Women in Politics: The Voice of Fairness in Dutch Democracy – DaniĂ«lle Helene Hirsch

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

Bright Future Democracy Project / Interview with Daniëlle Helene Hirsch

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

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

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

Defending Democracy and Diversity

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

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

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

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

Interview with Danielle Hirsch. By Democracy Bright Future.

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

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

Power Through Participation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Women at the Heart of Democracy

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

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

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

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

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

Women in Politics: Beyond Representation, Towards Real Change

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

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

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

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

Progress and Fragility

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

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

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

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

The Role of Advocacy              

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

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

International Influence  

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

Challenges Remain

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

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

Cultural Change is Key

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

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

A Strong Democracy Requires Equality

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

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

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

Second Latin American Food Festival Returns to Blue Blood

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
Second Latin American Food Festival Returns to Blue Blood

Following the success of its first edition, the Latin American Food Festival returns for a second edition at Hilton The Hague’s Blue Blood restaurant, once again curated by Peruvian Chef de Cuisine Luis Rojas.

On Friday, 30 January, Chef Rojas will present an extensive buffet inspired by the diverse culinary traditions of Latin America, bringing together flavors, colors, and signature dishes from across the region. The evening will unfold in a lively and festive atmosphere, enhanced by a live DJ, creating the perfect setting for an immersive cultural and gastronomic experience.

With his international background and Latin American roots, Chef Rojas continues to transform Blue Blood into a dynamic meeting point where cuisine, music, and great moments come together. The second edition promises an evening of exceptional food and rhythm in the heart of The Hague.

Date: Friday, 30 January
Venue: Blue Blood Restaurant, Hilton The Hague

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

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

No Asian Century without true multilateralism

By Evi Fitriani and Anis H. Bajrektarevic

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

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

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

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

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

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

BRICS: an alternative centre, not an alternative logic

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

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

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

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

Non-alignment: misunderstood, not obsolete

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

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

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

ASEAN’s real security deficit

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

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

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

Centrality must be defended, not donated

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

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

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

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

About the authors:

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

Prof. Dr. Anis H. Bajrektarevic

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

Lease of business premises: termination of lease

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
Lease of business premises: termination of lease

By Reinier Russell

Special rules may apply to the termination of a lease of business premises, depending on the nature of the business. What rules apply to termination? How do these relate to the statutory lease terms? Are you entitled to compensation if the landlord terminates the lease? What are your rights as a subtenant?

How the lease of business premises must be terminated and the notice period depend on the type of business premises. Under Dutch law, there are two regulations that may apply to business premises: 290 business premises (small business premises) and 230a business premises (other premises).

Below, we explain how to terminate a lease under these regulations. This includes the possibility of early termination, compensation, substitution of a new tenant and the position of the subtenant. In addition to the rules for termination itself, the legally prescribed lease terms must also be taken into account when giving notice.

290 business premises

The basic principle is that the lease agreement for 290 business space is entered into for a period of five years, after which it is renewed for the same term as the initial lease period. However, if a lease term of more than five years is agreed, the lease is extended by a term that ensures that the two lease terms together amount to ten years. Without interim termination, the standard lease period is therefore ten years.

Termination after the first term is only possible for the landlord if the tenant has not behaved as a good tenant or if there is urgent personal use. In both cases, the consent of the court is required. A notice period of at least one year must also be observed.

There is more scope for termination at the end of the second term (after ten years). However, a notice period of one year still applies and the termination must be effected by writ or registered letter. Termination at the end of the second term does not terminate the lease agreement unless the tenant terminates the agreement or agrees to termination by the landlord. Here too, a notice period of at least one year applies and the termination must be effected by writ or registered letter.

In all other cases, the court will have to decide whether the lease agreement is terminated. In such a claim, the court will weigh the interests of both parties and will only decide to terminate the lease agreement if the landlord’s interests in regaining possession of the leased property outweigh the tenant’s interests. The court will in any case grant the claim for termination:

  • if the tenant has not behaved as a good tenant;
  • if there is urgent personal use;
  • if the tenant does not agree to a reasonable offer to enter into a new lease agreement; or

if the landlord wishes to use the leased property in accordance with a valid zoning plan.

If the court grants a claim for termination, it will also set a deadline for eviction.

230a business premises

The lease agreement for 230a business premises can be concluded for a fixed or indefinite period. A fixed-term agreement ends by operation of law when the lease term has expired, while an indefinite agreement ends by notice of termination on a date on which the rent is due, subject to a notice period of one month.

