By Barend ter Haar. During almost half a century NATO has been extremely successful. It helped to prevent a Third World War, kept the Soviet Union out of Western Europe and created a stable basis for the development of the European Union. It accomplished this by maintaining a credible common defence and by keeping the members of the Alliance together. Both would have been impossible without the leadership of the United States. But now that the danger of large-scale military attack has vanished, has NATO become obsolete? And if not, is it able “to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law”, as stated in the preamble of the North Atlantic Treaty? Let us start with the first question: The best way to make sure that a large-scale military attack against NATO remains very unlikely is to maintain a credible common defence. It would, therefore, be unwise to abolish the Alliance. But how well-equipped is NATO to address other threats? Let us look at five types of threats: the unintended consequences of our own success, failing states, terrorism, the proliferation of nuclear weapons and Russia. The unintended consequences of our own success are threats of a non-military nature, but they are by far the most urgent problems: lifestyle diseases on the personal level, growing inequality at the national level and environmental degradation, climate change and migration at the global level. What all these threats have in common, is that they cannot be blamed on an outside power and cannot be solved by closing and defending borders. Most of them can only be solved by closer global cooperation. Another new threat is caused by the changing character of war. In the past armed conflicts were caused by the expansion of strong powers, nowadays they are caused by the implosion of weak governments. NATO is well equipped to defeat strong governments, but, as the situation in Afghanistan proves, military power is almost powerless in a failing state. The proliferation of nuclear weapons is a threat of, at least potentially, enormous dimensions. However, it is improbable that the use of NATO arms can solve the problem. Attacks against territorial powers that promote terrorism, like Islamic State, can be useful, but, apart from that, large-scale military action against terrorism tends to be counterproductive. Russia is an essential partner in the fight against global threats, but its erratic behaviour, e.g. in Ukraine and on the internet, complicates close cooperation. NATO `s military capabilities can deter Russia from attacking the Baltic states, but cannot turn Russia into a reliable partner. Conclusion: NATO is well suited to deal with military threats from the outside, but it is less suited for addressing threats that require an inclusive, global approach. NATO`s military force is very effective as a deterrent but is of limited use against the new threats.

On the image Prof. Melda Kamil Ariadno. By Prof. Melda Kamil Ariadno and Prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevicis. While our troposphere is dangerously polluted, one other space – that of intangible world, created by the interconnected technology– follows the same pattern:  cyberspace. Additionally, our cyberspace becomes increasingly brutalised by its rapid monetisation and weaponisation through mainly privacy erosion. How to protect effectively individuals and their fundamental human rights, and how to exercise a right for dignity and privacy? The EU now offers a model legislation to its Member States, and by its spill-over power to the similar supranational projects elsewhere (particularly ASEAN, but also the AU, OAS, SCO, SAARC, LAS, etc.), and the rest of world. ***************** Rules and regulations to protect personal data do not trigger many sympathies. Corporate world sees it as an unnecessary deterrent; as a limit to their growth – more to pay and less or slower to yield, innovate and expand. Governments would traditionally wish the rules should apply to every societal stakeholder but themselves. And citizenry by large too frequently behaves benevolent, nearly careless whether their data is harvested or safeguarded at all. However, such legislation is needed today more than ever before. The latest round of technological advancements was rapid, global and uneven. No wonder that in the aftermath of the so-called IT-revolutions, our world suffers from technological asymmetries: assertive big corporation and omnipresent mighty governments on one side and ordinary citizenry on the other. Even in the most advanced democracies today – such as the EU, personal autonomy is at the huge risk: Everyday simple, almost trivial, choices such as what to read, which road to take, what to wear, eat, watch or listen are governed (or at least filtered) by algorithms that run deep under the surface of software and devices. Algorithmization of ‘will’ is so corrosive and deep that users are mostly unaware of the magnitude to which daily data processing rules over their passions, drives and choices. Clearly, the technology of today serves not only a Weberian predictability imperative – to further rationalise society. It makes society less safe and its individuals less free. Societies are yet to wake up to this (inconvenient) truth. In the internet age of mobile, global and instant communications, people tend to focus more on the ‘here-us-now’ trends: goods, services, and experiences that the IT offers. Individuals are less interested on the ways in which privacy is compromised by software, its originators and devices – all which became an unnoticed but indispensable part of modern life. Despite a wish of many to grasp and know how data processing and harvesting affects them, the population at large yet has no appetite for details. But, the trend is here to stay – a steady erosion of privacy: bigger quantities of data are harvested about a larger number of persons on a daily, if not hourly basis. Corporations and the central state authorities want more data and are less shy in how they obtain and use it.

