Meeting the Chief of Palestinian Mission, H.E. Ms. Rawan Sulaiman. Recently, during a lunch at the prestigious Hotel Des Indes* in The Hague, the Chief of the Palestinian Mission to the Netherlands gave us an overview of the bilateral relations with the Netherlands, the current situation in Palestine, and an update on her upcoming projects. The last year and a half in The Hague served as an important milestone in the career of H.E. Ms. Sulaiman, who began her function as Desk Officer for the Netherlands in the early 80’s. The Netherlands have been very supportive towards Palestine in different fields, related to water management, the rule of law, justice, human rights, state building capabilities. Moreover, the government has created several programs, such as the Dutch-Palestinian cooperation forum and the Netherlands’ food security program in Palestine, and it has contributed to the UN Relief and Work Agency’s work for Palestinian refugees and to the reconstruction of Gaza. After the Oslo Agreements in 1994, the Netherlands was one of the first countries to decide to open a representation office in the Palestinian territories, in order to establish a partnership in development cooperation. Prime Minister Mark Rutte has visited Palestine, and his Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Koenders and Rosendal. PM Rutte has been asking on several occasions for moderation and the solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict; and still continuously receiving delegations for political consultations. Stressing the importance of the economic sector, the Chief of Mission in The Hague said: “The economic sector is important for us, and also the exchange of knowledge and technology.” With the support of civil society organizations, the private sector, and the Palestinian Investment Agency, the Palestinian Mission is actively considering projects on water management, solar energy, IT, infrastructure improvement, and the development of import-export capabilities. “We need to work on the economy to improve the quality of life of our people, and we are organizing a business trip before the end of the year, in order to promote the commercial exchanges between us and the Netherlands. It is true that the occupation prevents us from accessing our natural resources, and that we don’t control our borders: this is a fact. However, we are resilient people, and we are going ahead, with the help of the international community.” Half a century of occupation Last year, was the 50th anniversary of the 1967 War, in which Palestinians suffered the occupation of a vast amount of their land, including the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza. “Our nation continues to suffer from the world’s longest sustained military occupation in contemporary history,” the Chief of Mission said. “It means that my people have been living under military rule, without their right to self-determination for an incredibly long time.”

70 year of Nakba “On May 15th, 2018, Palestinians commemorated 70 years of what is known as the ‘Nakba,’ which means catastrophe, or disaster. This day marks the forced expulsion of our people from our homeland by the actions of Israeli forces and Zionist militias in 1948. It marks loss, dispossession, and injustice suffered by the Palestinian people, and this injustice still continues today. The Nakba commemorates the period in which approximately 800.000 Palestinians, at the time two-thirds of the population, became homeless and stateless refugees.” “I am a refugee myself,” H.E. Ms. Sulaiman said. “My late father was expelled from Jaffa during the Nakba and he was never allowed to return. In fact, in order to achieve peace with the Israelis, the Palestinians gave up the claim to 78% of our historic homeland, and recognized Israel. We have endorsed the two-state solution for the past 30 years, but this solution is becoming increasingly difficult to achieve as time passes.” “In response to this historic compromise, the illegal settlements on our land keep growing, our children and politicians are being arrested and imprisoned by military ‘courts’ without a fair trial. The peaceful protesters in Gaza are indiscriminately shot by Israeli snipers without mercy.” “Peace is not a piece of document that is signed between leaders. People from both sides need to see and feel the benefits of it and realise that it is a just peace. Any peace agreement that is forced on us rather than being just will be a failure. This will remain the case as long as there is no upholding of the universal standards of human dignity, and as long as there is an absence of accountability for the continued violations of international law. We still believe in the path we have chosen to claim our rights and achieve peace, that is the path of international law, even though we realise it is long and often frustrating. Now President Trump, in his own words, took ‘Jerusalem off the table’ and is planning to move the American embassy to Jerusalem. This decision disqualifies the United States from its role as mediator in the conflict, and puts it squarely in the position of bias towards and hostility against Palestinian rights and the international law.” ——————— *Hotel del Indes is an emblematic historic hotel in The Hague, symbol of Dutch beauty, tradition and class, charm and character, elegance and grandeur with more than 132 years of credentials: www.hoteldesindes.nl

Peace and stability can only be achieved by an honest cooperation and commitments on the regional as well as on the international level.”  An interview with the Ambassador of Afghanistan, H.E. Dr. Homayoon Aziz.

  By Sheila Turabaz. His Excellency Dr. Mohammad Homayoon Azizi is the new Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to the Netherlands, succeeding H.E.  Dr. Obaidullah Obaid. H.E. Dr. Azizi started his career as a medical doctor in 2005. He also entered into local politics that same year as a member of the Herat Provincial Council in western Afghanistan and later as chairman. In 2010 he was appointed Minister of Parliamentary Affairs, and Provincial Governor of Kandahar in south-central Afghanistan in 2015, while ultimately entering the diplomatic world in his first foreign mission as ambassador to the Netherlands. Dr. Azizi has presented his letter of credentials to His Majesty King Willem-Alexander on 25 October 2017. In his first interview for Diplomat Magazine, H.E. Dr. Azizi explains what his duties are as ambassador and gives us insight in to the current situation in Afghanistan as well as sharing the embassy’s agenda for 2018. Being the ambassador to the Netherlands must be an entirely different experience for you. Reflecting upon the period since you first presented your letter of credentials in October 2017 until now, how have you experienced it thus far and what were the highlights for you personally in your role as ambassador? This is my first overseas mission as an ambassador and I consider it to be completely different from the positions I held before. Being an ambassador of my country is a good opportunity to share my experiences and the reality of Afghanistan with my international colleagues here. As an ambassador, I can explain to the host country authorities in Netherlands what our (Afghanistan’s) needs are and explain to the political parties and civil society of the Netherlands in which fields we could cooperate and the importance of the Netherlands’ engagement in Afghanistan. It is also a good opportunity for me to explain what is currently going on in Afghanistan by focusing on the achievements that have been mad but also looking at the challenges Afghanistan is currently facing. If we look at Afghanistan as a whole one should realize that we have made tremendous progress in various fields since the fall of the Taliban in 2001 which is not comparable with the situation before 2001. We are currently in a conflict situation and not in a post-conflict situation. A few years after the collapse of the Taliban in 2001, conflicts between groups started to arise again in different provinces in Afghanistan. We are currently in the frontline in the fight against international terrorism. Our nation has paid a lot in this regard; our national forces do not only defend Afghanistan and its people but also fight for democracy, equity, freedom and justice, which we share with all humans. How do you assess the bilateral relations between Afghanistan and the Netherlands? In 1965, Afghanistan and the Netherlands entered official diplomatic relations. Our bilateral relationship has intensified due to the Netherlands’ engagement in rebuilding Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban in 2001. Currently, we maintain good relations with the Dutch authorities; this also includes the consular section of our embassy that has good relations with the Ministry of Justice and Security of the Netherlands.

