Helsinki Spirit Revisited

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
Helsinki Spirit Revisited

“DIPLOMACY IS AN ART”.

 “Bring young people to play leadership roles”.

H.E. Mr. Lamberto Zannier

As part of the Geneva Lecture Series concepted and conducted by prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic, former Secretary-General of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Ambassador Lamberto Zannier gave a highly mesmerizing and content intensive lecture for the faculty members and Geneva-based diplomats.*  Excellency Zannier outlined his view on current affairs as the first speaker of the newly created executive program on world politics and diplomacy (EMIRGP).

H.E. Ambassador Mr. Lamberto Zannier is a distinguished Expert at OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, a career diplomat with high-level experience in the Italian Foreign Service and in International Organizations, namely NATO and UN specialized agencies, mainly specializing in multilateral and security affairs.  Before joining the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly in September 2020, H.E. served as OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities (2017 – 2020), OSCE Secretary General (2011 – 2017), UN Special Representative for Kosovo with the rank of UN Under-Secretary-General (2008 – 2011), Director of the OSCE Conflict Prevention Centre (2002 – 2006).

Ambassador Zannier has been a member of the Board of Trustees of the OSCE Academy in Bishkek, the Advisory Board of the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF) and the EU ISS Board of Directors. Ambassador Zannier holds a law degree and an honorary degree in International and Diplomatic Sciences from the University of Trieste, Italy. His Excellency has authored a number of publications on security, conflict prevention and crisis management issues.

During his lecture, Ambassador Zannier gave a comprehensive analysis of the current security issues in Europe, in which he discussed a number of topics, such as: global politics; OSCE development phases; the war in Ukraine; challenges to multilateral diplomacy; the Kosovo case.

Presenting the development phases of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), which is the world’s largest regional security-oriented intergovernmental organization with observer status at the United Nations, H.E. Ambassador Zannier mentioned that its mandate includes issues such as arms control, promotion of human rights, freedom of press, free and fair elections. The Organization has its roots in the 1973 Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE). The CSCE opened in Helsinki on 3 July 1973 with 35 states sending representatives. The Stage I, took five days to agree to follow the Blue Book. Stage II was the main working phase and was conducted in Geneva from 18 September 1973 until 21 July 1975. The result of Stage II was the Helsinki Final Act, whichwas signed by the 35 participating states during Stage III in Finlandia Hall between 30 July – 1 August 1975. It was opened by the Holy See’s diplomat Cardinal Agostino Casaroli, who was the Chairman of the conference. The concepts of improving relations and implementing the act were developed over a series of follow-up meetings, with major gatherings in Belgrade (4 October 1977 – 8 March 1978), Madrid (11 November 1980 – 9 September 1983) and Vienna (4 November 1986 – 19 January 1989). The Moscow Mechanism was agreed in 1991. (See https://www.osce.org/odihr/20066).

Relating to the further development of the OSCE, the fall of the Soviet Union required a change of role for the CSCE. The Charter of Paris for a New Europe, signed on 21 November 1990, marked the beginning of this change. The process was capped by the renaming of the CSCE as the OSCE on 1 January 1995, in accordance with the results of a conference held in Budapest in 1994. The OSCE now had a formal secretariat, a Senior Council, a Parliamentary Assembly, a Conflict Prevention Centre, and an Office for Free Elections, which later became the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (see https://www.osce.org/whatistheosce).

During the day, special focus was put on the current war in Ukraine, its consequences for the European Union and its struggle with energetic crisis. Ambassador Zannier portrayed geopolitical angles proficiently and detailed, with rigour and precise structure. Audience therefore anticipated with many interesting questions, understanding how geopolitical situation and security architecture, embedded in OSCE and NATO, alongside active involvement in global crisis management, creates a subtle, delicate, wobbly and unstable entity.

Faculty fellows and diplomats received the first hand insights by Mr. Zannier on the Kosovo case, as he was appointed as the UN Special Representative for Kosovo with the rank of UN Under-Secretary-General from 2008 to 2011.

Regarding the challenges of multilateral diplomacy, H.E. Ambassador Mr. Lamberto Zannier also explained the importance of multilateral endeavours and all obstacles we encounter in vast international milieu:

“All the trends outlined above have significant implications for efforts of the international community to prevent, manage and resolve current and future armed conflicts. Multilateral institutions like the UN or the OSCE struggle to keep up with the latest developments in modern warfare and address adequately crisis and conflict situations erupting around the globe. Challenging and complex conditions in many conflict areas, often marked by a very volatile and unstable security environment, make it extremely difficult for multilateral actors to adapt to a rapidly evolving situation on the ground. Despite increasing efforts to invest in prevention, the international community is too often engaging too late in crisis management and prevention policies focus mainly on the risk of further escalation”.

Excellency Zannier is a polyglot, open, wise, and extremely interesting conversationalist. We decided to ask him some mundane questions about the personal growth and competence development. Here is an interesting insight:

Q: “How do you win, by talking or by listening?

H.E.: “I believe by listening. Listen very carefully and make your own conclusions. Listen and understand what the concerns are”.

* OSCE Secretary-General Amb. Lamberto Zannier answered the call of the Geneva Swiss University on September 02nd, 2022, and gave this lecture under the auspices of so-called ‘Executive Master in Intl. Relations and Global Politics’. Lecture series will host current and former heads of states or government and other influencers in the world of politics, economy, security and energy.  

About the author:

Inna Turchenko,

Inna Turchenko, the ‘Executive Master in International Relations and Global Politics’ candidate.

She is specialized in risk-management, compliance and transformation of processes in Governmental authorities, European commercial banks and the National Bank of Ukraine.

The difference of Defence

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
The difference of Defence

In a 15th-century priory nestled away in a prestigious neighbourhood of Geneva, an exclusive audience gathered on the gorgeous grounds of a university in Geneva before His Excellency Geoff Hoon, who served as the former Defence Minister of Great Britain under Prime Minister Tony Blair. Hoon was speaking as part of the Geneva Lecture Series conceived and conducted by Prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic.*

“Dramatic world events can render irrelevant the most thoughtful of planning,” started Hoon, as he highlighted five significant world events that have served that kind of impact over the last eight decades, with the Cold War in 1941 as the first event.

“It led to the subsequent division of Germany and the occupation of Eastern Europe by the Soviet Union, which in turn triggered the first major western policy responses, namely Western Union in 1948 and NATO in 1949,” stated Hoon.