However, the termination of the lease agreement does not necessarily mean that the lease has ended. A fixed-term agreement is converted into an indefinite agreement if the tenant remains in the premises with the landlord’s consent. This consent may also be given tacitly. However, if the landlord has made it clear that the lease will not be continued, the tenant who nevertheless continues to use the rented property cannot invoke the landlord’s approval. In that case, no agreement for an indefinite period has been created.

Notice of eviction

In order to actually terminate the lease, the landlord must give notice that the tenant must vacate the rented property by a specific date. This date must be after the date on which the lease agreement ends by operation of law or has been terminated. After the notified eviction date, the tenant is still entitled to eviction protection for two months. Within this period, the tenant must decide whether or not to agree to the termination of the lease. As long as no eviction date has been given, the period of eviction protection does not start and the tenant does not have to vacate the rented property.

Eviction protection

If the tenant does not agree to the termination of the lease, they can apply to the court for eviction protection within two months. The court can grant this protection for a maximum of one year. The tenant can submit a request for eviction protection three times and therefore has a maximum of three years of protection. The court will weigh up whether the tenant’s interest in continuing the tenancy outweighs that of the landlord. In doing so, the court will look in particular at the tenant’s ability to find replacement business premises.

Early termination

Early termination of an Article 290 lease by either party is only possible in exceptional circumstances. This may be the case in the event of:

failure to comply with the agreement: bankruptcy, suspension of payments or application of a debt restructuring scheme on the part of the tenant;

unforeseen circumstances that are not attributable to the party invoking them; or death of the tenant.

In addition, the parties may terminate the lease by mutual agreement by means of a termination agreement, while it is also possible to include a break option for the tenant in the lease agreement.

Termination agreement

Regardless of whether the commercial space is subject to Article 290 or Article 230a, the tenant and landlord may decide to terminate the lease by mutual agreement. The termination agreement must expressly state that the tenant has clearly and unambiguously agreed to the termination of the lease.

Break option

It is also possible to include an interim break option for the tenant only in the lease agreement. This gives the tenant the right to terminate the lease agreement prematurely at one or more pre-agreed intervals. This could be after three years or every five years, for example. Because the landlord does not have the option to terminate the lease, the break option still complies with the statutory protection of the tenant of 290 business premises.

Compensation for termination of lease

When terminating a lease agreement for business premises, a special compensation arrangement may apply, depending on the reason for termination and the nature of the business premises. These arrangements exist in addition to the general arrangements for compensation, for example if the lease is terminated without good reason, the notice period has not been observed or the leased property cannot be used for the purpose for which it was leased or rented.

Tenants and subtenants of 290 business premises may be entitled to compensation if the landlord benefits from terminating the agreement by letting the premises to a similar company at a higher rent. This claim must be submitted to the court. The court will reject the claim if the new tenant does not take possession of the property until more than a year after the end of the old lease.

If the leased property gets a new owner who wants to demolish it, the owner must pay compensation to the tenant or subtenant, because without this demolition, the lease would have continued. The tenant or subtenant may also be entitled to compensation if the lease is terminated because the rented property is not being used in accordance with the zoning plan and the landlord wants to ensure that the property is used in accordance with its designated use. In that case, the tenant or subtenant must claim this compensation in the proceedings before the court concerning the termination of the lease agreement.

The rules for compensation of the tenant (and the subtenant) in the event of demolition or implementation of a zoning plan apply not only to 290 business premises, but to all business premises.

Position of the subtenant

Termination of a main lease agreement for 290 business premises has direct consequences for the subtenant. When the main lease ends, the main tenant loses his authority to lease the space to a third party. This can lead to liability towards the subtenant, for example when the sublease agreement continues while the right of use has actually expired. It is therefore important that sublessors make clear agreements about the dependence on the main lease and the risks involved in its termination when entering into a sublease agreement. If this has not been done, the subtenant may be entitled to compensation from the main tenant.

Substitution and subrogation

If a tenant no longer wishes to use a 290 commercial space, they have the option, under certain conditions, to substitute a third party as tenant, for example in the event of a transfer of the business. This substitution requires the consent of the landlord, unless the tenant obtains consent through the courts instead. The court will assess whether the proposed new tenant offers sufficient guarantee for proper performance of the lease agreement and whether the landlord has any reasonable objections. Substitution thus offers entrepreneurs the opportunity to transfer their business, including its location, which can be of great importance for the continuity and value of the business.

In addition to substitution, the lease can also be transferred to another tenant through subrogation. This occurs, for example, in the event of a merger, demerger or transfer of a business. Unlike substitution, subrogation often takes place by operation of law. This occurs, for example, when a legal entity ceases to exist and its rights and obligations are transferred to a legal successor.

