H.E. Mr. Pham Viet Anh is Viet Nam’s Ambassador in the Netherlands

Editor
-
0
H.E. Mr. Pham Viet Anh is Viet Nam’s Ambassador in the Netherlands

On July 8th, 2020, H.E. Mr. Pham Viet Anh presented his credentials to H.M. King Willem Alexander, thus officially becoming Viet Nam’s Ambassador to the Netherlands. Ambassador Pham arrives in The Hague after over 20 years of experience in his country’s diplomatic services.

A double Bachelor graduate from University of Hanoi, both in French Language and Civilization (1985) and in History (1994), between 1987 and 1997 Mr. Pham spent a decade researching on Ho Chi Minh ideology at Ho Chi Minh National Academy of Politics, while at the same time earning a diploma from the Institute of International Public Administration of Paris in 1996.  

With such a diverse academic background, in 1997 Mr. Pham decided to join his country’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He started as a Desk Officer at the Directorate of State Protocol, where he worked for four years (1997-2001) before being posted in Algeria, where he worked at the Vietnamese Embassy with the rank of Second and First Secretary (2001-2005).

Following the experience in North Africa, Mr. Pham returned to Hanoi, where joined the Ministry’s Organization and Personnel Department. There he worked first as Assistant Director-General (2006-2008), and then as Deputy Director-General (2008-2010, 2015-2016). In the same period, Mr. Pham also piled up further academic experience, this time by earning a Master degree in International Relations at Viet Nam’s Diplomatic Academy (2011), as well as further experience abroad, by serving as Minister Counselor at the Vietnamese Embassy in France (2011-2014). 

In 2017, Mr. Pham was then appointed Director-General at the Ministry’s Chief Inspection body – a role that he maintained until 2020, when he moved to The Hague to become his country’s Ambassador. As a new experience is beginning for Ambassador Pham, Diplomat Magazine and the whole diplomatic community of the Netherlands extend to him a warm welcome!

Health professionals call for a healthy recovery

Editor
-
0
Health professionals call for a healthy recovery

By Barend ter Haar.

In a message to the leaders of the G20, organisations representing forty million health professionals note that the recent levels of death, disease and mental distress “could have been partially mitigated, or possibly even prevented by adequate investments in pandemic preparedness, public health and environmental stewardship”. [1] They advocate learning from these mistakes. We should no longer allow pollution to kill seven million people every year and climate change to continue unabated.

The message of the World Health Organisation (WHO) in its Manifesto for a healthy recovery from COVID-19 is essentially the same, but the following six prescriptions are more detailed.[2] As they concern the health of each of us, they deserve serious consideration.

1) Protect and preserve the source of human health: Nature. 

This might be the most difficult point, because it requires a fundamental change in our view of nature. Humanity, especially its so-called developed part, has far too long believed that nature can be exhausted and ignored with impunity. The current pandemic might be a relatively small “reminder of the intimate and delicate relationship between people and planet” in comparison to the potential consequences of climate change, pollution and the loss of biodiversity.[3]

2) Invest in essential services, from water and sanitation to clean energy in healthcare facilities.

To prevent diseases like COVID-19, essential services, such as save drinking water and sanitation, should be available everywhere for everybody,.  

3) Ensure a quick healthy energy transition.

A rapid transition to clean energy would not only help to meet the Paris climate goals, but also improve air quality. The resulting health gains would easily repay the cost of the investment.

4) Promote healthy, sustainable food systems.

One of the biggest causes of ill health are unhealthy diets that increase the risks of obesity and diabetes. Following WHO dietary guidelines would save millions of lives and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

5) Build healthy, liveable cities.

Walking, cycling and using public transport instead of cars could reduce air pollution and road accidents – and reduce the number of deaths (three million a year!) caused by physical inactivity.

6) Stop using taxpayers money to fund pollution.

The price of fossil fuels is kept low by subsidies and by ignoring the damage caused by these fuels.  If governments ended these subsidies and when the damage caused by fossil fuels would be taken into account, the price of these fuels would become high enough to halve the number of deaths from outdoor air pollution and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than a quarter. 

On a personal level, most people will probably choose better health over economic growth, but politicians tend to be more interested in economic growth than in public health. Will Covid-19 change that?

[1] https://healthyrecovery.net/  

[2] https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-manifesto-for-a-healthy-recovery-from-covid-19

[3] See also: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/01/sixth-mass-extinction-of-wildlife-accelerating-scientists-warn

Do Not Criple The International Criminal Court

Editor
-
0
Do Not Criple The International Criminal Court

By Steven van Hoogstraten.

There is a tendency amongst opinion leaders in this country to publicly distance themselves from the International Criminal Court. The ICC would be too slow in its proceedings, and the lack of involvement by the superpowers like China, Russia and the USA makes the whole operation rather meaningless. High time to admit it.  I listened to a radio broadcast the other day on Dutch station BNR , with 3 serious names from the Dutch public scene, including a well known lawyer in criminal matters, on the fortunes and misfortunes of the ICC. They all concluded that the case for the ICC had failed. In their view the road of international criminal justice had not led anywhere, and it was time to find  alternative solutions to re-establish peace and justice after conflict. 

I was more than baffled by that finding.  Surely, one can critisize certain features of the ICC, and notably that it is pretty slow to come to its verdicts.  But to conclude that international criminal justice can no longer be part of  the answer to conflict – whether international, or within the borders of a state – is absolutely beyond me.

This court, the International Criminal Court,  is the expression of the will of the world’s nations  (minus a few) that there should be no safe havens and no impunity for the worst crimes one can imagine: war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. That common thinking is clearly laid down in the preamble to the Rome Statute of 17 July 1998, as can be highlighted by the following sentences. First comes the recognition “that such grave crimes threaten the peace , security and well being of the world” , and then the preamble states 

Affirming that the most serious crimes of concern to the international community must not go unpunished and that their effective prosecution must be ensured by taking measures at the national  level and by enhancing international cooperation, 

Determined to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes …

The International Criminal Court now has the backing of 123 state-parties, including all the european nations, many african nations,  South America, , and a good part of Asia- Pacific.   It is highly regrettable that the major powers in the world (China, USA, Russia) have not signed up to the ICC, and it is even more regrettable that our western allies in the USA have decided to actively campaign against the Court, based on the fear that the ICC will one day come to judge the behaviour of the american military and its leadership.  But to conclude from that situation that the whole idea of international criminal law is flawed, is unfounded and too easy. A lot has been achieved in this field – look at the ICTY –  and a lot has still to come. The ICC has 28 cases sofar, and there are 9 preliminary examinations (including Palestine, Colombia and Ukraine).  I note that Omar Bashir is more or less on his way from the Sudan to the Hague, the Sudanese government at last following up the request of the Security Council.  

Hashim Thaci, instituut Clingendael.(Den Haag 23-04-18) Foto:Frank Jansen

Kosovo Chambers

It is of particular interest to note that – surprisingly – the USA recently applauded the prosecution of the current president of Kosovo Hashim Thaci for crimes committed in the years 1998-1999 before the Kosovo specialist chambers in the Hague. According to the british newspaper The Guardian of 24 June 2020 the US secretary of State Mike Pompeo wrote in March to Thaci that he supported the work of the Kosovo Court. The obstruction of the work of the court, Pompeo said “would leave a permanent spot on Kosovo, its commitment to the rule of law would be under question, justice for victims would be denied, and Kosovo’s furture would be blurred.”