“The Cold War climaxed with the detonation of the Soviet atomic weapon in 1949 and the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950. The 1955 Warsaw Pact emerged as a counterweight to NATO and crystallised the demarcation lines.”

Hoon recalled how Western Europe’s higher living standard and political freedom motivated Eastern Europeans to “vote with their feet” as they migrated westwards.

Highlighting the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962 as the second event, Hoon reminded the audience how close to nuclear conflict the world once came.

“Most are unaware, but it was only revealed in later days that a compromise was reached for the US to remove its nuclear weapons from Turkey, in return for the Soviet’s removal of theirs from Cuba.”

The missile crisis led to Khrushchev’s proposal of a direct line between US and Russian leadership, and the creation of the Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties.

Next on Hoon’s list was the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1990 and the Soviet Union in 1991.

“While these two events reduced the threat of nuclear conflagration, they also eradicated the containment of broader discords, as seen from the eruption of violent conflicts at the West’s doorstep, from Yugoslavia to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia to Serbia,” Hoon paused before adding, “As defense minister, I ordered troops to Bosnia and Kosovo but encountered the arduous challenge of finding and deploying rapidly, flexible and agile forces.”

Hoon continued his list of events with the 9/11 attacks in September 2001. He stunned the audience by divulging how an old tourist map was relied upon due to the lack of intelligence and a fundamental understanding of Afghanistan’s geography.

“When it was evident that we needed boots on the ground, the US joined forces with the North Alliance while I took charge of procuring forces globally. However, I faced a deficiency in supporting troops and equipment, such as logisticians and heavy aircraft.”

In admirable humility, Hoon acknowledged that the lack of experience and capabilities in a hostile and primitive environment eventually led to the withdrawal from Afghanistan. He admitted that a large proportion of Afghanistan’s population was neither prepared for, nor receptive to the radical changes, and favoured the predictability of the Taliban rule over the foreign democratic style of governance.

The last event Hoon mentioned was all too familiar to the audience.

“The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February revealed a colossal intelligence failure on the Kremlin’s part not to have anticipated the level of resistance of Ukraine. At this stage, there is no solution, and neither side is a clear winner,” said Hoon, “Truss’ calls for the return of Crimea to Ukraine as part of a peace deal are also unrealistic.”

Despite noting how the invasion has spurred countries to increase their defence spending, Hoon concluded his speech with a piece of sobering advice.

“The growing focus of the US in the Pacific, especially in the event of an attack on Taiwan by Mainland China, may pivot them away from Europe and leave the Baltic states vulnerable to a Russian attack. Europe must not only spend more, but do more to enhance our own deterring capabilities against Russia.”

________________

Geoffrey William Hoon is a former Defence Secretary, Transport Secretary, Leader of the House of Commons, and Government Chief Whip of Great Britain. His book, See How They Run, recounts his careers as an academic, lawyer, politician, and in international business. Along with a former OSCE Secretary General Ambassador Lamberto Zannier,

Excellency Hoon, along with Ambassador Lamberto Zannier, was the first invitee to the Geneva Swiss University on September 03rd, 2022, and gave this lecture under the auspices of ‘Executive Master in Intl. Relations and Global Politics’ programme. Lecture series will host current and former heads of states or government, Nobel prize laureates, and other influencers in the world of politics, economy, security and energy.  

About the author:

Lily Ong

Lily Ong is an APAC-based geopolitical risk analyst who also conducts global risk and security investigations for a Fortune 500 client.

Her travel experience spans over 95 countries and she is regularly invited to speak and moderate at high-level geopolitical and risk forums.

The UAE and the Netherlands: “Going beyond the status quo”

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
The UAE and the Netherlands: “Going beyond the status quo”

The Ambassador of the United Arab Emirates to the Netherlands, H.E. Mr. Jamal Jama Al Musharakh, explained to Diplomat Magazine Publisher Dr. Mayelinne De Lara the priorities of his mandate. While the two countries already enjoy a solid, multifaceted partnership, the Ambassador plans to further expand cooperation across a wide range of sectors.

Ambassador, how do you assess the current state of the relations between your country and the Netherlands?

The partnership between the UAE and the Netherlands is a multifaceted one, and it is in constant evolution. As the world changes, so do the priorities of both the UAE and the Netherlands, meaning that bilateral ties today focus on different topics as compared to 20 years ago. Today, our bilateral ties see a major focus on topics such as sustainability, climate change and energy. These topics were at the core of the Dutch pavilion at Expo 2020, which focused on the nexus of water, energy and food. Moreover, our Minister of Climate Change and Environment, H.E. Mariam bint Mohammed Almheiri, recently led a visit by a large Emirati delegation to the Netherlands. The visit was a great opportunity to discuss issues of common interest, such as climate change, food and water security, as well as agri-tech. The visit also served as a springboard for discussing potential partnerships with Dutch institutions, so as to further strengthen our cooperation in these fields.

All these developments come on the backdrop of an already solid relation between the UAE and the Netherlands. Investment between the two countries is flourishing, spanning across a wide range of sectors including construction, energy and farming. Business to business relations are strong, as are people to people ties. Crucially, the UAE has been an important platform for Dutch businesses interested in doing business not only with the UAE itself, but also with other countries in the region. There is also an upcoming joint economic committee meeting on the horizon.

As your mandate begins, what are your priorities for the next years?

The main priority is to build upon the existing relations and take them to a next level – to go beyond the status quo, beyond business as usual, even beyond existing expectations. There are tremendous avenues of cooperation that need to be explored, and we plan to do it with all of our energy. Climate-related topics are surely set to remain at the center of the agenda, given their interest to both the UAE and the Netherlands, as well as to the whole international community. The UAE will be hosting next year’s COP, and the Netherlands has already expressed its willingness to work on important issues in this regard.

In addition, we want to expand ties in other fields too. The cultural angle, for instance, is very important to us. We are keen to know more about Dutch culture and arts, which are very rich and diverse. We would also love the Netherlands to know more about us, beyond what can be read in a textbook. Expanding people to people ties, including students’ opportunities for exchanges, is always a good avenue in this regard, as there are many programs offered in English.

How do Emirati-Dutch relations fit into the broader framework of the UAE’s foreign policy?

The partnership developed with the Netherlands reflects the vision of our leadership in the UAE and the priorities of our ministers. There are a wide range of topics that we deem very important, and hence we assign specific ministries to them. Look, for instance, at the Ministry of Climate Change and Environment, the Ministry of Culture and Youth, or the Ministry of Industry and Advanced Technology. These topics are not only our domestic priorities, but also the cornerstones of our partnerships with other countries, including the Netherlands.