About the author:

Reinier Russell advises national and international businesses on all facets of their day-to-day business operations. He has a broad range of specializations in questions regarding businesses, personnel, real estate, and government. He has been a lawyer since 1990. In addition, Reinier is certified as a mediator.

reinier.russell@russell.nl / +31 20 301 55 55

New UN University Institute to Be Established in KĹ‘szeg

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
New UN University Institute to Be Established in KĹ‘szeg

The Government of Hungary and the United Nations University (UNU) have signed a host country agreement during a formal ceremony, officially confirming the establishment of a new education and research institute of the United Nations University in Kőszeg, Hungary. The initiative is led and partnered by the Institute of Advanced Studies Kőszeg (iASK). Hungary was represented at the signing by Mr. Balázs Hankó, Minister of Culture and Innovation, while the United Nations University was represented by Prof. Shen Xiaomeng, Vice-Rector.

The first United Nations University institute to be established in the former Eastern Bloc, the new center in KĹ‘szeg will operate as a unique academic hub dedicated to comprehensive, interdisciplinary research on global challenges and the development of practical responses. Its work will focus on the causes of war, the conditions for lasting peace, human security, and the interconnections between transformative technologies, including artificial intelligence, biotechnology, nanotechnology, and neurotechnology.

Photo: Government of Hungary

The UNU Institute in Kőszeg will seek to address whether humanity can formulate, accept, and implement global transformation processes through peaceful and sustainable transitions, while managing conflicts that may arise along the way—particularly in the Global South, with special attention to the Balkans and the South Caucasus.

The United Nations University is not a traditional higher education institution. Its mission is to translate scientific research into policy recommendations, thereby actively supporting international decision-making. UNU also offers postgraduate and doctoral programmes, contributing to the education of future leaders equipped to address complex global challenges.

Minister of Culture and Innovation of Hungary Balázs Hankó speaks at a press conference following the signing of a host country agreement between UNU and the Government of Hungary to establish a new UNU Institute in Kőszeg. Photo: Government of Hungary

The establishment of the Kőszeg institute is the result of a four-year preparatory process. The concept was initiated by iASK, an interdisciplinary research institute that bridges science and art. The research agenda of the new UNU institute aligns closely with iASK’s existing research portfolio. Through its flagship KRAFT (Creative City – Sustainable Region) programme, iASK has developed the infrastructure necessary for the institute’s operation. Its multidisciplinary expertise and regional development experience provide a strong foundation for successful implementation.

In March, UNU Rector Prof. Tshilidzi Marwala appointed a five-member international expert panel (the Scoping Panel Team) to prepare a feasibility (scoping) study for the proposed UNU Institute in KĹ‘szeg. The panel completed its work on schedule, and at its meeting on 3 June 2025, the UNU Council positively assessed the report and authorized the Rector to work with the Hungarian Government on the next steps toward establishment. These include securing financial support and concluding the host country agreement and related legal arrangements.

Several individuals made significant contributions to the success of the Kőszeg initiative, including iASK Director General Ferenc Miszlivetz; Prof. Dr. János Bogárdi, Chair of the Working Group responsible for establishing the institute; Prof. Dr. Jody Jensen, Head of the iASK Balkan Observatory Research Group; Sean Cleary, diplomat, former ambassador, and delegate of the Hungarian Government; Dr. Elira Luli, Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Tirana; Prof. Dr. Szabolcs Márka, Professor of Physics at Columbia University; Prof. Dr. Zsuzsa Márka, Researcher at the Columbia University Astrophysics Laboratory; and Prof. Dr. Charles Vörösmarty, Professor at the City University of New York.

The establishment of the UNU Institute in Kőszeg aligns with the vision of iASK’s founders to transform the city into a leading center of knowledge and dialogue in Central Europe. By joining the global network of United Nations University institutes, Hungary and the Western Pannon region will become part of an international framework of cooperation that complements and strengthens the work of existing UNU centers worldwide.

Professor Ferenc Miszlivetz, General Director of iASK, speaks at a press conference following the signing of a host country agreement between UNU and the Government of Hungary to establish a new UNU Institute in KĹ‘szeg. Photo: Government of Hungary

The new institute will not only generate synergies with international scientific institutions but will also promote regionally relevant knowledge development by engaging domestic research communities. The partnership between UNU, iASK, and the International Synergy Campus contributes to the growing international recognition of scientific excellence in Kőszeg and Hungary. Through cross-border cooperation, the transdisciplinary research conducted at the institute—and the innovative approach iASK has fostered in the region for over a decade—will gain global visibility.