This is the text of someone who gives the impression to believe in the role of criminal justice.  Very interesting to note that this comment – positive about the function of an international, if hybrid criminal court – comes from the same country that actively seeks to undermine the work of the International Criminal Court. I find that not easy to reconcile. My view is that the objections are purely politically inspired , and could  be withdrawn at a later moment and under a different administration. Would the preamble I cited from the Rome Statute not appeal to everyone ? 

City of Peace and Justice 

The Hague is proud to be the international city of peace and justice, and was even given the title of “the legal capital of the world, the epicentre of justice and accountability” (words spoken by UN SG Ban Ki Moon in the Peace Palace in 2013).  If that is the case, and I think it is, we should be ready to make our voices heard in matters like these, and reflect on them in public.

I was happy to read the president of the Assembly of State Parties, the South Korean O Gon Kwon , brought out a stiffly worded statement in relation to the new measures by the USA against the ICC “These measures are unprecedented. They undermine our common endeavor to fight impunity and to ensure accountability for mass atrocities. I deeply regret mesures targeting Court officials, staff and their families “( Press release ASP, 11 June 2020) .

About the author: Steven van Hoogstraten, is a Former Director of the Carnegie Foundation.

From the Victory Day to Corona Disarray: 75 years of Europe’s Collective Security and Human Rights System

Editor
-
0
From the Victory Day to Corona Disarray: 75 years of Europe’s Collective Security and Human Rights System

By Tereza Neuwirthová.

On July 1st, the Modern Diplomacy, International Institute IFIMES along with the world’s renowned Diplomatic Academy Wien and two other partner organisations –Culture for Peace and Academic Journal European Perspectives– organised a one-day conference on the topic of the European past and present in the context of its values, system, as well as challenges.

The conference entailed discussions with over 20 panelists from around the world, including international guests such as Dr. Heinz Fischer, Austrian President (a.D) and current co-chair of the Ban Ki-moon center, the European Commission Vice-President Mr. Margaritis Schinas, Mr. Donald J. Johnston, the former Secretary-General of the OECD and Canadian Economy minister (under PM Trudeau), as well as current OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorites, Mr. Lamberto Zannier. 

This conference held at the FestSaal of the Diplomatic Academy in Vienna was a sui genesis event that linked the world’s leading experts and policy-makers from a number of areas related to European security, history, and politics, many of whom were situated around the world, spanning from Australia, Canada, the UK, Italy and the USA, to the conference’s venue. Not only was this day-long conference one of the few happenings that were held after the outbreak of the COVID19 pandemic, but the event was likewise streamed online, which enabled many more interested audiences to benefit from the extraordinary opportunity that this conference represented. 

In three panel discussions that were held over the course of the day, some of the most important aspects of the current European order were deliberated by the speakers. The topic of the  first panel was “The WWII legacy –Nurnberg and Tokyo trials as a direct inspiration for the Universal and European Human Rights Charter, Antifascism as the European confidence building block, mutual trust and good neighbourly relation.” 

In this discussion, moderated by the Academy Professor Anis Bajrektareric, the panellists voiced their views on the main values of the 75 years old EU system, namely collective security and human rights. The contributions to the panel included established guests such as 

Mr. Werner Fasslabend, former Defence Minister, who located the aforementioned aspects into the context of the Balkan region. The second speaker, Mr. Steve Clemons who is Editor-at-Large of the Washington-based Hill, reflected on the Euro-Atlantic relations. Furthemore, the worlds leading expert on human rights and Political science professor Emeritus Mr. Anton Pelinka, stressed that the future of Europe depends on how it learns from the WWII legacy. Next, Mr. Manfred Nowak from the Campus of Human Rights of the University of Vienna compared the European and United Nations’ perspectives on human rights. Mr. Zeno Leoni, Professor at the King’s College London and Defence Academy of the UK,  spoke on the need of a long-term strategy that Europe needs to devise in light of the pandemic-caused disruption. Lastly, Mr. Thomas Stelzer, the Dean of the International Anti-CorruptionAcademy reflected on the threats to the established European principles from a practical perspective. 

The second panel focused on the topic “Europe: From Culture for Peace to Culture of Peace – culture, science, arts, sports.” The panellists were experts from the fields of arts and sports, namely   Mr. Ian Banerjee, Urban Futurist from Vienna University of Technology, who provided an interesting outlook on the interplay of digitalisation and culture leading to peace. Next, joining via zoom from Australia spoke Ms. Lizzie O’Shea, Human Rights lawyer who likewise spoke on the topic of Europe as a culture of and for peace an idea operating in digital environment as well.                             

From the conference’s venue conveyed her contribution Ms. Miriam Schreinzer, from the Regional Music Advisory Board in Vienna, in which she spoke about the unifying potential of music for the European future.  The last panellist, Ms. Hande Saglam, from the Music University Vienna elucidated the topic of her research, namely the importance of music for the diversity and minority cultures in Austria. 

Following this panel was a short intervention by  Mr. Lawrence Gimeno, the founder of the largest Sports platform of Central Europe,  as well as Ms. Anastasia Lemberg-Lvova, an Artist from Estonia, both of which shared their paths to the respective fields –sports and art–with which they engage on a professional level. 

The last panel of the conference revolved around the European future, with the title “Future to Europe: Is there any alternative to universal and pan-European Multilateralism? Revisiting and recalibrating the Euro-MED and cross-continental affairs.”

The panel was moderated by Ms. Katrin Harvey from the Ban Ki-moon Centre, and saw the contributions of panellists conveyed via online contributions, as well as directly from the conference’s location. The first guest discussing at this panel was Mr. Lamberto Zannier, former OSCE Secretary General, and incumbent High Commissioner on National Minorites, who shared his views on the importance of integration and cooperation within multilateral frameworks. 

The second input to the discussion about Europe’s future was granted by the speech of Mr. Donald James Johnston, former Canada’s Minister and OECD Secretary General, who voiced that “a strong, and unified Europe is the only one that can strengthen the world multilateral order.” Mr. Franz Fischler, the President of the European Alpbach Forumexpressed the belief that “it is crucial to find other approaches to deepen the European integration process for a stable and strong Europe.” Joining the conference online, Mr. Nasser Kamel, Secretary General of the Union for the Mediterranean spoke on the necessity of the European Union to revise its relations with the countries of its southern neighbourhood, a major determinant of the EU’s future direction and developments. The third panel of the conference was concluded with the contribution by Mr. Mario Holzner, Director-General of WIIW Austria. According to Mr. Holzer, the successful future of Europe lies in pan-European projects that would enhance the integration and cooperation among the countries of this continent.  

