The Executive Secretariat of São Paulo Forum‘s is driving and promoting a civil appeal to influence global political actors into suspending the economic and political blockade against Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela in the midst of the alarming health situation worldwide connected to the SARS-CoV-2 as well as COVID-19 pandemic.
In the midst of these problems, some nations that have already been the victims of unilateral coercive measures have unsuccessfully requested the lifting of sanctions in order to purchase supplies, medical equipment and medicines for their health system.
In particular Cuba remains subject to the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed by the United States, which however has acted as a paradigm of solidarity by dispatching Medical Brigades to more than a dozen countries upon their behests.
HE Dr. Hissa Abdullah Alotaiba, UAE Ambassador to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, expressed the solidarity of the United Arab Emirates with the Kingdom of the Netherlands in facing the Corona virus, and raising the slogan “As long as there is life, there is hope “
For more information about her initiative, please visit UAE Embassy page on Twitter.
IIT concludes units of the Syrian Arab Air Force used chemical weapons in Ltamenah, Syria in March 2017
THE HAGUE, Netherlands – 8 April 2020 – The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) released today the findings of the first report by the OPCW Investigation and Identification Team (IIT). The IIT is responsible for identifying the perpetrators of the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic where the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) has determined that chemical weapons have been used or likely used in Syria.
The IIT’s first report sets out its mandate, the legal and practical challenges of its work, and the findings of the investigations conducted between June 2019 and March 2020, focusing on the incidents in Ltamenah, Syrian Arab Republic on 24, 25, and 30 March 2017. The IIT’s investigation and analysis included a comprehensive review of all of the information obtained including: interviews with persons who were present in the relevant places at the time of the incidents, analysis of samples and remnants collected at the sites of the incidents, review of the symptomatology reported by casualties and medical staff, examination of imagery, including satellite images, and extensive consultation of experts. The investigation relied on relevant FFM reports as well as on samples and other material obtained directly by the Technical Secretariat in the territory of Syria.
The report reached the following conclusions:
At approximately 6:00 on 24 March 2017, an Su-22 military airplane belonging to the 50th Brigade of the 22nd Air Division of the Syrian Arab Air Force, departing from Shayrat airbase, dropped an M4000 aerial bomb containing sarin in southern Ltamenah, affecting at least 16 persons.
At approximately 15:00 on 25 March 2017, a helicopter of the Syrian Arab Air Force, departing from Hama airbase, dropped a cylinder on the Ltamenah hospital; the cylinder broke into the hospital through its roof, ruptured, and released chlorine, affecting at least 30 persons.
At approximately 6:00 on 30 March 2017, an Su-22 military airplane belonging to the 50th Brigade of the 22nd Air Division of the Syrian Arab Air Force, departing from Shayrat airbase, dropped an M4000 aerial bomb containing sarin in southern Ltamenah, affecting at least 60 persons.
In his recorded statement to States Parties, OPCW Director-General, H.E. Mr Fernando Arias, underscored that:
“[t]he IIT is not a judicial or quasi-judicial body with the authority to assign individual criminal responsibility, nor does the IIT have the authority to make final findings on non-compliance with the Convention. … It is now up to the Executive Council and the Conference of the States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention, the United Nations Secretary-General, and the international community as a whole to take any further action they deem appropriate and necessary.”
The IIT Coordinator, Mr Santiago Oñate-Laborde stated in his remarks that:
“[t]he IIT has concluded that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the perpetrators of the use of sarin as a chemical weapon in Ltamenah on 24 and 30 March 2017, and the use of chlorine as a chemical weapon on 25 March 2017 were individuals belonging to the Syrian Arab Air Force. … Attacks of such a strategic nature would have only taken place on the basis of orders from the higher authorities of the Syrian Arab Republic military command.
Even if authority can be delegated, responsibility cannot. … In the end, the IIT was unable to identify any other plausible explanation.”
The first report by the OPCW Investigation and Identification Team has been shared with all States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention and the United Nations Secretary-General.
H.E. Mr. Jean Pierre Karabaranga, Ambassador of Rwanda.
Today, the Embassy of the Republic of Rwanda in the Kingdom of the Netherlands started with the Kwibuka26 program marking the 26th Commemoration of the 1994 Genocide against Tutsi.
In observance of all measures taken in this country by the Dutch Government aimed at limiting the spread of Covid-19, an alternative program was developed in cooperation with Ibuka Netherlands and the official ceremony of today at 16.00 hours was broadcasted through the Embassy’s online communication channels. From 8 to 13 April, every day at 1600 hours a different video will be put online on the YouTube channel of the Embassy.
2020 marks the 26th commemoration of the Genocide against the Tutsi. Although this year the commemoration will be different from other years due to Covid-19, the commemoration period, commonly referred to as Kwibuka (the Kinyarwanda word for Remembrance), will continue to be an opportunity to pay homage to the victims as well as reflect on the transformational journey that Rwanda has been on for the last 26 years.