How do you intend to stimulate the trade relations between the two countries? When I arrived here in the Netherlands, I started to research the possibilities of improving the trade relations between Afghanistan the Netherlands. The requirements for products to be exported from Afghanistan to the Netherlands, consists of very high standards. Unfortunately, Afghan products cannot meet these European standards. We intend to work together with the Dutch government on the long term to ensure that our products will meet those standards. We are currently focusing on exporting materials, which do not have to meet such high standards, such as raw material as well as exploring other possibilities. How would you describe the current situation in Afghanistan (particularly in respect of security and the economy)? The security situation in Afghanistan is not good right now unfortunately. The root of the problem lies outside of Afghanistan in the neighbouring countries. For a long time, terrorist groups have been supported and trained by neighbouring countries and sent to Afghanistan to serve their own purpose. We are optimistic to overcome the current situation and stand against any kind of terrorism. With regards to the economy, Afghanistan is in a unique geopolitical position. We have lots of opportunities for economic growth. Afghanistan connects Central Asia with South Asia. Central Asian countries are rich in natural materials and energy. Afghanistan serves as a transit way to carryraw materials and energy to South Asia. Through this regional cooperation project, Afghanistan can improve its economy. However, these activities and projects are dependent of the security situation. What is your vision with regard to peace, stability and ultimately, growth in Afghanistan? I consider the security situation in Afghanistan to be multidimensional. To achieve peace we need a comprehensive approach. It is clear that our nation is a victim of proxy wars. Peace and stability and ultimately growth can only be achieved by an honest cooperation and commitments on the regional as well as on the international level. There is a large Afghan diaspora of around 44,000 thousand people in the Netherlands, how does the embassy engage with the Afghan-Dutch community? The Afghan-Dutch community in the Netherlands have established many social organizations throughout the Netherlands. We work closely with these organisations. At the same time our consular section works closely with all Afghans regarding public administration. Moreover, our cultural department regularly organizes cultural eventsand holidays such as Nowrooz and our national day in cooperation with the Afghan-Dutch community. Which brings me to my next question: a significant part of this community consists of young and ambitious Afghans who have spent the majority of their lives in the Netherlands. How does the embassy encourage the younger generation to stay connected with their roots and how can they help secure and develop Afghanistan? During the four decades of war in Afghanistan, many Afghans were forced to emigrate abroad. The younger generation who have grown up outside of Afghanistan gives us hope for the future due to their many talents and knowledge that can help us rebuild Afghanistan. We have set up programs aimed towards these young and high-educated Afghans who want to work and use their knowledge for the benefit of Afghanistan.A notable example of this is the KEIHAN Academic Medical Exchange program. Since 2001many Afghans living in European countries such as the Netherlands have visited Afghanistan and contributed their knowledge in various fields. Furthermore, the embassy has compiled a list of young Afghan-Dutch professionals and has reached out them, encouraging them to spend some of their time in Afghanistan and to actually work inside the country. You have been an avid supporter of cultural and civil society organizations as well as establishing an organization on your own, the Afghanistan Islamic Civil Partnership Assembly in 2009. How do you plan to stay socially involved during your stay in the Netherlands? In Herat, the city where I was politically involved,various civil society organizations areactive. I have created the Afghanistan Islamic Civil Partnership Assembly, which is an umbrella organization to help these civil society organizations to come under this umbrella in order to have a stronger voice than a voice of just a single organization. The aim of this assembly is partnership: all of these organizations should work together in order to have more influence and participate to achieve their common agenda. I am still involved in this assembly, which is led by elected board members. When I visit Afghanistan, I participate in various gatherings of the assembly. The Hague, which has been dubbed “The International City of Peace and Justice” and the “ World’s Legal Capital” is home to many international organizations. What is your view with regards to Afghanistan’s membership and participation in international organizations? If you look at the history of Afghanistan, it becomes evident that Afghanistan has always respected international law. Afghanistan has joined many international treaties and organizations. Two of these organizations are located in The Hague, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and the International Criminal Court (ICC). We believe that a secure and peaceful world is a common goal that we hope to achieve for the future generations and therefore we support such initiatives. What has been and what will be on the embassy’s agenda for 2018? The first thing on our agenda is to manage our trade mission in the Netherlands. Secondly, we intend to work with the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs to establish a sister organization of the IHE Delft Institute for Water Education to train Afghan civil servants as part of capacity building. Third on our agenda is meeting with the Nederlandse Vrouwenraad–an umbrella organization for Dutch women’ s rights – in order to gain new insights with regards to improving the position of women in Afghanistan. Lastly, we intend to set up a political agreement with the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs to define our relations in different sectors for the long term. Lastly, what would you like to share with our readers about Afghanistan, which most people are unaware of? Although the people of Afghanistan have been living through four decades of war, the family and social structure is still considered the basis of their society and plays a major role. Despite having lost so much throughout the years, Afghans continue living their lives, ensuring their family stays together throughout the conflicts.              

On the picture H.E. Aviv Shir-On, Ambassador of Israel  during his speech. By Guido Lanfranchi. The City Hall of The Hague hosted the exhibition “Beyond Duty,” in which the government of Israel paid tribute to the brave diplomats who helped Jewish families escaping the Nazi persecution.   Speakers were; H.E. Aviv Shir-On, Ambassador of Israel to the Netherlands, the Mayor of The Hague, Ms. Pauline Krikke and the Director for Multilateral Organisations and Human Rights Department, at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Peter van der Vliet.

When rules are unjust, is obedience a virtue? When innocent people are persecuted in front of your eyes, can you just stand by and look? During the times of the Holocaust, many people were faced with these questions. However, only some managed to take a firm stance in defense of the oppressed and, often in violation of the law, help Jewish families to escape the Nazi persecution. More than 70 years after the end of the Holocaust, the Jewish people are still aware of the significance of these people’s actions, and they are still eager to express their gratitude. In this spirit, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in collaboration with the organization Yad Vashem, has organized the exhibition “Beyond Duty,” paying tribute to the “righteous diplomats” who, in spite of personal risks, used their role in order to help prosecuted Jews. The exposition has been held in Jerusalem, as well as in 70 Israeli missions all around the world. In The Hague, the Israeli Embassy to the Netherlands, in collaboration with the Municipality, set up the “Beyond Duty” exhibition in the City Town Hall, in the very center of The Hague, during the first three weeks of March.

During the inaugural ceremony, H.E. Mr. Aviv Shir-On, Ambassador of Israel to the Netherlands, remembered that, in spite of the Nazi oppression, “throughout Europe there were those who refused to stand aside and watch.” The Ambassador talked about the “remarkable story of government officials,” “courageous diplomats who have done what was obvious to them but still stood out from the non-action of many others.” Mr. Shir-On praised the role played by the Dutch people, highlighting the outstanding number of 5,500 Dutch citizens recognized as “Righteous” by Yad Vashem. Among them, he mentioned the story of “Jan Zwartendijk, the Dutch consul is Kovno, Lithuania, who together with his Japanese colleague Sugihara saved thousands of persecuted Jews from Lithuania and other parts of the Soviet Union.”

The state of Israel does not give away any decorations or certificates of honor apart from the medal of the ‘Righteous among the Nations’ to non-Jews who saved Jews during the Shoah, the Holocaust.

Despite the fact that the Dutch Jewish community was the one who suffered the most in Europe, more than 80 percent of the Dutch Jews were murdered, the Netherlands is the country with the second largest number of the Righteous who were honored, after Poland.

 Last year the embassy of Israel organized 34 ceremonies all around the Netherlands in which 60 medals and certificates were handed out posthumously to people, issued by Yad Vashem in Jerusalem. More than 5,500 Dutch citizens were already recognized as Righteous by Yad Vashem.

“Beyond Duty” has told to its visitors the stories of outstanding people from all over the world: Captain Francis Foley from the United Kingdom, Per Anger and Roaul Wallenberg from Sweden, Vladimír Vochoč from Czechoslovakia, Georg Ferdinand Duckwitz from Germany, Sebastián De Romero Radigales from Spain. In spite of their different backgrounds and different situations, all these people found the courage to help people who were being unjustly persecuted. Now, more than 70 years after these events, we can only look back with admiration to these people, thank them for their actions, and maybe learn from them how to build a more just world.