 The programme of the conference was concluded with an official communiqué of the conference, which called upon the active initiative of all the engaged, so as to turn this conference into a meaningful process that would strengthen the potential of Europe’s successful future: 

“The four partnering organisers and their associated partners are calling upon all willing, engaged and concerned to join in turning this periodic event into a process – tentatively named as Vienna Process: Common Future – One Europe.

The first follow up of the Vienna Process is scheduled for the end of September 2020 – as to honour the Process and to mark the 75th anniversary of San Francisco conference and the creation of Universal organisation of the UN, too.”

This one-day conference at Vienna’s Diplomatic Academy was arranged with the culinary breaks provided by a Viennese gasthaus that served traditional dishes and drinks of the Austrian cuisine. The programme of this event was closed with a mini by the world’s best hurdy-gurdy performer, Mr. Matthias Loibner and accompanying vocalist, professor of the Music University Vienna, Ms. Natasa Mirkovic, who created a convivial atmosphere greatly enjoyed by the guests as well as attendees of the conference. 

___________________

In the picture members of Panel I – while listening the Guest from Washington via Zoom.

Diplomatic Academy Vienna – Marking the 75th anniversary

Editor
-
0
Diplomatic Academy Vienna – Marking the 75th anniversary

In the picture, FIMES Director Dr. Becirovic and the IACA Dean Ambassador Stelzer.

On the 01 July 2020, the Modern Diplomacy, International Institute IFIMES along with the world’s eldest diplomatic school (that of the Diplomatic Academy Wien) and two other partners (Culture for Peace and Academic Journal European Perspectives) organised a conference with over 20 speakers from all around the globe. The event under the name FROM VICTORY DAY TO CORONA DISARRAY: 75 YEARS OF EUROPE’S COLLECTIVE SECURITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS SYSTEM, highly anticipated and successful gathering, was probably one of the very few real events in Europe, past the lockdown. 

Organisers and Participants together – IFIMES Director Dr. Becirovic and Culture for Peace Director Dr. Sophia Bajrektarevic with Speakers,

Among 20-some speakers were: Austrian President (a.D) and current co-chair of the Ban Ki-moon center, Dr. Heinz Fischer; the European Commission Vice-President, Margaritis Schinas; former Secretary-General of the OECD and Canadian Economy minister (under PM Trudeau), Donald J. Johnston; former EU Commissioner and Alpbach Forum President, Dr. Franz Fischler; former OSCE Secretary General and current OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorites, Lamberto Zannier; Austria’s most know Human Rights expert, prof. Manfred Nowak; Editor-at-Large of the Washington-based the Hill, Steve Clemons; Secretary General of the Union for the Mediterranean, Nasser Kamel; Dean of the International Anti-corruption Academy Amb. Thomas Stelzer; the longest serving Defence Minister of Austria and current Presidetn of the AIES Institute, Dr. Werner Fasslabend; founder and CEO of the largest university sports platform in Europe, Lawrence Gimeno; Urban futurist, Ian Banerjee; Director of the WIIW Economic Institute, Dr. Mario Holzner, and many more thinkers and practitioners from the UK, Germany, Italy and Australia as well as the leading international organisations from Vienna and beyond. 

Media partners were diplomatic magazines of several countries including Diplomat Magazine, and the academic partners included over 25 universities from all five continents, numerous institutes and 2 international organisations. A day-long event was also Live-streamed, that enabled (digital) audiences from Chile to Far East and from Canada to Australia to be engaged with panellists and attendees in the plenary and via zoom. 

The Conference was arranged with the culinary journey through dishes and drinks of central Europe and closed with the mini concert by the world’s best hurdy-gurdy performer, Matthias Loibner and accompanying vocalist, professor of the Music University Vienna, Natasa Mirkovic.  

*          *          *          *

Wishing to make the gathering more meaningful, the four implementing partners along with many participants have decided to turn this event into a lasting process. It is tentatively named – Vienna Process: Common Future – One Europe. This initiative was largely welcomed as the right foundational step towards a longer-term projection that seeks to establish a permanent forum of periodic gatherings as a space for reflection on the common future by guarding the fundamentals of our European past.

As stated in the closing statement: “past the Brexit the EU Europe becomes smaller and more fragile, while the non-EU Europe grows more detached and disenfranchised”. A clear intent of the organisers and participants is to reverse that trend.   

Ambassador Emil Brix – Opening the Conference

To this end, the partners have already announced the follow up conference in Geneva for early October, to honour the 75th anniversary of the San Francisco Summit. Similar call for a conference comes from Barcelona, Spain which was a birthplace of the EU’s Barcelona Process on the strategic Euro-MED dialogue.

—————————

Photography by Diplomat Magazine.

Diplomatic kids… global citizens of tomorrow

Editor
-
0
Diplomatic kids… global citizens of tomorrow

By Alexandra Paucescu.

When you say ‘diplomatic’ life, you automatically think about a life ‘on the move’ from country to country, a life in episodes, in which every couple of years, you put your whole life in a few boxes and leave everything but your family behind, to start fresh and go into the unknown. It sounds idyllic to some, maybe scary and complicated to many. But trust me, it gets even more complicated once you have kids. 

And it is not just extra baggage, voluminous toys, school books or countless gadgets… all who went through it know for sure what I am talking about… 

As I am the wife of a career diplomat, I was expecting a life of travelling from the very beginning. We moved for the first time when I had a toddler in one hand and another baby on the way, so you could say I started ‘big’ from the very beginning. Look for a proper kindergarten, look for a pediatrician, look for fun activities to do every weekend… But the most intriguing part was when I realized I was raising trilingual children (Romanian, German and English language). So, you can imagine the chaos of the first few years, all the languages mixed together in a way that it took us sometimes minutes to realize what exactly our own children were trying to tell us.

I remember the kindergarten teachers told us not to worry, as language fluency will come maybe a bit later. Our patience was certainly rewarded, as they became native speakers of basically three languages and were able to switch between them almost unconsciously. The human mind never ceases to amaze me! But please, try to imagine a kids party, a room full of toddlers that come to ask you something, looking at you with their big, innocent eyes and talking in languages you just cannot understand… and toddlers are not very famous for their patience, you know?…

For children of diplomats, speaking as many languages as possible is certainly an advantage. An international kindergarten or school offers the perfect setup to meet different people and cultures and to get the best education for the future.

Luckily nowadays there are numerous possibilities and options, meant to give a sense of continuity to our children and to ease the burden of finding the perfect school for us, the parents: British Schools, American Schools (mostly leading to International Baccalaureate), ‘Lycée français’ network (with the advantage of a unitary curriculum all over the world, coordinated by the French Foreign Ministry), ‘Deutsche Schule’ (a network of 140 German schools abroad, supported by the German Foreign Ministry) and, in Europe, the ‘Europe Schools’ (a network of 25 schools, which emphasize on a multilingual and multicultural approach, leading to the European Baccalaureate) .

 David and Sofia

Diversity is truly beautiful! All these schools bring children from all corners of the Earth together and build bridges of culture, education and cooperation between nations. And it is impressive to see how children can so easily relate, overcome language and cultural barriers and always find common ground… A lesson many of us, adults, still need to learn…

I’ve read somewhere recently that speaking in different languages changes your tone of voice and even attitude… that is certainly interesting and I confess, I saw it in my kids, too: different accents, different tone in their voice, for each of the languages they have mastered. 

