW, ICC, or ICJ. It’s been an honour to experience both multilateral and bilateral diplomacy in The Hague. As I retire at 60, I take with me great memories — and gratitude for the friendships we’ve built.”

H.E. Mr. Mayerfas, Ambassador of Indonesia and the Dean of the Diplomatic Corps, H.E. Ms Sahar Ghanem.

H.E. Mr. Mayerfas – Indonesia

“It has been a privilege to be among friends,” said Ambassador Mayerfas. “I’ve been here for five years — the longest-serving Indonesian ambassador in the Netherlands. It’s a special posting, working seven days a week, especially with our Indonesian diaspora. For us, the Netherlands is not a foreign country; our historical connection runs deep. I thank you all for your cooperation and friendship. If you come to Indonesia, you will always have a friend there.”

Ambassador Ghanem and H.E. Mr. Roberto Calzadilla Sarmiento. Ambassador of Bolivia.

H.E. Mr. Roberto Calzadilla Sarmiento – Bolivia

The Dean fondly noted:

“You were always active, serious in your work, and a good friend. Few know the Netherlands better than you — and we all thank you, especially for being one of the founders behind the idea of Diplomat Magazine, which continues to serve our community.”

Ambassador Calzadilla reflected:

“We live in turbulent times — of terrorism, lack of values, and uncertainty. Yet our exchanges here have been invaluable. We’ve worked together on vital issues such as climate justice and international law. I thank all my colleagues for your commitment and friendship, and I thank Mayelinne for Diplomat Magazine, which has made our work easier. After 43 years in the foreign service, I’ll now enter a new phase — consulting and teaching. And please, you’ll always have a friend in Bolivia.”

H.E. Mr. Kairat Abdrakhmanov, Ambassador of Kazakhstan.

H.E. Mr. Kairat Abdrakhmanov – Kazakhstan

Ambassador Ghanem paid tribute to his distinguished career:

“From lecturer to ambassador, to Foreign Minister, and back to The Hague — your remarkable journey and your warmth as a person have truly impressed us all.”

Ambassador Ghanem and H.E. Mr. Kairat Abdrakhmanov, Ambassador of Kazakhstan.

Ambassador Abdrakhmanov shared his reflections:

“I began my career behind the Iron Curtain, and what a transformation it has been. Yet today we see new walls emerging. Still, I remain optimistic — with knowledge and dialogue, we can overcome barriers. I’ve visited 57 states during my time here and learned that diplomacy is the best way to prevent conflict. Let’s continue giving power to diplomats rather than generals. I look forward to serving again in Europe — you’ll have a friend there, and always in Kazakhstan.”

Ambassador Ghanem presented flowers to each of the departing envoys, expressing gratitude for their friendship and service.  As the formal proceedings concluded, guests then enjoyed a warm and relaxed time together — a fitting farewell to a remarkable group of ambassadors whose dedication has left a lasting mark on The Hague’s diplomatic community.

Farewell to Ambassadors October 28, 2025 The Hague.

Reviving a Seaside Palace at the Helm of the Diplomatic Season

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
Reviving a Seaside Palace at the Helm of the Diplomatic Season

Marcel Menzo on Hosting Nations and the Return of the Christmas Lighting Reception

The Grand Hotel Amrâth Kurhaus in Scheveningen — the Hague’s iconic seaside palace — stands as one of the Netherlands’ most recognisable symbols of elegance and hospitality. Today, this five-star heritage hotel is not only a known place of refined leisure but also a preferred stage for diplomatic and corporate gatherings. Ambassadorial luncheons, national-day receptions and international conferences have become a regular part of its calendar, making the Kurhaus an essential venue within The Hague’s diplomatic ecosystem.

At the heart of this revival is Marcel Menzo, the hotel’s Sales and Events Manager, who has overseen a thoughtful renewal combining historic grandeur with modern hospitality and a distinct diplomatic focus.