Prevention of the personal information misuse (PIM) —intended or not—is the main reason the European Union (EU)introduced the new set of provisions, as of May 2018. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) – as the piece of legislation is known, is an ambitious attempt to ‘re-domesticate’ an essential segment of modern life. In a contemporary world increasingly determined by digital technology, the private data protection is not an extravaganza; it is “a fundamental right” – as the GDPR annotates. The intention of legislator behind the GDPR is twofold: to regulate domestically and to spillover internationally. The GDPR is meant to open a new chapter in the Internet’s history at home, while creating, at the same time, a roadmap for other state and corporate sector actors beyond the EU. The challenge is clear: to reconcile the rights of individuals to data protection with their other elementary rights, and to adequately balanced those with the legitimate interests of business and government. For the rest of the world, the GDPR should be predictive, inspirational and obligational. Lack of acting now means to open a space for the abuse of power – for illegitimate corporate or authoritarian gains of the hidden societal actors. In such a negative scenario – on a long run – losers are all. Historically, victimisation of individuals (through constant suspension of liberties and freedoms) ends up in a state or corporate fascism, and that one in a self-destruction of society as a whole. Comprehensive Legislation As Powerful Deterrent The Internet age exposes individuals in an unprecedented way to the domestic or foreign predatory forces. Everybody is tempted to participate in the digital economy or digital social interaction. This cannot go without revealing personal information to large state or non-state entities of local or international workings. The moment such information leaves its proprietor, it can be easily and cheaply stored, analysed, further disseminated and shared without any knowledge or consent of it originator. So far, neither market forces nor the negative publicity has seriously hindered companies and governments from tapping on and abusing this immense power. Nothing but bold and comprehensive legislation is an effective deterrent, which stops the worst misuse. Only the legal provisions to protect personal data may serve a purpose of special and general prevention: Be it in case a local or transnational corporate greed, governmental negligent or malicious official, or the clandestine interaction of the two (such as unauthorised access to personal phone and Internet records, as well as the unverified or inaccurate health and related data used to deny person from its insurance, loan, or work). While totally absent elsewhere, early European attempts to legislate a comprehensive regulatory system of personal data protection have repeatedly fallen short in their expected deliverables. Thus, the EU’s Data Protection Directive of 1995 was more a declaratory framework than a binding text of a clear wording. This instrument failed to identify the wrongdoings it sought to prevent, pre-empt and mitigate. The 1995 text also suffered from a lack of (logical and legal) consistency when it came to directing and instructing the individual EU member states (EU MS) on how to domesticate data privacy and promulgate it the body of their respective national legislation. Finally, the GDPR solves both of these problems. This instrument of 2018 clearly stipulates on discrimination combating (including the politically or religiously motived hate-contents), authentication-related identity theft, fraud, financial crime, reputational harm (social networks mobbing, harassments and intimidation). Moreover, the European Commission (EC) has stated that the GDPR will strengthen the MS economies by recovering people’s trust in the security and sincerity of digital commerce, which has suffered lately of a numerous high-profile data breaches and infringements. However, the most important feature (and a legal impact) of the GDPR is its power of being a direct effect law. This means that individuals can invoke it before the MS courts without any reference to the positive national legislation. That guarantees both speed and integrity to this supranational instrument – no vocatioleagis and no unnecessary domestication of the instrument through national constituencies. Conclusively, the 2018 instrument is further strengthened by an extra-territorial reach – a notion that makes is applicable to any entity that operates in the EU, even if the entity is not physically situated in the EU. This practically means that each entity, in every sector and of every size, which processes personal data must comply with the GDPR. It obliges governments and their services (of national or sub-national levels); health, insurance and bank institutes; a variety of Internet and mobile telephony service providers; media outlets and other social data gathering enterprises; labour, educational and recreational entities – in short, any subject that collects digital information about individuals. The GDPR further strengthens accountability principle. The state and commercial actors hold direct and objective responsibility for personal data collecting, storing and processing (including its drain or dissemination). Clearly, this EU instrument strengthens the right for information privacy (as a part of elementary human right – right to privacy) by protecting individuals from misappropriation of their personal data for a harvesting, monetisation or (socio-political) weaponisation purpose. Namely, the GDPR gives individuals the right to request a transfer of their personal data (account and history information)from one commercial entity to another (e.g. from one bank or phone provider to another). Another right is to request – at short notice and for an unspecified reason – the commercial enterprise to stop both the data collection and the marketing dissemination, or to demand clarification on marketing methods and nature of services provided. This instrument also offers individuals the right to request that their personal data are deleted (being zipped and sent back to its proprietor beforehand) – which already goes into the direction of, still indecisively debated, right to be forgotten. The GDPR calls upon all operating entities to hire a data protection officer as to ensure full compliance with the new rules. It also invites all data collecting entities to conduct impact assessments – in order to determine scope frequency, outreach and consequences of personal data harvesting and processing. (For example, if certain entity wished to introduce biometric authentication for its employees and visitors entering daily its premises, it would need at first to run an assessment – a study that answers on the necessity and impact of that new system as well as the exposures it creates and possible risk mitigation measures.) The GDPR obliges every entity that gathers data – as its core or consequential activity – to concept their harvesting systems in accordance with the min-max principle: To minimise amount and configuration of personal data they gather while maximizing the security of that data. (For instance, if the auto dealer or travel agency requires potential customers to fill out the form to request a price quote, the form can ask only for information relevant to the product or services in question.) The new legislation also mandates data gathering entities to notify the authorities – without any delay – whenever they suspect or witness a personal data breach. Conclusively, the GDPR obliges entities to present the public with clean and through