Courtesy Call Between H.E Mr. Gamaliel Nkurunziza, Ambassador of the Republic of Burundi and the Hon. Dr. Jan Anthonie Bruijn, President of the Senate of the Kingdom of The Netherlands
The Burundian Ambassador’s, H.E. Mr. Nkurunziza recently paid a visit to the President of the Dutch Senate, during which the current political situation was discussed, whereby Mr. Nkurunziza explained the emphasis on harboring security in the country, as well as the upcoming 2020 general elections in Burundi.
The discussion of H.E. Mr. Nkurunziza and Hon. Mr. Bruijn also brought an exchange of views on the relations between Burundi, the Netherlands, and the European Union on the one hand, as well as those between Burundi and the Region of the Large Lakes on the other hand.
H.E. Mr. Nkurunziza explained that peace and security are a reality in Burundi, which allows the population to pursue their ordinary activities in all parts of the country. However, the Burundian Ambassador emphasised the need of a political alternation at the top, which was initiated by party CNDD FDD and marked a historical act of the highest democratic value.
Remarkably enough, it is officially the first time in Burundi to see a changeover at the top of the political party in power. Indeed, on January 26th, the CNDD-FDD Extraordinary Congress resulted in a peaceful election of Mr. Evariste Ndayishimiye as the candidate to the presidential election. The choice for Mr. Evariste Ndayishimiye was well-received, as he is believed to be an apt candidate for the party as well as for Burundi for a number of reasons, principally as his primary goals are the promotion of unity, justice and development in Burundi.
What is more, his past professional experience as the Minister of Interior, the Chief of the Office of the President, and as the Secretary General of the Ruling Party granted him the skills and knowledge required to rule the country effectively.
With regard to the subject of the general elections, the Burundian Ambassador expressed the goal of securing that the 2020 elections in Burundi will be more peaceful, more transparent and more inclusive. Indeed, the increasing number of candidates underscores this fact, thereby giving way to a historic first moment since the coming of the democratic era in Burundi.
Later in the conversation,the Burundian Ambassador pointed out that the present achievements are the result of the legal and organizational framework established by the government. For instance, the Electoral Code and its structures of coordination and executions on all levels, as well as a consensual roadmap between the political parties for the 2020, have been put in place.
Moreover, Mr. Nkurunziza indicated that the electoral process is progressing smoothly and successfully owing to an allocated budget, which was financed by Burundians themselves, and thereby presented another memorable moment in Burundi’s history.
As far as relations between Burundi, the Netherlands and European Union are concerned, the Ambassador appreciated the co-operation and friendly relations between Burundi and the Netherlands. Nevertheless, he stressed the former’s appeal for the support of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in the negotiations with the European Union aimed at removing sanctions taken wrongfully against Burundi, as well as to support the country in its implementation of the National Development Plan (PND 2018-2027).
“Burundi is a country full of opportunities in a varied range of domains, and thus we need investors to come to Burundi and work together on a win –win basis.”
In the words of Mr. Nkurunziza, the motivations of the sanctions appear to be unjust given that the elements referred to by the European Union differ from the real situation on ground in Burundi, where the respect of human rights, good governance, freedom of expression, democratic values and political space are a reality.
In the light of this positive evolution, Ambassador Nkurunziza solicited the EU to stop these unilateral sanctions of which the Burundian population is ultimately the victim. Mr. Nkurunziza also reiterated his invocation to the Netherlands in particular, and the EU in general, to reconsider their views on the security in Burundi. More specifically, Mr. Nkurunziza pointed out that the 2015 events are not the correct references anymore, hence Burundi should accordingly be removed from the UN Agenda.
Concerning Burundi’s relationships within the Great Lakes Region, H.E. Mr. Nkurunziza explained that Burundi lives in perfect harmony with all the countries of the region, with the exception of Rwanda. “We deplored this situation of Rwanda in conflict with all the countries of the region including its neighboring Burundi. Rwanda continues to set off socialmedia so as to destabilize Burundi, and to show panic within the Burundian population.”
Finally, this audience was also an optimal opportunity to exchange the domestic and external policies for the pursuit of common interests.
In the picture H.E. Ms. Rawan Sulaiman, Head of the Palestinian Mission in The Netherlands.
By Guido Lanfranchi.
The Palestine Liberation Organization has officialized its firm rebuke of the peace plan recently unveiled by the United States administration. The Palestinian leadership had already criticized the US proposal ahead of its release, notably complaining about not being duly consulted during the drafting phase. Following the official unveiling [GL1] of the plan by US President Donald Trump in late January, the PLO doubled down its criticism with a strongly worded communiqué, which denounced the proposal as heavily unbalanced in favor of the demands set forth by the current Israeli government.