“When I joined Grand Hotel Amrâth Kurhaus more than two and a half years ago, the diplomatic segment was not yet a primary focus,” Menzo recalls. “We made a conscious choice to build long-term, reliable relationships with embassies, based on continuity, trust and personal attention. Today, we are recognized as a welcoming and respected venue for official receptions and high-profile gatherings — something I am genuinely proud of.”

Over the past few years, the Kurhaus has undergone a series of modernisations — including LED lighting, heat-pump systems and energy-efficient upgrades — earning it Green Key certification for sustainability while carefully preserving its monumental interiors. These efforts, Menzo notes, are part of an ongoing vision to ensure the hotel remains both historically authentic and environmentally responsible.

Tailored diplomacy by the sea

For Menzo, the art of diplomatic hospitality lies in precision and discretion.

“Diplomatic guests often have specific expectations. Our team is trained to immediately recognize embassy delegations and respond with tailored coordination around security, arrival protocols, privacy and bespoke culinary arrangements,” he explains. “My role is to ensure that these needs are not only understood, but discreetly and seamlessly fulfilled.”

This approach has made the Kurhaus a trusted partner for embassies and international organisations seeking both grandeur and confidentiality for their events. From bilateral receptions to cultural celebrations, each gathering reflects the hotel’s commitment to ceremony and comfort.

Mr. Menzo with his Grand Hotel Amrâth Kurhaus’s Team.

A season of light

One of the highlights of the Kurhaus calendar is the Christmas Lighting Reception, a cherished annual tradition that returns this December with renewed energy.

“The Christmas Lighting Reception is both a tradition and a moment of connection,” says Menzo. “It brings together the diplomatic and business communities at the end of the year to reflect, express appreciation, and look ahead to future collaboration. It is an invitation to strengthen relationships and to welcome new partners into this network.”

This year’s edition will once again illuminate the hotel’s grand façade and historic Kurzaal, blending festive atmosphere with diplomatic camaraderie — a symbolic close to The Hague’s diplomatic season by the sea.

“The Kurhaus stands at the heart of the diplomatic season by the sea,” Menzo affirms. “A place where tradition, hospitality and international exchange come together. Our December reception celebrates connection, trust and the shared journey into a new year.”

Looking ahead

Menzo’s ambitions for the Kurhaus extend well beyond the festive season.

“In the coming years, we aim to further establish the Kurhaus as the leading coastal five-star destination in the Netherlands — a trusted venue for diplomacy, cultural events and exclusive business gatherings,” he says. “By combining historic grandeur with contemporary international service, we want to strengthen Scheveningen’s and the Netherlands’ position on the global stage.”

As part of that vision, the hotel is set to expand its MICE production — meetings, incentives, conferences, and events — in close collaboration with key partners, including Diplomat Magazine.

“Everything related to meetings, events, conferences and conventions, we will work together with you to make it a success,” Menzo concludes. “Let’s make it a wonderful and successful year!”

Japan–Netherlands Science and Technology Cooperation

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
Japan–Netherlands Science and Technology Cooperation

This year marks the 425th anniversary of Japan–Netherlands relations, an important milestone celebrating centuries of friendship and cooperation. The event provided an opportunity to reflect on this shared history and to explore ways to further strengthen bilateral collaboration in the fields of science, technology, and innovation.

The reception brought together Prof. Yoichiro Matsumoto, Science and Technology Advisor to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan; Mr. Feite Hofman, Director-General at the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW); as well as representatives from government, academia, industry, ecosystem development, and the media from both countries.

Mr. Feite Hofman, Director-General at the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, Prof. Yoichiro Matsumoto, Science and Technology Advisor to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan and H.E. Mr. Hiroshi Minami, Ambassador of Japan.

In his opening remarks, Ambassador Hiroshi Minami highlighted the long-standing relationship of trust built between Japan and the Netherlands over centuries and emphasized the importance of cooperation in the field of science and technology.