information about the personal data they harvest and process—and clearly why they do so. On the sanction side, the GDPR supports the regulators with new enforcement tools, including the norm setting, monitoring of and enforcement of compliance. For a non-compliance, the instrument prescribes steep fines. To answer adequately the accountability standards enacted by this EU legislation will certainly invite large data gathering entities to bear significant investments. However, for the sake of credibility outreach and efficiency, they will have stimuli to introduce the new procedures and systems within the EU, but also beyond – wherever their operations are present. Complementary to it, the GDPR stipulates that if an entity transfers personal data out of the EU, it must safeguard that the data is handled in the new location the same way like within the EU. By this simple but far-reaching and effective spillover notion, the standards embodied by the GDPR will be delivered to the rest of the world. Hence, this instrument is not (only) an inner code of conduct that brings an outer appeal; it is a self-evolving and self-replicating standard of behaviour for our common (digital) future. Indonesian  and ASEAN It is obvious that the stipulations of the GDPR would serve well interests of Indonesia. This is actually in line with a very spirit of the 1945 Constitution, which obliges the state to protect, educate and prosper the Indonesian people. This supreme act of Indonesians for Indonesians clearly proclaims that respecting each individual’s personal data is resting upon the two principles of the Pancasila. Namely these of; Fair and Civilized Humanity. Mutual grant and observance of everyone’s elementary rights is an essence of freedom. The government, with the mandate of its authority to protect the public (public trust doctrine), must manage the personal data fairly and accountable. The GDPR also encourages the formation of an independent personal data protection supervisory institution so that it can correct the policies and rules of the bureaucracy and state administration to act accordingly in managing the personal data of the population. Moreover, every democratic government should be more proactive in protecting society when comes to the management of the personal data of its residents. Interestingly, the Indonesian legislation already has instruments that follow the notion of the GDPR. Thus, Law No. 11 on Information and Electronic Transactions of 2008 (by a letter of its article 2) emphasizes the principle of extra-territorial jurisdiction. (In this particular case, it is related to the cross-border transactions. Indonesia should always safeguard its national interests: the RI jurisdiction stretches on any legal action that applies in Indonesia and/or carried out by Indonesian citizens. But it also applies to legal actions carried out outside of Indonesian jurisdiction by Indonesian citizens or a foreigner legally residing in RI, or Indonesian legal entities and foreign legal entities that produce legal effects in Indonesia. This, of course, assumes the very nature of use of Information Technology for Electronic Information and Electronic Transactions, which can be cross-territorial and even universal. What is assumed by this Law as “harming the interests of Indonesia” goers beyond pure national economic interests, protecting strategic data, national dignity, defence and security, the state of sovereignty, citizens, and Indonesian legal entities.) When comes to the Right to be Forgotten (Right for Privacy and Right for Dignity), Indonesia must see it as a principle of real protection that is in the best interests of data owners. Further on, such a right should be strengthened by the principle of ‘without undue delay’, as to avoid the administrative obligation to request a court decision to uphold the right. On the long run, it will surely benefit businesses far more than the personal data originators themselves. Leading by example In line with the Right to Portability Data elaborated by the GDPR, Indonesia also needs to closely examine the EU instruments. Hence, the EU Regulation No.910 / 2014 concerning electronic identification, authentication and trust services (eIDAS) offers an idea of how to harmonize the provision of digital identity and personal data in a realm of electronic communications. (Electronic identification and authentication is a technology process that has an economic value. Such a business opportunity should be reconciled with a safety and security standards when comes to use of and traffic with of personal data for commercial interests.) Regarding security, Indonesia must immediately have a clear policy on Cryptography to protect personal data. Cryptography is a double-use process; it can be utilised for civilian purposes, but it can also be used for vital national interests, such as defence and security. Therefore, privacy and cybersecurity protection is a complementary concept of protection. Holistic approach strengthens both rights of individuals as well as protection of national interests, rather than it ever conflicts one over the other. Finally, the ASEAN Declaration of Human Rights in its article 21 stipulates that the protection of personal data is an elementary part of Privacy. As one of the founding members, a country that even hosts the Organisation’s HQ, Indonesia must observe the notions of this Human Rights Charter. That is the additional reason why RI has to lead by example. The EU’s GDPR clearly encourages a paradigm shift within the public services and government administration services on a national, subnational and supranational level for all the ASEAN member states. It is to respect the fundamental freedoms and liberties, a quality that will shield the population from random and ill-motivated arbitrary judgments of individual rights under the pretext of public interest. Indonesia and ASEAN can take a lot of learning from the dynamics of the EU’s regulation of GDPR and e-IDAS as to its own benefit – to foster its own security and to elevate trust in regional e-commerce within the ASEAN economic zone. Since the ASEAN (if combined) is the 4th largest world economy, this is a call of future that already starts now. For anyone outside, Indonesia and ASEAN are already seen as the world’s e-commerce hub, of pivotal importance far beyond the Asia-Pacific theatre. Vienna/Jakarta 18 DEC 2018 ————————– About the authors: Prof. Melda Kamil Ariadno (SH, LLM, PhD) is a Professor of International Law at the Faculty of Law Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta. She is currently the Dean of the Faculty of Law Universitas Indonesia and the Head of Center for Sustainable Ocean Policy. She obtained her bachelor’s degree from Universitas Indonesia in 1992. Then, she received both her LL.M. and Ph.D. from the University of Washington in 1995 and 2011, respectively. She has served as legal expert for several governmental bodies among others the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries. Prof. Anis H Bajrektarevicis chairperson and professor in international law and global political studies, Vienna, Austria. He has authored six books (for American and European publishers) and numerous articles on, mainly, geopolitics energy and technology. For the past decades, he has over 1,200 hours of teaching on the subject International Law. Two of his books are related to cyber space, cyber law and cyber wrongdoings. Professor is editor of the NY-based GHIR (Geopolitics, History and Intl. Relations) journal, and editorial board member of several similar specialized magazines on three continents. His 7th book is to be realised in New York in December.