Dubbing the US proposal as “the so-called plan”, the communiqué unequivocally rejected its content, describing it as “a declaration of hostility against the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people”. The Palestinian leadership condemned the annexation of Occupied Palestinian Territories, including the city of East Jerusalem, accusing the plan of endorsing “the theft of resources byway of annexation and hegemonic Israeli military control”.
Moreover, the Palestinians lashed at the proposed conditions imposed by the plan on the Palestinian Authority in order to achieve statehood. “The US ‘plan’ proposes a disconnected and unviable archipelago of Palestinian communities stripped of any sovereignty or viability, engulfed in Israel’s belly and denied of any control over borders, airspace, territorial waters, security, or natural resources” – the communiqué said, concluding that “these are conditions that no country can accept.”
Against this backdrop, the Palestinian leadership reaffirmed that “the rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, freedom, justice, and sovereignty are fundamental and non-negotiable”, and pledged to defend such rights “by pursuing all available legal and diplomatic avenues”. While pledging to further their interests “in line with international law”, the Palestinians condemned the plan for failing to abide by this very same standard, as well as for defying the United Nations Charter and the resolutions issued by UN bodies.
Given these considerations about the US proposal, “the Palestinian leadership will not engage in any discussion based on its content” – the document pledged, urging countries around the world not to normalize the “US-Israeli agenda of annexation”. At the same time, however, the PLO reaffirmed its “readiness to engage in a constructive and meaningful political effort on the basis of international law, relevant United Nations resolutions, and the Arab Peace Initiative”, and to “work with the international community to achieve a reality of peace, dignity, and justice on this solid foundation”.
During a European trip aimed at garnering support for the Palestinian cause, Palestinian Authority’s Assistant Foreign Minister for Multilateral Affairs, Ambassador Mr. Ammar Hijazi, landed in The Hague, where he was welcomed by H.E. Ms. Rawan Sulaiman, Head of the Palestinian Representative Office in the Netherlands. During his stay in the city, the Assistant Foreign Minister met with diplomats, the press, and friends of Palestine in order to voice his country’s concerns regarding the US peace proposal. The reception was attended by several high-ranking diplomats and officials.
Ambassador Sulaiman took this opportunity to echo her government’s criticism of the proposal.
“For the stake of peace and the future generations of Palestine, we accepted to exercise our right to self-determination over 22% of historic Palestine, and to use international law as the reference to a peace agreement. We are now at a crossroads: the US plan is an assault on the basic foundations of international law. It sends a message to the world that ‘might is right’. It challenges and undermines universal values of human rights and the rule of law”.
“Instead of delivering on justice, freedom, and Palestinians’ inalienable rights, the US plan endorses annexation and aggression” – she continued. “What is at stake here is the international legal order that has governed international relations between states since World War II. This is not just about Palestine; it is about protecting our international legal order and our universal values of human rights and the rule of law as we know it”.
Guido Lanfranchi is a student and young professional in the field of international affairs. He has pursued his studies both at Leiden University and Sciences Po Paris, where he is currently enrolled. In parallel, he has been gaining professional experience through internships (first at the Council of the European Union, and currently at Clingendael Institute), as well as by working as reporter and associate editor for Diplomat Magazine The Netherlands. His research and work focus on the Middle East and Africa, and especially on conflict situations in these regions.
Statement of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Mrs Fatou Bensouda, on the International Day against the use of Child Soldiers
This International Day against the Use of Child Soldiers serves as a bleak reminder that around the world today, girls and boys in their tens of thousands are still being forced to fight and die as soldiers in wars. Children should have no part in armed conflict. Today, and every day, we must reinforce our collective resolve for urgent action to eradicate the practice and its horrendous consequences.
In July 1998, the international community reaffirmed its commitment to put an end to impunity for atrocity crimes, including those perpetrated against and affecting children through the adoption of the Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court (“ICC” or “Court”) – the world’s first permanent international criminal court.
The creation of the ICC was not only ground-breaking for the advancement of international criminal justice, its founding treaty is also the first international legal instrument to encompass an extensive catalogue of crimes against and affecting children, including their conscription, enlistment and use in armed conflicts.
As ICC Prosecutor, I witness too often, the egregious crimes inflicted upon children. The disheartening reality is that the situation for children in armed conflict has been dire with the proliferation of conflicts around the world. A recent report of the Special Representative of the UN Secretary General for Children and Armed Conflict demonstrates how serious the situation really is. Thousands of children are drawn into bloody fighting on the front lines; while others are killed or maimed, subjected to sexual violence, or denied education because of the debilitating impact of conflict.
Children with otherwise bright futures are lost to the violence, subjected to unimaginable atrocities, wrenched from the safety and security of their families, and deprived of the opportunity to grow and develop in a nurturing environment. It is a vicious cycle that calls for collective action to break.
We will not stand by idly as children are subjected to atrocities. One of the priorities of my Office is to challenge impunity for crimes against children by working towards strengthening measures to hold perpetrators accountable, prevent further atrocities, and deliver justice to victims and survivors in accordance with our mandate under the Rome Statute.