The fact that they are exposed, from an early age, to an amalgam of cultures, traditions and rules that are foreign to them, the fact that they change countries, houses, schools and friends every few years, all these, although deeply emotionally consuming and sometimes even heartbreaking, offer the perfect setting for a special development in all these diplomatic children, giving them a set of unique social skills, important and useful later, in adult life.

I think though, that it is sometimes totally unrealistic to expect that they will always embrace this type of life with pleasure, that they will not be bothered to be ‘the new kids in class’ once every few years, that they will always live this nomadic life with joy, get over its inconveniences easily and fully understand its benefits. It is perhaps sometimes cruel to ask them to leave all their friends behind, especially when they reach adolescence and friendships become more relevant, to expect them to start fresh with the same exuberance all the time. 

I often tried to put myself in their place, tried to see things from their perspective and fully understand what they are going through. After all, it’s us, their parents, who chose this kind of life for them… The anxiety that we feel with each new beginning, they feel it too.  But I was always amazed at the ease with which children adapt to new realities. I bow in front of them! 

Alexandra Paucescu with David and Sofia.

I can only hope that the future years will prove that all these life experiences helped shape their character into becoming the fine adults that we dream them to be. I hope they will be happy that they shared this kind of life with us and, looking back, will think that it helped widen their horizon and refine their prospective. Usually children of diplomats have no really deep roots.

Mine were raised to be free, fully conscious of their origins but not too tied up, not too religious, not too attached to places and customs, that they might need to change  or leave one day behind, without prejudices, accustomed to the diversity of the world in which we live, as international, global citizens. For people raised in such an environment, immersion in different cultures is easier for sure and, in a globalized world, linked by technology, where distances seem to fade, adapting and feeling ‘local’ wherever you go, can be nothing but a great advantage.

A very wise woman told me once that ‘children are like arrows that parents form, need to point in the right direction and then, let go’… So, I just pray that we all choose the right direction …

__________________

About the author: 

Alexandra Paucescu

Alexandra Paucescu- Romanian, Management graduate with a Master in Business,  studied Cultural Diplomacy and International Relations.

She speaks Romanian,  English,  French,  German and Italian. Turned diplomatic spouse by the age of 30, she published a book about diplomatic life, writes articles and also gives lectures on intercultural communication.

Anger

Editor
-
0
Anger

By John Dunkelgrün.

The worldwide protests against today’s injustices, especially racial ones, have spilled over into protests against the injustices of the past. The protests show immediate anger at today’s selective police brutality and the all too vivid images of black people being wantonly killed.

It also kindled anger at less immediate discrimination and racial profiling. Much of the anger against these injustices is justified. No one should be disadvantaged on grounds of race, color, religion, or sexual orientation. Yet in many rich, developed and democratic countries this happens, day in and day out. This must change and governments have to foster that change. I don’t think this can be done by mandating percentages of people of various backgrounds in particular positions. If a large company in a country with say 15% people of color only has only a few of them on their payroll, it may be evidence of bias. But is it also an indication of bias if there are none in the top one hundred managers? I think education, not just of the minorities, but especially of the majority, i.e. the white males, is crucial.

Education is important about many issues. Take statues for example. Many historic figures who were revered until recently have done bad things as well as good ones. It is important that statues come with full explanations of these men’s deeds. It is telling in itself that most historical statues are of men. But it is equally important to realize the times in which these men lived. In defense of the statues some people say “You cannot judge them by today’s standards”. While true, that is not enough. Others can answer that robbing people, killing or enslaving them is inherently bad, whatever the times. The keyword in that reply is ‘people’.

A friend of mine, Professor Siep Stuurman, wrote an important book ‘The Invention of Humanity’ in which he describes the long way homo sapiens had to go before humankind realized that other humans were also humans. Until just a few centuries ago, people who were of different colors just weren’t considered people. Not only was it ok to occupy their lands and enslave them, it was a Christian duty. ‘We’ brought ‘them’ civilization and religion, it was ‘The White Man’s burden’. After all, slavery was not just condoned in the bible, it was described as normal. There are biblical rules on how to treat slaves. The Vikings, the Arabs, the Chines, and black Africans all traded slaves.

After the first voyages from Spain to the New World, there was serious discussion about whether the ‘Indians’ were human in the sense of the bible, whether they actually had souls. The Dutch Jan Pieterszoon Coen, who founded Batavia (now Djakarta) that started the Dutch East Indies and Cecil Rhodes had no inkling that they were engaging in was theft and murder on a large scale. In the worldview of their days, they were heroes.

Edward Colston was a major benefactor to Bristol and his wealth came from deeds that are seen as utterly vile today, but not in his time. After all, he wasn’t doing it to ‘people like us’. Had he taken white people from Bristol’s prisons to sell as slaves, there would have been an outcry. Sir Winston Churchill, who was brought up during the glory days of the British Empire, believed that Africans and Indians were much better off under British rule. Just look at the railways, the bridges, and the sanitation ‘we’ built.

Now that we, or at least most of us, have accepted that we are all part of the human race and as human beings are of equal value, we must strive to achieve equal opportunity for all. That is not done by toppling statues of people some of whose deeds we don’t like, but by education. Don’t change history, enlarge it. Look at it from different perspectives, ask questions. Save your anger for things that you can help change today, and learn from history why things happened so you can avoid repeating them. 

Les sanctions annoncées par les États-Unis contre le personnel de la Cour pénale internationale: brèves réflexions

Editor
-
0
Les sanctions annoncées par les États-Unis contre le personnel de la Cour pénale internationale: brèves réflexions

Par Prof Nicolas Boeglin.

Le 11 juin dernier, les États-Unis ont officiellement adopté certaines sanctions a l´encontre du personnel de la Cour Pénale Internationale (CPI). 

Dans le décret présidentiel adopté par la plus haute autorité américaine (voir texte intégral ), on y lit dans les considérants que, pour l’actuel  locataire de la Maison Blanche, la CPI est devenue une menace réelle pour la sécurité des États-Unis, en soulignant que:

“Je détermine donc que toute tentative de la CPI d’enquêter, d’arrêter, de détenir ou de poursuivre tout membre du personnel des États-Unis sans le consentement de ce pays, ou du personnel de pays qui sont des alliés des États-Unis et qui ne sont pas parties au Statut de Rome ou qui n’ont pas autrement consenti à la juridiction de la CPI, constitue une menace inhabituelle et extraordinaire pour la sécurité nationale et la politique étrangère des États-Unis, et je déclare par la présente une situation d ´urgence nationale pour faire face à cette menace” /  

(traduction libre de l´auteur de la version officielle qui se lit ainsi: “I therefore determine that any attempt by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute any United States personnel without the consent of the United States, or of personnel of countries that are United States allies and who are not parties to the Rome Statute or have not otherwise consented to ICC jurisdiction, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat“).

Le texte de ce décret présidentiel est quelque peu discret par rapport au malaise croissant causé par la CPI aux États-Unis au cours des dernières semaines, dont nous parlerons très brièvement ci-dessous. 