These partnerships are a key element of our foreign policy. This was clear during the Covid-19 pandemic, when we relied on our partners for vaccines. To do so, we relied on both the United States and China, consistently with our strategy to have friends and partners everywhere, and building bridges. Our foreign policy is based on dialogue – a dialogue that allows us to constantly expand our network of alliances.

Stalled Western Balkan enlargement and does Turkey have anything to do with it?

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
Stalled Western Balkan enlargement and does Turkey have anything to do with it?

By Javid Ibad

Western Balkan enlargement is one of the hot issues on Brussels’ agenda. While Montenegro and Serbia have been negotiating for a while, they got kickstarted for Albania and North Macedonia very recently. Bosnia and Herzegovina has the candidate status and Kosovo, as a partially recognized state, is a potential candidate. Nonetheless, from what we observe, the process lacks any substantial progress, and the accession of the Western Balkans into the EU retains a protracted nature. The reasons for the stalled advancement vary. On the one hand, indeed, the EU was not able to accentuate the Western Balkan enlargement as a top item on its to-do list due to the endless stream of crises (Recession in 2008-09, Euro in 2011-12, Crimea in 2014, Refugees in 2015-16, Coronavirus in 2020-22, and the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war). On the other hand, the EU and the candidate states had hardship in consolidating their political will to accelerate the accession.

Over the last few years, Western Balkan enlargement suffered heavy blows in multiple directions. First, in 2019, France blocked the start of accession negotiations for Albania and North Macedonia by hindering countless efforts of Zoran Zaev’s administration to resolve the naming issue with the Hellenic Republic. While Greece and North Macedonia reached a solution, consequently, Bulgaria vetoed accession citing disagreements over history and other sociocultural matters. Bilateral relations between Bulgaria and North Macedonia turned into a rollercoaster. On the one hand, they have achieved some progress by analyzing the actual roots of medieval monarchs. On the other hand, though, the progressive centrist Bulgarian government led by the Harvard graduate Kirill Petkov collapsed facing a no-confidence vote, partly because of “compromises” with North Macedonia on cultural and historical matters.

The situation in other countries on the agenda is tense as well. In Bosnia & Herzegovina, political clashes between constituencies are escalating, and Republika Srpska is deploying increasingly separatist rhetoric. Especially since the Russo-Ukrainian war, Milorad Dodik, the Serb member of the presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, takes an openly pro-Russian stance by jeopardizing stability within the region. Peace talks between Serbia and Kosovo are deadlocked, with no tangible progress seen nearby. President Vucic also flirts with pro-Russian sentiments, although in a much subtler manner than Dodik. Montenegro’s newly appointed PM, Dritaz Abazovic, was recently defeated in a no-confidence vote. He accused the political influence of Montenegrin organized crime of this outcome.

Bearing in mind the ongoing socio-political developments in Western Balkans, we can see that the Western Balkan EU enlargement agenda has stalled both because of the endless stream of crises within the EU (supply-side) and internal political developments of Western Balkan states themselves (demand-side). It is clear that, in current realities, the EU is not ready to accept new members. Considering the troubles that consensus-based decision-making brings to the table (Hungary and Poland are good examples), the EU has to reform itself if it wants to function with 30+ members (we should not forget about Eastern Partnership members). Moreover, acknowledging that not all incumbents of the region are committed to building sustainable democratic governance, they seem receptive to negotiations in being a part of alternative regional cooperation and/or security architecture (please note that most of the Western Balkans are NATO members).

While envisioning alternatives for regional cooperation, most analysts and pundits draw examples from Russia and China. However, some other actors are rising on the horizon. In its post-imperial history, Turkey avoided power projection in its neighborhood by sticking to Ataturk’s foreign policy doctrine of “Peace at Home, Peace in the World.” It, however, started to change in the 90s during Turgut Ozal’s presidency. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Turkey endorsed close relations with the Turkic-speaking post-Soviet states of Azerbaijan and Central Asian “Stans” (except for Tajikistan). Ozal’s premature death in 1993 halted this process. At that moment, the world started hearing about the escalation of ethno-religious conflicts in former Yugoslavia. The acute need of Yugoslavs (especially Bosnians and later Kosovan Albanians) for humanitarian aid opened a new window of opportunities for growing Turkish influence.

Over the last three decades, Turkey significantly expanded its activities within the Balkans and gained vital allies in the face of Albania, Bosnia, North Macedonia, and Kosovo, which also have significant Muslim and even Turkish-speaking communities. Turkish soft power efforts were boosted since the reign of AKP from 2002 onwards. Ahmet Davutoglu, the primary architect of Turkish foreign policy doctrine, played a crucial role in these evolutions. Turkey concentrated its activities on numerous paths: cultural ties, education, media, and popular culture. TIKA (Turkish Cooperation and Coordination Agency) renovated countless Ottoman-period monuments and mosques. The Presidency of Religious Affairs (Diyanet) and Maarif Foundation actively work on reviving educational institutions in the region. Youngsters learn Turkish or study in Turkey via the efforts of Yunus Emre Institute. Anadolu Agency (AA) broadcasts in Bosnian, Albanian, and Macedonian. Furthermore, Turkish TV series are becoming increasingly widespread in the Balkan region. Moreover, Turkey supplied Western Balkans with personal protective equipment (PPE) and medical aid at the start of the pandemic, though suffering a blow later in the vaccine rollout period due to the lack of its vaccine.

However, soft power is insufficient as the Turkish influence on political decision-making was limited. Thus, Turkey launched an economic expansion in the region. Turkey has FTAs with all Western Balkan states and laboriously invests in infrastructure, construction, and defense industries. For example, more than 600 Turkish firms operate in Albania, with 15,000+ people being employed by them. Days ago, Albanian PM Edi Rama revealed the purchase of Turkish Bayraktar TB2 drones. Ever-strengthening bilateral relations between Serbia and Turkey are also a substantial development in the region. Fostered by Vucic and Erdogan, who share similar worldviews on global affairs, both states relish an unprecedented amicability in their history.

But what do all these imply for the Western Balkan EU enlargement? Does it constitute a risk for it? Julie Lechanteux, French MEP from National Rally, questioned Turkish practices by enquiring to the Commission on the possible contradiction of such activities with the EU interests. The response constituted resolute approval for endeavors encouraging sounder relations among EU candidates for membership. Turkey and Western Balkan states experienced tense moments as well. After the failed coup in 2016, Turkey solicited the extradition of Gulenists in the region. National governments hesitated in cooperating with the Turkish government in this matter (due to the legality of Turkish assertions). Yet, Turkey seemingly has no problems with Western Balkan integration into Euro-Atlantic institutions. All in all, Turkey is also a NATO member and an EU candidate. In addition, Turkey plays a crucial role in combatting radical Islam in the region by popularizing its more moderate model of a Muslim society.