The conviction and 14-year sentence of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo for the war crime of enlisting, conscripting and operationalising children under the age of 15 in an armed conflict was the first guilty verdict at the Court for such a crime. Since then, my Office has investigated and brought similar charges against five other individuals for such crimes.
The Office has also contributed to the recognition of the rape and sexual slavery of children incorporated into armed groups as war crimes under the Rome Statute, thereby extending the reach of justice to children who fall victim to sexual and gender-based crimes committed by members of the same armed group they are a part of.
My Office will continue this work alongside crucial efforts undertaken – and all the more needed – at the local, regional and international levels. Crimes against children are abhorrent violations of fundamental rights. They shock our collective conscience. But empathy alone with the suffering of boys and girls in times of conflict is not enough.
All human beings deserve to live their childhood years free of fear, to feel safe, to be protected in times of war and peace. It is our collective responsibility, each in our respective capacity, to strive for a world where the hopes, aspirations and dreams of all children truly matter.
Children are especially vulnerable in times of conflict. We must act to protect them.
Cyprus’ Tourism Minister presents strategic plan to Dutch tour operators at Cyprus Exhibition in Antiquities Museum Leiden
In the picture Director Wim Weijland, Minister Savvas Perdios and Ambassador Elpidoros Economou.
The Deputy Minister of Tourism of the Republic of Cyprus, Mr. Savvas Perdios, is currently touring Europe to present his ambitious 10-year national strategic plan with the objective of placing Cyprus among the 30 main tourist destinations in the world by 2030.
Cyprus currently ranks 44th in the world, while Spain is number one, France in 3rd place and Italy in 8th place. Portugal is in 12th place and Greece 25th. The first European presentation the minister gave was in The Netherlands.
Minister Perdios presented his plan to Dutch tour operators and travel agents during a special dinner organized at the exhibition ‘Cyprus: A Dynamic Island’ at the Museum of Antiquities in Leiden. This is the largest exhibition ever organized in the Netherlands on ancient Cyprus, one of the most important crossroads of ancient cultures in the Mediterranean region.
Museum Director Wim Weijland explaining the Cyprus exhibition to minister Perdios and his guests.
During his presentation in the presence of among others H.E. Ambassador Elpidoros Economou of Cyprus, the tourism minister told his audience his plan comprises five key pillars.
The first is to increase the seasonality of tourism in Cyprus by making Cyprus a tourist destination throughout the year, the second is to have the whole island benefit from tourism, not just the coastal areas, the third pillar is to establish Cyprus as a destination for quality by being more competitive, the fourth pillar is a better use of data-driven decisions and the fifth is to make Cyprus perceived as a climate friendly destination by taking into account climate change and sustainable growth.
Minister Perdios explaining his new Tourism Strategic Plan.
Next to the traditional countries of origin of tourists, the UK and Russia, Cyprus will take measures to increase tourist arrivals from new markets such as the Netherlands and the Nordic countries.
After the dinner and the presentation, the invited tour operators and travel agents were given a guided tour by museum director Mr. Wim Weijland.
Besides commemorating this significant landmark in the history of the country, the aim of the event was to stand in solidarity with the families affected by the earthquake in Albania, as well as to provide support to the reconstruction process.
The country’s infrastructure has been seriously damaged, with more than 1,465 buildings hit by the earthquake in the capital Tirana alone, and 900 other buildings seriously damages in the surrounding area.
USA Ambassador, H.E. Mr. Pete Hoekstra and H.E.Ms. Adia Sakiqi, Ambassador of Albania.
It was rewarding to see so many heads of diplomatic missions attending the event, showing an interest to learn about the actual situation in the country after the 6.4 magnitude earthquake that struck in late November 2019. The earthquake caused the death of 51 persons, injured 2,500 and made more than 4,000 people suddenly homeless.
During her speech, Ambassador of Albania, H.E. Ms. Adia Sakiqi,emphasized the importance of this holiday for all the Albanian diaspora, and described the challenges that Albania faced in the wake of the earthquake. She presented the online portal where donations could be carried out to help those affected. Present for the event were also Ms. Pandeli Majko, State Minister for Diaspora, and Ms. Elisa Spiropali, Minister for Relations with Parliament.
H.E. Mr. Abdelouahab Bellouki, Ambassador of Morocco, H.E.Ms. Adia Sakiqi, Ambassador of Albania and H.E. Ms. Sahar Ghanem, Ambassador of Yemen.
Many ambassadors and diplomats from EU countries, USA, India, Turkey, Japan, Morocco, Belarus, Armenia, Yemen, Tunisia, Lithuania, as well representatives of Dutch institutions and international organizations attended the reception on the occasion of Albania’s national day.