Une augmentation progressive de la pression américaine

Il sied de rappeler que ce fut depuis la capitale israélienne que l´actuel  Secrétaire d’Etat nord-américain avait annoncé, le 16 mai dernier, que l’enquête du procureur de la CPI relative aux exactions commises par Israël  dans les territoires palestiniens aurait de “graves conséquences” pour cette juridiction pénale internationale (voir par exemple cette note véase  note de presse   de Voice of America intitulée “Pompeo Warns ICC Against Asserting Authority Over Israel“).

Ce même mois, le 2 juin,  ce fut toujours le Secrétaire d’État nord-américain qui indiqua, au cours d´une conférence réalisée aux Etats-Unis dont les propos furent relayés en Israel, que:

“Je pense que la CPI et le monde entier verront que nous sommes déterminés à empêcher que les Américains et nos amis et alliés en Israël et ailleurs ne soient entraînés par cette CPI corrompue”  

(traduction libre de l´auteur de la formule  suivante: “I think that the ICC and the world will see that we are determined to prevent having Americans and our friends and allies in Israel and elsewhere hauled in by this corrupt ICC” (voire  note de presse  intitulée “US vows to prevent ‘corrupt’ ICC from probing Americans, Israelis for war crimes“, Times of Israel, edition du 2/06/2020).
En ce qui concerne les pressions de toutes sortes exercées sur la CPI en ce moment par Israël, par son inconditionnel allié nord-américain, auquel le Canada s’est également joint de manière beaucoup plus discrète, nous renvoyons nos lecteurs à notre  note antérieure  publiée dans divers sites de langue espagnole: “Fiscal de Corte Penal Internacional (CPI): solicitud de investigación contra exacciones militares israelíes procede en todos los territorios palestinos, Gaza incluida“.

Israël: le filigrane qui tente de se cacher derrière cette annonce

Il est bon de rappeler que le seul État à avoir officiellement salué ces sanctions nord-américaines contre la CPI est Israël: voir parmi bien d´autres cette   note de presse  du Times of Israel  intitulée “Netanyahu hails Trump for announcing sanctions against ‘corrupt’ ICC“). 

Il est en fait très probable que ces sanctions aient été décidées en étroite coordination avec les autorités israéliennes  (comme le suggère par exemple le titre de cette autre  note de presse  intitulée “Israel coordinated US sanctions against ‘corrupt’ ICC“). 

En effet, jamais dans l’histoire, Israël n’a pu compter avec une administration américaine aussi diligente et attentive a ses revendications comme celle dirigée par l’actuel locataire de la Maison Blanche. Bien que le décret de ce dernier fasse principalement référence aux enquêtes de la CPI sur d’éventuelles exactions commises par des militaires américains, et très sporadiquement à Israël dans sa justification, il faut rappeler que c´est depuis le 5 mars 2020 que la CPI a adopté sa dernière décision relative aux exactions commises en Afghanistan (voir  lien officiel  de la CPI): or, suite au 5 mars, nous n´avons su ni entendu d´aucune sanction américaine contre la CPI, comme celles annoncées ce 11 juin 2020.

La chronologie des faits et le ton de l´administration nord-américaine ne semblent donc pas du tout correspondre à l’explication donnée dans certains médias qui mettent – presque à l’unisson – l’accent sur les enquêtes de la CPI relatives à l’Afghanistan pour justifier cette récente réaction nord-américaine (voir par exemple cette  note explicative  de l’Express en France ou bien encore cette  note  plus récente de Voice of America)

Il est utile de rappeler que depuis la création de la CPI en 1998, Israel et les Etats-Unis n´ont cessé de déployer d´intenses efforts diplomatiques afin de limiter la possibilité pour la CPI d´enquêter ce qui se passe sur le territoire palestinien.  Il convient de rappeler à ce sujet que ces deux Etats – ainsi que l´Iran – ont procédé au dépôt de la signature du Statut de Rome le dernier jour pour le faire, le 31 décembre 2000: les deux premiers ont procédé ensuite à retirer leur signature quelques années plus tard – tout comme le fera le Soudan -, ce qui constitue une véritable innovation en droit international public (voir  notes 4 et 16  qui reproduisent les notifications faites en 2002 au dépositaire du Statut de Rome par ces deux Etats). Enfin, le premier accord bilatéral d´immunité (BIA en anglais) afin d´écarter la compétence de la CPI au personnel militaire et non militaire étasunien  – mais aussi israélien, réciprocité oblige – fut signé entre Israël et les Etats-Unis le 4 août 2002 (voir texte ).

Il convient aussi de se rappeler que lors d´une conversation privée entre diplomates nord-américains et leurs homologues israéliens en février 2010 (voircorrespondance diplomatique du 23 février 2010 de l´Ambassade des Etats-Unis a Tel Aviv), on a pu apprendre que: 

“Libman noted that the ICC was the most dangerous issue for Israel and wondered whether the U.S. could simply state publicly its position that the ICC has no jurisdiction over Israel regarding the Gaza operation”. 

Le Colonel Liron Libman était, du moins a l´époque, un haut fonctionnaire israélien, fin connaisseur des règles existentes en droit international puisqu´il assuma pendant de longues années la Direction du Departement de Droit International de l´armée israélienne (connue par ses sigles IDF).

La réaction de la CPI et des États parties à la CPI

Indépendamment des intentions réelles des États-Unis en annonçant ces sanctions, la CPI a immédiatement rejeté, dans une déclaration officielle, cette décision américaine, sans précédent dans les annales de la justice internationale, en déclarant (voir le  texte intégral ) que

“Ces attaques constituent une escalade et une tentative inacceptable d’interférer avec l’État de droit et les procédures judiciaires de la Cour. Elles sont annoncées dans le but déclaré d’influencer les actions des fonctionnaires de la CPI dans le cadre des enquêtes indépendantes et objectives de la Cour et des procédures judiciaires impartiales. Une attaque contre la CPI représente également une attaque contre les intérêts des victimes de crimes d’atrocité, pour qui la Cour représente le dernier espoir de justice” 

(traduction libre de l´auteur de la version officielle qui se lit ainsi: “These attacks constitute an escalation and an unacceptable attempt to interfere with the rule of law and the Court’s judicial proceedings. They are announced with the declared aim of influencing the actions of ICC officials in the context of the Court’s independent and objective investigations and impartial judicial proceedings. An attack on the ICC also represents an attack against the interests of victims of atrocity crimes, for many of whom the Court represents the last hope for justice”).

Pour sa part, le Président de l’Assemblée des États Parties au Statut de Rome a appelé les États et les autres membres de la communauté internationale à réaffirmer leur soutien sans réserve au travail de la CPI, tout en annonçant une réunion urgente des États parties. Dans sa déclaration (voir texte complet ), on peut lire que:

“Je convoquerai une réunion extraordinaire du Bureau de l’Assemblée la semaine prochaine pour étudier comment renouveler notre engagement inébranlable envers la Cour.

