By Prof. Anis H. Bajrektarević. Following the latest events in and around the Black Sea, two old questions are reappearing. Both are inviting us for a repeated elaboration: If a Monroe doctrine (about the hemispheric security exclusivity) is recognised at one corner of the globe, do we have a moral right or legal ground to negate it at the other corner? This irrespectively from the fact that Gorbachev-Yeltsin Russia unilaterally renounced the similar explication – the Brezhnev doctrine about irreversibility of communist gains. Clearly, the ‘might-makes-right’ as a conduct in international relations cannot be selectively accepted. Either it is acknowledged to all who can effectively self-prescribe and maintain such a monopoly of coercion, or it is absolutely (revoked and) condemned as contrary to behaviour among the civilised nations. Next to the first question is a right of pre-emption. It is apparent that within the Black Sea theatre, Russia acts in an unwilling, pre-emptive and rather defensive mode. That is not a regime change action on the other continent following the rational of extra security demand by the exclusive few. Fairly, it is an equalising reactive attempt within the near abroad. For the last 25 years, all the NATO military interventions were well beyond its membership zone; none of the few Russian interventions over the same period was outside the parameter of former USSR. Before closing, let us take a closer look on the problem from a larger historical perspective. Una hysteria Importante Historically speaking, the process of Christianization of Europe that was used as the justification tool to (either intimidate or corrupt, so to say to) pacify the invading tribes, which demolished the Roman Empire and brought to an end the Antique age, was running parallel on two tracks. The Roman Curia/Vatican conducted one of them by its hammer: the Holy Roman Empire. The second was run by the cluster of Rusophone Slavic Kaganates, who receiving (the orthodox or true/authentic, so-called Eastern version of) Christianity from Byzantium, and past its collapse, have taken over a mission of Christianization, while forming its first state of Kiev Russia (and thereafter, its first historic empire). Thus, to the eastern edge of Europe, Russophones have lived in an intact, nearly a hermetic world of universalism for centuries: one empire, one Tsar, one religion and one language. Everything in between Central Europe and Russia is Eastern Europe, rather a historic novelty on the political map of Europe. Very formation of the Atlantic Europe’s present shape dates back to 14th–15th century, of Central Europe to the mid-late 19th century, while a contemporary Eastern Europe only started emerging between the end of WWI and the collapse of the Soviet Union – meaning, less than 100 years at best, slightly over two decades in the most cases. No wonder that the dominant political culture of the Eastern Europeans resonates residual fears and reflects deeply insecure small nations. Captive and restive, they are short in territorial depth, in demographic projection, in natural resources and in a direct access to open (warm) seas. After all, these are short in historio-cultural verticals, and in the bigger picture-driven long-term policies. Eastern Europeans are exercising the nationhood and sovereignty from quite a recently, thus, too often uncertain over the side and page of history. Therefore, they are often dismissive, hectic and suspectful, nearly neuralgic and xenophobic, with frequent overtones. Years of Useful Idiot The latest loss of Russophone Europe in its geopolitical and ideological confrontation with the West meant colossal changes in Eastern Europe. One may look into geopolitical surrounding of at the-time largest eastern European state, Poland, as an illustration of how dramatic was it. All three land neighbors of Poland; Eastern Germany (as the only country to join the EU without any accession procedure, but by pure act of Anschluss), Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union have disappeared overnight. At present, Polish border countries are a two-decade-old novelty on the European political map. Further on, if we wish to compare the number of dissolutions of states worldwide over the last 50 years, the Old continent suffered as many as all other continents combined: American continent – none, Asia – one (Indonesia/ East Timor), Africa – two (Sudan/South Sudan and Ethiopia/Eritrea), and Europe – three. Interestingly, each and every dissolution in Europe was primarily related to Slavs (Slavic peo-ples) living in multiethnic and multi-linguistic (not in the Atlantic Europe’s conscripted pure single-nation) state. Additionally, all three European fragmentations – meaning, every second dissolution in the world – were situated exclusively and only in Eastern Europe. That region has witnessed a total dissolution of Czechoslovakia (western Slavs) and Yugoslavia (southern Slavs, in 3 waves), while one state disappeared from Eastern Europe (DDR) as to strengthen and enlarge the front of Central Europe (Western Germany). Finally, countless centripetal turbulences severely affected Eastern Europe following the dissolution of the Soviet Union (eastern Slavs) on its frontiers. Irredentism in the UK, Spain, Belgium, France and Italy, or