The event also hosted Dutch personalities, representatives of the foreign ministry, parliament, diplomatic corps, business and think tanks. The reception during the third part of the event was then held with representatives of the diaspora, Albanian students in the Netherlands, and Dutch friends of Albania.
H.E.Vidmantas Purlys, Ambassador of Lithuania and Ambassador Sakiqi.
An essential part of the event was the presentation of “Xhubleta”, a traditional Albanian costume, which easily distinguishes itself from any other traditional garment typical of countries in Southeast Europe. According to ethnological studies, Xhubleta is a special and very interesting type of suit, and is considered the oldest in age, originating about four thousand years ago.
This fact is evidenced by the various archaeological findings carried out in some Mediterranean sites, such as in Crete, Mycenae, Klicevic (Bosnia), etc., which date to the second millennium BC. Three Albanian natives wore the traditional “Xhubleta” costume and showcased it for the guests.
“We are grateful for and particularly touched by the tremendous spirit of solidarity and strength among the population, doctors and nurses serving 24/7 to help.” said Ms. Pandeli Majko, State Minister for Diaspora. Dr. Stanislav Vassilevsky, Chargé d’Affaires a.i. of the Republic of Belarus, H.E.Ms. Adia Sakiqi, Ambassador of Albania, Ms. Pandeli Majko, State Albanian Minister for Diaspora and H.E. Mr. Tiogran Balayan, Ambassador of Armenia.
On January 28th, 2020, the Trump administration finally unveiled its strategy to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The US proposal – which defines conditions for the formation of two separated states – has generated much controversy. While the Israeli government warmly embraced the strategy, Palestinian leaders – who had not been consulted ahead of the release – firmly rejected it.
After more than three years of work behind closed doors, the United States has finally unveiled its strategy to address the longstanding conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. The plan has been drafted by a restricted team of officials close to the President, and it was eventually presented to the world in a ceremony held on January 28th, 2020. Speaking alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House, Mr. Trump praised the deal as a “win-win opportunity for both sides”, suggesting that it could serve as the basis for direct negotiations between the warring parties. The unveiling of the plan has generated much controversy both in the region and across the world. What is all this discussion about?
What does the plan say?
The plan proposed by the US administration is grounded in the so-called “two-state solution” framework, which envisions the creation of two distinct, adjacent, independent states – that of Israel and that of Palestine.
According to the map drawn in the US-proposed plan, Israel would gain full control over the Jordan valley, as well as on its settlements in the West Bank. In exchange for these concessions to Israel, the plan would grant the State of Palestine new land south of the Gaza Strip, to be connected to the West Bank through a tunnel, and a USD 50 billion plan in economic assistance – already presented by the White House in Bahrain in June – to create new jobs and reduce poverty rates among Palestinians.
The US support for the creation of an independent Palestinian state, however, would be subject to a wide array of conditions – which are spelled out in different sections of the plan. In terms of domestic policies, for instance, the Palestinian state would need to hold free and fair elections, respect human rights and basic freedoms, including of press and religion, uphold the rule of law, and accept full demilitarization. Moreover, the Palestinian leadership would have to recognize Israel as a Jewish state and reject all forms of terrorism against it. The fulfillment of these conditions should be jointly assessed by the US and Israel – the US proposal says – “after consultation with the Palestinian authority”.
Besides the thorny issue of Palestinian statehood, the US plan advances proposals on a number of other contentious points too. Among them there is the status of Jerusalem, which is envisioned by the US plan as the undivided capital of Israel. This would leave the Palestinians with a suburban section of East Jerusalem – within the city’s municipal borders but outside the wall that runs through it – as their potential capital. On the sensitive issue of the displaced Palestinian people, moreover, the US proposal would not grant refugees the so-called “right of return” to their land. Rather, refugees would have to choose whether to be integrated in the new State of Palestine or in third countries. After this relocation process, their status as refugees would cease to exist.
How has the plan been received?
The reactions from Israelis and Palestinians have been widely divergent. On the one hand, Palestinian leaders had rejected the deal already ahead of its release, lamenting not having been consulted and accusing Mr. Trump of pro-Israeli policies, such as the relocation of the US embassy to Jerusalem. After the launching ceremony, rival factions within the Palestinian leadership met in order to devise a coordinated response, and Palestinian Authority President Mahmood Abbas called for fresh protests against the plan. On the other hand, the US proposal was warmly welcomed by the two main contenders for the role of Israel’s Prime Minister, the incumbent Netanyahu and his rival Benjamin Gantz.
Countries in the region also had mixed reactions. Leaders in Iran and Turkey rejected the US proposal outright. Jordan, which is heavily involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict due its contiguity with the contested territories, also adopted a critical tone, reiterating its support for the Palestinians and warning Israel against any unilateral move. Other countries in the region adopted a milder tone, falling short of endorsing the plan, but praising the US President for his efforts towards peace and encouraging the parties to re-start negotiations. However, in an emergency meeting held a few days later, the Arab League, which groups the governments of Arab countries in the region, unanimously rejected the US proposal. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation followed suit in rejecting the plan a few days later.