                            Acting as MC Michel Kerres, from NRC newspaper, during Q&A session, at the table Remco Breuker and Peter Potman. By Guido Lanfranchi. On Tuesday May 22^nd, amid the rapid and tumultuous events occurring on the Korean peninsula, a large audience gathered at the Societeit De Witte, in the very center of The Hague, to attend the seminar: “Current Developments on the Korean Peninsula.”  The event was organized thanks to a collaboration between the Embassy of the Republic of Korea to the Netherlands,  the Asia and Oceania Department, Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Leiden Asia Centre and the Clingendael Institute.   North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-un suddenly pledging to denuclearize, the leaders of the two Koreas meeting in Panmunjom and agreeing to work together on ending the Korean War, and Kim Jong-un scheduling a meeting with US President Donald Trump. All this in an outstandingly short amount of time. How could someone interested in the Korean peninsula keep track of all these developments and (at least try to) understand them? With this in mind, the Embassy of the Republic of Korea to the Netherlands, the Leiden Asia Center and  the Clingendael Institute, organized a seminar on the “Current Developments on the Korean Peninsula.”

The event, which took place during the whole morning of Tuesday, May 22^nd, featured an outstanding panel of speakers. Among them, H.E.Mr. Lee Yun-Young, Ambassador of the Republic of Korea to the Netherlands; Dr. Jun Bong-Geun, Advisor on the Inter-Korean Summit 2018; Professor Remco Breuker, lecturer of Korean Studies at Leiden University; Mr. Sico van der Meer, Research Fellow at Clingendael Institute; and Mr. Peter Potman, Director of Asia and Oceania Department at the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs. H.E. Ambassador Lee, highlighted in his speech the outstanding value of the Panmunjom meeting. He remembered that the meeting had been possible only because of previous diligent work by diplomats and functionaries from both sides. As for the future developments, Ambassador Lee stressed that “we Koreans have an aspiration for peace,” and that everyone in the peninsula will follow the negotiations’ developments very closely. As for the international community, he noted that international support to the talks will be more than needed in order to ensure a good outcome, which will benefit not only the Korean people, but also the whole international community. In his lecture, Dr. Jun Bong-Geun explored a wide array of questions related to the Korean peninsula. He analyzed the different aspects of inter-Korean relations, focusing on the issues of unification, security, and peace. Also, he outlined the political and economic landscape, both domestically and internationally, in which North and South Korea have acted in recent times, before moving to the current situation. Speaking about the recent talks, Dr. Jun Bong-Geom noted that the current negotiations are a purely political process, managed by strong political leaders, rather than a bureaucratic process. Moving then to potential future developments, Dr. Jun Bong-Geum presented four hypothetical scenarios: confrontation-containment, forced denuclearization, engagement, and peace-regime building. He stressed that, while denuclearization was a key term in the April 27^th Panmunjom declaration, there are different models of denuclearization, and it is still not clear if the many actors involved will be able to agree on one. Eschewing the idea of adopting past models, Dr. Jun Bong-Geum stressed the need of a unique ‘Korea-type’ solution, which should take into consideration both past experiences and the peculiarities of the Korean case. The lecture of Sico van der Meer, touched upon several similar issues. Mr. van der Meer outlined the possible outcomes of the newly established negotiation track between North Korea and the United States. He stressed that the leaders of both countries seem to have a strong political will to reach a deal, but he also noted that, in case of failure, a conflict would not be anymore such an unlikely scenario. Questioned by the audience, Mr. van der Meer touched upon another series of issues, such as the diplomatic negotiations ahead of the US-DPRK Singapore summit, North Korea’s shift away from its Byongjin policy, and the role of regional states (such as Japan) in the solution of the crisis.

Professor Remco Breuker shifted the attention of the audience towards another fundamental issue regarding North Korea: the problem of Human Rights. He noted that Human Rights discussions have been often left out of the negotiations’ agenda, both in the past and in the present talks. This has often been justified on the grounds that the resolution of the Korean conflict and a transition towards more prosperous economic models in North Korea would in the long run alleviate the Human Rights related problems. To the contrary, Prof. Breuker advocated the need for including Human Rights as a cornerstone of negotiations, if international rule of law is to have a meaning. Interestingly, he argued that the real problem is not North Korea having nuclear weapons, as in other situations in history this situation has already been handled (e.g. during the Cold War). Rather, the North Korean problem mostly lies in the country’s sociological, ideological system; therefore, he suggested, negotiators should talk about Human Rights at all costs. Mr. Peter Potman, from the Dutch Foreign Ministry started his speech by mentioning the long-lasting interest of Dutch people for Korea. He stressed that the Dutch government’s priority on the North Korean situation remains the issue of non-proliferation; unification, although significant, is not the primary concern. Mr. Potman voiced its support for a critical engagement aimed on the one hand at pressuring the North Korean regime to change its behavior, but on the other hand to avoid any escalations of tensions in the Korean peninsula. Also, Mr. Potman talked about the involvement of China in the negotiations with North Korea, expressing his conviction that China is playing and will play a role in shaping the outcome of the future talks. During the Q&A section, the audience had the possibility to ask more questions to the speakers. The questions focused on, among the many issues: the different perceptions of denuclearization held by the different actors involved; the role of Human Rights in the negotiations; the impact of sanctions on the North Korean economy and, especially, on its people. Since the day of the event, there have been even more frantic developments and plot twists. On May 24^th, the government of North Korea invited the international press to witness the destruction of its nuclear test site of Pungyye-ri, in order to show its goodwill concerning denuclearization. The very same day, on account of a recent verbal escalation over remarks by the US State Department and the North Korean Foreign Ministry, US President Trump temporarily called off the forthcoming meeting with Kim Jong-un. After further talks between US and North Korean officials, the two leaders rescheduled the historic meeting, which will take place on June 12^th in Singapore. Observers from all over the world are keen to see what will be the outcome of this meeting. Among the many people following the developments, those who participated to the seminar on May 22^nd will surely be better equipped to understand how events will unfold.  