In conclusion, while soft power efforts may have bolstered Turkey’s image within Western Balkan societies, they had limited success in influencing actual political decision-making. Turkey crucially developed its relations with Western Balkans in sociocultural, political, economic, and military domains. Yet, at critical junctions, Western Balkan governments still prioritize their EU membership path. Meanwhile, although EU-Turkey relations have deteriorated over the last few years, Turkey does not constitute a threat to the accession process. As a vital NATO member and an EU candidate, Western Balkan integration into Euro-Atlantic institutions and security architecture aligns with Turkey’s national interests. It is possible to say that Turkey merely seeks a more favorable role within the Euro-Atlantic framework in light of the Western Balkan enlargement.

A Special Tribunal for Ukraine?

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
A Special Tribunal for Ukraine?

By Steven van Hoogstraten, Former director Carnegie Foundation

A large part of the world is full of indignation about the military invasion by Russia in Ukraine. Even more so  about the terrible war crimes which are being committed against Ukrainian civilians and about the sham referenda in and the subsequent fake annexation of four Ukrainian regions by Russia.

The general mood is that perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Ukraine should be held to account in a court of law, more precisely at the International Criminal Court in the Hague. The Prosecutor of the ICC, Kharim Khan, has started a process of investigations in Ukraine with the primary aim of collecting and validating as much evidence as possible. He did so at the request of no less than 39 member nations of the ICC, a request already made to him by the end of February 2022. In his endeavours he is receiving the active support of Eurojust, also in the Hague.

The road to international justice through the ICC is certainly not without promise, as Ukraine – while not a member of ICC – has accepted the jurisdiction of the ICC for this particular situation. As we all know, Russia is not a subscriber to the Rome Statute. The Accountability Conference in The Hague on 14 July 2022 , a ministerial summit at the joint invitation of the Netherlands Minister for Foreign Affairs and the European Commission, concluded that all efforts should be made to coordinate the various efforts which are now being deployed with the ICC in a prime role, on “pole position” so to speak.

At the same time, interestingly enough, there are strong calls for a different approach. While the ICC can investigate the personal responsibility for Russian (alleged) crimes, it can not at the present time look into the aggression by a state or of state officials  towards another state. For that purpose, a separate and independent tribunal is necessary in the eyes of many legal experts.

I mention an initiative led by former British PM Gordon Brown, supported by many well known names in the world of international  law, to come to the creation of a “Special Tribunal for the Punishment of the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine”[1]. International rules exist  to protect us from such aggressive actions, reflected in the Charter of the United Nations , which is “the closest thing we have to an international constitution “ . Rules which protect the political independence and the territorial integrity of a state, and which prohibit the use of force other than for defensive purposes.

These are the words of one of its proponents, professor Philippe Sands from London, in the Financial Times. Philippe Sands is a regular visitor of The Hague as an advocate before the Courts ( notably the ICJ and the PCA). In several media he has branded Putin’s use of force as a crime of aggression, as the waging of an illegal war, an idea that originated at the war crimes tribunals of Nuremberg and Tokyo as the famous “crime against peace”.

The call for a new Special Tribunal, that would work in cooperation with ICC and not take its place, has been supported openly by the Ukraine Minister of Foreign Affairs Dmytro Kuleba, by the European Parliament, and recently even by the Czech President of the Council of Ministers of the EU Johan Lipavsky (17 September) “after new mass graves were found in Ukraine”. But official reactions from EU members to the idea of a separate tribunal  have not been registered so far, neither from the United States. 

The decision how to proceed in the matter will not be an easy one, and it will notably be difficult to evaluate all the pro’s and con’s in a situation where the military invasion is still going on. The establishment of a Special Tribunal will have to overcome obstacles in the UN, where a permanent member can easily use its power of veto. Remember that the ICTY was the result of a resolution in the Security Council, with all major partners in favour.  Also, if such a special tribunal were to see the light of day, would that not block the lines of communication with Russia all together ? Would it promote a sustainable restoration of peace?

The Netherlands will have to make up its mind as well. Not only as to the subject matter of a Special Tribunal . But should The Hague again be appointed as the host city to such a tribunal, like was the case in so many instances before ? In my eyes, that would be a logical step, something that the world would expect. I was happy to read that the Netherlands Minister of Foreign Affairs was quoted as being open to the idea. In this context I assume that the notion of serving as the World’s Legal Capital should encourage the Dutch government to look at this question in a positive way.  Such an institution in The Hague will provide the best guarantee of a smooth cooperation with the International Criminal Court, which will be of the essence. Let justice prevail.

[1] Declaration by Gordon Brown and others of 28 February 2022

Your website and copyright: 2 tips on building a website

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
Your website and copyright: 2 tips on building a website

Who owns your website? You? After all, you commissioned it. Or is it owned by the website builder? Use our tips to ensure that you own the copyright of your website.

When you have a website developed, it is important to get things right. Otherwise disagreements may arise later on. For example, because you as a client have changed the design of the website without seeking permission from the website builder. Or because you discover that your website builder also applied the design or functionality of your website when building a website for a third party. In both situations, in order to assess who has acted correctly, it must first be established whether there is copyright on the website and secondly, to whom that copyright belongs.

When does copyright protection apply?

The design of a website is copyrighted if there is a certain degree of creativity that deserves protection. Under Dutch case law, sufficient creativity exists if the website has its “own, original character” and a “personal stamp of the creator”. In short: elements that are so trivial that they cannot be identified as creative work of any kind are not protected by copyright.

For a website created using an off-the-shelf WordPress theme in which only some colours have been changed, copyright protection is harder to assume than for a website coded from scratch. For a website from scratch, the website builder is likely to have made the necessary artistic choices, so that a degree of creativity can be assumed.

Tips

Here are two tips to avoid conflicts after website completion.

1. Make arrangements on who holds the copyright after completion of the website

The creator of a website holds the copyright to it. In most cases this will be the website builder – and not you as client. It does not matter that you paid the website builder to build the website; as creator, the copyrights belong to the website builder.

Things are different if you agree that the copyrights to the website will be transferred to you as the client after the completion. This is done via a deed: a written and signed document. It is important to lay down clearly in such a deed what exactly is being transferred. In addition, it is wise to include an indemnity clause in the deed. This prevents that, should the website unexpectedly infringe on the rights of third parties, these third parties can come to you to recover their damages.