Kwibuka-26 ceremony in the Netherlands.
There are a series of events in The Netherlands organised by the Embassy of the Republic of Rwanda in The Hague and Ibuka-Netherlands to mark the commemoration and to remember and honour those we lost, comfort those who survived and pay tribute to the sacrifices that brought Rwanda back to life.
H.E. Mr. Peter Wilson, Ambassador of the United Kingdom.
The diplomatic community, Rwandan nationals living in the Netherlands, friends of Rwanda and many others have been invited to join for Kwibuka26 and pay homage to the victims.
The online Kwibuka26 ceremony that was broadcasted today consisted of the following elements • MC Mr Herbert Ndahiro • Testimony by Cecile Umulisa, a Genocide Survivor • Lighting Candles of Hope • Minute of Silence • Speech by Mrs Christine Safari, Chairperson IBUKA – Netherlands • Speech by H.E. Ambassador Yoka Brandt, Secretary General of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs • Speech by H.E. Ambassador Jean Pierre Karabaranga. Genocide survivor Cecile Umulisa gave a moving testimony. She told in detail what happened to her and her family. She lost many family members due to the killings by the Interahamwe.
Then, after the ceremony to light the candles and a minute of silence, a speech was given by Mrs Christine Safari, President of Ibuka Netherlands, which is an umbrella of survivors of the Genocide committed against Tutsis in 1994 in Rwanda. “This umbrella was created in 1995 in Rwanda and its cell was created in 2003 in the Netherlands. Our first objective is justice. Ibuka strives for bringing all those who committed the genocide as well as those who trivialize it to justice from wherever they are. Our second objective is to organize remembrance ceremonies to honour our beloved ones but also to heal our own wounds. Our third objective is to assist survivors who need material as well as moral support. Our fourth objective is peace building by combatting genocide ideology so that never again can become a reality,” said Mrs Safari.
Mr. Wilhen Neomar Lara, Charge d’affaires, Embassy of Venezuela.
“Once again we’d like to draw the attention of the international community as well as of the Netherlands, that there is still a good number of suspects who live out there freely. These suspects must be arrested and sent to justice. We’d like to request the UN to release the archives of the ICTR so that they can be kept in Rwanda near where the crimes were committed.
Once again Ibuka Holland reiterates the need for survivors living in the Netherlands to have a memorial site. Buka strongly believes that if many other western countries like Belgium, France, Italy and Switzerland granted memorial sites to the respective Ibuka cells the Netherlands can do the same as well. Finally, I’d like to request the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to elaborate a law that punishes the denial of the Genocide against the Tutsis which would give us a basis to legally combat the denial and the trivialization,” the President of Ibuka Netherlands said.
Representing the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Secretary General H.E. Yoka Brandt started her speech with saying that in times of crisis it’s even more important that we stay connected and that we remember. “Today we honour those lost and those who are still here, but who’s lives were changed forever. Every year we stand united to commemorate the genocide in Rwanda and to renew our commitment that such atrocities should never occur again and to remember that the men, women and children who lost their lives were not statistics but were people just like we are with the same hope and the same dreams,” the Secretary General said.
“Since the genocide Rwandans have worked incredibly hard rebuilding the country, rebuilding communities, healing people and healing minds. The Netherlands has been a strong supporter of Rwanda in this endeavour and will continue to help bringing perpetuators to justice,” H.E. Yoka Brandt continued. “Genocide suspects will not find a safe haven in the Netherlands. We believe genocide suspects should as much as possible be tried in the country where they committed their crimes, And let it be clear, there can be no impunity to such crimes.”
“Let’s remember that life can only be understood backwards but it must be lived forwards. Rwanda has demonstrated that even in the deepest darkness there is hope,” Secretary General Brandt concluded her speech.
Ambassador Jean Pierre Karabaranga stated in his speech that the remembrance event of today allows us to keep the memory of the victims alive and to reaffirm our collective determination to uphold the ‘Never again Genocide ’ pledge. He quoted H.E. the President of the Republic of Rwanda, who said that today is a day to remember. “A day to honour those we lost as well as those who survived and live on, but under difficult conditions brought on by the aftermath of the genocide. Let us not leave them to their plight. Let us keep in mind that those who died lost their bodies but their spirit remains with us. We will use that spirit to help us build our people and our country,” the Ambassador quoted H.E. President Paul Kagame.
Ambassador Karabaranga continued his speech and said that the remembrance day of the genocide against the Tutsi is a day of deep pain and sorrow for the survivors of the genocide and the people of Rwanda in general, but it is necessary and important as we have to show solidarity with survivors during this difficult moments.
“Through Kwibuka events like today we also learn about the causes, reality and consequences of the genocide to better fight it in Rwanda and anywhere else in the world. Kwibuka allows us to build a new society, a new country free of discrimination, segregation, hatred and free of genocide,” he said.