The proposal unveiled by the US administration has soon come under heavy criticism by a number of analysts. In particular, the plan has been seen by many as heavily favoring Israel over the Palestinians, as the former would obtain security guarantees, the incorporation of all settlements, and the city of Jerusalem, while the latter would secure a state with a disconnected territory and limited sovereignty. Attempting to address some of these critiques, US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman defended Mr. Trump’s plan, stressing the potential benefits for the Palestinians – notably in terms of statehood and economic assistance – and encouraging them not to reject the proposal.
The road ahead
In the wake of the launch of the US proposal, the road ahead remains very much unclear. Some analysts predict that the plan will not entail major consequences; others say that the proposal might spur a new wave of confrontations; others again contend that the current developments might re-shape the framework in which peace will be negotiated. Only time will be able to tell what will happen. The only hope is that this longstanding conflict will sooner than later draw to a peaceful end.
About the author:
Guido Lanfranchi is a student and young professional in the field of international affairs. He has pursued his studies both at Leiden University and Sciences Po Paris, where he is currently enrolled. In parallel, he has been gaining professional experience through internships (first at the Council of the European Union, and currently at Clingendael Institute), as well as by working as reporter and associate editor for Diplomat Magazine The Netherlands. His research and work focus on the Middle East and Africa, and especially on conflict situations in these regions.
From 3 to 7 February 2020, the Registrar of the International Criminal Court (“ICC” or “the Court”) Peter Lewis visited Kampala, Uganda and Bunia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). During these visits he met with Government officials and United Nations representatives and had direct interactions with ICC staff members working in these countries. This was the Registrar’s first visit to those countries since his election in March 2018.
In Kampala, Uganda, the Registrar met with the Ugandan Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, Hon. Ephraim Kamuntu as well as the United Nations resident coordinator Rosa Malango. In Bunia, DRC, the Registrar held a courtesy meeting with Cecilia Piazza, Head of Office of the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Ituri Province, DRC (MONUSCO). The Registrar of the Court thanked these interlocutors for their support for the ICC’s independent mandate and ongoing operations in these two countries.
“The Court is thankful for the excellent support received over the years in both situation countries,” said ICC Registrar Peter Lewis at the end of his visit. “We look forward to continuing our close collaboration in effectively fulfilling the Court’s mandate.”
Cooperation and support is essential for the Court to deliver on its independent mandate under the Rome Statute. The ICC relies on the cooperation of States and International Organisations for its activities and for the benefit of the affected communities looking for justice and accountability to be done.
During his meetings with ICC staff members in Uganda and the DRC, the Registrar thanked his teams for their constant and valuable efforts. Discussions focused on operational issues and the continuous improvement of the Court’s working methods.
The ICC has 7 Country Offices in situations where it is conducting investigations, including in Kinshasa and Bunia (DRC) and Kampala (Uganda). ICC Country Offices are essential to develop and maintain cooperative relationships with key stakeholders in situation countries and to support the Court’s mandate and resulting activities in these countries.
OPCW’s Director-General Shares Report Findings with States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention
In the picture H.E. Mr. Fernando Arias, OPCW Director General.
The Hague, Netherlands – 6 February 2020 – In a briefing to States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), the Director-General of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), H.E. Mr Fernando Arias, shared the findings of an independent investigation into possible breaches of confidentiality.
This investigation was initiated by the Director-General after the unauthorised release of a document in May 2019. This document purported to include information and findings related to the work of the Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) pertaining to the allegations of chemical weapons use on 7 April 2018 in Douma, Syrian Arab Republic.
The investigation took place between July 2019 and February 2020 and was conducted in strict compliance with the detailed procedures set forth in the OPCW Policy on Confidentiality (OPOC) as well as other relevant internal legislation such as the Code of Conduct for Staff Members of the Secretariat. The investigation included interviews with 29 witnesses, documents, electronic records, audio-recordings, and forensic analyses.
The report of the independent, external investigators determined that two former OPCW officials violated their obligations concerning the protection of confidential information related to the FFM Douma investigation. This determination is due to their unauthorised disclosure of highly protected information to individuals who did not have a need to know such information.
The two former OPCW officials failed to comply with the specified procedures for the handling, protection, release, and dissemination of confidential information so as to create a clear risk of unauthorised disclosure. The findings of the investigators are included in the Report of the Investigation into Possible Breaches of Confidentiality. The two individuals are referred to in the report as Inspector A and Inspector B to protect their identities and safeguard their due process rights under the OPCW’s internal legislation and general principles of international administrative law.