J’invite les États Parties et toutes les parties prenantes du système du Statut de Rome à réitérer à nouveau notre engagement indéfectible à faire respecter et à défendre les principes et valeurs consacrés dans le Statut, et à préserver son intégrité, sans se laisser décourager par quelque mesure ou menace que ce soit contre la Cour et ses responsables, les membres de son personnel et leurs familles”.

En guise de conclusion

Il ne fait aucun doute que cette décision nord-américaine n’a pas de précédent dans l’histoire du droit international.  Elle pourrait éventuellement miner davantage le peu de crédibilité des États-Unis auprès de la communauté internationale, en particulier depuis que l’actuel locataire de la Maison Blanche y a pris ses fonctions (au mois de janvier 2017).

La date choisie pour annoncer publiquement ces sanctions contre la CPI fait très probablement partie d’un calendrier très précis convenu par les États-Unis et Israël. Dans le cadre de ce calendrier, et du jeu diplomatique dangereux auquel tous deux se livrent et qui consiste à remettre en cause de manière récurrente les fondements mêmes de l’ordre juridique international,  Israël a inauguré le 14 juin  dernier une nouvelle colonie israélienne sur les hauteurs du Golan, portant le nom de l´actuel Président nord-américain (voir cette  note de presse de The Guardian intitulée “Trump Heights’ : Israeli settlement in Golan named after US president“). 

———————-

Dr. Nicolas Boeglin.

Nicolas Boeglin, Professeur de Droit International Public, Faculté de Droit, Université du Costa Rica (UCR)

Understanding Migration and Asylum in Europe

Editor
-
0
Understanding Migration and Asylum in Europe

By Alfred Kellermann, The Hague, 15 May 2019.

To understand issues of migration and asylum in the EU the following key studies, documents, terms and facts should be known.

  1. European Refugee crisis

The European migrant crisis or refugee crisis is a term given to a period beginning in 2015 characterized by rising numbers of people arriving to the European Union (EU) from across the Mediterranean Sea or overland through South-East Europe. 

Immigrants from outside Europe include asylum seekers and economic migrants. 

The term “immigrant” is used by the European Commission to describe a person from a non-EU country establishing his or her usual residence in the territory of an EU country for a period that is, or is expected to be, at least twelve months.

Most of the immigrants came from Muslim-majority countries in regions South and East of Europe, including the Greater Middle East and Africa. The number of deaths at sea, rose to record levels in April 2015, when five boats carrying almost 2,000 migrants to Europe sank in the Mediterranean Sea.  Now it is lower!

The situation of refugees has become more desperate in recent years. Between 2014 and 2016 over 1 million people sought asylum in the European Union. In 2017 655.000 persons applied for asylum in the EU for the first time. In 2018 581.000 did so. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Asylum.statistics

According to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees the top three nationalities of entrants of the over one million Mediterranean See arrivals between January 2015 and March 2016 were Syrian (46,7%), Afghan (20,9%) and Iraqi (9,4%) .

Refugee crises in several Asian and African countries increased the total number of forcible displaced persons worldwide at the end of 2014 to almost 60 million, the highest level since World War II.

  1. European Agenda on Migration

The latest response from the EU to the situation is the European Agenda on Migration,which aims to strengthen the common migration and asylum policy by implementing various measures helping refugees in difficulty during their travel to Europe locating them in the EU, supporting Member States available to receive refugees and coordinating national operations. EU operations in 2016 were funded to approximately € 176 million. The EU was also relocating refugees from Italy and Greece to other EU Member States and provided further financial support to countries willing to take in refugees from camps in Syria and those that had set up first–aid centers for refugees on their territory. 

The European Parliamenthas expressed its concern about EU financial support in the field of asylum and has asked the Commission to evaluate the real needs until 2020.The European Parliament by its policy departments provided many supporting analyses for the respective Parliament committees.  

EU external cooperation in migration and asylum has increased considerably in terms of instruments of cooperation with third partner countries and of funds committed.  With the current refugee crisis, it is set to increase even further. EU funding regarding the objectives of migration policy lacks evidence of efficiency through lack of coordination of external coordination. 

Migration is one of the great challenges of the globalized world. Refugees will always move across borders to seek safety for themselves and their families in the face of war, persecution and conflict. People who face poverty in their home country will always move in search of a better life for themselves and their families. In the European Union, the Member States seek to support those who work to protect the legal rights of migrants and refugees, and to ease the challenges of integration. They support the development of realistic policy solutions to the human challenges involved. In line with the focus on policy and institutional responses, the important humanitarian relief response of NGOs, funding is needed such as the operation of search and rescue vessels in the Mediterranean. 

  1. Is there a difference between a migrant and a refugee?

A migrant is a person who leaves home to seek a new life in another region or country. This includes all those who move across borders, including those doing so with government permission, i.e., with a visa or a work permit, as well as those doing so without it, i.e., irregular or undocumented migrants. The Member States of the European Union agree that EU citizens and their families have freedom of movement within the EU and the European Economic Area—these citizens are privileged migrants because they do not require individual permission from officials as other migrants do. These citizens enjoy the rights of the Schengen  Convention of 14 June 1985, in which 26 European countries (22 of the EU Member States and four EFTA States) joined together to form an area where border checks on internal Schengen borders (between member states) are abolished and instead checks are restricted to external Schengen borders. Countries may reinstate internal border controls for a maximum of two months for public policy or national security reasons. 

A refugee is someone fleeing war, persecution, or natural disaster. Refugee status is defined in international law, which requires states to protect refugees and not send anyone to a place where they risk being persecuted or seriously harmed. States hold primary responsibility for the protection of refugees. The UN counted 21.3 million refugees worldwide at the end of 2015.

“Asylum” refers to the legal permission to stay somewhere as a refugee, which brings rights and benefits. Not every asylum seeker will ultimately be recognized as a refugee, but every refugee is initially an asylum seeker.

Article 26 of the “Schengen Convention” says that careers which transport people into Schengen area who are refused entry into the Schengen area, be responsible for the return of the refused people and pay penalties.

  1. European Union’s asylum policy and the Dublin regulation?

The Dublin Regulation (Regulation No.604/2013): sometimes the Dublin III Regulation; previously the Dublin II Regulation and Dublin Convention) is a European Union (EU) law that determines which EU Member State is responsible for the examination of the application, submitted by persons seeking international protection under the Geneva Convention. The cornerstone of the Dublin System consists of the Dublin Regulation No.604/2013 and theEURODAC Regulation (Regulation No 603/2013), which establishes a Europe wide fingerprinting database for unauthorized entrants to the EU.  

The Common European Asylum System (CEAS) sets out the Criteria governing the distribution, as between Member States, of responsibilities in asylum cases under Regulation No. 343/2003. Under that regulation only one Member State is in principle , responsible for dealing with an asylum application submitted within the EU. In this regulation are established the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for  examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third country national.  

The Common European Asylum System (CEAS) is a set of EU laws. They are intended to ensure that all EU Member States protect the rights of asylum seekers and refugees. The CEAS sets out minimum standards and procedures for processing and deciding asylum applications, and for the treatment of both asylum seekers and those who are recognized as refugees. 

