Press Conference by Rex Tillerson (US Secretary of State) Left: Ambassador Kay Bailey Hutchison (US Permanent Representative to NATO). Photography US Embassy in Brussels. The US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson visited NATO Headquarters during his travels last week to Belgium, Austria, and France.  On December 6, 2017, he spoke at a press conference in Brussels.   Here below an extract of this speech: The United States, obviously, I think has affirmed now on multiple occasions our support for NATO’s mission. We know that the security NATO provides protects Western democratic principles, protects our right to live in freedom. To that end, the United States is eager for our NATO allies to exert their sovereignty and take on greater responsibility for our shared deterrence and our defense burden. I think, as each of us contributes, the better we will be able to deter and defend against the threats on Europe’s frontiers, which also can become threats for America. We do commend the many countries that have made additional commitments and greater contributions. This year Romania joined the United States, Greece, Estonia, the United Kingdom, and Poland as six allies that spend at least two percent of their GDP on defense. And two more allies, Latvia and Lithuania, will join that club in 2018. We expect 26 allies will increase their defense spending budgets this year and five more NATO allies have put plans in place to achieve the 2 percent objective by 2024. Increased spending, however, is not enough. It is really about increasing capabilities. And we’ve spent a lot of time in the sessions here at NATO over the last day-and-a-half talking about that. It is interesting, since NATO was formed the single largest cause of loss of lives within NATO from threats has been terrorism. And I think President Trump, as all of you well know, has made it clear that stopping terrorism must be a growing focus of attention for NATO. And we had just completed a session on the subject. Yesterday we discussed how to further leverage the action plan to strengthen the allies’ resilience against terrorist attacks and, in particular, to build upon NATO’s already long-standing commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, increase their cooperation as the President has announced his new South Asia strategy. We appreciate NATO members’ commitments to the United States effort to defeat ISIS globally, as well as our other counterterrorism efforts. The original mission of NATO, obviously, is still relevant. We have been clear with Russia that we cannot return to business as usual in the NATO-Russia relations, as long as Russia continues its illegal occupation of Ukraine. And Russia’s continued use of hybrid warfare seeks to undermine Western institutions, and this stands as a significant obstacle to normalizing our relations, as well. Russia’s aggression in Ukraine remains the biggest threat to European security, and demands continued transatlantic unity in confronting that threat. Our NATO allies stand firm in our support of Ukraine’s sovereignty and their territorial integrity. We do not accept Russia’s efforts to change the internationally-recognized borders of Ukraine or recognize Russia’s illegal occupation of Crimea. Earlier this morning we also had a productive discussion with Georgian Foreign Minister Janelidze. Georgia is a large contributor to our joint efforts in Afghanistan. In fact, they are the largest per capita of any contributing nation, and we strongly support Georgia’s aspirations to become a NATO member. Looking ahead to our final session, which will be over lunch today, the United States does support NATO’s open-door policy, and our commitment that any Europe-Atlantic country that wishes to join the alliance and meets the requirements to do so should be allowed to do so. And no third party should have anything to say about that pursuit of NATO membership. As we have done for decades, the United States will continue to maintain our straightforward, ironclad commitment to Article V. We will continue to work for the common defense and the preservation of peace called for in the NATO charter, and do so with confidence that our allies will continue to do the same

By Mr Martin Wyss, Chief of Mission, IOM International Organization for Migration in the Netherlands. The Secretary General of the United Nations mentioned in a recent speech that he was a migrant too, but not one who had to resort to a leaky boat. He also said that safe migration must not be limited to the global elite (for the full text see his twitter below). With these truisms, he captured two coexisting, yet starkly diverging realities clashing on the same planet. First, while the Secretary General certainly is part of the global elite, he is also part of an increasingly, mobile, global citizenry for which it is most natural to move safely and freely around the world. He enjoys his freedom of movement just as millions of tourists, students, businesspersons, visiting family members and migrant workers (e.g. over 2 million Filipinos and 1 million Sri Lankans etc.). All these millions travel with passports and where required with a visa. It is as normal as getting rid of one’s water bottle when passing security on the way to the gate. Why state the obvious? Because we overlook that the uninterrupted, global mass movements of people are all orderly and we accept them as completely normal as well as highly beneficial for all. But in fact it means that if you are rich enough you can travel or migrate wherever you want. The world is your oyster. This is maybe best illustrated by the residence permits offered in exchange for substantial investments or property purchases. There is also a rapidly growing, truly global labor, particularly talent market– for Professors, Senior Managers, Senior Accounts and IT Specialists etc. with offers on the back pages of The Economist magazine (see also https: //www.crownworldmobility.com/en-us/blank_page/perspectives—talent-mobility–the-new-normal-download). Secondly, the Secretary General at least implicitly refers to the perverse, global income disparities which prevent millions from enjoying the same rights, because even as a tourist you must have means to sustain yourself, and for the vast majority living in poor countries the need