With respect to Inspector A, he was not a member of the FFM. As described by the investigators, Inspector A played a minor supporting role in the investigation of the Douma incident, and he did not have access to all of the information gathered by the FFM team, including witness interviews, laboratory results, and analyses by independent experts. Although Inspector A’s assessment purports to be an official OPCW FFM report on the Douma incident, it is instead a personal document created with incomplete information and without authorisation.
With respect to Inspector B, after he was selected to be a member of the FFM for the first time, he travelled to Syria in April 2018. He never left the command post in Damascus because he had not completed the necessary training required to deploy on-site to Douma. Inspector B separated from the OPCW at the end of August 2018; however, he continued to approach staff members in an effort to have continued access to and influence over the Douma investigation. The majority of the FFM’s work occurred after Inspector B’s separation, and during the last seven months of the FFM’s investigation (August 2018 through February 2019).
The investigators concluded that “the deliberate and premeditated breaches of confidentiality committed by Inspectors A and B are considered to be serious”. The report identified several remedial measures to reduce the risk of future breaches of the OPCW’s confidentiality regime. These measures include, but are not limited to, enhanced confidentiality training for OPCW staff as well as an on-going review of the Organisation’s internal legislation.
During the briefing, the Director-General provided States Parties with further context for understanding developments related to this breach of confidentiality:
“Inspectors A and B are not whistle-blowers. They are individuals who could not accept that their views were not backed by evidence. When their views could not gain traction, they took matters into their own hands and breached their obligations to the Organisation. Their behaviour is even more egregious as they had manifestly incomplete information about the Douma investigation. Therefore, as could be expected, their conclusions are erroneous, uninformed, and wrong.”
After the issuance of the interim report on Douma in July 2018, it took an additional seven months for the FFM to further investigate the incident and conduct the bulk of its work. During this period, Inspector A no longer had any supporting role regarding the FFM; Inspector B was no longer employed by the OPCW as of late August 2018.
The Director-General reaffirmed his confidence in the conclusions of the final report of the FFM regarding the Douma incident and stated, “I stand by the conclusions of the final Douma report”.
The report of the Investigation into Possible Breaches of Confidentiality has been shared with all States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Azerbaijan prepares for the early parliamentary elections of February 9th, 2020
Baku, Azerbaijan – The elegant and cosmopolitan city of Baku is receiving thousands of local and international observers to cooperate in the upcoming early parliamentary elections of February 9th, 2020.
The OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIH) has dispatched an election observation mission to Azerbaijan. The mission, which is led by Ambassador Peter Tejler, is composed of a 12-members team based in Baku and 26 long-term observers, who have been deployed across Azerbaijan since
Dr Asim Mollazade Parliament Azerbaijan, Democratic Reforms Party.
January 14th. Moreover, 350 short-term observers are set to oversee the proceedings during election day, including voting, counting, and the elaboration of results.
Besides the OSCE observation mission, 17,733 persons across the country have been accredited as individual observers and further 1,724 have been nominated by non-governmental organization – all this in addition to the 32,106 representatives of the candidates coming from 19 different political parties.
There are a number of international delegations currently in Azerbaijan, featuring the presence of politicians, academics, mostly from the fields of political sciences and international law, diplomats, government officials, and journalists. Their aim is to oversee the parliamentarian elections, which were called ahead of time in order to bridge the gap between the legislative power and the pace of economic, judicial, and social reforms set forth by President Ilham Aliyev. On December 5th, 2019, after the Parliament’s appeal to dissolve it and with the Constitutional Court’s consent, President Aliyev dissolved the chamber and announced early parliamentarian elections to be held on February 9th, 2020.
Dr. Fazil Mustafa – Parliament Azerbaijan – Great Structure Party.
Some 5.2 million people are registered in the Central Election Commission’s voters list, which is available online for the public to verify their own data and request corrections if needed.
The official election campaign period started on January 17th. It had featured the participation of 272 candidates, coming from 19 political parties. Eighty members of the out-going parliament (64% of the total number) will seek re-election.
Azerbaijan Parliamentarian Elections February 2020.
In the now-dissolved Parliament, 65 seats were allocated to the ruling New Azerbaijan Party, with the opposition holding 12 seats and further 38 members elected as independent candidates. The upcoming parliamentarian election will be an opportunity for new people to enter in the political arena – including women, who were previously underrepresented. During the previous legislature, women held only 20 seats (16% of the total), 2 positions as state committee’s chairperson (out of 15 such posts), and no ministerial position. In the upcoming election, women now represent 21% of the registered candidates.
The new elections will also be a new opportunity for young people, as 18 years-old youth will be able to vote or to set themselves forth as candidates. “If we pay attention to the age of the candidates, it is possible to say that the interest of young people in this process is growing,” Rasim Guliyev, political expert and head of the Azerbaijani Resource Analytical Information Center, said. “This time, 82 candidates aged 18 to 28, including eight 22 years-old candidates, registered, together with 407 candidates aged 29-39 and 542 candidates aged 40-45, and 251 candidates aged 56-66 and 43 candidates older than 67.”