By Corneliu Pivariu. As he declared previously during the electoral campaign and at the beginning of his office, president Donald Trump announced and signed on May, 8th 2018, the United States’ unilateral withdrawal from what is known to the public at large as the nuclear agreement with Iran (The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action – JCPOA –signed in the 5+1 format with Iran by the USA, Great Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany after long negotiations, in July 2015). For those who did not remember, Germany’s inclusion into this agreement was the result of the fact it supplied Iran, decades ago, dual technology that benefitted the development of the Iranian nuclear file. Immediately after president Donald Trump’s official statement, the Iranian Foreign Affairs minister, Javad Zarif, begun a rapid diplomatic tour to China, Russia and the European Union. An advisor of the supreme leader Ali Kamenei state that Iran will neither renegotiate the agreement, nor its missiles program. Moreover, certain Iranian statements expressed the no-confidence in the European position of further supporting the implementation of the Agreement. Some other statements mentioned that Iran will, under unfavourable circumstances of the discussions with the European officials, will publicize the economic facilities and financial incentives granted to certain top European personalities and even to the American Secretary of State John Kerry, during the negotiations for agreeing JPCOA, and that would explain why the proposals that did not suit Iran were eliminated from the final text. For the time being, the EU (and also France, Germany and great Britain, separately) and Russia support maintaining the agreement denounced by president Donald Trump. We notice the rather sharp statements of the Commissioner for Foreign and Security Policy Federica Mogherini (which, in our opinion, exceed the real – and modest – possibilities of the UE’s foreign policy under current European legislation), as well as Donald Tusk’s statements criticizing the American decision and endorsed keeping the agreement into force. Some other voices have been heard as well considering the USA, after its withdrawal from the agreement, (as that was a real surprise) as not being any longer an European trusted ally something that is, again in our opinion, a great strategic and geopolitical mistake. We restate the opinion that, particularly under the circumstances of today’s geopolitical developments, the alliance between Europe and the USA or between the USA and Europe should be a constant able to prevent a new world conflict with incalculable consequences for the mankind. As far as the USA is concerned and in accordance with the decisions president Trump took, economic sanctions were imposed on certain Iranian entities including the Revolutionary Guard Corps (Pasdaran), Central Bank of Iran and other officials Moreover, the sanctions to be adopted will affect on the European firms (and American firms) that have already economic contracts amounting to hundreds and thousands of dollar with Iran. It is obvious that the sanctions against Iran, especially when they will be adopted by the European countries, will have important effects on the Iranian economy. As it was natural, the USA’s position was approved by Israel and also by Saudi Arabia that stated that if Iran gets nuclear weapons, it will do the same. We remind here some information according to which Saudi Arabia has already concluded a secret protocol with Pakistan since several decades (stipulating that in case of a nuclear threat against Saudi Arabia, Islamabad will put at Riyadh’s disposal some nuclear strikes as response). Russia seems to benefit as a result of this situation first by the crude oil price increase and then due to the possibilities of concluding new contracts with Tehran in case the European companies withdraw. An important consequence of the Agreement’s denunciation, under the circumstances of worsening the situation, is a large-scale regional military conflict breaking out that may end in redesigning the map of the Middle East, drastically reducing the Iranian influence in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. The Israeli military action against “almost the entire Iranian infrastructure in Syria”, as a response to the 20 Iranian missiles launched against Israel should be added, as it was the most powerful Israeli military actions of the last 40 years (Operation ”House of Cards”). It seems that the operation was coordinated by Israel with the USA and Russia. A new evidence of how complicated the developments in the Middle East are and could be. The USA considered certainly the possibility of a military conflict with Iran breaking out. The question to be asked is what resulted from this analysis and what will Washington’s decision be.

---

About the author: Corneliu Pivariu, former first deputy for military intelligence (two stars general) in the Romanian MoD, retired 2003. Member of IISS – London, alumni of Harvard – Kennedy School Executive Education and others international organizations. Founder of INGEPO Consulting, and bimonthly Bulletin, Geostrategic Pulse”. Main areas of expertise – geopolitics, intelligence and security. ———— Corneliu Pivariu Ingepo Consulting. Photographer Ionus Paraschiv

By Barend ter Haar. The subtitle “A Provocation” of Has the West Lost It? will not surprise someone who has read other books of the Singaporean diplomat-scholar Kishore Mahbubani, such as Can Asians Think? (2001) and The Great Convergence: Asia, the West, and the Logic of One World (2013). Just as in those earlier books, he is friendly, but provokingly clear, not only about the accomplishments of the West and the Rest, but also about their flaws and blunders. According to Mahbubani the West refuses to accept that humanity has turned a crucial corner in its history. For a short period of about two centuries, the West dominated the world. This extraordinary period is quickly coming to an end, because the Rest is catching up. In 1976 the combined GDP of the G7 (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, UK and US) was still twice as big as that of the E7, the seven largest emerging economies (China, India, Brazil, Mexico, Russia, Turkey and Indonesia). Soon it will be the other way around. We are returning to the situation that existed before 1820, when the two largest economies of the world were China and India. However, thanks to the “power of reasoning” that the Rest has taken over from the West, the human condition has improved enormously: in 1950 75% of the world lived in extreme poverty. Now that is less than 10%. While Western elites prefer to look the other way, the populations of their countries “feel these large changes in their bones, and in the job markets”. The most consequential event of 2001 was not 9/11, but the entry of China into the WTO: “The entry of almost a billion workers into the global trading system would obviously result in massive ‘creative’ destruction and the loss of many jobs in the West”. According to a report of the Bank for International Settlements, the introduction of new workers from China and Eastern Europe led in the West to declining real wages and a smaller share of labour in national output and this “naturally meant that inequality [within Western economies] rose”. Take for example the US: 63% of its population nowadays does not have enough savings to cover a $500 emergency. This is why Trump and Brexit happened. What should Western countries do, according to Mahbubani? First of all, they should engage in deep self-reflexion and recognize the grave mistakes they made out of hubris, such as the invasion of Iraq and the humiliation of Russia. The United Kingdom should give its permanent seat in the UN Security Council to India and France should share its seat with the EU. Secondly, they should become more “strategically cunning” in defending their interests. “For Europe, it is clear that the primary threat is not going to come from Russia. (..) Europe’s primary threat is spillover instability from the Islamic world. As long as North Africa and the Middle East are populated with struggling states, migrants will come into Europe, stirring populist parties.” Promoting the economic development of North Africa is a matter of even higher urgency because of the expected growth of the population of the rest of Africa. In 80 years, the population of Africa is expected to be 4,5 billion, against 450 million Europeans. According to Mahbubani the West can continue to play a key role in the world, but only if it recognizes that the era of Western domination is coming to an end and if it seeks to influence the world rather than to dominate it.