By Dr. Lu Wei. “How to draw the line between the recent and still unsettled EU/EURO crisis and Asia’s success story? Well, it might be easier than it seems: Neither Europe nor Asia has any alternative. The difference is that Europe well knows there is no alternative – and therefore is multilateral. Asia thinks it has an alternative – and therefore is strikingly bilateral, while stubbornly residing enveloped in economic egoism. No wonder that Europe is/will be able to manage its decline, while Asia is (still) unable to capitalize its successes. Asia clearly does not accept any more the lead of the post-industrial and post-Christian Europe, but is not ready for the post-West world.” – professor Anis H. Bajrektarevic diagnosed in his well-read ‘No Asian century’ policy paper. Sino-Indian rift is not new. It only takes new forms in Asia, which – in absence of a true multilateralism – is entrenched in confrontational competition and amplifying antagonisms. The following lines are referencing one such a rift. *********** At the end of 2017, Brahma Chellaney, a professor with the New Delhi-based Center for Policy Research, wrote an article titled “China’s Creditor Imperialism” in which he accused China of creating a “debt trap” from Argentina, to Namibia and Laos, mentioning its acquisition of, or investment in the construction of several port hubs, including Hambantota in Sri Lanka, Piraeus in Greece, Djibouti, and Mombasa in Kenya in recent years. These countries are forced to avoid default by painfully choosing to let China control their resources and thus have forfeited their sovereignty, he wrote. The article described China as a “new imperial giant” with a velvet glove hiding iron fists with which it was pressing small countries. The Belt and Road Initiative, he concluded, is essentially an ambitious plan to realize “Chinese imperialism”. The article was later widely quoted by newspapers, websites and think tanks around the world. When then United States Secretary of State Rex Tillerson visited Africa in March, he also said that although Chinese investment may help improve Africa’s infrastructure, it would lead to increased debt on the continent, without creating many jobs. It is no accident that this idea of China’s creditor imperialism theory originates from India. New Delhi has openly opposed China’s Belt and Road Initiative, especially the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor as it runs through Pakistan-administered Kashmir, which India regards as an integral part of its territory. India is also worried that the construction of China’s Maritime Silk Road will challenge its dominance in South Asia and the Indian Ocean. Based on such a judgment, the Indian government has worked out its own regional cooperation initiatives, and taken moves, such as the declaration of cooperation with Vietnam in oil exploration in the South China Sea and its investment in the renovation of Chabahar port in Iran, as countermeasures against the Chinese initiative. Since January, India, the United States, Japan and Australia have actively built a “quasi-alliance system” for a “free and open Indo-Pacific order” as an alternative to the Belt and Road Initiative. In April, a senior Indian official attending the fifth China-India Strategic Economic Dialogue reiterated the Indian government’s refusal to participate in the initiative. The “creditor imperialism” fallacy is, in essence, a deliberate attempt by India and Western countries to denigrate the Belt and Road Initiative, which exhibits their envy of the initial fruits the initiative has produced. Such an argument stems from their own experiences of colonialism and imperialism. It is exactly the US-led Western countries that attached their political and strategic interests to the debt relationship with debtor countries and forced them to sign unequal treaties. China’s Belt and Road Initiative is proposed and implemented in the context of national equality, globalization and deepening international interdependence, and based on voluntary participation from relevant countries, which is totally different from the mandatory debt relationship of the West’s colonialism. It is an important “Chinese experience” to use foreign debts to solve its transportation and energy bottlenecks that restrict its economic and social development at the time of its accelerated industrialization and urbanization. By making use of borrowed foreign debts, China once built thousands of large and medium-sized projects, greatly easing the transportation and energy “bottlenecks” that long restrained its social and economic development. Such an experience is of reference significance for other developing countries in their initial stage of industrialization and urbanization along the Belt and Road routes. In the early stage of China’s reform and opening-up, US dollar-denominated foreign debt accounted for nearly 50 percent of China’s total foreign debts, and Japanese yen close to 30 percent. Why didn’t Western countries think the US and Japan were pushing their “creditor imperialism” on China? Some foreign media have repeatedly mentioned that Sri Lanka is trapped in a “debt trap” due to its excessive money borrowing from China. But the fact is that there are multiple reasons for Sri Lanka’s heavy foreign debt and its debt predicament should not be attributed to China. For most of the years since 1985, foreign debt has remained above 70 percent of its GDP due to its continuous fiscal deficits caused by low tax revenues and massive welfare spending. As of 2017, Sri Lanka owed China $2.87 billion, accounting for only 10 percent of its total foreign debt, compared with $3.44 billion it owed to Japan, 12 percent of its total foreign debt. Japan has been Sri Lanka’s largest creditor since 2006, but why does no foreign media disseminate the idea of “Japan’s creditor imperialism”? In response to the accusation that China is pursuing creditor imperialism made by India and some Western countries, even former Sri Lankan president Mahinda Rajapaksa wrote an article in July using data to refute it. Most of the time, the overseas large-scale infrastructure construction projects related to the Belt and Road Initiative are the ones operated by the Chinese government and Chinese enterprises under the request of the governments of involved countries along the Belt and Road routes or the ones undertaken by Chinese enterprises through bidding. It is expected that with the construction of large-scale infrastructure projects and industrial parks under the Chinese initiative, which will cause the host country’s self-development and debt repayment ability to constantly increase, the China’s creditor imperialism nonsense will collapse. ———————– About the author:  is an associate research fellow with  China’s National Development and Reform Commission’s Academy of Macroeconomics Studies.  