Implementation of CEAS varies throughout the European Union. A number of EU Member States still do not operate fair, effective systems of asylum decision-making and support. This leads to a patchwork of 28 asylum systems producing uneven results. Asylum seekers have no legal duty to claim asylum in the first EU State they reach, and many move on, seeking to join relatives or friends for support, or to reach a country with a functioning asylum system.

However, the “Dublin Regulation” stipulates that EU Member States can choose to return asylum seekers to their country of first entry to process their asylum claim, so long as that country has an effective asylum system. The “Dublin Regulation” determines the EU Member State responsible to examine an asylum-application to prevent asylum applicants  in the EU from “” asylum shopping”, where applicants send their application for asylum to numerous EU Member States to get the best deal instead. EU countries in the north, the desired destination of many refugees, have sought to use this Dublin system to their advantage, at the expense of the south, where most refugees first arrive. Yet these efforts have been obstructed by failures of asylum systems in the south. Domestic and European courts have ruled against asylum seekers being returned to Greece, notably in a landmark case in 2011 (C-411/10 N.S and C-493/10 M.E).

The Advocate General of the ECJ concluded that the transferring Member State must before it transfers an asylum seeker, determine whether that asylum seeker will be exposed (in the Member State which is primarily responsible) to a serious risk that the rights guaranteed under the Charter of Fundamental Rights will not be violated. Transfer to Greece, which country is overloaded with asylum applications, risks that the treatment of asylum requests is not well done in time  and effectively.

To address the uneven application of CEAS and to avoid the problems of the Dublin system, a reform of the CEAS was proposed in 2016. Among the proposed reforms is one that risks endangering the right to asylum in the EU, with an obligation to verify first if asylum seekers could find protection outside the EU. Some EU countries have already voiced opposition to some of the reforms, notably the obligation to take refugees from other EU countries. They started cases at the CJEU against the re-distribution and at the same time the EU Commission instigated cases  against Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic  (Vise grad Countries”) for refusing to abide by the redistribution quota.

The European Parliament in a study in 2015 examined the reasons why the Dublin system of allocation of responsibility for asylum seekers does not work effectively. The study gave recommendations for resolving current practical, legal and policy problems and to create a burden sharing system through several mechanisms. The European Parliament and the Council proposed a “reference key”, based on a Member State’s GNP (Gross national product) and population size, to determine its absorption capacity. 

Conclusion
Common asylum and migration policies are not yet realized because of the different attitudes of the “Vise grad Countries” and “Old Europe” EU Member States in respect of disputed migration policies. Therefore, is our final question: Is the migration challenge not the ultimate threat to European Unity and Solidarity?

  • How are EU Member States regulating/managing/supporting migration?

The EU Member States have worked on global migration issues for many years. This has included 1) supporting efforts to improve the treatment of labor migrants in Central Asia, Latin America, South Asia, and the Gulf; 2) advocating a better, common asylum policy in Europe; 3) challenging conditions of detention for migrants in many countries; and 4) defending migrant communities against a wide array of xenophobic attacks in Africa, Asia, Europe, and the United States. 

Examples of support to migration by States and NGO’s.

In Italy, organizations that work to reform Italy’s asylum system are supported. Medici per i Diritti Umani advocates for better conditions in Italy’s asylum reception centers; Italy promotes housing refugees and asylum seekers in private accommodation as an alternative to state facilities; they work to ensure that international, European, and national laws are honored during asylum procedures, that reception conditions are dignified, and that no one is deprived of their liberty without judicial oversight and procedural safeguards. The Italian Civil Liberties Coalition and its platform Open Migration provides data, fact checking, and stories to inform the migration debate.

In Greece, organizations like the Greek Council for Refugees, which monitors rights violations at border areas, assists in reception facilities, and in detention centers; the Hellenic League of Human Rights, which provides asylum seekers with reliable information about their rights and obligations; and the Greek Forum of Refugees, a refugee- and migrant-led organization that seeks to support migrants’ integration in the country. Solidarity Now, set up in 2013 by the Open Society Foundations—and today a grant—provides housing, basic medical care, and other relief services to newcomers and Greeks.

In Spain, NGOs are supported which provide legal aid to refugees and seek to improve the national asylum system, such as the as Spanish Commission for Refugees and Coordinadora de Barrios.

In Western Europe, this work extends from the United Kingdom to Finland. The Migrants’ Rights Network reports and challenges the rise in racism and xenophobia in Britain, Migrant Voice amplifies migrants’ perspectives through its newspaper, the Raul Wallenberg Institute in Sweden builds the capacity of grassroots groups to advocate for themselves, and Mediendienst-Integration in Germany serves as a reliable source of information and data for media reporting on migration.

In Britain, NGO’s have worked with the UK government on the development of a community sponsorship scheme, the Global Refugee Sponsorship Initiative, based on a successful Canadian model for supporting the integration of newly arrived refugee families. 

In Central and Eastern Europe, NGO’s support local organizations which work to ensure newcomers are treated with dignity and assist with their integration into the society. Menedék organizes training courses for professionals including social workers, teachers and police officers working in immigration detention centers in Hungary and the Association for Migration and Integration in the Czech Republic is working on ensuring that the rights of EU nationals working in the country are protected.

  • How has the European Union responded to the refugee crisis?

On 20 March 2016 an agreement between the European Union and Turkey , aiming to discourage migrants from making the dangerous sea journey from Turkey to Greece, came into effect. The deal outlines that migrants arriving in Greece will be sent back to Turkey if they do not apply for asylum or their claim is rejected. To assist in the implementation of this deal the EU would send around 2.300 experts, including security and migration officials and translators to Greece. After 20 March 2016 any irregular immigrant from Syria who is returned to Turkey, will be replaced by a Syrian resettled from Turkey to the EU. The talks were aiming at accession of Turkey to EU and Turkey will receive from the EU €3,3 billion aid for the assistance.  In the March deal of 2016, the EU announced that Turkey would try to stop people from moving onward into Europe; in return, Turkey was promised financial assistance, visa-free travel to the EU for Turkish citizens, and faster negotiations for EU accession. But the EU-Turkey deal failed to close the border, and thousands of migrants continued to travel irregularly using smugglers. Since the deal, only 750 asylum seekers have been sent back from Greece to Turkey, because Greek officials and courts consider Turkey to be an unsafe country

There has been a Decision from the European Court of Justice of 28 February 2017, that the Court has no competence to judge the legality of the March 2016 EU-Turkey deal on migrants and refugees as “neither the European Council nor any other institution of the EU” decided to conclude an agreement with the Turkish Government on the subject of the migration crisis. The General Court of the ECJ declared that it lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the actions brought by three asylum seekers  against  the EU-Turkey statement which seeks to resolve the migration crisis. In other words Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, regarding the powers of the court, is not applicable in this case. (The orders issued by the court.NF (T-192/16, NG (T-193/16, NM (T-257/16 And the EU –Turkey statement 18 March 2016). 