Another option is to enter into a licence agreement. In such a case, the copyrights remain with the website builder. But in the licence agreement, you agree with the builder that you may use the website, and under what conditions. In any case, it is important to agree in the licence agreement on the period during which the website design may be used and that the website design may be modified by the user.

2. Do not just post texts and images on the website

Be careful not to just post texts and images on the website. After all, these too may be copyrighted. For example, the copywriter you hire to provide the texts for the website has copyrights on these texts. It is therefore important to also make arrangements with this copywriter as discussed above.

Copyright also applies to images that can be found on the internet. That means these images, in principle, may not just be used without the photographer’s permission. Or sometimes there are certain conditions under which an image may be used. For example that the name of the photographer has to be mentioned any time the image is used. Or that the image may not be used for commercial purposes. Even the “free” images on Wikipedia are often not completely free. So pay close attention under which licence images have been released.

IP/ICT lawyer

Do you need help making arrangements with the parties involved in your website? Or do you want to know how to deal with a copycat? Please contact info@russell.nl Tel.:
+31 (0)20 – 301 55 55

About the authors:

Reinier Russell

Managing Partner

Reinier advises national and international companies reinier.russell@russell.nl+31 20 301 55 55

__________________________________________

Laura Schalk

Lawyer

Laura is an expert in corporate law and litigation laura.schalk@russell.nl+31 20 301 55 55

An International Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
An International Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction

By Adrian Zienkiewicz and Eugene Matos De Lara

Man-made ecological disasters arise through the mismanagement of energy resources, technological and industrial accidents and often the prioritization of unmitigated output over sustainable environmental development. No matter how these disasters occur, there are long term economic repercussions and a negative impact on the quality of life. What then is the role of international law in disaster risk reduction?

A prelude to a more uniform regime was the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment of 1972 based around the idea that human activity was able to have a long-lasting influence on surrounding environments — it is only natural to ensure environmental stability, as humans’ fragile existence on this Earth is predicated by nature’s preservation. An action plan and 26 governing principles originated through this Conference. The following Rio Conference of 1992, on the backdrop of notable disasters such as Bhopal, Chernobyl, and the Exxon Valdez oil spill, strengthened the commitments to environmental protection. The MARPOL Convention and the UNCLOS through its part XII are international treaties reserved to maritime law, focusing on the prevention of pollution. The IAEA serves as an international regulatory body for the peaceful use of nuclear energy, and more importantly its safe waste disposal. 

The Sendai Framework, a product of the 2015 World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction and successor to the Hyogo Framework for Action to the sets out objectives, namely, to encourage cooperation between nation-states and deliver assistance to those affected by disasters. The Building Back Better strategy delineated by this document reflects these elements in providing humanitarian and financial relief in the wake of disasters, as well as preventing future disasters through sufficiently durable infrastructure and social initiatives.

The UN Sustainable Development Goals launched the same year operate in parallel to entice countries to work towards a more sustainable future while the UNISDR reveals that disasters account for global losses of up to US$1.5T. Draft Articles on the ‘Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters’ submitted by the International Law Commission in 2016 mentions the reduction of the risk of disasters through its article 9, and plays a complementary role to international treaties as stated by article 18. The UNECE Industrial Accidents Convention and the Paris Agreement are other examples of international tools aimed at raising awareness on the effects of anthropogenic activities and climate change which contribute to the scale and frequency of disasters. Despite its short existence, the Sendai Framework appears to be the prime legal regime on risk reduction due to the presence of patterned behavior, in that 187 UN member states adopted the framework and NGOs actively participate in its promotion. With the presence of clear norms and rules, it will retain its status unless supplanted by a more comprehensive document. 

The distinction between man-made and natural disasters (otherwise known as “Acts of God”) exists, yet some natural disasters that occur due to heightened human activity blurs lines. For instance, earthquakes would be included in the natural disaster category, but what of forest fires aggravated by man-made contaminants? States that accept to be parties in trials have encountered lawsuits specifically on environmental matters. Coupled with internal legislation, which does not necessarily need to be extensive but at the least include reasonable protective statutes, there is an increased sense of responsibility.

The Aarhus Convention brought signatories to make municipal, national and multilateral legislation public access. This would effectively encourage citizens to participate in public debate, as States would react and adopt sensible environmental laws. International environmental law, as in other sectors, lacks hard sanctions for violations of its treaties, albeit the EU created criminal sanctions through its institutions. Directive 2008/99/EC, through its article 3, cites an inclusive list of offenses, and stipulates in article 5 that offenses are “punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties”. EU member states that had insufficient legislation were encouraged to modify it and include criminal penalties that incorporate the three criteria of article 5. In the U.S., where most remedies are not bound by a “ceiling” amount, companies and third parties will be held responsible and charged with multi-million-dollar fines or forced to hefty settlements. To note also, the only universally ratified treaties in UN history, the Vienna Convention of 1985 and the following Montreal Protocol, serve to protect the ozone layer.

The harm principle, in which actions are limited to preventing harm done on other parties, is seen primarily through the Trail Smelter arbitration case. The case demonstrates that remedies through transboundary pollution can be obtained, and that States are accountable to each other for any such environmental harm done. The landmark decision from the ICJ in Costa Rica v Nicaragua allotted remedies to Costa Rica in 2018 for ecological damage perpetrated on its territory by Nicaragua. The Court’s finding that “damage to the environment, and the consequent impairment or loss of the ability of the environment to provide goods and services, is compensable under international law” will likely serve as a key persuasive precedent on future environmental damages disputes. Multilateral environmental agreements that break down could proceed to negotiation, arbitration, or legal action in front of international courts of law. Even though court cases are rare, one is presented with a large degree of flexibility to hold parties responsible for their actions. Dispute settlements that coincide with particular economic interests can also be brought before the WTO. 

The objective of international environmental law is most certainly that of the prevention of environmental harm rather than the assessment of damages after the fact. Prevention is logical as there would be no accommodable reparation to the destruction of ecosystems. Thorough national legislation and international cooperation lead to effective strategies of protection, as private corporations and public agencies are held to a high degree of accountability. It is national mechanisms that enforce the international principles, and States that have inadequate laws are eventually subject to public pressure. A proposal to create a distinct international environmental court could be initiated to quell concerns between States in times where globalization has led, coincidentally, to both unprecedented productivity and environmental degradation. 