As of 1 January 2019, the statutory gross minimum wage for employees 22 years and older that work full-time will be:

€	1,615.80	per month
€	372.90	per week
€	74.58	per day

Please be informed that the law regarding gross minimum wage is statutory law. Therefore, the gross minimum wage also applies to employment contracts with foreign employees that habitually perform their work in the Netherlands, even in case a choice of law has been made in the employment contract. Statutory youth minimum wage

Age	Percentage	Per month	Per week	Per day
21 years	85%	€ 1,373.45	€ 316.95	€ 63.39
20 years	70%	€ 1,131.05	€ 261.05	€ 52.21
19 years	55%	€ 888.70	€ 205.10	€ 41.02
18 years	47.5%	€ 767.50	€ 177.15	€ 35.43
17 years	39,5%	€ 638.25	€ 147.30	€ 29.46
16 years	34,5%	€ 557.45	€ 128.65	€ 25.73
15 years	30%	€ 484.75	€ 111.85	€ 22.37

Part-time When the working time is shorter than the customary working time, the statutory (youth) minimum wage will be in proportion to the hours worked. Hourly Wage The hourly wage may vary across the sectors, depending on the number of hours that is agreed upon as the customary working time. The customary working time is defined as the working time which has been agreed upon for full-time employment in a certain sector. In most collective labour agreements the working time of full-time employment is 36, 38 or 40 hours per week. ———————–  About the author: Jan Dop assists national and international enterprises in all facets of their day-to-day business operations. He specializes in personnel, real estate and issues involving public authorities. Jan is Head of our Embassy Desk, that serves Embassies, Consulates, diplomats and expats. He has been a lawyer at Russell since 1995, and became a partner in 2011.   @: jan.dop@russell.nl  t: +31 20 301 55 55

By Dr. Eugenio Matos Gomez. The First International Tourism Investment Forum took place in Tashkent between 19 & 20, November 2018. We had the opportunity to interview several important persons, including Mr. Abdulaziz Akkulov who was the Acting Chairman of the State Committee of Uzbekistan for Development of Tourism. He expects that Uzbekistan will double the number of tourists in 2019. Last year, 5.5million visited Uzbekistan, compared to 2.7 million in 2017. “This is a huge achievement for us”, he said during a short discussion we had with him on Nov. 19th. This country is a hidden gem in Asia. The two-days promotional forum aimed at attracting foreign investments to Uzbekistan with quick investment-returns for potential entrepreneurs.   “The forum was very well attended, counting with an abound of prospect investors from over 50 countries, having the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and Chinese companies as one of its largest financial supporters. There  are many regions to highlight during this event, including Samarkand. They all offer a series of investment opportunities”, told us Dilshod Narzikulov, First Deputy Director from Samarkand. He says that by 2025, Uzbekistan should receive some 8.5 million visitors, and almost 10 million by 2026, reason why there is an urgent need for accommodation, supplies and services. During the Forum, the government announced some 530 touristic projects all over the country, varying from small to five star hotels, restaurants, entertainment, theme parks, transportation, services, private hospitals, sports centers and the like. Proposed projects now open to foreign investors have the option to own their businesses as sole proprietorship, as a single owner. The Government provides the land and services.  

What makes the difference amongst standard international investments? It was our question to local promoters. “The State provides comfortable warranties to investors and fast returns, which are key factors. They will get excellent general public services, including water supply, electricity and gas where necessary”. Tourism development is a major priority for the government, considering its landlocked situation in Central Asia. President Shavkat Mirziyoyev has only two years in power after the passing of the autocratic leader Islam Karimov. Mirziyoyev is opening his country to the world as never seen before. “We are much better of since President Shavkat Mirziyoyev took power in 2016, thanks to his reforms, liberalization policies and dismantlement of old-fashioned regulations”, answered nine out of ten interviewees we have approached at Samarkand bazar meat market on 21^st November 2018.

Uzbekistan offers above all security for tourists and investors. Uzbek people are extremely friendly to help tourists. This nation has a privileged local production at all levels; Uzbekistan is the world’s fifth-largest cotton exporter and seventh-largest producer. Uzbekistan’s growth has been driven primarily by state-led investments, and export of natural gas, gold, and cotton including an automotive industry (Chevrolet and other brands), low cost public transportation, efficient health-care system; it enjoys an uncommon social and political stability, amongst other considerations. For further information regarding foreign investment in Uzbekistan, please contact the Uzbek Embassy in Brussels: belgium.mfa.uz / embassy@uzbekistan.be —————————– About the author: Senior Diplomat. Hon. Associate Publisher, Diplomat Magazine.  Expert on Public Diplomacy    

By Guido Lanfranchi. Speaking with the press ahead of the November 11^th elections in eastern Ukraine, Ambassador Kurt Volker, US. Special Representative for Ukraine, declared such elections as “wholly illegitimate.” In the same context, he announced a new round of US. sanctions against Russia over the country’s involvement in Ukraine. On November 8^th, 2018, just a few days ahead of the November 11^th elections in eastern Ukraine, the United States State Department decided to update the press on the situation in the country. Ambassador Kurt Volker, US. Special Representative for Ukraine, updated the press on Ukraine’s dire humanitarian situation, on the elections in the east, and on a new set of US. sanctions against Russia over its involvement in Ukraine. Ambassador Volker started by expressing the strong opposition of the United States towards the November 11^th elections in the so-called Luhansk and Donetsk People’s Republics. Such elections – he claimed – are “wholly illegitimate”, as they do not comply with the Ukrainian constitution nor with the Minsk agreements. While reminding that elections are indeed part of the Minsk roadmap, Mr. Volker stressed that this process should unfold in a safe and free environment. Such conditions – he stressed – are currently far from being achieved in eastern Ukraine. In order to achieve the conditions necessary to implement the Minsk agreements, Ambassador Volker reiterated the US. proposal for a UN-mandated peacekeeping force, which would be tasked with creating security in the regions. Ambassador Volker “urged the Russian side to give serious consideration” to the US. proposal. However, as Russia demands a mission focused solely on the protection of OSCE observers, the position of the actors remain rather distant. In a bid to increase pressure on Russia – Mr. Volker announced – the US. is set to impose a new round of sanctions. These new measures will target three individuals and nine entities accused either of contributing to Russia’s efforts to annex Crimea, or of committing serious human rights abuses in Russian-controlled areas. While the US. has long claimed that Russia has control over the occupied regions, Ambassador Volker stressed that these new sanctions are the first measures officially recognizing such understanding. As the negotiations remain stalled, the situation on the ground continues to be extremely dire – Ambassador Volker noted with concern. The conflict in Ukraine has already killed more than 10,000 people and has left 3.4 million civilians in urgent need of assistance. Ukrainian people in the occupied regions suffer from physical violence, food and water scarcity, health issues, as well as a lack of freedom. However, such humanitarian catastrophe “can be ended” – Mr. Volker stressed – namely by creating peace and security and implementing the Minsk agreements. Negotiations will thus continue, with the ultimate aim of improving the lives of the people of eastern Ukraine, who unfortunately remain the real victims of the conflict.