“This year marks the 425th anniversary of Japan–Netherlands exchange. We have learned quite a lot from the Netherlands. Rangaku originally means ‘Dutch studies,’ and the Japanese people worked very hard to study the Dutch language in order to understand medical and other sciences,” said Ambassador Minami.

He noted that collaboration now extends to more diverse and advanced fields such as semiconductors, quantum technology, and photonics, and expressed his hope that the partnership between the two countries will continue to flourish in the years ahead.

“Also this year, Japan hosted the Osaka Expo, and I am very grateful that the Netherlands sent a large number of trade missions,” Ambassador Minami added.

Prof. Yoichiro Matsumoto, Science and Technology Advisor to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan.

Prof. Matsumoto noted that, in today’s rapidly changing international environment, science and technology are increasingly intertwined with economic security and diplomacy. He stressed the importance of promoting international collaboration under the concept of Trusted Openness. He also pointed out that Japan and the Netherlands share many common challenges — including sustainable energy development, semiconductor manufacturing, and ageing societies — and expressed his belief that bilateral cooperation can contribute to addressing these issues and benefiting the broader international community.

“In Japan, we are currently formulating the 7th Science, Technology and Innovation Basic Plan, which will guide our national policy for the five years starting from 2026.
A key theme of this plan is how to make the best use of advanced technologies — such as AI, quantum technology, and biotechnology — to solve social issues and build a sustainable society.
Under the new Takaichi Cabinet, we are also preparing the Growth Strategy to be finalized by next summer, promoting both public and private investment in these strategic areas.
Today, science and technology are closely tied to economic security as well.
That is why, in developing this plan, we are also discussing how to incorporate security considerations and what science and technology diplomacy should look like.
Researchers and engineers like us can no longer stay apart from international and diplomatic perspectives,” Prof. Matsumoto said.

Finally, Director-General Feite Hofman reflected on his recent visit to Japan, including his participation in the STS Forum and preparations for Expo 2025 Osaka, Kansai. He remarked that although Japan and the Netherlands are separated by vast oceans, in practice they work remarkably smoothly together, thanks to the shared values underlying both societies. He also expressed his expectation that bilateral collaboration will continue to deepen as the two countries approach the 30th anniversary of the Agreement on Scientific and Technological Cooperation, signed in 1996 and entered into force in 1997.

The reception featured lively networking among participants, fostering new connections and ideas for future cooperation.

As Ambassador Minami concluded:

“As we celebrate this anniversary year, let us also look ahead. What truly drives progress is not only technology or policy, but people — the connections that spark ideas, build trust, and open new possibilities. I hope tonight’s gathering will further strengthen those ties and lead to future achievements.”

South Africa New Service Centre

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
South Africa New Service Centre

New Centre in The Hague Facilitates Passport and Birth Registration Services for South African Citizens

South African citizens residing in the Netherlands now have easier access to passport renewal and birth registration services through the newly opened DHA Services Centre in The Hague.

Located at Parkstraat 99, the centre was inaugurated on 22 October 2025 and operates under the management of VFS Global, the official outsourcing partner of the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) of the Republic of South Africa.

The establishment of the centre reflects growing demand for direct and efficient access to consular services among the nearly 50,000 South Africans currently living in the Netherlands. The new facility offers a range of services, including passport renewals, birth registrations, and optional courier delivery of new passports to applicants’ residences.

Robyn Wijne, a South African citizen who recently moved to the Netherlands, had her passport renewed in just two days.

Applicants may also schedule appointments online and use additional support features such as SMS tracking, email communication, and on-site assistance.

The initiative is part of the ongoing partnership between the Department of Home Affairs and VFS Global, which operates 17 DHA Services Centres in 9 countries. VFS Global provides administrative and logistical support to facilitate identity and travel document services for South African nationals abroad.

For further details, visit: https://services.vfsglobal.com/nld/en/zap

Deepening Dominican-Dutch Relations Through History and Cooperation

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
Deepening Dominican-Dutch Relations Through History and Cooperation

Diplomat Magazine celebrates the enduring relationship between the Dominican Republic and the Kingdom of the Netherlands—a friendship built on mutual respect, historical depth, and a shared commitment to peace and justice, the mottos that define the city of The Hague.