(Denuclearisation of the Far East long way Ahead) By Prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic 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 egoisms. 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. Following the famous saying allegedly spelled by Kissinger: “Europe? Give me a name and a phone number!” (when – back in early 1970s – urged by President Nixon to inform Europeans on the particular US policy action), the author is trying to examine how close is Asia to have its own telephone number. Another fallacy is that the German reunification can be just copied. 15 days at any German institute of political science and one becomes expert of reunification. Yes, Germany is a success story since the neighbors were extremely forgiving. And that was enhanced by the overall pan-continental commitment to multilateralism – by both institutions and instruments. Europe of German re-unification was the most multilateralised region of the world. Asia today is extremely bilateral – not far from the constellations at the time of Hiroshima or Korean War of 1950s. No multilateralism – no denuclearisation; no denuclearisation – no reunification; no reunification – no overall cross-continental tranquilization of relations; no tranquility – no Asia’s sustainable success. Why multilateralism matters? Author tries to answer it … By contrasting and comparing genesis of multilateral security structures in Europe with those currently existing in Asia, and by listing some of the most pressing security challenges in Asia, this policy paper offers several policy incentives why the largest world’s continent must consider creation of the comprehensive pan-Asian institution. Prevailing security structures in Asia are bilateral and mostly asymmetric while Europe enjoys multilateral, balanced and symmetric setups (American and African continents too). Author goes as far as to claim that irrespective to the impressive economic growth, no Asian century will emerge without creation of such an institution. *          *          *          * For over a decade, many of the relevant academic journals are full of articles prophesizing the 21^st as the Asian century. The argument is usually based on the impressive economic growth, increased production and trade volumes as well as the booming foreign currency reserves and exports of many populous Asian nations, with nearly 1/3 of total world population inhabiting just two countries of the largest world’s continent. However, history serves as a powerful reminder by warning us that economically or/and demographically mighty gravity centers tend to expand into their peripheries, especially when the periphery is weaker by either category. It means that any absolute or relative shift in economic and demographic strength of one subject of international relations will inevitably put additional stress on the existing power equilibriums and constellations that support this balance in the particular theater of implicit or explicit structure. Lessons of the Past Thus, what is the state of art of Asia’s security structures? What is the existing capacity of preventive diplomacy and what instruments are at disposal when it comes to early warning/ prevention, fact-finding, exchange mechanisms, reconciliation, capacity and confidence– building measures in the Asian theater? While all other major theaters do have the pan-continental settings in place already for many decades, such as the Organization of American States – OAS (American continent), African Union – AU (Africa), Council of Europe and Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe – OSCE (Europe), the state-of-arts of the largest world’s continent is rather different. What becomes apparent, nearly at the first glance, is the absence of any pan-Asian security/ multilateral structure. Prevailing security structures are bilateral and mostly asymmetric. They range from the clearly defined and enduring non-aggression security treaties, through less formal arrangements, up to the Ad hoc cooperation accords on specific issues. The presence of the multilateral regional settings is limited to a very few spots in the largest continent, and even then, they are rarely mandated with security issues in their declared scope of work. Another striking feature is that most of the existing bilateral structures have an Asian state on one side, and either peripheral or external protégé country on the other side which makes them nearly per definition asymmetric. The examples are numerous: the US–Japan, the US– S. Korea, the US–Singapore, Russia–India, Australia–East Timor, Russia–North Korea, Japan –Malaysia, China–Pakistan, the US–Pakistan, China–Cambodia, the US–Saudi Arabia, Russia –Iran, China–Burma, India–Maldives, Iran–Syria, N. Korea–Pakistan, etc. Indeed, Asia today resonates a mixed echo of the European past. It combines features of the pre-Napoleonic, post-Napoleonic and the League-of-Nations Europe. What are the useful lessons from the European past? Well, there are a few, for sure. Bismarck accommodated the exponential economic, demographic and military growth as well as the territorial expansion of Prussia by skillfully architecturing and calibrating the complex networks of bilateral security arrangements of 19^th century Europe. Like Asia today, it was not an institutionalized security structure of Europe, but a talented leadership exercising restraint and wisdom in combination with the quick assertiveness and fast military absorptions, concluded by the lasting endurance. However, as soon as the new Kaiser removed the Iron Chancellor (Bismarck), the provincial and backward–minded, insecure and militant Prussian establishment contested (by their own interpretations of the German’s machtpolitik and weltpolitik policies) Europe and the world in two devastating world wars. That, as well as Hitler’s establishment afterwards, simply did not know what to do with a powerful Germany. The aspirations and constellations of some of Asia’s powers today remind us also of the pre-Napoleonic Europe, in which a unified, universalistic block of the Holy Roman Empire was contested by the impatient challengers of the status quo. Such serious centripetal and centrifugal oscillations of Europe were not without grave deviations: as much as Cardinal Richelieu’s and Jacobin’s France successfully emancipated itself, the Napoleon III and pre-WWII France encircled, isolated itself, implicitly laying the foundation for the German attack. Finally, the existing Asian regional settings also resemble the picture of the post-Napoleonic Europe: first and foremost, of Europe between the Vienna Congress of 1815 and the revolutionary year of 1848. At any rate, let us take a quick look at the most relevant regional settings in Asia. Multilateral constellations By far, the largest Asian participation is with the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation – APEC, an organization engulfing both sides of the Pacific Rim. Nevertheless, this is a forum for member economies not of sovereign nations, a sort of a prep-com or waiting room for the World Trade Organization – WTO. To use the words of one senior Singapore diplomat who recently told me in Geneva the following: “what is your option here? …to sign the Free Trade Agreement (FTA), side up with the US, login to Facebook, and keep shopping on the internet happily ever after…” Two other crosscutting settings, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation – OIC and Non-Aligned Movement – NAM, the first with and the second without a permanent secretariat, represent the well-established political multilateral bodies. However, they are inadequate forums as neither of the two is strictly mandated with security issues. Although both trans-continental entities do have large memberships being the 2^nd and 3^rd largest multilateral systems, right after the UN, neither covers the entire Asian political landscape – having important Asian countries outside the system or opposing it. Further on, one should mention the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization – KEDO (Nuclear) and the Iran-related Contact (Quartet/P-5+1) Group. In both cases, the issues dealt with are indeed security related, but they are more an asymmetric approach to deter and contain a single country by the larger front of peripheral states that are opposing a particular security policy, in this case, of North Korea and of Iran. Same was with the short-lived SEATO Pact – a defense treaty organization for SEA which was essentially dissolved as soon as the imminent threat from communism was slowed down and successfully contained within the French Indochina. Confidence building – an attempt If some of the settings are reminiscent of the pre-Napoleonic Europe, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization – SCO and Cooperation Council for the Arab states of the Gulf – GCC remind us of the post-Napoleonic Europe and its Alliance of the Eastern Conservative courts (of Metternich). Both arrangements were created on a pretext of a common external ideological and geopolitical threat, on a shared status quo security consideration. Asymmetric GCC was an externally induced setting by which an American key Middle East ally Saudi Arabia gathered the grouping of the Arabian Peninsula monarchies. It has served a dual purpose; originally, to contain the leftist Nasseristic pan-Arabism which was introducing a republican type of egalitarian government in the Middle Eastern theater. It was also – after the 1979 revolution – an instrument to counter-balance the Iranian influence in the Gulf and wider Middle East. The response to the spring 2011-13 turmoil in the Middle East, including the deployment of the Saudi troops in Bahrain, and including the analysis of the role of influential Qatar-based and GCC-backed Al Jazeera TV network is the best proof of the very nature of the GCC mandate. The SCO is internally induced and more symmetric setting. Essentially, it came into existence through a strategic Sino-Russian rapprochement[1], based, for the first