Mr. Guliyev also analyzed the dynamics of voters’ turnout during the last Azeri elections. “The voter turnout was 42 percent during the parliamentary elections in 2005 and 46 percent in 2010. While the voter turnout during the recent parliamentary elections in 2015 was 55 percent, during the presidential election it was 85 percent. So, the interest in municipal [GL1] elections is not high enough.” – he explained.
In Azerbaijan, members of parliament are elected by simple majority for a five-year term, and elections are regulated by the Constitution and Election Code. Elections proceedings are administrated by the Central Election Commission. The legislation on campaign financing does not foresee direct public funding of the campaign, it sets limits for donations and expenditures, and it obliges candidates to report on their campaign financing. Parties and candidates can use their own finances, and donations can come by individual or legal entities. Anonymous and in-kind donations are prohibited.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. (Photo by Hamed Malekpour: Courtesy of WikiCommons).
By Corneliu Pivariu.
We are coming closer to the centennial celebration of Atatürk’s establishment of the modern Turkish state while 100 years have already passed since the Ottoman Empire’s sunset. During the last decades, under Recep Tayyp Erdogan’s leadership as prime minister or president, Turkey has continuously grown economically and, in spite of certain domestic divisions (see the aborted coup of July, 2016), succeeded in strenghtening an important regional geopolitical position and sought to become a global geopolitical power. Although Ankara denies officially it seeks the restoration of the Ottoman Empire, president Erdogan’s political and military moves prove otherwise.
In an article published at the end of last year by a Turkish journalist specialised in foreign affairs[1], Atatürk’s principle evoked in his celebrated speech concerning the battle of Sarakaya[2] according to which not only a single line should be defended but an entire area was recalled.
Consequently, Turkey must reconsider presently its defence zone which spreads from Qatar to Libya with Cyprus in the middle.
Assessing this fact, one finds that Turkey’s general policy of the last decades was circumscribed to this purpose and that political, military, economic and of other nature steps were taken to this end. The establishment of Turkey’s military bases abroad starting with the invasion of Cyprus in 1974 until the beginning of 2020, when the military involvment in Libya was decided (with a number of troops for training and cooperation; certain sources mention the readiness of sending around 2,000 men who fought on the Syrian front) underlines the said policy. In fact, sustaining such a number of troops in Libya generates tough logistical problems for Turkey as it has no efficient means for that yet. The display of a Turkish drone which left the country and reached Libya after landing in Cyprus only is not enough and, on the contrary, highlights the difficulties of securing the logistical support of an important number of troops in Libya.
Establishing Turkey’s military bases abroad was done by skillfully using the regional political and military developments. The most telling example besides Libya is the Tariq Ibn Ziyad base in Qatar completed in 2019. In Irak, Turkey has around 20 small-scale military bases predominantly for intelligence gathering. Six bases were established in northern Syria with a publicly unknown number of military assigned there. Most probably each of them are equaling at least an infantry company with additional units of artillery and tanks. The intent of setting up a military base in Georgia did not materialise.
Turkish diplomacy plays an important part in materialising president Erdogan’s geopolitical plans and when Ahmed Davudoglu was minister of foreign affairs (2009-2014) important steps were adopted for expanding the diplomatic component of Turkish foreign policy. It seems that now the diplomatic apparatus put in place by Turkey and its quality represents an efficient support for the foreign policy Ankara is currently promoting.
On the military component which is supposed to play an even more important role in strengthening and preserving the influence area wished for by Ankara leadership, one should mention that although Turkey has one of the strongest armies in the world (NATO’s second and the 19th worldwide, according to Global Fire Power) it is not fully equiped to meet that challenge. After the aborted coup of July 15th, 2016, the management capacity of the army was severely damaged by the arrests, sentencing and dismissals that followed thereafter and even in 2019 (163 generals and admirals – 45% of the army’s total) the effects of which could be offset within around 5-10 years.
President Erdogan (prime minister between 2003-2014, president thereafter and re-elected in 2018) rules with a firm hand the country and, through the constitutional ammendments that were adopted, he succeeded in concentrating the executive power in his hands and to compete for a third term in 2023. Hakan Fidan, the powerful head of MIT (National Intelligence Organization) who secures the president’s position played a pivotal role in annihilating the 2016 coup attempt and is considered one of the president’s main proponents.
Notwhistanding the achievements and the long political career, president Erdogan’s regime begins to present some signs of weakness and the most recent and important one was the presidential party AKP loss of Istanbul’s mayorship which was taken over by the candidate of the main opposition party, The People’s Republican Party (CHP) – Ekrem Imamoglu. The latter opposes the Istanbul Channel project[3], an idea launched by president Erdogan in 2011 and which materialisation the government intends to get started as of 2020.