Despite positive development in the international knowledge of the genocide against the Tutsis and despite international legal recognition of the genocide against the Tutsis, so many worrying actions reminds us that the evil is not yet completely defeated, the Ambassador also said this afternoon. “Today we are facing two dangerous situations: the denial of the Genocide against the Tutsis and the impunity of many criminals who committed the genocide.”
Mrs. Viviane Uwicyeza Mironko spouse of. the Ambassador of Rwanda.
“Except a few countries (Belgium and France), which recently enacted a law for the punishment of the denial of the genocide against the Tutsis, it is unacceptable that today, globally there is little attention to the denial of genocide against the Tutsis, like there was little attention to alarming signs preceding the genocide in 1994. In light of this we appeal to the international community to learn from history and stand together in a strong fight against any form of genocide denial and genocide ideology. We therefore appeal to the Dutch government to strongly condemn and enact a law punishing the denial of the genocide against the Tutsi”, H.E. the Ambassador said in his speech.
He concluded with thanking all honoured speakers and the Ambassador took the opportunity to comfort and encourage genocide survivors during these coming painful 100 days period of remembrance that was started today. “I wish you to stay strong and brave as you did for the last 26 years. On our side the Embassy will remain with you and will stand with you side by side” H.E. Karabaranga said.
Click here to watch the online Kwibuka26 ceremony in the Netherlands.
By Steven van Hoogstraten, Former Director, Carnegie Foundation.
Not many people will know that the Peace Palace may one day have a role to play in the relations between the 27 EU member states and the UK. The City of The Hague is not normally associated with the European Union – other than issues related to Europol and Eurojust. The connection I refer to is laid down in the so-called Withdrawal Agreement, which was finally ratified by the UK Parliament and led to the UK’s formal exit from the EU as of January 31st, 2020.
At present, all attention understandably is turned towards the establishment of a new Trade Agreement, which should be negotiated and concluded before the 31st of December, 2020. This date is the end of the Transition Period. Both sides have published their initial positions, and rather complicated talks are to be anticipated. In order to allow free trade without quotas and tariffs, the EU seeks to follow the existing EU legislation framework as much as possible. On the contrary, the UK is endeavouring to move away from this EU straight jacket as soon as they can. The UK is opting for a Canadian style CETA agreement, with less stringent conditions for matters such as state aid and protection for workers, the environment or animal treatment. In short: less UK engagement with a level playing field.
The UK feels, as a logical matter of principle, that it should not continue to be governed by EU rules it has so far adhered to; and the EU is absolutely right in saying that matters are least complicated if the present schemes of regulation being shared by two sides can run on. Only that approach will guarantee a more or less frictionless trade. We will have to see how that develops. I am afraid that the UK wants to make a point of showing its political independence by moving away from everything which is so called “dictated” from Brussels; and that will no doubt slow down the talks.
Now let us look at the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement for a moment, and where the Peace Palace comes in. All questions which may arise under the Withdrawal Agreement have to be submitted to a Joint Committee, which can take binding decisions for the parties. If that common approach does not solve the issues at hand, a dispute settlement procedure is established, such as an international arbitration procedure. This arbitration procedure provides for a panel of 5 members which can produce a legally binding decision. If necessary, this can be done by a majority vote and very importantly, without any dissenting opinions allowed to be shown. This procedure between EU and the UK will be governed by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in the Peace Palace.
The two parties have to engage in consultations within the Joint Committee for a period of three months, and are free to submit their dispute to the procedure of arbitration afterwards. All of this can be read in article 167 and the following articles of the Withdrawal Agreement (Official Journal EU, 2019/C 384 of 12.11.2019). Incidentally, where the conflict involves the correct interpretation or application of an EU Directive or Regulation, the arbiters are bound to submit the matter to the European Court of Justice, and take the decision of the ECJ as a binding form of guidance.
As the Withdrawal Agreement is full of substantive provisions and references to EU law, it is certainly not to be excluded that a final solution through arbitration for some future dispute will be sought by either the EU or the UK. One might think about the correct interpretation of the EU citizens’ rights to work and live in the UK, the proper functioning of border controls with and within the UK, the nature and extent of financial obligations and the like. All these matters could first be debated in the Joint Committee and, in the case of failing a solution, be decided as a next step by arbitration under the umbrella of the PCA in the Peace Palace.
Turning back now to the trade negotiations ahead, a similar situation is to be expected. Any free trade agreement will have to contain provisions for the governance of the partnership; and as part of that governance, a clause is needed for the settlement of disputes. The Negotiating Guidelines adopted by the European Council on February 25th, 2020 are very specific on this point. Not so surprisingly, these Guidelines repeat the basic elements of the procedure under the Withdrawal Agreement, but without mentioning the institutions involved. It is just the principle of arbitration which is laid down. The European guidelines state “the governing body may, where applicable, agree to refer the dispute to an independent arbitration panel at any time …where the governing body has not arrived at a mutually satisfactory solution within a defined period of time” (para 158 of the guidelines).