About the authors:

Author: Adrian Zienkiewicz

Adrian Zienkiewicz

is a law student at Université de Montréal. He has a marked interest for all spheres of public international law. Environmental and Energy Law are his real passions.

Co-author: Eugene Matos de Lara

Eugene Matos De Lara

(MA, MBA, LL.L, JD, LLB, BA.pol.pad, BA.dvm, BA.sc PMP) is currently working for the International Institute for Middle-East and Balkan studies, based in Ljubljana, and the Geneva Desk for Cooperation. Multilingual internationally published legal graduate with an extensive corporate legal background, and exposure to private international law, international relations, politics, public administration and public affairs.

From Nuremberg to The Hague – the quest for peace and justice

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
From Nuremberg to The Hague – the quest for peace and justice

That was the title of this year’s Dachau lecture given by Mayor Jan van Zanen on 23 September. This annual lecture is organised by the Netherlands Dachau Committee in memory of the victims and survivors of the Dachau concentration camp. The lecture this year was dedicated to Carel Steensma (1912-2006), pilot, resistance fighter and the first director of the Nederlands Congresgebouw, now the World Forum. He survived the horrors of Natzweiler and Dachau. This article is a shortened version of the lecture given by Mayor Jan van Zanen.

“From Nuremberg to The Hague – the quest for peace and justice”

After the Second World War it was at Nuremberg that war criminals were held accountable by the world community for the first time in history. The Hague, already the international city of peace and justice since the late 19th century, has evolved, especially since the 1990s, into a centre for international criminal law. And in many other ways too, people here have long worked to build a peaceful, just and safe world.

The organisers of the Dachau lecture therefore could not have chosen a better place than the World Forum, formerly the Nederlands Congresgebouw (Netherlands’ conference centre). Not least, of course, because the name of Carel Steensma is so closely associated with it. As the first director, Carel Steensma played an important part in the development of The Hague as an international conference city. But there is another reason, too. The area where the World Forum now stands provides a good illustration of how The Hague has developed since 1945. During the Second World War most of the buildings in this area were demolished to make way for the Atlantic Wall defence fortifications of the German occupying forces. That after the war a building rose from the ashes in which the world could come together, holds a special symbolism. Since the 1990s this area of The Hague has become the International Zone. Where the World Forum rubs shoulders with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (that later won the Nobel Peace Prize), Europol and Eurojust, as well as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, ICTY.

I recently visited the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals. This body was set up by the UN Security Council to wind up the remaining court cases of the Yugoslavia tribunal and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. During my visit I realised once again just how much these courts of law have contributed to the development of international criminal law. As well as how important these tribunals have been for the survivors and bereaved families of the victims of genocide in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. We must never forget that this is about crimes against individuals. Sometimes very large groups but victims are, and always will be, individuals. People like you and me. People like Carel Steensma and his fellow prisoners in Natzweiler and Dachau. But that is also what is remarkable about international criminal law, that it affects people individually.

The ICTY had a difficult start. The tribunal was lacking in everything, most of all funding and support from governments. What it did have, however, was former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright on its side. She and others managed to persuade UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali that failure of the ICTY would represent a failure of the international community. In his first report to the UN the first President of the ICTY, Antonio Cassese, formulated it thus: “If these men – he was referring to the war criminals from the former Yugoslavia – if these men be immune, then law has lost its meaning, and man – humanity – must live in fear”. Ratko Mladic, responsible for the genocide in Srebrenica, is one of the men who was called to account by the tribunal. Today he is still serving his sentence in Scheveningen prison.

In his report Cassese explicitly quoted the statement of chief prosecutor Benjamin Ferencz at the trial of the Einsatzgruppen, the Nazis’ mobile death squads, in Nuremberg, September 1947. Benjamin Ferencz, now 102 years young, has always been a tireless advocate for international criminal law. In 1998 he was closely involved in the drafting of the Rome Statute which established the International Criminal Court, whose work in The Hague began in 2002.

In February of this year the world was shaken by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The news had a major impact everywhere but in The Hague it was perhaps particularly felt as something bitter. All the more so when reports of war crimes such as those committed in Bucha, reached us. Is the quest for peace and justice a futile one and is war, as people used to think, something unavoidable that will trample you underfoot anyway? As important as it is to keep things in perspective, if there is one thing that we must always guard against it is cynicism. Like Andrew Carnegie, who donated the Peace Palace to The Hague, what we need to be is realistic idealists. The fact that war has broken out does not mean that we should cease our efforts to prevent it. Or that we should end our commitment to human rights. Every chemical weapon destroyed helps to make the world a safer place. Every war criminal convicted, despite the fact that so many of them are still at large, makes the world a little more just.

The Hague will continue to strive for peace and justice in whatever way it can. By continuing to invest in the academic knowledge infrastructure in this field, for example. So that students from all over the world can continue to come here to learn the principles of international law and then take that knowledge back home with them. As a Shelter City, ten years ago we were one of the first in the Netherlands to offer refuge to those fighting for the rights of minorities and a free press. To give them respite. We support active initiatives such as The Hague Humanity Hub, a community of people and organisations who – despite their diversity – have one thing in common: their drive to find innovative solutions for everything that has to do with peace, justice and humanitarian interventions, among other things.

Another example is providing a home base for international and non-governmental organisations. Like the Mukwege Foundation of Nobel Prize-winner, Dr. Denis Mukwege. The help that Dr. Mukwege provides to victims of sexual violence in war zones (violence that is often deliberately used as a weapon of terror) provides an outstanding example of the efforts made by countless doctors for the sake of humanity and for peace. How new technology is being used for humanitarian purposes was something I was able to see first hand during a recent visit to The Hague-based headquarters of the International Commission on Missing Persons, ICMP. This international organisation searches for missing people worldwide using pioneering DNA search methods. The ICMP has now been able to identify almost three quarters of all persons known to be missing as a result of the war in former Yugoslavia. The ICMP is currently operating in Ukraine, too.

Last, but not least, in the spirit of Carel Steensma, we remain committed to bringing international conferences to The Hague. As recently as last July, for example, when the Ukraine Accountability Conference was held here at the World Forum, organised by the Dutch government together with the European Commission and the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. The ICC had already launched an investigation into war crimes committed in Ukraine. In the meantime a group of leading scholars and writers have called for a special Ukraine tribunal to be set up. For the British-French lawyer Philippe Sands there is only one city which qualifies for that role: The Hague. Although he cautions against too high expectations. He emphasises that international law is a process that demands patience. It is precisely that which keeps him engaged. The 102-year-old Benjamin Ferencz would probably agree.