for a job alone or the ambition to have a better income remains unmatched by a right to a visa or a work permit. Therefore, the strongest willed among those barred from access will have no choice but to board leaky boats at great costs and risks or to attempt to climb over fences in Ceuta and Melilla. This is the type of migration that remains unresolved, bitterly argued over and which in some cases divides electorates into new, more conservative and even xenophobic constellations. In this context, it is hoped that the Global Compact for Migration, the first, inter-governmentally negotiated agreement to be prepared under the auspices of the United Nations will cover all dimensions of international migration in a holistic and comprehensive manner. Whenever the UN is committed to go forward as ONE, it can be difficult when many follow different or opposing views and rules. Although the UN holds up many principles as universal, we may notice when listening to the news that not all interpret or follow these universal principles in the same manner. Therefore it is not easy to find common ground when discussing a potentially divisive issue such as migration affecting many in different ways. But maybe we have just forgotten that a majority already accepts a few basic and important tenets: • Everybody knows that migration must be regulated (the question is how). • Many understand and agree that there should be more open channels and lower thresholds for regular migration. • Most agree that refugees and those forced to migrate need international protection, and almost all understand that effective protection of refugees can only be upheld with international solidarity, with a fair sharing of the “burden” with the countries in the vicinity of conflict zones which host most of the world’s refugees. • There is furthermore agreement that all countries have the right to have their own migration rules and visa requirements. But then there is no agreement on how to deal with those in breach of migration procedures. For some they are all victims – for others and I hesitate to say this – they are criminals. One of the problems is that so far there have been no sufficient efforts to find an overarching common “language”, common ideas and values on whether migration is a right that a priori should benefit all. In practice, there is no agreement on whether the rights of states prevail over the rights of individuals or the other way around. However, there may be reason for hope as there is no escaping from a smaller, more mobile, more interconnected world – in short: from more mobility and migration in all its forms. It must thus become possible to balance the rights AND obligations of all migrants with the rights AND obligations of all states. It appears difficult, but if we take note how all nations fully agree and comply with the very strict and mandatory rules which must prevail so that thousands of flights carrying billions of air travelers around the globe every year can take off in safety, it should be possible to find some common rules in order to allow many more to travel and migrate freely and safely, some day. The sooner we face up to these difficult, unresolved, but burning challenge, the sooner we will reach a truly global language and understanding on migration which hopefully will be the basis of a new Global Migration Governance. ——- https:  //twitter.com/antonioguterres/status/91//twitter.com/antonioguterres/status/9105721549739089920572154973908992 ——- Mr Martin Wyss, IOM Photography Barbara Salewski-Ratering

From June to September 2017, Astana, the capital of Kazakhstan hosted the Astana Expo showcase, where over 120 countries and 22 international organizations demonstrated the latest innovations in the clean energy sector. Titled the Future of Energy, this expo focused on four themes, including the ‘Reduction of Carbon Emissions’, ‘Energy for Life’, ‘Energy for All’, and the ‘World of Energy,’ which focused on the role of each individual’s contribution to the efficient use of energy. The Dutch pavilion was launched by the Minister of Economic Affairs of the Netherlands, at that time Mr. Henk Kamp and the Kazakhstan Vice Minister of Energy Mr, Asset Magauov. Mr. Kamp accompany by H.E. Magzhan Ilyassov, Ambassador of Kazakhstan to the Netherlands,  led a delegation of more than 100 Dutch companies, 75 of which were already established in Kazakhstan. As a leading investor in Kazakhstan, the Dutch pavilion emphasized the economic partnership between the two nations, organizing various activities during the duration of the Expo. When looking back at the origins of this economic partnership, a notable moment was in 2007, when a delegation from the Dutch Ministry of Foreign and Economic Affairs visited Kazakhstan. 2 years later, Kazakhstan’s foreign minister visited the Netherlands, were he met with his counterpart and the Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte. Since then, Prime Minister Rutte has visited the country several times, including for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) summit in 2010. Due to this positive relationship, Dutch multinationals as well as small and medium-sized businesses, primarily in the energy, agriculture, logistics, and port development sectors – are increasingly showing interest in Kazakhstan. In contrast, Kazakhstan is showing increasing interest in working with the Netherlands in the agricultural, horticultural and poultry sectors. Additionally, currently, the Netherlands and Kazakhstan are profiting trade partners. The Netherlands exports chemicals and machinery, while Kazakhstan exports primarily oil. While the countries are successful trade partners, there are significant differences between the two countries. Kazakhstan’s population of 17.7 million people enjoys an area of 2,724,900 km2, approximately 65.6 times bigger than the Netherlands. Additionally, Kazakhstan’s economy is primarily focused on natural resources. As geographically the largest of the former Soviet republics, excluding Russia, Kazakhstan’s vast hydrocarbon and mineral reserves form the backbone of the economy. Kazakhstan is landlocked and depends largely on Russia to export its oil to Europe. Further, oil is exported directly to China, showcasing Kazakhstan’s unique position as a bridge between Eurasia and Asia.