The UK negotiating approach (under the title “The Future Relationship with the EU”, February 2020) heads largely in the same direction. The overall vision of the UK is to aim for a relationship based on friendly cooperation between sovereign equals, with both sides respecting each other’s legal autonomy. According to the UK document, the Agreement should include provisions for the governance arrangements that are appropriate to a relationship of sovereign equals, drawn from existing Free Trade Agreements; such as those the EU has with Japan and Canada.
The governance should be based on a Joint Committee to support the smooth functioning of the Agreement and provide mechanisms for dialogue and if necessary, dispute resolution. However, the UK does not see any role for the Court of Justice of the EU in the dispute resolution mechanism. This attitude is notably different from the approach taken in the Withdrawal Agreement, and I personally wonder if the UK will be able to walk away from this precedent.
As a concluding remark, I would like to note that the Brexit process has led to a foothold in The Hague, with the Permanent Court of Arbitration in a very important position under the Withdrawal Agreement. Whether this role will be extended under the new Trade Agreement is clearly a matter for the future. However, I would not be surprised if the (second) mechanism for dispute settlement would again be brought under the umbrella of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Peace Palace, in the slipstream of the agreed position so far. That would be definitively good for the profile of The Hague, a city of international law.
From left to right: Europa Nostra Secretary General Sneska-Quaedvlieg-Mihailovic, European Commission Vice-President in charge of Promoting our European Way of Life Margaritis Schinas, Europa Nostra Vice-President Androulla Vassiliou, and Head of Brussels Office Jimmy Jamar. Image credits Credits: EC – Audiovisual Service.
Europe and its citizens are confronted with many pressing issues: an unprecedented health emergency, a deep environmental crisis, a dangerous rise of extremism and populism and increasing threats to fundamental values such as the rule of law, to name a few. At a time when the European project is yet at another crossroads, we must “change the tone”: we need a change of narrative and course of action when shaping the future of Europe.
Europa Nostra, Europe’s leading citizens’ movement to protect and celebrate cultural heritage, deeply believes that now more than ever, we need to focus on what brings us together rather than what divides us. If we want Europe to become a beacon of hope and a force for good in a complex and vulnerable world, we have to rediscover and reaffirm our shared cultural values and heritage.
In its recent Paris Manifesto “Relançons l’Europe par la culture et le patrimoine culturel!’, (2019), Europa Nostra asserts that cultural heritage is an undeniable part of Europe’s identity, and one of the areas that generates a strong engagement by communities and citizens. Europa Nostra therefore calls on European leaders to place cultural heritage where it belongs: at the heart of the European project.
Credits: Europa Nostra, 2020
As an instrument that connects people to places, brings citizens closer together and fosters a sense of belonging, cultural heritage helps us shed some light to today’s challenges. Not only does cultural heritage bridge our past, present and future; it also enhances collective remembrance and historical empathy which are key for peaceful and democratic societies.
As demonstrated by the study Cultural Heritage Counts for Europe[1](2015), heritage has manifold positive impacts on our economy, culture, society and the environment and can contribute to achieve the Union’s key priorities, for example in terms of social cohesion, sustainable development, job creation, health and well-being of our citizens or the fight against climate change.
Since it was founded nearly six decades ago, Europa Nostra has been raising awareness on the value of cultural heritage for Europe; advocating for heritage towards policy-makers at all levels; celebrating excellence in heritage protection and mobilising to save Europe’s endangered heritage.
Through these intertwined actions, Europa Nostra’s ultimate goal is to contribute to the preservation and understanding of our shared past, to take lessons for the present and to shape new visions for the future of Europe.
Credits: Europa Nostra. The ‘7 Most Endangered’ sites in Europe 2018
Credits: Europa Nostra. Collage of some of the cultural heritage sites selected for the ‘7 Most Endangered’ programme by Europa Nostra and the European Investment Bank Institute
The birth of Europa Nostra was itself the result of a European common vision inspired by a sense of cultural solidarity. Back in 1963, only 5 years after the signature of the Treaty of Rome, the ideals of European integration were gaining momentum, not only among governments but also among individuals and citizens associations.
It was in this positive climate that 17 civil society organisations from 10 different countries founded Europa Nostra. Ever since, Europa Nostra has grown into the largest and most representative civil society network of organisations and individuals committed to Europe’s cultural heritage.[2]
The fact that Europa Nostra’s headquarters are located in The Hague, the International City of Peace and Justice, and that its Brussels Liaison Office in located at the very heart of EU decision-making is not accidental. Throughout the last decades, Europa Nostra’s voice has had a significant echo in the design and implementation of European and International heritage-related policies. This has been achieved thanks to deep-rooted partnerships with key international actors such as the UNESCO and its World Heritage Centre, the Strasbourg-based Council of Europe, as well as key non-governmental stakeholders. Likewise, Europa Nostra is recognised as the major civil society partner of the EU and its Brussels-based institutions when it comes to cultural heritage[3].