Dialogue on these themes will continue at the 8th UNESCO MOST Winter School, which is shaping the research directions of the new UNU Institute in KĹ‘szeg. The event will bring together scientists, policymakers, and civil society representatives to explore how lasting peace can be achieved through science, art, and education.

The Rule of Law Under Scrutiny: President of the Supreme Court to Address 350 International Dignitaries at the Peace Palace

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
The Rule of Law Under Scrutiny: President of the Supreme Court to Address 350 International Dignitaries at the Peace Palace

On Monday, 2 February 2026, the Peace Palace in The Hague will once again provide the setting for an event of profound historical and legal significance. The eighth edition of International Holocaust Remembrance Day – The Hague (IHRD-TH) will bring together some 350 ministers, diplomats, and senior jurists from international courts and institutions.

International Holocaust Remembrance Day – The Hague.

Building on a prestigious tradition of keynote speakers—including Professor Philippe Sands (2020), Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat (2021), and Minister Dilan Yeşilgöz-Zegerius (2023)—this year’s keynote address will be delivered by Prof. Dr. Dineke de Groot, President of the Supreme Court of the Netherlands. Prof. Dr. de Groot is the first woman to hold this position since the Court’s establishment in 1838 and is widely recognised as a leading authority in judicial conflict resolution.

The Mayor of The Hague, Honourable Jan van Zanen.

At a time when the foundations of the rule of law are under increasing pressure worldwide, Prof. Dr. de Groot will reflect on the impact of the Holocaust on the Dutch judiciary and on the legacy of Mr. L.E. Visser, President of the Supreme Court during the Second World War.

The programme will also feature the moving testimony of Holocaust survivor Dr. Ir. Ronald E. Waterman MSc, who survived deportation as a child to Westerbork and Theresienstadt. His personal account will underscore the human imperative behind international law, powerfully linking the darkest chapters of history with the responsibilities of today’s international community.

International Holocaust Remembrance Day – The Hague

“The World Came to Africa”: Ambassador Madonsela on Solidarity, Sustainability and a Shifting Global Order

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
“The World Came to Africa”: Ambassador Madonsela on Solidarity, Sustainability and a Shifting Global Order

South Africa at Sociëteit De Witte

The Africa Table at Sociëteit De Witte once again welcomed a full house, continuing its successful series of timely themes and distinguished speakers. On Tuesday, 13 January, the keynote address was delivered by H.E. Mr. Vusi Madonsela, Ambassador of the Republic of South Africa to the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Dean of the African Group of Ambassadors.

Ambassador Madonsela spoke on “Our Complex World Today and the Outcomes of the G20 2025, South Africa: The Building Blocks of a Brighter Future We Strive For.” His address tackled the formidable challenges facing the Global South amid growing geopolitical uncertainty. Against this complex backdrop, the Ambassador presented a thoughtful and forward-looking vision, emphasizing cooperation, resilience, and inclusive growth as essential pillars for navigating today’s difficult global environment.

H.E. Mr. Vusi Madonsela, Ambassador of South Africa, H.E. the Ambassador of Senegal H.E. Ms. Ramatoulaye Ba Faye, and the Ambassador of Venezuela to international organizations, H.E. Mr. Hector Constant Rosales.

Addressing an audience that included H.E. the Ambassador of Senegal, the Ambassador of Venezuela to international organizations, as well as politicians, public servants, and members of De Witte with a strong interest in Africa, Ambassador Madonsela shared his insights into the G20 Summit and its broader implications. His intervention encouraged a privileged and interactive exchange, drawing on his extensive diplomatic experience, deep knowledge, and personal wisdom.

In his intervention, Ambassador Vusi Madonsela placed South Africa’s 2025 G20 Presidency firmly within a rapidly shifting and increasingly fragile global context. He recalled that the theme of the Summit—“Solidarity, Equality and Sustainability”—was a deliberate departure from earlier approaches that prioritised stability over development. Instead, South Africa used its presidency to champion a development-focused agenda and to steer discussions away from polarising conflicts toward shared existential challenges.

“The future remains in our hands, and it is up to us to shape that future.”

Ambassador Madonsela described the Johannesburg Summit as a profound test of multilateralism, made all the more significant by the African Union’s recent integration as a permanent member of the G20. Against a backdrop of geopolitical tensions, accelerating climate change and a growing global debt crisis threatening the Global South, South Africa positioned itself as a bridge-builder between established Western powers and emerging economies.

“African leadership is not merely about participation; it is about setting the agenda.”

Ambassador Madonsela, African Table at Sociëteit De Witte.