In his remarks to Diplomat Magazine, H.E. Mr. Carlos de la Mota, Ambassador of the Dominican Republic to the Netherlands, reflected on the long and evolving history of relations between both nations.

“The relationship between the Dominican Republic and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, spanning more than 168 years, has witnessed constant exchange and dynamism since its inception,” Ambassador De la Mota affirmed. “Although time transforms routes and our flags change, the bonds that unite us not only remain but have grown stronger. They are a testament to the friendship, respect, and cooperation that define our peoples.”

The ambassador emphasized that the ties between the Dominican Republic and the Netherlands go back much further than the establishment of formal diplomatic relations.

“By the end of the 16th century, Dutch ships were already trading with the northern part of our island, in Puerto Plata and Montecristi,” he explained. “These cities received Dutch influence in their colorful façades and sloping roofs, evoking the Caribbean aesthetic that the Netherlands helped to spread throughout the islands of the Kingdom. In that coming and going of ships, Hispaniola became a meeting point—a natural bridge between Europe and America.”

“As early as 1613, the first native settler of New Amsterdam—today New York—was Juan Rodrigues, a mulatto from Hispaniola, now the Dominican Republic,” the ambassador said. “His life represents one of the earliest connections between the Caribbean and the Kingdom of the Netherlands at the dawn of transatlantic trade. These stories remind us that our shared history is not only about commerce, but about people, ideas, and cultural exchange.”

He went on to recall the contribution of families of Dutch Caribbean origin to Dominican society.

“In 1813, Noel Henríquez Altías, born in Curaçao, arrived in our country. His legacy went beyond economic activity—his descendants included Francisco Henríquez y Carvajal, professor, physician, and former president of the Republic. His wife, Salomé Ureña, is one of the great poets of our history, and their children—Max, Camila, and Pedro Henríquez Ureña—became leading figures in Latin American literature and diplomacy,” Ambassador De la Mota noted.

Turning to the present, Ambassador De la Mota underlined the Dominican Republic’s economic and social progress in recent years.

“Today, the Dominican Republic is a beacon of light in our region,” he said with pride. “In 2024, our economy registered the highest growth in Latin America at 5%. We were also the second most visited country in the region, welcoming approximately 11 million tourists. These achievements reflect our political and economic stability, as well as a favorable climate for foreign investment.”

“Last year, bilateral trade reached US$643 million,” the ambassador explained. “This year alone, between January and August 2025, our exchange has already reached US$547 million—representing a 30% increase compared to the same period in 2024. These figures show that our economic partnership is vibrant, diversified, and full of potential for future growth.”

Beyond economic and historical links, both nations share a vision for a fairer and more sustainable world.

“Our countries are united by common values,” Ambassador De la Mota emphasized. “We both believe in the protection of human rights, the defense of multilateralism, and the global fight against climate change. These are not just diplomatic principles—they are moral commitments that define our actions on the world stage.”

Paying tribute to the Dominican community in the Netherlands the ambassador declared:

“The Kingdom of the Netherlands is the third European country with the largest number of Dominicans—more than 18,000—along with more than 10,000 mixed families between Dominicans and Dutch citizens from the Caribbean islands,” the ambassador said. “These families are the living bridge between our nations, strengthening our human connection every day through their work, values, and love for both countries.”

As Ambassador De la Mota concluded, the Dominican Republic and the Netherlands continue to stand as partners in dialogue, development, and mutual understanding.

“Our friendship has deep roots and a bright future,” he affirmed. “It is a relationship that celebrates our shared history, embraces our cultural richness, and looks ahead with confidence toward a world of cooperation, peace, and opportunity.”