Among the major heritage policy developments of the past years, let us highlight the first-ever European Year of Cultural Heritage celebrated in 2018. The designation of this year confirmed that cultural heritage, due to its untapped potential for Europe and the wellbeing of its citizens, is gradually given a higher priority on the EU political agenda. Europa Nostra’s voice was instrumental before and during this European Year: not only did Europa Nostra advocate for its designation – together with other civil society stakeholders like the European Heritage Alliance 3.3[4] – but also actively contributed to its preparation, implementation and, therefore, to its success.
With a minimal financial investment, the European Year brought together all EU Institutions, Member States, civil society stakeholders as well as millions of citizens who care about Europe’s shared heritage. This gave an important impetus to EU heritage policy, action and funding, mainstreaming heritage across different EU priorities. Europa Nostra is now fully committed to sustain the legacy of this Year and to upscale its achievements in the future.
Two years after this historic European Year, a lot has changed. Europe has new leadership: 2019 saw the election of a new European Parliament as well as new Presidents of the European Commission, European Parliament, European Council and European Central Bank. In the first months of 2020, Europa Nostra has been meeting with and advocating towards new EU leaders with the ambition to forge a New European Deal for cultural heritage over the solid foundations laid by the European Year.
For Europa Nostra, such a “New Heritage Deal”, in full complementarity with the future EU Green Deal, should result in a renewed and prolonged period of a much stronger and more coherent commitment of public and private stakeholders to cultural heritage. We are convinced that this will be a most welcome contribution to the social and economic recovery of Europe in the aftermath of the COVID19 pandemics. Why? Because Europe needs to invest in its human and cultural capital to respond to the complex challenges it faces. Because cultural heritage has the power to bring Europeans closer together and trigger new popular support towards the European project. Because only through education, culture and heritage can Europe fulfil its promise of being a continent of peace, stability and prosperity in today’s rapidly changing and turbulent world.
[1]Cultural Heritage Counts For Europe Report (2015) Europa Nostra, ENCATC, Heritage Europe, the Heritage Alliance, the International Cultural Centre and the Raymond Lemaire International Centre for Conservation at the University of Leuven.
[2] Europa Nostra brings together 340 member organisations – including non-governmental and professional associations, foundations, museums, public bodies, universities, historic cities and villages -, as well as nearly 1,000 individuals from over 40 countries.
[4] The European Heritage Alliance 3.3 is an informal platform of 49 European and international heritage networks. Its objective is to work closely together to promote the untapped potential of cultural heritage and advocate for adequate policies and funding.
India-US ties are back in the spotlight with Donald Trump’s latest broadside on Kashmir at Davos 2020, expressed for the second time in the presence of Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan. Narendra Modi government’s enthusiasm for the relationship has led it to overlook such diplomatic slights from the White House. It appears both sides have discovered an efficient way to manage ties and construct a public discourse that does not let differences interrupt the trajectory of the relationship. But the fact is there are convergences and differences, and it is time we recognised this complex reality.
The substance
For the US, there are several advantages that come with a cooperative India. It helps strengthen US influence in South Asia and the Indian Ocean region; provides valuable ideological support for the US in Asia; offers a vast market for the US private sector including defence manufacturing firms; enables the US military to sustain its regional posture and buttress logistical networks in the Indo-Pacific; provides political leverage against China in the future.
Perhaps, most consequentially, the US has succeeded in moving India to a position where it has been adopting a political and diplomatic posture of a positive abstention, if not outright support, in favour of the US vis-à-vis other great powers in the neighbourhood and Asia. That is a key strategic outcome for US foreign policy and has been achieved at very little cost.
A positive equation with the US benefits India too. It provides India with access to the international order and its key institutions, many of these still dominated by the West; it provides options for India’s economic development and modernisation; it provides access to advanced military capabilities; it provides a degree of leverage against Pakistan and China; it provides a certain space for India to rise without inviting containment or negative policies.
Finally, US crisis management has benefited India on many occasions, including during the India-Pakistan standoff after the Pulwama terror attack last year.
India as a passive actor
Close engagement does bring mutual advantages across a range of issue areas. Yet, to make the leap from a clear-eyed picture, where different visions and interests do not come in the way of a mutually advantageous relationship, to one where we speak of a global strategic partnership, where interests are being jointly defined and geostrategies crafted together is a stretch too far. The moment the hyperbole begins, the contradictions surface.
One critique is that India has been a passive player in shaping ties, and that a stable relationship with Washington is increasingly seen as an end in itself rather than as part of a broader Indian grand strategy. When we talk of strategic convergence, it is usually about whether India is adhering to US preferences. The agenda-setting is rarely undertaken by India’s policymakers, think tanks or even the media, who more often than not reproduce or react to US priorities.
Take China, for example. When we talk of a rising China, it is the maritime rather than continental dimension that dominates most of our conversations. The West Pacific area is an obvious priority for the US, but a peripheral geopolitical concern for India. Even the ‘Quad’ is ultimately about getting India to share the burden on East Asian security, with no apparent quid pro quo on challenges closer to home: securing the northern frontier with China and hedging against the possibility of China-Pakistan military moves in a regional crisis.