time in modern history, on parity, to deter external aspirants (the US, Japan, Korea, India, Turkey and Saudi Arabia) and to keep the resources, territory, present socio-economic cultural and political regime in the Central Asia, Tibet heights and the Xinjiang Uighur province in line. The next to consider is the Indian sub-continent’s grouping, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation – SAARC. This organization has a well-established mandate, well staffed and versed Secretariat. However, the Organization is strikingly reminiscent of the League of Nations. The League is remembered as an altruistic setup which repeatedly failed to adequately respond to the security quests of its members as well as to the challenges and pressures of parties that were kept out of the system (e.g. Russia until well into the 1930s and the US remaining completely outside the system, and in the case of the SAARC surrounding; China, Saudi Arabia and the US). The SAARC is practically a hostage of mega confrontation of its two largest members, both confirmed nuclear powers; India and Pakistan. These two challenge each other geopolitically and ideologically. Existence of one is a negation of the existence of the other; the religiously determined nationhood of Pakistan is a negation of multiethnic India and vice verse. Additionally, the SAARC although internally induced is an asymmetric organization. It is not only the size of India, but also its position: centrality of that country makes SAARC practically impossible to operate in any field without the direct consent of India, be it commerce, communication, politics or security. For a serious advancement of multilateralism, mutual trust, a will to compromise and achieve a common denominator through active co-existence is the key. It is hard to build a common course of action around the disproportionately big and centrally positioned member which would escape the interpretation as containment by the big or assertiveness of its center by the smaller, peripheral members. Multivector Foreign Policy Finally, there is an ASEAN – a grouping of 10 Southeast Asian nations[2], exercising the balanced multi-vector policy, based on the non-interference principle, internally and externally. This, Jakarta/Indonesia headquartered[3] organization has a dynamic past and an ambitious current charter. It is an internally induced and relatively symmetric arrangement with the strongest members placed around its geographic center, like in case of the EU equilibrium with Germany-France/Britain-Italy/Poland-Spain geographically balancing each other. Situated on the geographic axis of the southern flank of the Asian landmass, the so-called growth triangle of Thailand-Malaysia-Indonesia represents the core of the ASEAN not only in economic and communication terms but also by its political leverage. The EU-like ASEAN Community Road Map (for 2015) will absorb most of the Organization’s energy[4]. However, the ASEAN has managed to open its forums for the 3+3 group/s, and could be seen in the long run as a cumulus setting towards the wider pan-Asian forum in future. Before closing this brief overview, let us mention two recently inaugurated informal forums, both based on the external calls for a burden sharing. One, with a jingoistic-coined name by the Wall Street bankers[5] – BRI(I)C/S, so far includes two important Asian economic, demographic and political powerhouses (India and China), and one peripheral (Russia). Indonesia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Iran are a few additional Asian countries whose national pride and pragmatic interests are advocating a BRIC membership. The G–20, the other informal forum, is also assembled on the Ad hoc (pro bono) basis following the need of the G–7 to achieve a larger approval and support for its monetary (currency exchange accord) and financial (austerity) actions introduced in the aftermath of still unsettled financial crisis. Nevertheless, the BRIC and G-20 have not provided the Asian participating states either with the more leverage in the Bretton Woods institutions besides a burden sharing, or have they helped to tackle the indigenous Asian security problems. Appealing for the national pride, however, both informal gatherings may divert the necessary resources and attention to Asian states from their pressing domestic, pan-continental issues. Yet, besides the UN system machinery of the Geneva-based Disarmament committee, the UN Security Council, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons – OPCW and International Atomic Energy Agency – IAEA (or CTBTO), even the ASEAN Asians (as the most multilateralized Asians) have no suitable standing forum to tackle and solve their security issues. An organization similar to the Council of Europe or the OSCE is still far from emerging on Asian soil. Our history warns. Nevertheless, it also provides a hope:                                                        The pre-CSCE (pre-Helsinki) Europe was indeed a dangerous place to live in. The sharp geopolitical and ideological default line was passing through the very heart of Europe, cutting it into halves. The southern Europe was practically sealed off by notorious dictatorships; in Greece (Colonel Junta), Spain (Franco) and Portugal (Salazar), with Turkey witnessing several of its governments toppled by the secular and omnipotent military establishment, with inverted Albania and a (non-Europe minded) non-allied, Tito’s Yugoslavia. Two powerful instruments of the US military presence (NATO) and of the Soviets (Warsaw pact) in Europe were keeping huge standing armies, enormous stockpiles of conventional as well as the ABC weaponry and delivery systems, practically next to each other. By far and large, European borders were not mutually recognized. Essentially, the west rejected to even recognize many of the Eastern European, Soviet dominated/installed governments. Territorial disputes unresolved Currently in Asia, there is hardly a single state which has no territorial dispute within its neighborhood. From the Middle East, Caspian and Central Asia, Indian sub-continent, mainland Indochina or Archipelago SEA, Tibet, South China Sea and the Far East, many countries are suffering numerous green and blue border disputes. The South China Sea solely counts for over a dozen territorial disputes – in which mostly China presses peripheries to break free from the long-lasting encirclement. These moves are often interpreted by the neighbors as dangerous assertiveness. On the top of that Sea resides a huge economy and insular territory in a legal limbo – Taiwan, which waits for a time when the pan-Asian and intl. agreement on how many Chinas Asia should have, gains a wide and lasting consensus. Unsolved territorial issues, sporadic irredentism, conventional armament, nuclear ambitions, conflicts over exploitation of and access to the marine biota, other natural resources including fresh water access and supply are posing enormous stress on external security, safety and stability in Asia. Additional stress comes from the newly emerging environmental concerns, that are representing nearly absolute security threats, not only to the tiny Pacific nation of Tuvalu[6], but also to the Maldives, Bangladesh, Cambodia, parts of Thailand, of Indonesia, of Kazakhstan and of the Philippines, etc[7]. All this combined with uneven economic and demographic dynamics[8] of the continent are portraying Asia as a real powder keg. It is absolutely inappropriate to compare the size of Asia and Europe – the latter being rather an extension of a huge Asian continental landmass, a sort of western Asian peninsula – but the interstate maneuvering space is comparable. Yet, the space between the major powers of post-Napoleonic Europe was as equally narrow for any maneuver as is the space today for any security maneuver of Japan, China, India, Pakistan, Iran and the like. Let us also take a brief look at the peculiarities of the nuclear constellations in Asia. Following the historic analogies; it echoes the age of the American nuclear monopoly and the years of Russia’s desperation to achieve the parity. Besides holding huge stockpiles of conventional weaponry and numerous standing armies, Asia is a home of four (plus peripheral Russia and Israel) of the nine known nuclear powers (declared and undeclared). Only China and Russia are parties to the Non-proliferation Treaty – NPT. North Korea walked away in 2003, whereas India and Pakistan both confirmed nuclear powers declined to sign the Treaty. Asia is also the only continent on which nuclear weaponry has been deployed. [9] Cold War exiled in Asia As is well known, the peak of the Cold War was marked by the mega geopolitical and ideological confrontation of the two nuclear superpowers whose stockpiles by far outnumbered the stockpiles of all the other nuclear powers combined. However enigmatic, mysterious and incalculable to each other[10], the Americans and Soviets were on opposite sides of the globe, had no territorial disputes, and no record of direct armed conflicts. Insofar, the Asian nuclear constellation is additionally specific as each of the holders has a history of hostilities – armed frictions and confrontations over unsolved territorial disputes along the shared borders, all combined with the intensive and lasting ideological rivalries. The Soviet Union had bitter transborder armed frictions with China over the demarcation of its long land border. China has fought a war with India and has acquired a significant territorial gain. India has fought four mutually extortive wars with Pakistan over Kashmir and other disputed bordering regions. Finally, the Korean peninsula has witnessed the direct military confrontations of Japan, USSR, Chinese as well as the US on its very soil, and remains a split nation under a sharp ideological divide. On the western edge of the Eurasian continent, neither France, Britain, Russia nor the US had a (recent) history of direct armed conflicts. They do not even share land borders. Finally, only India and now