He underlined that the successful organisation of the Summit also constituted a soft-power achievement, demonstrating Africa’s capacity to host complex, high-level global forums. While acknowledging that deep-seated disagreements were not fully resolved, he stressed that the outcomes marked a clear shift toward the priorities of developing countries.

On economic cooperation, Ambassador Madonsela highlighted renewed commitments to multilateral coordination, including strengthened global financial safety nets, increased lending power for the IMF and development banks, and a new framework for sovereign debt restructuring to support low-income countries facing debt distress.

“This was not only important for Africa, but for the Global South as a whole.”

Climate and energy were among the most contentious yet consequential areas. Leaders reaffirmed their commitment to the Paris Agreement, agreed to increase climate finance, and endorsed the creation of a Global Green Transition Fund to support renewable energy in developing nations. A notable step forward was the call for a rapid transition away from unabated fossil fuels.

On global health, drawing lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic, the G20 established a Global Health Security Package to strengthen prevention, preparedness and response, with an emphasis on equitable access to vaccines.

“That is not the world we want to live in,” the Ambassador said, recalling how vaccine nationalism left much of the developing world behind. Trade and supply chain resilience also featured prominently, with leaders pledging to resist protectionism and strengthen diversified, transparent and digitally enabled supply chains—an issue of particular importance for Africa’s integration into global value chains.

Ambassador Madonsela emphasised that the Summit marked a turning point for Africa, with concrete initiatives on infrastructure investment, food security, digital transformation and youth employment. He stressed that Africa’s natural resources must first serve the needs of its own people.

“What Africa produces must first and foremost respond to the needs of the people on the continent.”

Addressing diplomacy in an era of uncertainty, he concluded with a strong defence of multilateral engagement, particularly in cities such as The Hague, Geneva and New York.

“Without diplomacy, it becomes far too easy to resort to confrontation.”
“Multilateral diplomacy is about changing the world.”

While acknowledging that G20 commitments are not legally binding, Ambassador Madonsela argued that South Africa’s presidency successfully shifted the global centre of gravity.

“The world came to Africa for the first time, and Africa has set the agenda.”

Franck Diafouka, Founder and Chair of the Africa Table.

Franck Diafouka, Founder and Chair of the Africa Table, welcomed the invited guests to Sociëteit De Witte. He recalled that the Africa Table operates under the Chatham House Rule and serves as a dynamic multidisciplinary forum dedicated to exploring the issues, dynamics, and opportunities shaping the African continent. Its quarterly debates, held in English or French, bring together academics, practitioners, and experts from diverse fields, ranging from culture and philosophy to diplomacy, economics, and security.

In recent months, the Africa Table hosted a panel discussion on “The Future of Architecture in Africa” on 18 November 2025, featuring architects Ms. Hilary Lukose (Kenya/UK), Mr. Steve Dingui (Ivory Coast/France), and Mr. Miguel Correia (Portugal). Earlier, on 9 September 2025, H.E. Ramatoulaye Ba Faye, Ambassador of Senegal, delivered a notable lecture entitled “Successful Electoral Transition: Building on the Positive Experience of Senegal.”

Deadly Attack in Sydney Commemorated in The Hague

Diplomat Magazine
-
0
Deadly Attack in Sydney Commemorated in The Hague

A deadly attack in Sydney was solemnly commemorated in The Hague during a special Hanukkah memorial and solidarity gathering held on Sunday evening, 14 December, at the Peace Palace.

The event was organised by the Centre for Yiddishkeit in The Hague to honour the memory of the 15 victims and to express unity in the face of violence and hatred. Among those remembered was the Assistant Rabi at Chabad of Bondi and key organiser of the event, Rabi Eli Schlanger.

Schlanger recently said “Be more Jewish, act more Jewish and appear more Jewish” Roy Cohen, Chairman of the Centre for Yiddishkeit in The Hague, was also present. The gathering emphasised the symbolic message of Hanukkah — bringing light in times of darkness.

In response to the events at Bondi Beach Australia, security in The Hague was placed on heightened alert. Dozens of attendees assembled around 8:00 p.m. for a Hanukkah service, where prayers were offered and the victims of the Sydney attack were remembered.

The Australian Ambassador to the Netherlands, H.E. Mr. Gregory French, attended the memorial and addressed those present, expressing gratitude for the show of solidarity.

“This is a time of great sadness and shock for Australians, and especially for Jewish Australians,” the Ambassador said. “Together we stand strong — in love and solidarity — for our shared values and against hatred and darkness.”

The evening concluded with the singing of traditional Hanukkah songs.

123...885Page 2 of 885