Denmark (over Faroe Islands and Greenland) is far elder, stronger and deeper. However, all dissolutions in Eastern Europe took place irreversibly and overnight, while Atlantic Europe remained intact, with Central Europe even enlarging territorially and expanding economically. Deindustrialized, incapacitated, demoralized, over-indebted, re-feudalized, rarified and de-Slavicized Finally, East is sharply aged and depopulated –the worst of its kind ever– which in return will make any future prospect of a full and decisive generational interval simply impossible. Honduras-ization of Eastern Europe is full and complete. Hence, is it safe to say that if the post-WWII Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe was overt and brutal, this one is subtle but subversive and deeply corrosive? The key (nonintentional) consequence of the Soviet occupation was that the Eastern European states –as a sort of their tacit, firm but low-tempered rebellion – preserved their sense of nationhood. However, they had essential means at disposal to do so: the right to work was highly illuminated in and protected by the national constitutions, so were other socio-economic rights such as the right to culture, language, arts and similar segments of collective nation’s memory. Today’s East, deprived and deceived, silently witnesses the progressive metastasis of its national tissue. Ergo, euphemisms such as countries in transition or new Europe cannot hide a disconsolate fact that Eastern Europe has been treated for 25 years as defeated belligerent, as spoils of war which the West won in its war against communist Russia. It concludes that (self-)fragmented, deindustrialized and re-feudalized, rapidly aged rarified and depopulated, (and de-Slavicized) Eastern Europe is probably the least influential region of the world – one of the very few underachievers. Obediently submissive and therefore, rigid in dynamic environment of the promising 21st century, Eastern Europeans are among last remaining passive downloaders and slow-receivers on the otherwise blossoming stage of the world’s creativity, politics and economy. Seems, Europe still despises its own victims… Terra nullius Admittedly, by the early 1990s, the ‘security hole’– Eastern Europe, has been approached in multifold fashion: Besides the (pre-Maastricht EC and post-Maastricht) EU and NATO, there was the Council of Europe, the CSCE (after the 1993 Budapest summit, OSCE), the EBRD and EIB. All of them were sending the political, economic, human dimension, commercial signals, assistance and expertise. These moves were making both sides very nervous; Russia becoming assertive (on its former peripheries) and Eastern Europe defiantly dismissive. Until this very day, each of them is portraying the NATO enterprise as the central security consideration: One as a must-go, and another as a no-go. No wonder that the absolute pivot of Eastern Europe, and the second largest of all Slavic states – Ukraine, is a grand hostage of that very dilemma: Between the eastern pan-Slavic hegemony and western ‘imperialism of free market’. Additionally, the country suffers from the consolidated Klepto-corporate takeover as well as the rapid re-Nazification. For Ukraine, Russia is a geographic, socio-historic, cultural and linguistic reality. Presently, this reality is far less reflected upon than the seducing, but rather distant Euro-Atlantic club. Ukraine for Russia; it represents more than a lame western-flank’ geopolitical pivot, or to say, the first collateral in the infamous policy of containment that the West had continuously pursued against Russia ever since the 18th century. For Moscow, Kiev is an emotional place – an indispensable bond of historio-civilizational attachment – something that makes and sustains Russia both Christian and European. Putin clearly redlined it: Sudden annexation of Crimea (return to its pre-1954 status) was an unpleasant and humiliating surprise that brought a lot of foreign policy hangover for both the NATO and EU. Nevertheless, for the Atlantist alarmists (incl. the Partition studies participants and those working for the Hate industry), military lobbyists and other cold-war mentality ‘deep-state’ structures on all sides, this situation offers a perfect raison d’etre. Thus drifting chopped off and away, a failed state beyond rehabilitation, Ukraine itself is a prisoner of this domesticated security drama. Yet again, the false dilemma so tragically imploded within this blue state, of a 50:50 polarized and deterritorialized population, over the question where the country belongs – in space, time and side of history. Conclusively, Eastern Europe is further twisting, while gradually combusted between Ukrainization and Pakistanization. The rest of Europe is already shifting the costs of its own foreign policy journey by ‘fracking’ its households with a considerably (politically) higher energy bills. — About the author:  Prof. Anis H. Bajrektarević, 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 and Relations (including lecturing in both Kiev and Moscow universities and Diplomatic Academy). 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, ‘From WWI to www. – Europe and the World 1918-2018’ is to be realised in December. Earlier version of the text was published by the Vision & Global Trends