post-Soviet Russia have a strict and full civilian control over its military and the nuclear deployment authorization. In the case of North Korea and China, it is in the hands of an unpredictable and non-transparent communist leadership – meaning, it resides outside democratic, governmental decision-making. In Pakistan, it is completely in the hands of a politically omnipresent military establishment. Pakistan has lived under a direct military rule for over half of its existence as an independent state. What eventually kept the US and the USSR from deploying nuclear weapons was the dangerous and costly struggle called: “mutual destruction assurance”. Already by the late 1950s, both sides achieved parity in the number and type of nuclear warheads as well as in the number and precision of their delivery systems. Both sides produced enough warheads, delivery systems’ secret depots and launching sites to amply survive the first impact and to maintain a strong second-strike capability[11]. Once comprehending that neither the preventive nor pre-emptive nuclear strike would bring a decisive victory but would actually trigger the final global nuclear holocaust and ensure total mutual destruction, the Americans and the Soviets have achieved a fear–equilibrium through the hazardous deterrence. Thus, it was not an intended armament rush (for parity), but the non-intended Mutual Assurance Destruction – MAD – with its tranquilizing effect of nuclear weaponry, if possessed in sufficient quantities and impenetrable configurations – that brought a bizarre sort of pacifying stability between two confronting superpowers. Hence, MAD prevented nuclear war, but did not disarm the superpowers. As noted, the nuclear stockpiles in Asia are considerably modest[12]. The number of warheads, launching sites and delivery systems is not sufficient and sophisticated enough to offer the second strike capability. That fact seriously compromises stability and security: preventive or preemptive N–strike against a nuclear or non-nuclear state could be contemplated as decisive, especially in South Asia and on the Korean peninsula, not to mention the Middle East[13]. A general wisdom of geopolitics assumes the potentiality of threat by examining the degree of intensions and capability of belligerents. However, in Asia this theory does not necessarily hold the complete truth: Close geographic proximities of Asian nuclear powers means shorter flight time of warheads, which ultimately gives a very brief decision-making period to engaged adversaries. Besides a deliberate, a serious danger of an accidental nuclear war is therefore evident. Multilateral mechanisms One of the greatest thinkers and humanists of the 20^th century, Erich Fromm wrote: “…man can only go forward by developing (his) reason, by finding a new harmony…”[14] There is certainly a long road from vision and wisdom to a clear political commitment and accorded action. However, once it is achieved, the operational tools are readily at disposal. The case of Helsinki Europe is very instructive. To be frank, it was the over-extension of the superpowers who contested one another all over the globe, which eventually brought them to the negotiation table. Importantly, it was also a constant, resolute call of the European public that alerted governments on both sides of the default line. Once the political considerations were settled, the technicalities gained momentum: there was – at first – mutual pan-European recognition of borders which tranquilized tensions literally overnight. Politico-military cooperation was situated in the so-called first Helsinki basket, which included the joint military inspections, exchange mechanisms, constant information flow, early warning instruments, confidence–building measures mechanism, and the standing panel of state representatives (the so-called Permanent Council). Further on, an important clearing house was situated in the so-called second basket – the forum that links the economic and environmental issues, items so pressing in Asia at the moment. Admittedly, the III OSCE Basket was a source of many controversies in the past years, mostly over the interpretation of mandates. However, the new wave of nationalism, often replacing the fading communism, the emotional charges and residual fears of the past, the huge ongoing formation of the middle class in Asia whose passions and affiliations will inevitably challenge established elites domestically and question their policies internationally, and a related search for a new social consensus – all that could be successfully tackled by some sort of an Asian III basket. Clearly, further socio-economic growth in Asia is impossible without the creation and mobilization of a strong middle class – a segment of society which when appearing anew on the socio-political horizon is traditionally very exposed and vulnerable to political misdeeds and disruptive shifts. At any rate, there are several OSCE observing nations from Asia[15]; from Thailand to Korea and Japan, with Indonesia, a nation that currently considers joining the forum. They are clearly benefiting from the participation[16]. Consequently, the largest continent should consider the creation of its own comprehensive pan-Asian multilateral mechanism. In doing so, it can surely rest on the vision and spirit of Helsinki. On the very institutional setup, Asia can closely revisit the well-envisioned SAARC and ambitiously empowered ASEAN[17] fora. By examining these two regional bodies, Asia can find and skillfully calibrate the appropriate balance between widening and deepening of the security mandate of such future multilateral organization – given the number of states as well as the gravity of the pressing socio-political, environmental and politico-military challenges. In the age of unprecedented success and the unparalleled prosperity of Asia, an indigenous multilateral pan-Asian arrangement presents itself as an opportunity. Contextualizing Hegel’s famous saying that “freedom is…an insight into necessity” let me close by stating that a need for the domesticated pan-Asian organization warns by its urgency too. Clearly, there is no emancipation of the continent; there is no Asian century, without the pan-Asian multilateral setting. ——– About the author Prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic, Chairman Intl. Law & Global Pol. Studies (authored 6 books on geopolitics, technology, security and energy) Vienna, 18 May 2018. anis@bajrektarevic.eu   References: Bajrektarevic, Anis, “Verticalization of Historical Experiences: Europe’s and Asia’s Security Structures – Structural Similarities and Differences”, Crossroads, The Mac Foreign Policy Journal, Skopje (Vol. I Nr. 4) 2007 Bajrektarevic, Anis, “Institutionalization of Historical Experiences: Europe and Asia – Same Quest, Different Results, Common Futures”, Worldviews and the Future of Human Civilization, (University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, November 2008) Malaysia (2008) Bajrektarevic, Anis, “Destiny Shared: Our Common Futures – Human Capital beyond 2020”, the 5^th Global Tech Leaders Symposium , Singapore-Shanghai March 2005 (2005) Bajrektarevic, Anis, “Structural Differences in Security Structures of Europe and Asia – Possible Conflicting Cause in the SEA Theater”, The 4^th Viennese conference on SEA, SEAS Vienna June 2009 (2009) Duroselle, J.B., “Histoire Diplomatique – Études Politiques, Économiques et Sociales”, Dalloz Printing Paris (first published 1957), 1978 Friedman, George, “The Next 100 Years”, Anchor Books/Random House NY (2009) Fromm, Erich, “The Art of Loving”, Perennial Classics, (page: 76) (1956) Hegel, G.W.F., Phänomenologie des Geistes (The Phenomenology of Mind, 1807), Oxford University Press, 1977 (page: 25 VII) Mahbubani, Kishore, “The New Asian Hemisphere”, Public Affairs, Perseus Books Group (page: 44-45) (2008) Sagan, S.D. and Waltz, K.N., “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate Renewed”, (page: 112) (2003)   ABSTRACT: Following the famous saying allegedly spelled by Kissinger: “Europe? Give me a name and a phone number!” (when – back in early 1970s – urged by President Nixon to inform Europeans on the particular US policy action), the author is trying to examine how close is Asia to have its own telephone number. By contrasting and comparing genesis of multilateral security structures in Europe with those currently existing in Asia, and by listing some of the most pressing security challenges in Asia, this article offers several policy incentives why the largest world’s continent must consider creation of the comprehensive pan-Asian institution. Prevailing security structures in Asia are bilateral and mostly asymmetric while Europe enjoys multilateral, balanced and symmetric setups (American and African continents too). Author goes as far as to claim that irrespective to the impressive economic growth, no Asian century will emerge without creation of such an institution. [1] Analyzing the Sino-Soviet and post-Soviet-Sino relations tempts me to compare it with the Antic Roman Empire. The monolithic block has entered its fragmentation on a seemingly rhetoric, clerical question – who would give the exclusive interpretation of the holy text: Rome or Constantinople. Clearly, the one who holds the monopoly on the interpretation has the ideological grip, which can easily be translated into a strategic advantage. It was Moscow insisting that the Soviet type of communism was the only true and authentic communism. A great schism put to an end the lasting theological but also geopolitical conflict in the antique Roman theatre. The Sino-Soviet schism culminated with the ideological and geopolitical emancipation of China, especially after the Nixon recognition of Beijing China. Besides the ideological cleavages, the socio-economic and political model of the Roman Empire was heavily contested from the 3^rd century onwards. The Western Roman Empire rigidly persisted to any structural change, unable to adapt. It eroded and soon thereafter vanished from the