On the picture Évora, capital of Alentejo, a UNESCO World Heritage Site. By Catherine Dailey. During a gala black tie event held in the Pátio da Galéon western side of the Comércio Square in Lisbon a little more than a month ago, Portugal was honored with the “World’s Leading Tourist Destination 2018” award by the World Travel Awards. The event, one of the world’s most prestigious tourism and travel events in the industry, marked the end of the organization’s Silver Jubilee Grand Tour. During the December 1, 2018 awards ceremony, Turismo de Portugal   received two “World Travel Awards.” The first was the “World’s Leading Tourist Board 2018”and the second was for the “World’s Leading Tourism Authority Website 2018.” A complete list of both the “World”and “European” awards presented to Portugal, the Portuguese Ministry of Tourism, Tap Airways and various Portuguese resorts and hotels recognized during the awards ceremony can be found here. Portugal, a country with approximately 10.5 million inhabitants, welcomed some 12.7 million visitors in 2017. The figures set a new record which significantly contributed to the nation’s strongest economic growth since 2000. Revenues from Portugal’s tourism and travel related industries account for nearly 10% of the country’s GDP, which expanded by 2.7% in 2018 to a 17 year high. Last year, Portugal was also recognized as the “The friendliest country in the world for expats” in an Inter-Nations survey which was widely reported in the media last spring. With the holiday season behind us, and eight to ten weeks of inclement weather ahead, now is an opportune time to plan a trip to Portugal. The country enjoys an average of 300 days and 3,000 hours of sunshine per year and the flight time to the sun is just under three hours! This coming Thursday, the “Vakantiebeurs” opens. It is the largest consumer vacation expo devoted to travel and tourism in the Netherlands and one of the largest in Europe. Last year more than 100,000 visitors attended the four day event which will be held at the Jaarbeurs in Utrecht, from January 10-13.Visit the show and learn more about the world’s leading tourist destination and other travel opportunities during the coming year. Some 1,071 international exhibitors, including 63 tour operators, travel agencies, resort properties and campgrounds specializing in Portuguese holidays, will be participating. Official tourist offices from both the “Center of Portugal” and the “Alentejo” regions will also be exhibiting. The show offers a unique opportunity for first time visitors to Portugal to speak directly with knowledgeable experts about a “citybreak” or “crocusvakantie” (winter holiday) trip in the regions. Alentejo, a geographically diverse and sparsely populated area about the size of Belgium, comprises nearly one third of the country’s land area on the Iberian peninsula and has just 750,000 inhabitants. It begins just 180 km south of Lisbon and can best be explored by rental car over a period of days. Some of Europe’s finest beaches, still largely unknown to outsiders, are to be found along Alentejo’s wild Vincentina Coast. Évora, settled during the Roman times, is the capital of Alentejo and is known as the “Museum city.” The historic city center is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. The district extends  from the west, to the plains of Evora and beyond to the picturesque village of Monsaraz overlooking Alqueva Lake. It was created by an arch dam, completed in 2002, on the River Guadiana. The Alqueva Dam provides both recreational opportunities for water sports and much needed water for irrigated crops, including vast plantings of new vineyards.Portugal’s border with Spain also runs through parts of one of Europe’s largest artificial lakes, which is also known to the Portuguese as “El Grande Lago.” In recognition, the World’s Leading Tourist Destination 2018 having been awarded to Portugal, we will be publishing a series of monthly articles, beginning with Alentejo, to showcase the  varied offerings for cultural, historic, active, religious, gastronomical, adventure and family tourism in the world’s friendliest country for expats – Portugal! ———— For additional information: https://www.worldtravelawards.com/ https://www.worldtravelawards.com/winners/2018/world For more information about Portugal: www.visitportugal.com + www.flytap.com

By Tiberio Graziani.