The Question of Palestine: A Test of the World’s Commitment to Justice

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
The Question of Palestine: A Test of the World’s Commitment to Justice

By Mr. Ammar M.B. Hijazi, Head of Palestinian Mission

The Question of Palestine is a story of compounded injustices that was ironically borne in the halls of the nascent United Nations in 1947. At the time, international law and diplomacy were used coercively to erase Palestine and the Palestinian people. But since then, the Palestinian people have been on a determined and impressive journey of setting precedents and building protections based on the very legal framework that was first employed to cast them out of international discourse and consideration. 

This Palestinian pursuit was painstaking. For decades, many states abandoned their obligations under international law. The end result was tragically predictable: normalized criminality and entrenched impunity that regarded systematic violations of Palestinian dignity and human rights as an “unhelpful” part of the reality.  States knowingly and irresponsibly rendered preemptory and jus cogens norms moot while claiming that this selectivity does not undermine the entire international law-based order. This transformed the Question of Palestine into a global litmus test of integrity and commitment to international law, especially because Palestine has insisted on this path despite political bullying, threats, and sanctions. 

Palestine’s determined efforts in the pursuit of justice and accountability at the World’s Courts are conducted in this context. At the core, the target was and remains to preserve and elevate Palestine’s rightful place in the rights and law-based international system. In the past years, this pursuit has come to embody a far larger endeavor with global reach. Today, this legal and diplomatic approach is more important than ever, especially in light of the genocide, ongoing dispossession and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, and entrenched illegal colonial regime of occupation and apartheid.

The landmark rulings of 9 July 2004 and 19 July 2024, as well as 22 October 2025  by the international Court of Justice corrected the narrative, legal framework, and perspective of the reality. The ICJ rejected the political gymnastics of side-tracking and minimizing fundamentals and put the core issues back where they belong: front and centre. It recognized the profound power asymmetries that define the situation on the ground, rejecting the erroneous presentation of the question of Palestine as “a conflict” where both sides have equal responsibility and claim. The ICJ determination addressed this once and for all and opened a pathway of hope. 

In legal terms, the erroneous attempts to equate between occupier and occupied has been finally nullified, ending decades of normalized occupation and providing the colonizer with a free hand to pursue the ethnic cleansing of Palestine from its Palestinian people and annexing it, all while invoking the false flag of “self-defense” with minimal international resistance. Crucially, the ICJ determination on the illegality of occupation in the OPT laid out clearly what the obligations of states are under international law and they include ensuring accountability.   

The Court’s historic determinations stripped states of the excuses to avoid action before it. This is empowering to civil society organizations and legal experts around the world who now have a definitive determination they can build on to ensure that their governments comply with their binding obligations in international law, including respecting and realizing Palestinian rights.

The battle is far from over but the way forward is irrefutable: ending the illegal occupation, in line with the historic ICJ ruling of July 2024, and UN resolutions, realizing the Palestinian people’s inalienable rights including to self-determination, return, and an independent sovereign Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital, and providing reparations as required. This is the only path to achieving peace and security for all peoples in the region. Not genocide. Not sideshows. Not endless subjugation. And definitely, not privatized colonization.    

Many might say that humanity is at an age where diplomacy and international law are dying. There is plenty of evidence to merit such a devastating conclusion, not the least of which is the two-year live-streamed genocide committed in Gaza with impunity. We believe this conclusion is premature. Humanity is fighting the battle of a lifetime between racist militaristic populism and responsible diplomacy that is anchored in international law. The battle is far from over. We owe future generations to ensure that legality wins.

The One-China Principle is Unshakable

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
The One-China Principle is Unshakable

By Mr Zhang Yi, Charge d’affaires ad interim of the Embassy of People’s Republic of China in the Netherlands.

Recently the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China designated October 25th as the Commemoration Day of Taiwan’s Restoration. This decision embodies the firm resolve of the Chinese people to safeguard national sovereignty and territorial integrity and our unyielding commitment to achieving national reunification.

1, Historical and Legal Facts Stand Unchallenged

Taiwan has been an inseparable part of China since ancient times. However in July 1894, Japan launched a war of aggression against China, and in April 1895, the defeated Qing government of China was forced to cede Taiwan and the Penghu Islands to Japan.