Even on the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and the broader Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in South Asia, the absence of a meaningful India-US response to counterbalance Chinese influence stands out. In his recent visit to Washington, Pakistan’s foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi felt confident enough to make the case for a renewed US-Pakistan partnership that would run in parallel with China-Pakistan ties, and with Pakistan as a “bridge builder” in this triangle. Reports of Pakistan avoiding a negative ruling at the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) in Beijing last week should also be seen in this light: the US and China have a common interest in Pakistan’s well-being and often act in tandem when their ally is in trouble.
Look at regional security. Take the Pulwama-Balakot episode in February 2019. It was apparent that the US was not interested in embarrassing the Pakistan army or endorsing a coercive Indian policy. In fact, there was more continuity than a radical departure – a third party US role that promoted regional stability and sought to strike a fine balance between the security interests of its two main partners in the subcontinent.
The leverage that Pakistan has derived from the 18-year long US military presence in Afghanistan is well known. In all likelihood, if the US-Taliban deal, mediated by the Pakistan army, is struck in time, the main reason for Trump’s rendezvous to the subcontinent next month would to be to showcase success on that front.
Let us turn to defence. The spectacular growth in US exports in recent years obscures fundamental differences. The dominant discourse is focused on promoting US market access rather than India’s overall military modernisation. So, Indian attempts to pursue alternative technological options immediately invite negative policies and pressure. The points of friction, however, run deeper.
Through its arms sales, the US aims to develop a network of states that would integrate into a broader US-controlled ecosystem of technologies and intelligence, and, would collectively share the burden of managing a US-led security architecture. But for India, such a concept is not only incompatible with the vision of an inclusive multipolar world order, it also undermines the very basis of strategic autonomy – where the ability to autonomously operate its military forces is vital for the independence of India’s foreign and security policies.
Power transition
What is complicating the India-US relationship today is the ongoing global and regional power transition in Asia. Fundamental questions have come to the fore. Should India seek to assist the US in restoring its primacy in Asia or seek to build a reformed and stable world order that would inevitably require cooperation with other great powers and regional powers many of whom the US is preparing to confront in the coming decade? Is India’s desire to be an independent great power and pursue “multi-aligned” foreign and economic policies consistent with the US approach that seeks exclusivity and conformity from its clients and partners? How would a more assertive US foreign policy in the coming years fit with India’s priorities for economic transformation and a stable neighbourhood where great power discord is limited?
During the mid-2000s, when Washington and Delhi were exuberant about the future of their relationship, the notion of a power transition was too remote a proposition to precipitate a real debate. We have now reached that turning point where the scale and scope of the India-US relationship needs to be sensibly re-defined and then pursued realistically. India cannot play the role envisioned by the US in the coming decade. Neither can the US pull Indian chestnuts out of the fire. High-flown rhetoric will get us nowhere. The Modi government should began the process when Trump visited India last month.
(Reproduced by kind permission of the Author – source:The Print)
Zorawar Daulet Singh is an author and foreign affairs analyst. He is a Fellow at the Centre for Policy Research (CPR). He is also an Adjunct Fellow with the Institute of Chinese Studies and a Visiting Fellow at the Forum for Strategic Initiative. Zorawar’s research interests include India’s foreign policy, various dimensions of India China relations, Eurasian geopolitics, and, international political economy. His recent book includes India China Relations: The Border Issue and Beyond and Chasing the Dragon: Will India Catch up with China? Zorawar’s latest book, Power and Diplomacy: India’s Foreign Policies during the Cold War, has been published by Oxford University Press in 2019.
Previously he was a Fellow at the Centre for Policy Alternatives in New Delhi. Zorawar holds a PhD in international relations from King’s College London, a M.A. in international relations from the School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), Johns Hopkins University and a B.Sc. from the University of London where he majored in economics and finance.
As a Dutchman who was born in 1943, I can not personally remember a time as upsetting as this. When I was ten years old, a terrible storm broke the dykes in the Southwest of The Netherlands and almost 2000 people here died. It was a terrible disaster but it was local and short-lived.
Then there was the oil crisis when our then Prime Minister Joop Den Uyl declared a car-free Sunday to save our oil supplies. There were eerily empty streets then too, but again it was short-lived and didn’t threaten anybody in other parts of the country.
This time it is different. It is not as a Dutch saying goes a “far from my bed show”, it is right here, it is now, and it threatens us all. It took a couple of weeks before that knowledge sank through to everybody. The first weekend after the government issued warnings about keeping 1.5 meters distance, tens of thousands of people ignored it and went to beaches, parks or ‘gezellige buurtborrels’. Young people thought that because they were less at risk, they wouldn’t have to distance themselves, not thinking that while carrying the virus in a mild or even unnoticeable way, they would still infect other people.