The current Turkey’s economic condition is relatively healthy although in 2018 the economy contracted shortly and the national currency devaluated by 30%, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development assessed in May 2019 a gradual recovery and an economic growth of 2.5% in 2020.
Turkey, which is dependent on energy imputs, cares about making best use of its geostrategic position by building gas pipelines (Turkish Stream started in 2017 and was commissioned on January 1st, 2020) and seeks favourable conditions for exploiting the Mediterranean Sea resources in spite of the tense situation resulted from delineating the marine economic zones (see the map bellow).
Moreover, in a move intended to make it an unavoidable arbiter in the Mediterranean, Ankara signed with Libya, on November 27th, 2019, a MoU on delineating the continental shelf of the two countries which would practically divide the Mediterranean in two.
The move could hinder the 1,900 km East Med pipeline to be built by Greece, Cyprus and Israel for which the final decision should be taken by 2022 and to be completed by 2025.
Libya represents an important pole for carrying out Ankara’s plans. The situation in the country is complicated and fluid not only as a result of the domestic developments but also especially due to the conflict between the two powerful groups of prime minister Fayez al-Serraj who heads the Government of National Accord (GNA), recognized by the UN and General Khalifa Haftar who, supported by Russia, France and the United Arab Emirates, controls a great part of the country and who, during the Berlin conference, suspended most exports of Libyan crude in order to have a stronger negotiation position.
Furthermore, in spite of the recent agreement reached in Berlin with provisions prohibiting arms deliveries and foreign intervention in Libya, an important trafic including weapons and ammunition deliveries and foreign ”counsellors” was noticed at Tripoli Airport at the end of January. Turkey’s consolidation of its presence and influence in Libya is seen by certain forces as a danger that may lead to the establishment of an Islamist regime in the country given that GNA has the backing of several Islamist groups as well as the well-known support Turkey extended to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. It is believed that if there is no international intervention for a cease fire – which I don’t see materialised in the coming future – the most probable result of the Turkish intervention will be the establishment of another Islamist regime in the Mediterranean.
The accomplishment of Turkey’s plan of restoring an important influence area from the Gulf to the Mediterranean, between Doha and Tripoli, seems doable given the uncertain geopolitical developments regionally and globally. Ankara used to this end the most modern means and international media outlets emphasized that cyber attacks in 2018 and 2019 that would have originated in Turkey against around 50 state and not only institutions in Greece, Cyprus and Iraq were recently exposed.
The latest developments by the end of January 2020 prove once more the fragility and complexity of the situation in the Mediterranean and the inefficiency of the Berlin Agreement: France accuses Turkey of not observing the agreement signed in the German capital and sent to Libya Syrian mercenaries landed off Turkish vessels while Turkey accuses France of supporting Khalifa Haftar in search of benefits in the oil field. Moreover, France decided to dispatch military frigates to the east of the Mediterranean to assist Greece, a decision applauded by the Greek prime minister while visiting Paris.
Under Erdogan’s leadership, Turkey moves resolved towards maximizing its geopolitical role and position capitalizing on great players’ hesitations (the US, China, Russia). It is difficult to estimate to what extent it will accomplish such plans.
“If you are not fighting for what you want you deserve what you have”, a renowned American speaker and writer said. How great it would be if this phrase were put into practice with due regard for all principles and norms of international law. Unfortunately, the right of force is still stronger than the force of rule and therefore vae victis.
——————
About the author:
Corneliu Pivariu. Photographer: Ionus Paraschiv.
Corneliu Pivariu Military Intelligence and International Relations Senior Expert
A highly decorated retired two-star general of the Romanian army, during two decades he has led one of the most influential magazines on geopolitics and international relations in Eastern Europe, the bilingual journal Geostrategic Pulse.
[1]Turkey’s new geostrategy from Tripoli to Doha: “Defending an area” – Mehmet A. Kanci
[2] 23.08-13.09.1921, a battle known also as the “officers war” (in the Greek-Turkish war of 1919-1922), as a result of the great number of losses among those ranks (70-80%) during Turkish War of Independence. It is considered a milestone of the said war. According to the Turkish historian Ismail Habip Sevuk, the battle marked an important moment in Turkey’s history: “the retreat that get started at Vienna on 13th of September 1683 came to a stop 238 years later”
[3] A 50 km long channel which is to connect the Black Sea to the Sea of Marmara allowing for decongesting the Bosphorus strait which was transited in 2018 only by 41,000 vessels. The cost of the project would rise to 11 bn euro while the related investments (port, artificial islands, a new town for 500,000 inhabitants etc) would add another 10 bn euro. The Turkish government estimates that the project could bring in yearly revenues of 8 bn euro. The opponents of the project argue it will damage the environment and provoke ecological changes difficult to estimate. The timeframe suggested by the central government for the project completion, i.e. 2023, is considered unrealistic by some specialists.