On December 9, 1941, the Chinese government declared war against Japan’s aggression, and proclaimed that all treaties, conventions, agreements, and contracts regarding relations between China and Japan had been abrogated, and that China would recover Taiwan and the Penghu Islands. The Cairo Declaration of 1943 stated that all the territories Japan has stolen from China, such as Manchuria, Taiwan and the Penghu Islands, should be restored to China. The Potsdam Proclamation of 1945 reaffirmed that “the terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out.” When Japan signed the instrument of surrender, it accepted these obligations in full.

On October 25, 1945, the ceremony to accept Japan’s surrender in Taiwan Province took place in Taipei, symbolizing the restoration of Taiwan and the Penghu Islands to China’s sovereign administration.

With the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, the Central People’s Government became the sole legitimate authority representing all of China. Since then, the PRC has exercised full sovereignty over China, including Taiwan.

  • UN Resolution 2758 Affirms the One-China Principle

On October 25, 1971, the 26th Session of the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 2758 by an overwhelming majority including the Netherlands. The resolution restored all China’s lawful rights to the People’s Republic of China, recognized its government as the sole legitimate representative of China to the UN, and expelled the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek who had unlawfully occupied China’s seat.

It should be noted that at the time when the Resolution 2758 was discussed at the 26th session of the UN General Assembly, certain countries persisted in attempts to obstruct the process, and primarily erected a “Dual Representation” draft resolution, which combined “confirming the representation of the People’s Republic of China” with “retaining the representation of the Republic of China(Taiwan),” essentially trying to create “two Chinas” within the UN. A significant number of UN Member States voiced strong opposition, asserting the proposal was “illegal and inconsistent with reality, justice and the principles of the UN Charter.” After the General Assembly passed Resolution 2758, the “Dual Representation” draft resolution was consequently not put to the vote and was effectively invalidated.

Resolution 2758 definitively resolved China’s representation in the UN politically, legally, and procedurally, and reaffirmed the one-China principle. It also made clear that China has only one seat at the UN, leaving no space for any notion of “two Chinas” or “one China, one Taiwan.”

Since then, the UN has consistently referred to Taiwan as “Taiwan, Province of China” in official documents. Resolution 2758 stands as a milestone of justice and international consensus, reflecting the collective will of the vast majority of countries that uphold the one-China principle.

  • A Broad International Consensus

In the 54 years since the adoption of Resolution 2758, the number of countries maintaining diplomatic relations with China has risen from just over 60 to 183, all committed to the one-China principle. Successive UN Secretaries-General have reaffirmed that the entire UN system must act in accordance with this resolution.

The one-China principle has become a universally recognized norm in international relations and a solemn political commitment made by all countries having diplomatic ties with China.

4，National Reunification: An unstoppable trend

Taiwan’s restoration in 1945 marked the rightful return of lost territory to the motherland. Today, reaffirming the one-China principle and preserving the fruits of the victory over fascism are essential to peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait and beyond. On this principle, there can be no ambiguity or compromise.

Though the civil war and foreign interference after 1945 left the two sides of the Taiwan Strait politically divided, China’s sovereignty and territory have never been split and never will be. For decades, the Chinese government has pursued peaceful reunification with utmost sincerity and determination while resolutely opposing separatism and external interference. Achieving reunification represents the common aspiration of all Chinese people.

The reality of one China is unshakable and irreversible. Assertions by a few that “Taiwan’s status is undetermined” are unfounded and dangerous. They distort history and threaten stability. Any attempt to distort or reinterpret Resolution 2758 denies the outcomes of World War II, undermines the authority of the UN, and disrupts the post-war international order. Such actions run counter to history and are doomed to fail.

China’s resolve to achieve complete reunification is steadfast. History cannot be rewritten, and the future of Taiwan will and must be decided by all Chinese people together.

123...876Page 1 of 876