By now, the penny has dropped. Almost all people keep the proper distance. Shops limit the number of customers allowed in and in the streets and parks, people obey the distance rules. But that is not all. The situation has brought out the best in many people, calling on the lonely, the sick and the elderly, offering to do shopping or cooking or just lending an ear.
Apartment blocks spontaneously organized help committees, sports clubs, and religious organizations of all denominations thought up creative ways to use their networks to help. A wonderful little initiative to engage small children on an outside walk without getting close to others is “spot teddybears” that many people have put in their windows. I know this is happening in the Duttendel and the Van Stolk Park area of The Hague, but I am sure many other places all over the country that do this.
Of course, there are exceptions, a few people who don’t give a d..n, some hoarders, cheats and price gougers, but on the whole people in the Netherlands and, I am sure, in many other countries are showing their best sides. And I mean people from all walks of life and not just the care workers who are putting themselves at risk while working incredible hours, ordinary members of the public are showing a wonderful sense of social cohesion.
Not long ago there was talk of a loss of our “norms and values”. What this crisis shows is that when push comes to shove, our norms and values are alive and well. It shows that -in the words of the Dutch historian Rutger Bregman- most people are naturally good.
Diplomat Magazine: Vice Rector Ismailzade, ADA was set up as an academy arm of the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry, today however it is a fully accredited university with a brilliant reputation. Can you tell us, how the academy evolved, and what do you foresee in the future? –
ADA has evolved greatly in the last 14 years. It was established in 2006 as the Foreign Service was expanding, in fact from 25 to 40 and eventually to 75 embassies worldwide. In the beginning we were training diplomats, approximately 450, who swiftly went abroad for their posting. After a couple of years, we realised that we had the capability to offer programmes on international affairs to a more general student pool with degree options.
We began with master degrees for the postgraduates, a couple of years later we opened bachelor programmes and nowadays we are a fully accredited university. We are a fairly broad university, for our array of programmes include information technology, business degrees, computer engineering, data analysis, education management, pedagogy, etc., in addition to the ones on international law and affairs.
Diplomat Magazine: ADA has a close partnership with UN? How did it come about? –
From the very first day we positioned ourselves as a global player. We offer scholarships for students hailing from developing countries. Our contacts to UN agencies are outstanding, and through them we are able to recruit students but also host high-level functions. One example is an event we held together with UNICEF about people living with disabilities, with the UNDP (United Nations Development Assistance Plan) about the UN Development Goals, etc.
We believe that through cooperation with UN institutions our university can more easily reach out to policy-makers, and contribute to educating students able to tackle problems on a larger scale.
Diplomat Magazine: How about the relations to the European Union? Do you foresee a partnership with the EU External Action Service? –
Particularly with the EU delegation in Baku we hold a good relationship. For instance, in 2014 we inked an agreement, and set up an Excellence Centre in EU studies. Through the latter we offer extraordinary education on EU affairs, policy, institutions for our students but likewise for Azerbaijani civil servants, not only from the Foreign Service.
Through EU funding we have trained local teachers in Azerbaijan, organized summer camps, and exchanges with our students. Currently we have various exchange agreements with a myriad of EU universities, and not only for our students but also for our faculty staff and administrators who are able to expand in their curricula through experiences in EU countries.
Diplomatic Magazine: Azerbaijan’s mission to the European Union is headed by top Ambassador Fuad İsgəndərov. How is the cooperation with him, and his mission to expand ADA’s network, and programmes vis-à-vis the EU?
Particularly with our mission to Brussels we work closely. In fact, they offer internships to our students, and possibilities for study trips to Brussels.
Through them we are successful in gaining access to top lecturers for our students such as the then President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso. We often host EU commissioners as well. Our Ambassador Fuad İsgəndərov, and the other diplomats are rather helpful for us, especially in obtaining visas but likewise in facilitating communications when we attend EU sponsored events, or the other way around.
Diplomatic Magazine: Over forty countries are represented in ADA’s student corps. What is the strategy to entice international students to Baku, and does it follow any goal in the country’s foreign policy?-
We believe that in a globalised world, students ought to learn from each other’s, outside their national boundaries. International students bring much diversity to our campus. Around 40 nationalities are currently represented at ADA, and in fact we rely remarkably on our diplomatic networks to entice more students.
For our Azerbaijani students we offer them our network, and partnerships with over 60 universities globally. All in our goal is for ADA to enhance cultures of tolerance by becoming acquainted to other people, religions, traditions, people. Even one term exchange semesters are very practical, and we have noticed that they bring a lot of value to our student network, and alumni.
Diplomatic Magazine: Currently programmes at ADA are taught in English, which is very attractive for Azerbaijanis and International students alike. Are you planning to expand in offering courses in other languages perhaps by partnering up with EU countries for instance?-
ADA is the only university in Azerbaijan that teaches fully in the English language. All courses are offered in English, although we do offer ad hoc trainings in Spanish, French or Russian.