Inheritance of the 2018 transformative trends affecting 2019

The main transformative trends in 2018 that will affect next year will concern at least the following three different global and interconnected sectors: Economic & Financial Area; Security; Dismantling of the Old World Order. Economic & Financial Area Regarding the economic and financial area, it will be necessary to monitor the growing importance of advanced technologies and their applications in the production cycles of the most industrial nations. In the next year, we will face a sort of rationalization of these production processes that will profoundly change the evolution of the current social equilibrium within nations and also the relations between states and large financial organizations. According to some analytical studies, a third of US workforce (about 50 million people) could be transformed by 2020. Furthermore, we will witness the explosion of new markets based on the technological needs of the elderly and the disabled people. We will also face the increase of cryptocurrencies. The knowledge and management of new technologies – ICT, AI, blockchain. 3D printing mainly – will constitute the challenge of the next decade between the major world powers and the main investment groups. Security The impact of the advanced technologies on geostrategic decisions will increase. The new technologies will contribute to impressing, in 2019, a decisive turning point in what we can define henceforth as a new global revolution in military affairs. The military-industrial-financial complexes of the major world powers will undergo a complete transformation starting from 2019. Dismantling of the Old World Order Another important trend that will affect the global level concerns the dismantling of the old world order based on the criteria of multilateralism. In 2019, we will witness the weakening of large global organizations such as the UN and the reorganization of multilateral consultations regarding international trade, climate issues and regulations on the use of new technologies. This will happen for two main reasons. The first is due to the growing presence and importance of global players of nations like China, Russia, and India, who obviously try to implement their 360 degree spheres of influence, even outside the old institutions born in the so-called bipolar era, when the destinies of the world were substantially decided in Moscow and Washington. The second reason is due to the putting into practice of the “Trump Doctrine,” which, over the past two years, has placed a particularly bilateral strategy on U.S. foreign policy, upsetting the old equilibria. 2019: Key  Geopolitical Challenges European Union A very important transformative trend will concern the European Union. 2018 has been a very critical year for the EU, both on the economic level, but above all on the political and social ones. 2019 will be a year in which the fate of the “European Common House” will be decided. As a consequence of the neopopulist waves and the so-called sovereignist ones that marked the social and political life of the Europeans during 2017-2018, most likely, the elections for the renewal of the European Parliament will reward the anti-European parties. 2019 will therefore be a very unstable year for the economy and politics of the European Union. Regarding Europe’s role at global level, we have to consider that the contentious relations between the U.S. and China as well as with Russia will impact the European Union in 2019. For different and divergent aspects, the U.S., Russia, and China have an interest in weakening the European Union. For the U.S., with Europe in the grip of a political, economic, and financial identity crisis, this situation would allow Washington to “manage” the U.S. economic recovery, especially now that the traditional British ally, thanks to Brexit, is released from the obligations that tied it to Brussels. Moreover, at a geostrategic level, the continuing European crisis allows the U.S. to gain time in making costly decisions and responsibilities in financial terms in the theatres of North Africa and the Middle East. For Russia, the issue is more delicate and problematic. A weak European Union, according to the Kremlin, would be more malleable in relation to the Ukrainian issue and the sanctions regime that has influenced the Russian economy since 2014. But this could be true, for the short term. In fact, a European Union weakened in the medium and long term would be at the mercy of the strategic interests of the U.S., since the EU is the eastern periphery of the U.S. geopolitical system, built at the end of the Second World War. Ultimately, in the absence of a political EU, the true European “glue” would consist only of NATO’s military-diplomatic device: something that Moscow certainly should not wish. A fragmented Europe, unable to have a coherent and unitary policy of infrastructural development, does not realistically have the useful force to negotiate – on the basis of equal geopolitical dignity – with China on the great project of the New Silk Road. For this reason, at the moment, a weak Europe is convenient for China. For Beijing it is easier and cheaper to negotiate with individual EU countries and, in some cases, even with regional administrations. Moreover, the absence of a truly European foreign policy allows China to operate in Africa without real competitors, apart from the U.S. and Russia. Asia The main geopolitical challenges in Asia will concern relations between the U.S., Japan, and China. Tokyo, although in line with U.S. policies, could be a point of mediation between the different positions of Washington and Beijing. On the geostrategic level, Washington will have to follow up on the initiatives launched in 2018 with Pyongyang for a complete normalization of relations. It will be a bumpy route, because the conflicting interests of the U.S. and the People’s Republic of China remain in the background of the North Korean issue. Another very controversial issue about the relations between the U.S. and China will concern Tibet. In particular, in the first months of 2019 Beijing and Washington will have to find a mediation in reference to the effects of the “Reciprocal Access to Tibet Act” (signed by President Trump at the end of 2018) that promotes the access to Tibet of U.S. diplomats, journalists and citizens and denies U.S. visas to Chinese officials considered responsible for blocking access to Tibet. Another issue that will have considerable geopolitical impacts at regional and global levels is related to the Chinese project of the New Silk Road. Beijing – in order to achieve its objectives – will consolidate its relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Russian Federation. U.S.-China trade tensions impact During 2018, the Trump administration has conducted a real trade war against China. In the next year this war will be in a certain way perfected. We have already had warnings of such kind: the arrest of MengWanzhou, chief financial officer and daughter of founder of high-tech giant Huawei, constitutes an example of the escalation of the U.S.-China tensions. The tensions between the U.S. and China are not just commercial, but strategic. The U.S. and China compete for technological supremacy. This strategic confrontation will affect the entire global system, impacting the worldwide financial system and determining choices of field between the various countries of the globe. North Africa, Near and Middle East In North Africa (particularly in Libya), Moscow’s stabilizing function is destined to grow in importance. In 2019, we will witness a rearrangement of forces within the quadrants of the Near and Middle East. Despite the Kashoggi affair, the United States will strengthen its ties with Saudi Arabia and will target the new Israeli government to counter Iran’s presence. The geopolitical and strategic dynamics concerning the area, however, will be affect by the increasing influence of the Russian Federation, Iran and Turkey in the course of the next year. Central and South America Although the US has regained some positions in South America, the Chinese presence and, partially also the Russian one, in the area will produce effects on the hegemonic attempt of the Trump Administration. The issue of migration is destined to play an increasing crucial role in Trump’s Central American policy. ——————– About  the author : Tiberio Graziani is the Chairman of Vision & Global Trends International Institute for Global Analyses www.vision-gt.eu