Vice Minister Magauov said: “We are sure that Astana will become an effective platform for demonstrating the best world developments and trends in the use of energy from the sun, wind, biogas, sea and thermal waters. Development of mutually beneficial bilateral ties with the Kingdom of the Netherlands has always been based on cooperation, trust, and friendship, and continues to be one of the priorities of our foreign policy. Kazakhstan considers the Netherlands as our key political, trade and investment partner in the European Union.” When considering Kazakhstan’s economy, it is important to understand the ramifications of natural resource dependence. The economic downturn of its Eurasian Economic Union partner, Russia, and the decline of global commodity prices from 2014 to 2015 contributed to an economic slowdown in Kazakhstan. In order to combat this issue, in 2014 Kazakhstan devalued its currency, the tenge, and announced a stimulus package to cope with its economic challenges. Since 2015, Kazakhstan has replaced its currency band with a floating exchange rate, leading to an even sharper fall in the value of the tenge. Since January of 2016, the tenge has modestly appreciated, primarily due to a slight increase in oil prices. In addition to lack of diversification in the economy, Kazakhstan also struggles with various issues surrounding corruption, bureaucracy, and arbitrary law enforcement. This has been a large concern for investors, who seek security in their ventures. Further, the country’s banking sector is subpar, suffering from low liquidity, poor asset quality, and a lack of transparency. Despite these drawbacks, the Astana Expo revealed promising changes for the country of Kazakhstan. Green technologies based on new fundamental discoveries, physics, and building on the developments of Nikola Tesla are helping facilitate diversification within the Kazakhstani economy. Moreover, this demonstration showcased the best of the best in the solar, wind, biogas, and marine sectors, raising Kazakhstan as an emerging player in the global push for clean energy development. The facilities built for the Expo will continue to serve as vital constructions as Kazakhstan continues to develop. For example, spaces used for pavilions can be converted into standard office spaces, to ensure investment is not wasted. Overall, while Kazakhstan’s economy and political situation remain shaky, major strides are being made in the country’s development as exemplified via the Astana Expo. Not only was this Expo a major achievement for Kazakhstan as a nation, it will serve as an example for other countries in Eurasia and Asia who are seeking to diversify their economy, broaden international contacts, and push for modern development.        

By Barend ter Haar. The coming third Planetary Security Conference (on 11 and 12 December in The Hague) is a good reason to look at the current state of planetary security. It can be summarized in one sentence: Mankind has reached a pinnacle of prosperity and power, but it shies away from confronting the unintended environmental, moral and social consequences of this success. Let me qualify that somewhat, beginning with the enormous achievements of mankind. A century ago, most people still lived close to nature, illiterate and with little means to protect themselves and their families against famine and infectious diseases. Now the great majority of children goes to school, agricultural productivity rises fast and most infectious diseases have been brought under control. As a result global life expectancy has more than doubled from less than 35 years to more than 71 years. But this unprecedented global development has a grave impact on the environment. Take for example the concentration of carbon dioxide. Last year it reached a level (400 parts per million) that had not occurred for 3 million years. At that time temperatures were 2-3^oC higher and sea level 10 -20 metres higher. Hopefully temperatures and sea level will not reach these levels again, but the sea level does not have to rise ten meters to make life in The Hague less comfortable. Or take the astonishing decrease of the number of flying insects. This summer I did not terribly miss the mosquitoes in our bedroom, but I missed the bumblebees and butterflies in our garden. Species are currently becoming extinct at between 1,000 and 10,000 times the natural extinction rate. But even if the extinction rate were only 100 times as high as normal, shouldn’t that give us pause to reflect (and act)? Another unintended consequence of the fast growth of science and technology, is the proliferation of immense powers such as nuclear weapon technology and genome engineering. Who should be allowed to use these technologies and for what purposes? These problems can only be effectively addressed through close international cooperation. However, the social consequences of the vast economic and technological growth tend to drive many people in an opposite direction. Almost everybody enjoys the supply of ever cheaper and better products, but the financial benefits are not evenly distributed. The main winners are the inhabitants of poor countries like China and India and the highly educated elites of the rich countries. The losers, at least in relative terms, are middle class people in rich countries whose jobs are taken over by computers or by cheaper labour in other countries. Another unintended consequence of globalisation is that people are more directly confronted, both through internet and as the result of migration, by the, sometimes radically, different traditions and values of people with another cultural and religious background. The combination of relative economic decline with such a clash of cultures brings many people to vote for parties that pretend that by withdrawing behind their borders countries can bring back former times without losing the current levels of peace and prosperity. As result, the United States and the United Kingdom, countries that once were in the vanguard of international cooperation, have expressed their wish to withdraw from respectively the Paris Climate Agreement and the European Union. To prevent other countries from following their bad example, governments will have to combine strengthening international cooperation with addressing domestic problems of inequality, discrimination and integration.