By promoting the English language, we are more able to build up partnerships with other educational institutions. From this year in fact we are offering a joint programme with George Washington University in the USA, we currently hold dual programmes with Sorbonne University in France as well as with Maastricht School of Management in The Netherlands.
The COVID-19 situation is very worrying, indeed, alarming matter, not just as a global health and biosafety issue, but potentially as a global security challenge, too.
By Tan Sri Hasmy Agam and Prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic.
While the pandemic is being dealt with by the World Health Organisation (WHO), along with other relevant United Nation Specialised Agencies (UN SA), the situation is deteriorating rapidly and could easily get out of control. This of course, if it is not effectively contained. In such a (more and more likely) scenario, it would be engulfing the entire world, whose effects and impact would be akin to that of a Third world war, though initially of a different kind.
We are amazed as to why the Security Council has not stepped in. It should have done so as to address the Covid-19 and surrounding scenery in the way it clearly deserves to be dealt with, given its devastating impact on the entire international community on almost every dimension, including international peace and security, which indisputably falls under its mandate under the UN Charter.
As the Council has often dealt with issues which are sometimes not ostensibly related to international or regional security, and of much less importance or urgency than this dreadful pandemic, we are puzzled, indeed alarmed, as to why it has chosen not to come to grips with the pandemic as a matter of the utmost urgency.
If the members of the Council, for their own internal reasons, have not felt compelled to do so, shouldn’t the other members of the world body, individually or collectively as international or regional groupings, such as the European Union (EU), the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) – G-77, African Union (AU), or ASEAN, take the much-desired initiative to call on the Security Council to imperatively address this global pandemic, even as the WHO and other concerned UN agencies, much to their credit, are dealing with the issue from their own (narrow) perspectives – and yet rather limited mandate and resources.
In this regard, especially the EU, would be well-positioned to exert the much-need pressure on the UNSC, given the devastation that the Virus has wreaked on a number of its members, notably Italy and Spain, among others.
Mr. Tan Sri Hasmy Agam
Such an Urgent Meeting, indeed, Emergency Special Session of the UN Security Council at this point in time would be greatly applauded by the entire international community as it would accord the world body the leadership role that its members expect it to play at this most critical point in the post WWII human history.
Gens una sumus. Concordia patria firmat
In this dire situation, the big powers should put aside their ideological and policy differences – as seen in the UN General Assembly case, and focus instead on galvanizing concerted international actions of ensuring the safety, full respect of humanitarian law, and undiscriminated wellbeing of the entire human race.
By decisively and urgently acting, the UN Secretary-General and the UN SC would be sending a bold and clear yet tranquilising signal to the entire humanity. More importantly, such a unison voice would be also welcomed and well understood as a referential (not to say a norm setting) note by other crucial agencies, such as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR), International Labour Organisation (ILO), International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), World Tourism Organisation (WTO), as well as by the Red Cross (IFRC), Bretton Woods institutions, Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Federation of Trade Unions, Council of Europe (CoE), including other specialised or non-UN FORAs, most notably developmental entities such as the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), Islamic Development Bank (IsDB), Asian Development Bank (ADB), African Development Bank (AfDB), etc.
In the following period – while witnessing indeed a true historical conjuncture, we need a global observance and protection of human rights and of jobs, for the benefit of economy and overall security. Therefore, the measures imposed these days cannot be disproportionate, unrelated, indefinite, unbalanced and only on societal expenses or democracy recession. Recovery – which from now on are calling for a formidable biosafety, too – will be impossible without social consensus. Clearly, it will be unsustainable if on expenses of labour or done through erosion of basic human rights – embedded in the UN Charter and accepted as essential to the very success of SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals).
Indeed, countries are not just economies, but most of all societies.
(The truth is plain to see: Planet has stopped, although the Capital remains intact. We came to a global halt because the Labour has been sent home. Hence, the recovery comes with labour. Historically, labour has never betrayed, while capital has failed us many times. By the same token, human rights never betrayed the state and its social cohesion, but the states – and much glorified markets – far too many times in history have failed humans. Therefore, there is no true exit from the crisis without strengthening the labour and human rights.)
For a grave planetary problem, our rapidly articulated global accord is badly needed. Therefore, multilateralism – as the most effective planetary tool at our disposal – is not our policy choice. It is the only way for human race to (socio-economically and politically) survive.
Covid-19 is a challenge that comes from the world of biology. Yet, biology and international relations share one basic rule: Comply or die. To remind us; it is not the big that eat the small, rather it is a fast which eats the slow.
It is hight time to switch off the autopilot. Leadership and vision now!!
Vienna/Kuala Lumpur / 04 APR 2020
About the authors:
Tan Sri Hasmy Agam-
Malaysia’s Ambassador to UN NY (incl. term in UN SC), Head of the Diplomatic Academy, Chairman of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) – retired.
Prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic–
Chairperson and professor in intl law and global political studies, Austria; authored 7 books and numerous articles on, mainly, geopolitics energy and technology.