I feel privileged to be the mayor of a city that not only has ‘peace and justice’ as its motto but which also actively contributes in many different ways to the spread of peace and justice in the world. Current events remind us every day of the need for this and our responsibility to do that.

In that respect it is people like Carel Steensma, who never lost hope even under the bleakest and most desperate of circumstances, who cared about other people and kept the torch of humanity burning, who remain a constant source of inspiration.

An humanitarian intervention to crisis

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
An humanitarian intervention to crisis

By  Shahary Shobnom Kabir                                                                                   

A sovereign nation has the absolute capability and power to independently govern free from external interference unto itself and is expected to respect the sovereignty of other states; this precept rests at the very heart of and has evolved to become the bedrock principle of international law, laws, and springs from the 1648 Westphalia treaty, though the treaty had little to do with the principles of sovereignty, non-intervention, and legal equality of States. Sovereignty is thus the primary principle, yet it contradicts with reality when mass atrocity crimes are committed while hiding under the canopy of sovereignty. Then, with its definition, the question arises: Is the protection of the state more essential than the safety of its citizens? Later, the notion of national sovereignty was confined to another quarter, resulting from the extension of the doctrine of human rights and produced the doctrine of “responsibility to protect” or “humanitarian intervention.”

Many scholars refer to the 1990s as the “decade of humanitarian intervention” because the UN and its allies were willing to authorise several interventions on humanitarian grounds when the specific action was not authorised by the Security Council (UNSC), and later some of these were declared unauthorised but legitimate – such as NATO’s intervention in Kosovo in 1999.

The ultimate goal of humanitarian intervention is to effectively alleviate the human suffering of people who are being abused or neglected by their government; generally understood as the use of military force to protect people whose government is egregiously abusing them, either directly or by aiding and permitting extreme mistreatment and recent interventions, such as in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya; the post-cold war era witnessed an intensely divisive debate on the subject of humanitarian intervention. The crisis in North Africa (2011 Arab Spring) and the crisis in the Middle East continue to elicit heated scholarly debate, bringing the issue to the forefront of the international political agenda and calling into question the value of Humanitarian Intervention as it amidst recent human atrocities.

The humanitarian intervention concept is chiefly related to protecting the well-being of victims faced with humanitarian atrocities; nevertheless, it is currently facing a serious challenge as the sole purpose is diverted by the dominant states to pursue geopolitical and strategic national interests. The aftermath effect of intervention in today’s world demonstrated that the motive for humanitarian intervention served only a part and, in most cases, was not the primary or leading cause of action, such as NATO’s humanitarian intervention in Kosovo and Libya, which was more inclined to force a regime change even at the cost of civilian lives.

If we focus on some of the humanitarian interventions in today’s world those bring out results like regime change, internal political crisis, terrorist groups expansion,  increases in death, rape, and trauma, rises in the refugee crisis, and decline in the health, economics, and education sectors of those countries. It is questioned whether UN action creates adversity for the west among those countries and an image of Western dominance, leading to a misinterpretation of Islam, and mostly the troubling is where the initial concern was eradicating terrorism and making a better place for people but has resulted in futility as the innocent are suffering now.

In Afghanistan, since the start of the post- 9/11 wars, where the United States invaded with little protest from European countries as reported that the Taliban government was sheltering al-Qaeda and also painted its move to depose the repressive Taliban government as a necessary act of humanitarian intervention; NATO member states such as Canada, Germany, and the Netherlands also eventually sent armed contingents. Aside from the battle, they also contributed to the nation’s construction during those years. But after all these years, what happens now?

Following the US exit, the country faced a massive economic disaster, which resulted in a dire humanitarian scenario, pointing to the failure of the sole purpose of intervention as the situation worsened. According to the Global Peace Index, Afghanistan was ranked 163 in 2021; most impacted by terrorism, and scored 9.1 on the Global Terrorism Index. Since 2001, approximately 5.9 million Afghans have been internally displaced or fled the country; now, the country is plagued by war, poverty, and lawlessness; nearly half of children face acute malnutrition and lack access to essential health care services; and more than 90 percent of households have not been able to obtain enough food for nearly a year; and the gender gap is growing, education and the economy faces a more significant threat.

In an Afghan student interview, she expressed, “I recently heard someone say, save us from saviours.” She stated that it has turned out to be a failed economic country that is reliant on help. And the world is ready to be enthralled by the new war and sick of hearing about the old one. Still, it is audacious to believe that tyranny will not persist forever. If we can dismantle the “giver” or “receiver” attitude, engage in equal discourse and involvement, and hope for the best, the situation will improve.

In Iraq, the US-led invasion in 2003, its aftermath, and subsequent sectarian violence and a disastrous political scenario increased the number of migrants. Critical health indices have deteriorated; shortly after the 2003 invasion, over half of Iraq’s registered doctors abandoned the country. As of 2021, there are 9.2 million internally displaced or refugees abroad, including engineers, artists, lawyers, educators, and other professionals. As a result, many of Iraq’s cultural institutions have been dismantled, and they no longer perform the services that middle-class professionals do. The terrorist spawned by the Iraqi crisis has resurrected, as has a regional movement rebuilding its networks in Syria, Jordan, and Libya. It received an 8.5 on the Global Terrorism Index in 2021. Another cost of the war is the worsening of pre-existing Sunni-Shi tensions throughout the area. That turns out to be a political deed rather than a legal theory, resulting in double standard like a vast group of actors that determine who and when to act based on political wills.

Noam Chomsky precisely pointed out everything wrong with the way we justified and carried out humanitarian intervention and argued & quote; for one thing, there’s a history of humanitarian intervention. You cannot look at it. And you do, you discover that virtually every use of military force is described as humanitarian intervention”. The act of world organisations, P5 in the UN, the action of responsibility to protect; now raising questions such as who is qualified to intervene in the sovereign affairs of another state and under what circumstances, how states and militaries should conflict themselves when intervening and before involving ensuring the responsibility to protect.

Shahary Shobnom Kabir

It is evident the rise of humanitarian intervention is becoming a more liberal tool of global governance, but the question now is how this intersection can be effectively managed to reflect a more humane political ambition and an effective humanitarian action to solve the problem of many ethnic minorities, genocide act, equal right to make a better world instead of creating a further massacre. Human life is not a playing thing, every nation is interconnected, and prosperity can occur in a positive way when we grow together.