By Corneliu Pivariu. Following the military confrontations between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which intensity increased in 2016 and which did not stop during 2017 in spite of the international efforts for finding a solution, both sides suffered important losses, as certain data mention a total of around 350 military death on both sides, in an approximate equal proportion. Even after the meeting in Geneva on 16th of October, 2017, between presidents Serzh Sarksyan and Ilham Aliev, fire exchanges continued with losses on both sides. During the 6th edition of the Armenian diaspora forum in Erevan, between 18-20th of September, 2017, the Armenian foreign minister Eduard Nalbandian refered to the possibility that some of the occupied territories be retroceded to Azerbaidjan in accordance with the already accepted principles by the sides concerning the negotiations for Karabakh, adding that the respective territories “do not represent a threat to Artsakh’s security (the self entitled Republic Nagorno-Karabakh)”, and that stirred vivid emotions and positionings in the Armenian society. The head of General Staff, General-lt. Movses Hakobian declared that even a non significant territorial alteration of the “security belt (i.e. the Azeri occupied regions)” around Karabakh, may cause dramatic consequences for Artsakh’s security and concluded that “we need new territories for… ensuring (Nagorno-Karabakh’s)security”. The declaration came too on the background of Azerbaijan’s acquiring new weapons systems such as the152 mm DANA-M1 (Czech made) self-propelled gun and the multiple launching rockets system (MLRS) RM-70 Vampir and carrying out important maneuvers with offensive character. In this framework, on October 24th, president Serzh Sargsyan delivered an important speech at the Defense Security Research University, and underlined the importance of modernizing Republic of Armenia’s armed forces for facing the challenges it may be confronted with in the future. In this regard, he suggested preparing a modernization program of the army for the next eight years (2018-2025) which, after being discussed and improved, will be adopted on January 28th, 2018 that coincides with the army’s day. The draft of the Defense Law, that is debated in the parliament, will secure the new legal framework imposing drawing up a set of laws for its implementation. Although an important increase of the 2018 defense budged is contemplated (17% as compared to 2017, around 5.5% of the GDP) president Sargsyan emphasized the importance of quantitatively and qualitatively modernizing the army, by a balanced manner of spending the funds. Mention should be made to the fact that Armenia spent for defense during 1992-2016 on average 246.33 million $/year (the biggest sum was 447.4 million $ in 2015, 4.3% of the GDP, with a small decrease in 2016 – to 422.9 million $). In comparison, Azerbaijan spent during the same period, 1992-2016, an yearly average 1,071.09 million $ (3,020.80 million $, or 5.6% of the GDP in 2015 with a significant decrease to 1,931.90 million $ in 2016 – 3.7% of the GDP). As it was expected, the Armenian president’s speech of 24th of October included an important part concerning the strategic situation around Armenia, and appreciated that ”the general situation is stable, yet this stability is fragile and full of numerous impredictible developments” . Certainly the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh occupied an important place of this chapter. The president Sargsyan’s remark “it is impossible to shoot with one hand and to negotiate with the other for finding a solution. We either negotiate or shoot. We are ready for both situations” is worth noticing. Presumably, Armenia’s new defense strategy will give up the soviet style static defense and will adopt a deterrence system, “active deterrence”, to be applied in the conditions when Azerbaijan will continue the operations of  “controlled escalation”. We noticed in president Sargsyan speech the special attention paid to the quality of military training, to the relations within the military system, the importance of the compulsory military service for having a well trained reserve and the care for an appropriate status for the active and reserve military. Lastly, the attention for developing the national military-industrial complex. —————– 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. ——————- Photographer: Ionus Paraschiv.