The newly elected President of Costa Rica, one of the world’s youngest heads of state, 38-year-old former journalist Mr. Carlos Alvarado, has vowed to fully decarbonise the country’s economy and makes it the first carbon-neutral nation in the world by 2021, on the 200th anniversary of its independence. “Decarbonisation is the great task of our generation and Costa Rica must be one of the first countries in the world to accomplish it, if not the first,” Alvarado said in his inauguration speech of 2018. “We have the titanic and beautiful task of abolishing the use of fossil fuels in our economy to make way for the use of clean and renewable energies.” Many commentators interpreted this as a decision to ban fossil fuels. Not quite true. Costa Rica does not have a legislation in place to restricting the use of fossil fuels, nor does its constituency plan to. However, it stepped up its ambition in reducing its share to the negative, climate change –related global ecological footprint. Its Minister of Environment and Energy, Carlos Manuel Rodríguez, plans to alter the country’s PEM (Primary Energy Mix) by gradually decarbonising it, but also by planting forests, employing better land management, and by the forthcoming carbon sequestration technologies. Aiming for carbon neutrality by ambitiously set 2021, the tiny Central American state is signalling it wants to beat bigger, more developed and wealthier countries to environmental glory. The UK and much of Scandinavia targets the 2050 as the year of zero net emissions. Germany hoped for the 95% reduction by a year of 2020, but is most probably to miss it. Costa Rica’s climate change started with its leaders change “Our crisis cannot be environmental… deep and structural, this must be a crisis of our cognitivity. Thus, the latest Climate Change (CC) Report is only seemingly on Climate. It is actually a behavioristic study on (the developmental dead end of) our other ‘CC’ – competition and confrontation, instead of cooperation and consensus.” – warns prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic, and concludes: “Cognitive mind can do it all.” Well, Costa Rica has it on its grasp: Home to less than 5 million people, it has long played above its weight on the climate change policy formulation, norm setting and instrument formulations as well as on implementation policies and practical actions. Nation has produced echelons of leaders in all generational cohorts who have promoted vigorous and progressive environmental policies at home and on the international stage. Former President José María Figueres served the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s Advisory Group on Climate Change and Energy. His younger sister, Christiana Figueres, chaired the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the UN block that convened the 2015 Paris climate agreement – a most important instrument after FCCC’s Kyoto Protocol. As curiously as foresightedly, Costa Rica holds no armed force (standing army) for a ¾ of century – ever since 1948. Moreover, by 1994 the country amended its constitution to embody a right to a healthy environment for its citizens as one of the fundamental human rights. Complementing the unique constitutional right, Costa Rica has impressive practical results in greening its economy. In 2018 only, the country went 300 days using only renewable energy. As of December 2018, 98.15% of electricity is produced from water, wind, geothermal energy, biomass and the sun (thermal and photovoltaic). Back in 2015, it managed to generate 100 % of its electricity from renewable energy sources for 299 days; in 2016, it ran for 271 days and in 2017 for 300 days on everything but fossil fuels. According to the Costa Rican Institute of Electricity, the country generates most of its electricity, around 99 per cent, with a variety of methods including hydropower (78 per cent), wind (10 per cent), geothermal energy (10 per cent), biomass (1 per cent) and solar (1 per cent). However, there is still a lot to do. Almost 70 per cent of the country’s (non-electricity) energy consumption still comes for the PEM composed of fossil fuels. Transportation heavily leans on petrol while gas is still widely used for cooking and smaller vehicles. Greening politics and economy, rethinking transport In order to meet the targets (domestic and these emanating from the Paris Agreement) on carbon neutrality by 2021, Costa Rica – on its national and subnational level – is now focusing on transportation. Modern passengers and freight transportation is one of the largest polluters all over the world. At the same time it is one of the sectors most tedious to decarbonize. In Costa Rica itself, transportation accounts for some 2/3 of carbon/green-house gas emissions. Using incentives and subsidies for cleaner vehicles, particularly electric mode of public and personal transportation, the state and city authorities aim to greening and decarbonising. Skilful recalibration of petrol taxing and road-tolls could be one of the solutions. Of course, the easiest way to get to carbon neutrality is to introduce the carbon quotas by limiting the fossil fuels consumption. However, it has to be reconciled with the current technological possibilities to switch to electric solutions. The batteries, its life time, recharging mode and speed, dispersion and availability of sockets as well as the weight and price of batteries are some of the challenges for years if not decades to come, not only to Costa Rica but even for the world’s technological champions. On the other hand, as the country’s economy grows, demands for the old-fashioned ICE (inner-combustion engine) cars is rising. In 2017, on every newborn baby two new cars were registered (in contrast to some 120 new electric cars). For over 60% of population diesel fuelled bases, cars and locomotives are daily choice of commuting. The country already ranks second in per capita emissions in Central America, which makes further electrification both a logical choice and urgent necessity. Elsewhere in the world, governments are also struggling with how to balance financial means and the tasks; driving habits and curbing the emissions, consumeristic social styles with a future imperatives, but it seems Costa Rica is going braver and further than most. Therefore, its greening of politics, energy, economy and international conduct is worth to closely monitor and learn from. ————— About the author: Sinta Stepani, is international relations specialists based in São Paulo, Brazil.