In 2015, high numbers of migrants, many of them Syrians fleeing conflict, continued to move. Some European states, led by Germany, recognized that their strategy of seeking to block refugees moving across borders was unrealistic and harmful. Countries worked together to allow migrants to move onwards to the places they wished to reach. This allowed reception countries to focus their resources on supporting asylum seekers and considering claims. By early 2016, support for this policy began to decrease, with increased hostility towards migrants entering the political discourse. Certain countries along the migrant route began to close their borders. 

Deals to distribute asylum seekers between EU Member states. 

The situation further deteriorated when the EU’s decision to transfer 160,000 asylum seekers from Greece and Italy to other European member states was met with widespread resistance. In the end, a small percentage of the needed transfers actually took place. In response to the failure to adequately process asylum claims, the EU set up “hotspots” in Greece and Italy. Hotspots identify, register, and fingerprint incoming migrants, and redirect them either towards asylum or return procedures. The Turkey deal is one example of a controversial practice, in which the EU links development aid or economic incentives to commitments by states to stem and manage the movements of people from their territory. Similar deals are being approved with a number of third countries including Libya, Egypt, Sudan, and Nigeria. 

In June 2016, the European Commission proposed a new “New Migration Partnership Framework” with third countries in the Middle East and Africa, to better manage migration. The full range of EU policies will be brought to bear: 

  • Focused engagement and enhanced support
  • Breaking the business model of people smugglers and creating legal routes
  • Working together in EU and Member States financial allocation.
  •  How have the United Nations responded to the Refugee Crisis?

On 19 September 2016 the Members of the United Nations unanimously adopted the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants. The Declaration recognized the need for more cooperation between nations to manage migration  effectively.

On 19 December 2018  these documents were approved by 152 nations as the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (CCM),that describes itself as covering all dimensions of international migration in a holistic and comprehensive manner. The Compact was formally endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly on 19 December 2018. As the Compact is not an International treaty, it will not be binding under international law. According to the Opinion of the New Zealand Government, the Compact will be non-binding , but will not be legally irrelevant , and “courts may be willing ..to refer to the Compact and take the Compact into account as an aid in interpreting immigration legislation.” 

There was a heated debate in the EU and in some of its Member States about the Global Compact : 20 of 28 EU Member States signed it. Leaked legal opinion of the Council’s Legal Service was used to argument that these lawyers said that the Compact was legally binding.  The opinion merely states that the Compact can influence the content of  EU legislation. See https://www.janiceatkinson.co.uk/wp-conent/uploads/’2019/03/UN-GCM-EU-LAW-explanation-why-the-leaked-Legal-Service-Opinion-is-a risk.pdf 
However the Compact will not be legally binding.

The draft agreement recognizes in its considerations the principles of national sovereignty:

“The Global Compact reaffirms the sovereign right of States to determine their national migration policy and their prerogative to govern migration within their jurisdiction, in conformity with international law. Within their sovereign jurisdiction, States may distinguish between regular and irregular migration status, including as they determine their legislative and policy measures for the implementation of the Global Compact, taking into account different national realities, policies, priorities and requirements for entry, residence and work , in accordance with international law.””

Calling the agreement a “historic moment”, the General Assembly President Miroslav Lajcak emphasized “it does not encourage migration, nor does it aim to stop it. It is not legally binding. It fully respects the sovereignty of States.    

——————————–

Paper and Speaker at:

1)    World Congress on Humanities and Social Science, Paris, May 16 -17, 2019 

2)    Centre for European and International Policy Action (CEIPA),  Round Table “European Elections 2019”, Brussels , May 22, 2019 

About the author:

Dr. Alfred Kellermann is a Senior Legal and Policy Advisor. Visiting Professor in European Law . Former Head EU Section Asser
E: alfred.kellermann@gmail.com

  

Sweet diplomacy

Editor
-
0
Sweet diplomacy

By Alexandra Paucescu.

When you see any of her cakes, you instantly believe they are the grand art work of an international top chef. Believe me, I know what I’m saying, because I’ve always liked fine pastry. 

She amazes everyone with her attention to details, studied composition and refined presentation of her sweet delights.

‘It started as a hobby and I just kept improving over the years’, she confesses with delightful modesty. ‘I learnt how to bake from my mother, who used to make beautiful cakes, at home, for our birthdays. Later, I wanted to do the same for my kids. I also baked cakes for tea parties, dinners & other occasions. I started baking also for my diplomatic friends during quarantine 2020 and have received a wonderful response’.

Of course, she did. It takes just a look at the master pieces that she does, to spot her talent and passion.

By Sonia Shehryar.

Sonia Shehryar is wife to a career diplomat from Pakistan, who travelled the world with her husband and lives now in Serbia. 

She says that ‘home is always where you come from, where you belong, it is your identity’, so for her is Pakistan that she carries deep inside her soul, no matter where she lives. But the years spent in Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, were also unforgettable, because of the numerous visits to the holy sites of Mecca and Medina and the rare opportunity to enter and pray inside the holy Kaaba.

Being a diplomatic spouse offers you, no doubt, a life of privilege, with numerous experiences that will enrich your knowledge and widen your prospective about life. You live in a protected world, often unknown to the public, with sparks of glamour and taste of champagne.

By Sonia Shehryar.

But behind the scene, the reality is slightly different. All these cultivated and highly educated women, that follow and support their husband’s careers, often have untold stories, unfulfilled dreams or careers left behind for the sake of love and family. They are not just diplomatic spouses.

Sonia is in fact a professional dentist. With each new move, she equated her studies and tried to continue her much dreamed career, only to find out that soon she would have to move again and start it all over from scratch, as in a perpetual repetition of the legend of Sisyphus. 

I talked to her about our diplomatic life:

Alexandra: Which do you think are the most common misconceptions people have about us, the wives of diplomats?

Sonia: People often think we live ‘aristocratic’ lives, that we are perfection personified and that our lives are limited to posh dinners & receptions only…

Alexandra: As diplomatic spouses, what do you think we should and should not do?

Sonia: We must educate ourselves on diplomatic protocol first, as disregarding it may cause embarrassment to spouse, embassy or country, we must learn to adapt, adjust, accept, compromise and sometimes even sacrifice, in order to integrate within the host country.

We must also not lose our own identity and keep our children attached to their homeland, teach them their own language and religion, while learning new ones. We must not forget to share our own culture, food, traditional costumes with our host country, whilst learning about theirs. But, I think that most important advice is: Do not become arrogant, just because you have diplomatic immunity!

By Sonia Shehryar.

Alexandra: What is your life motto, Sonia?

Sonia: ‘Live and let live!’

Indeed, she keeps her smile and optimism, and continues to bake… wonderful, divine cakes, to sweeten her life and others’ around her. A hobby for a lifetime that could transform from passion to a new career opportunity. After all, the ability to constantly reinvent ourselves is one of those ‘must have’ qualities for us, diplomatic spouses…

Sonia Shehryar with one of her wonderful creations.

About the author:

Alexandra Paucescu

Alexandra Paucescu- Romanian, Management graduate with a Master in Business,  studied Cultural Diplomacy and International Relations.

She speaks Romanian,  English,  French,  German and Italian. Turned diplomatic spouse by the age of 30, she published a book about diplomatic life, writes articles and also gives lectures on intercultural communication.

1...297298299...867Page 298 of 867