political map. The Eastern Empire successfully reformed and Byzantium endured as a viable socio-economic and political model for another 1,000 years. Feeling the need for an urgent reshape of the declining communist system, both leaders Gorbachev and Deng Xiaoping contemplated reforms. Gorbachev eventually fractured the Soviet Union with glasnost and perestroika. Deng managed China successfully. Brave, accurate and important argumentation comes from diplomat and prolific author Kishore Mahbubani (The New Asian Hemisphere, 2008, page 44-45). Mahbubani claims that Gorbachev handed over the Soviet empire and got nothing in return, while Deng understood “the real success of Western strength and power … China did not allow the students protesting in Tiananmen Square”. Consequently, Deng drew a sharp and decisive line to avoid the fate of Russia, and allowed only perestroika. China has survived, even scoring the unprecedented prosperity in only the last two decades. Russia has suffered a steep decline in the aftermath of the loss of its historic empire, including the high suicide and crime rates as well as the severe alcohol problems. Gorbachev himself moved to the US, and one vodka brand labels his name. [2] The membership might be extended in the future to East Timor and Papua New Guinea. [3] Symbolic or not, the ASEAN HQ is located less than 80 miles away from the place of the historical, the NAM–precursor, the Asian–African Conference of Bandung 1955. [4] Comparisons pose an inaccuracy risks as history often finds a way to repeat itself, but optimism finally prevails. Tentatively, we can situate the ASEAN today, where the pre-Maastricht EU was between the Merge Treaty and the Single European Act. [5] The acronym was originally coined by Jim O’Neill, a chief global economist of Goldman Sachs, in his 2001 document report: “Building Better Global Economic BRICs”. This document was elaborating on countries which may provide the West with the socially, economically and politically cheap primary commodities and undemanding labor force, finally suggesting to the West to balance such trade by exporting its high-prized final products in return. The paper did not foresee either creation of any BRIC grouping or the nomadic change of venue places of its periodic meetings. O’Neill initially tipped Brazil, Russia, India and China, although at recent meetings South Africa was invited (BRICS) with the pending Indonesia (BRIICS). [6] Tuvalu, a country composed of low-laying atoll islands, faces an imminent complete loss of state territory. This event would mark a precedent in the theory of intl. law – that one country suffers a complete geographic loss of its territory. [7] Detailed environmental impact risk assessments including the no-go zones are available in the CRESTA reports. The CRESTA Organization is powered by the Swiss RE as a consortium of the leading insurance and reinsurance companies. [8] The intriguing intellectual debate is currently heating up the western world. Issues are fundamental: Why is science turned into religion? Practiced economy is based on the over 200-years old liberal theory of Adam Smith and over 300-years old philosophy of Hobbes and Locke – basically, frozen and rigidly canonized into a dogmatic exegesis. Scientific debate is replaced by a blind obedience. Why is religion turned into political ideology? Religious texts are misinterpreted and ideologically misused in Europe, ME, Asia, Americas and Africa. Why is the secular or religious ethics turned from the bio-centric comprehension into the anthropocentric environmental ignorance? The resonance of these vital debates is gradually reaching Asian elites. No one can yet predict the range and scope of their responses, internally or externally. One is certain; Asia understood that the global (economic) integration can not be a substitute for any viable development strategy. Globalization, as experienced in Asia and observed elsewhere, did not offer a shortcut to development, even less to social cohesion, environmental needs, domestic employment, educational uplift of the middle class and general public health. [9] “Obama, the first seating American president to visit Laos, recalled that the US has dropped more than 2 million tons of bombs on this country during the heights of the Vietnam war – more than it dropped on Germany and Japan combined during the WWII. That made Laos, per capita, the most heavily bombed country in human history. ‘Countless civilian were killed… especially innocent men, women children. Even now, many Americans were unaware of their country’s deadly legacy here’ – the president said in Vientiane in 2016.” It took a good 40 years to the US press to fairly report on it, too. /Landler, M. (2016), Obama seeks to Heal scars of War in Laos, International New York Times, September 07, 2016, (page 6)/ [10] The Soviet Union was enveloped in secrecy, a political culture, eminent in many large countries, which the Soviets inherited from the Tsarist Russia and further enhanced – a feature that puzzled Americans. It was the US cacophony of open, nearly exhibitionistic policy debates that puzzled Russians – and made both sides unable to predict the moves of the other one. The Soviets were confused by the omnipresence of overt political debate in the US, and the Americans were confused by the absence of any political debate in the USSR. Americans well knew that the real power resided outside the government, in the Soviet Politburo. Still, it was like a black-box – to use a vivid Kissinger allegory, things were coming in and getting out, but nobody figured out what was happening inside. Once the particular decision had been taken, the Soviets implemented it persistently in a heavy-handed and rigid way. Usually, the policy alternation/adjustment was not coming before the personal changes at the top of the SU Politburo – events happening so seldom. On the other hand, the Soviets were confused by the equidistant constellation of the US executive, legislative and judicial branches – for the Soviet taste, too often changed, the chaotic setup of dozens of intelligence and other enforcement agencies, the role of the media and the public, and the influential lobby groups that crosscut the US bipartisanism – all which participated in the decision prep and making process. Even when brokered, the US actions were often altered or replaced in zigzagging turns. The US was unable to grasp where the Communist Party ended and the USSR government started. By the same token, the Soviets were unable to figure out where the corporate America ended and the US government started. Paradoxically enough, the political culture of one prevented it from comprehending and predicting the actions of the other one. What was the logical way for one was absolutely unthinkable and illogical for the other. [11] As Waltz rightfully concludes: “Conventional weapons put a premium on striking first to gain the initial advantage and set the course of the war. Nuclear weapons eliminate this premium. The initial advantage is insignificant…”… due to the second strike capability of both belligerents. (‘The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate Renewed’ by Scott D. Sagan and Kenneth N Waltz, 2003, p. 112). [12] It is assumed that Pakistan has as few as 20 combat/launching ready fission warheads, India is believed to have some 60, and Korea (if any, not more than) 2-3 only. Even China, considered as the senior nuclear state, has not more than 20 ICBM. [13] Israel as a non-declared nuclear power is believed to have as many as 200 low-powered fission nuclear bombs. A half of it is deliverable by the mid-range missile Jericho II, planes and mobile (hide and relocate) launchers (including the recently delivered, nuclear war-head capable German submarines). Iran successfully tested the precision of its mid-range missile and keeps ambitiously working on the long-range generation of missiles. At the same time, Iran may well have acquired some vital dual-use (so far, peaceful purpose) nuclear technologies. There is a seed of nuclear ambition all over the Middle East, with Saudi Arabia and Turkey as the least shy ones. [14] “The Art of Loving”, Erich Fromm, 1956, page 76. Fromm wrote it at about the time of the Bandung conference. [15] The so-called OSCE–Asian Partners for Cooperation are: Japan (1992), Korea (1994), Thailand (2000), Afghanistan (2003), Mongolia (2004) and Australia (2009). Within the OSCE quarters, particularly Thailand and Japan enjoy a reputation of being very active. [16] It is likely to expect that five other ASEAN countries, residentially represented in Vienna, may formalize their relation with OSCE in a due time. The same move could be followed by the Secretariats of both SAARC and ASEAN. [17] In Europe and in Asia – even when being at the HQ in Jakarta, I am often asked to clarify my (overly) optimistic views on the ASEAN future prospects. The ASEAN as well as the EU simply have no alternative but to survive and turn successful, although currently suffering many deficiencies and being far from optimized multilateral mechanisms. Any alternative to the EU is a grand accommodation of either France or Germany with Russia – meaning a return to Europe of the 18^th, 19^th and early 20^th centuries – namely, perpetual wars and destructions. Any alternative to the ASEAN would be an absorptive accommodation of particular ASEAN member states to either Japan or China or India – meaning fewer large blocks on a dangerous collision course. Thus, paradoxically enough in cases of both the EU and of ASEAN, it is not (only) the inner capacitation but the external constellations that make me optimistic about their respective success.

                            Kotinos International Award in collaboration with the United Nations International Charitable Organization and the World Sand Foundation was given out for the first time in the Middle East, indeed in the Emirate of Dubai, UAE.  For further information: http://phil-int.org/princess-sophie-from-romania-receives-the-international-kotinos-prize/