The Philippine Ambassador to the Netherlands, H.E. Mr. Jaime Victor B. Ledda.

05 December 2018 – The Philippine Embassy in The Hague (The Hague PE) successfully conducted on 01 December a forum in observance of PH 18-day campaign to end violence against women, aptly titled, Ending Violence Against Women (EVAW): The International and National Responses. In his welcome remarks, H.E. Ambassador Jaime Victor B. Ledda informed the participants that the forum is a continuing advocacy on women’s rights and gender equality of the Embassy, in close partnership with the Department of Foreign Affairs’ Gender and Development (GAD) program, and the Philippine Commission on Women (PCW) at the national level. Ambassador Ledda expressed with pride that the Philippines ranks among top 10 in the world’s most gender equal country based on the 2017 Global Gender Gap Report. Ambassador Ledda acknowledges that while challenges in EVAW remain, the Philippine government remains steadfast and continues to vigorously pursue all means and mechanisms at both national and international levels to “GEWE”, gender equality and women equality.

A panel of legal professionals led by Attorney Rea Abada-Chiongson Senior Legal Advisor on Gender of the International Development Law Organization (IDLO) in The Hague, gave an overview of the global frameworks on violence against women (VAW), briefly conveying on facts and figures on VAW committed worldwide, eg., 1 in 3 women have experienced physical or sexual violence by or 1 in 2 women killed were killed mostly by an intimate partner.

Ateneo de Manila’s School of Law faculty, Attorney Patricia Cervantes-Poco, currently a PhD student in Maastricht’s Law Faculty on the other hand presented the country’s responses to international standards on VAW which included Magna Carta on Women (RA 9710), New Anti-Rape Law (RA 8353), Violence Against Women and Children (RA 9262) and the Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012 (RA 10364). The Hague-based legal NGO, AriseNL was also invited by the Embassy and its representatives, Portuguese-lawyer who has been handling cases on domestic violence among women in the Netherlands, Attorney Marisa Monteiro-Borsbom  and Ms. Sogano Mohandes discussed Dutch laws and services, ie paths to pursue when the system fails or delays for victims of domestic violence.

A “Q&A”, moderated by Attorney Neil Nucup, formerly of PH Supreme Court who is also pursuing further legal studies at Leiden University brought out gender-related concerns among members of the Filipino, Dutch and expatriate communities represented, e.g. a Filipino “transwoman” abused by his live-in Dutch partner, among others, that generated compassion among those in attendance. ————————————– Photography is a courtesy of Elena Ratnikova.  

By Guido Lanfranchi. Addressing the diplomatic and press corps in Joint Base Anacostia – Bolling, United States, US Special Representative for Iran Mr. Brian Hook showed “tangible evidence” of Iran’s “malign activities” in the Middle East, and urged the international community to support the US-led pressure campaign on Tehran. The Iran Materiel Display (IMD), hosted by Joint Base Anacostia – Bolling, is a showcase of missiles, rifles, hand grenades and a number of other Iranian-made weapons collected by the United States and its allies in the region. Such exposition – US Special Representative for Iran Mr. Brian Hook explains – should be a warning for the international community: something should be done to curb Iran’s increasing military capabilities and its support for rebel groups throughout the Middle East. In a conference at the IMD on November 29th, 2018, Mr. Hook invited the press and the diplomatic corps to observe the “tangible evidence” of Iran’s “malign activities”. In addition to a number of journalists and diplomatic staff from several countries, the Ambassadors of the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Israel attended the event, receiving a warm welcome from Mr. Hook. In his remarks, Mr. Hook exposed some of the weapon systems displayed at the IMD, such as the surface-to-air missile Sayyad-2C, highlighting the danger of ballistic missiles development in Iran. Such increasingly sophisticated systems – Mr Hook stressed – could be a threat not only for US allies in the Middle East, but even for some European countries. The US Special Representative also voiced the US’s concerns over Iran’s export of different types of weapons, ranging from missiles to small-size rifles, to an increasing number of groups in the Middle East, including Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Houthis. In particular, Mr. Hooks stressed the gravity of the situation in Yemen, regretting that a strong involvement of Iran in the conflict is not only affecting the Yemeni people, but also the security of the whole region. Mr. Hook reiterated that the United States will continue to exert maximum pressure on the Iranian regime, in order to starve Tehran of the resources used to fund its “malign activities” throughout the Middle East. While the sanctions imposed by the US have already taken their toll on Iran – Mr. Hook noted – the US stands ready to impose further measures. The standoff continues. —————————— The full video of Mr. Hook conference is accessible here: https://www.dvidshub.net/video/643891/state-department-briefs-press-irans-weapons-violations