References:

  1. Eric A. Heinze Albany (2009), “Waging Humanitarian War (The Ethics, Law, and Politics of Humanitarian Intervention)”.

https://www.pdfdrive.com/waging-humanitarian-war-the-ethics-law-and-politics-of-humanitarian-intervention-d184382752.html

  • Master’s Thesis (2018),”State Sovereignty and Non-Interference in International Law(A Critical Appraisal)”

https://www.grin.com/document/988362#:~:text=State%20sovereignty%20or%20Westphalia%20sovereignty,exclusion%20of%20all%20external%20powers.

  • Walden Bello (August 9, 2011), “The Crisis of Humanitarian Intervention”.
The Crisis of Humanitarian Intervention
  • Human Rights Watch (august 4, 2022), “ Economic Causes of Afghanistan’s Humanitarian Crisis”

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/08/04/economic-causes-afghanistans-humanitarian-crisis

  • Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC)(February16, 2022), “Libya: Eleven years since the uprising, a deepening political crisis threatens rebuilding efforts”

https://www.nrc.no/news/2022/february/libya-eleven-years-since-the-uprising-a-deepening-political-crisis-threatens-rebuilding-efforts/

  • Leoni Connah (November 2020), “US intervention in Afghanistan: Justifying the Unjustifiable?”

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346759991_US_intervention_in_Afghanistan_Justifying_the_Unjustifiable

  • Neba Ridley Ngwa(2017), “The Rise And Decline Of Humanitarian Intervention And Responsibility To Protect”

https://www.academia.edu/50569965/The_Rise_and_Decline_of_Humanitarian_Intervention_and_Responsibility_to_Protect

  • Watson Institute For International And Public Affairs publication (August, 2021),”Cost of War”.

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/refugees/afghan

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/refugees/iraqi

  • BBC, “Why has the Syrian war lasted 11 years?”

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35806229

Quang Tri – The Origins of Dutch and Vietnamese Companionship

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
Quang Tri – The Origins of Dutch and Vietnamese Companionship

By Ms. Ngô Thị Hòa, former Ambassador  of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam to the Netherlands.

2022 marks the 50th anniversary of the liberation of Quang Tri province in 1972. In honor of this milestone, various events were organized in the provincial capital Dong Ha on July 25th. These include the seminar and the exhibition titled Quang Tri – Destination of Memories. The record of this province has been documented in the photos and accounts of those who lived through the horrors of war, echoing an incredible sense of strong will. As this was a major battleground during the war in Vietnam, it suffered the most from heavy bombings and high casualties. However, this painful past is the reason for an ever-present desire for peace in Quang Tri today. 

As guests were transported back in time through countless stories and media, they were particularly touched to learn of the solidarity and support dedicated to Quang Tri by peace lovers of the Netherlands.

While it may be impossible to name every single person who offered a helping hand, one cannot fail to mention the contributions of the Medical Committee Netherlands-Vietnam (MCNV) and the famous Dutch filmmaker Joris Ivens. 

Dutch filmmaker Joris Ivens, Vietnam display at the exhibition.

In 1968, the world witnessed the expansion of the global anti-war movement in response to the devastating war in Vietnam. As supporters of this movement, three medical specialists, Professor Jaak de Haas, Dr. Nick van Rija, and Dr. Fred Groening founded MCNV to offer large-scale medical help to the Vietnamese people. They focused on the worst-hit areas of the country, usually the targets of bombing campaigns, for their medicine, medical supplies, and food donations. MCNV soon became the bridge connecting the people of the Netherlands and Vietnam, establishing a path for the former to support the latter. Through this organization, many forms of support arose from the Dutch population; their inventive solidarity campaigns include Musicians for Vietnam, Knitting for Vietnam, Bikers for Vietnam, and more. 

Quang Tri, a piece of land lying just below the 17th parallel that divided Vietnam at the time, was given a hospital as a donation by MCNV. Plans for creating this hospital began in 1973, with 1 million guilders (equivalent to 1 million euros) designated for the operation. With the support of Dutch Donors, the Minister for Developing Countries Jan Pronk, and all the Dutch universities, the idea became a reality. Construction started in 1974 based on a design by TU Delft and the hospital officially opened three years later.  

This hospital in Dong Ha was named Holland Hospital by the locals as a token of appreciation to the Dutch people. The first twins born in this hospital were even named Ha Lan and Lan Ha, derived from the Vietnamese word for the Netherlands (Ha Lan). Ha Lan’s ties to the Netherlands go beyond her name, as she is currently representing the Dutch organization PUM in Quang Tri. The Holland Hospital is one of the most recognizable symbols of solidarity and camaraderie between the Dutch people and the people of Quang Tri, as well as Vietnam in general. After 20 years of activity, it became the Medical Community College of Quang Tri; however, a part of the building has been converted to the MCNV museum, showcasing the story behind this organization. 

To this day, MCNV continues operating in Quang Tri to help people recover from the long-lasting effects of war and renew development. In addition to the medical field, MCNV has expanded to help with people’s livelihood, social inclusion, response to climate change, and more. The Vietnamese government has awarded MCNV with the Order of Friendship four times for its efforts in facilitating friendly relations between Vietnam and the Netherlands. 

The well-known filmmaker Joris Ivens also has a special connection to Quang Tri. This was the location for one of his films, in which he documented the lives of Vietnamese people during wartime. After spending two months underground with the people of Vinh Linh, Ivens’ documentary 17th Parallel: Vietnam in War was born. It premiered in 1968 and left a significant impact on the anti-war movement in Europe, further fueling the passion of countless peace lovers on the continent. The people of Quang Tri have never once forgotten about Iven’s work; stories about him are told time and time again with much excitement and affection. These stories are shared by many, including Ms. Xuan Phuong, who was his interpreter, and Mr. Pham Cong Duc, who appeared in the film above at the age of 9. 

Quang Tri – Destination of Memories painted the milestones throughout the history of friendship and collaboration between the Dutch and Vietnamese people. MCNV and Ivens are some of the figures who set the early foundations for this companionship, allowing the Netherlands and Vietnam to officially establish diplomatic relations on April 26th, 1973.

Almost 50 years later, this relationship continues to grow and strengthen. A comprehensive partnership has been established and both sides are each other’s strategic partners in several key fields, such as water management, climate change risk management, high-tech agriculture, food security, etc. 

As we approach the 50th anniversary of establishing bilateral relations between Vietnam and the Netherlands, I hope both countries will continue to thrive for the peace and well-being of their peoples and to continue their spirit of cooperation.

Photography by Ms. Ngo Thi Hoa and by MCNV organization.

1...138139140...858Page 139 of 858