Peace and justice as a future goal Peace Palace signs Sustainable Development Goals The Hague – President Bernard Bot today on behalf of the Carnegie Foundation – Peace Palace signed the Sustainable Development Goals Charter. This explains the organization itself to promoting the sustainable development goals for the world established by the United Nations. Specifically, the Carnegie Foundation-Peace Palace will work towards the objective to pursue peaceful and just societies where all citizens are involved. The Peace Palace was established as a temple for peace and justice from the ideal that good dialogue, mediation and independent courts that can deal with disputes between states, can prevent war. In the Peace Palace International Court of Justice, the Permanent Court of Arbitration and the Hague Academy of International Law established. The Carnegie Foundation owns the Peace Palace, facilitates these institutions and manages the largest library in the world in terms of international law. Besides putting the Carnegie Foundation is actively committed to promoting dialogue on peace and justice and to connect different parties, all with the larger goal to make concrete steps towards a more peaceful world. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations since January 2016 serving as the main goals that we need to work as a global future. They are the successors of the Millennium Goals. The Sustainable Development Goals was first promoting peaceful and just society in which all citizens are concerned as a concrete goal for the future. This Sustainable Development Goal 16. The goal is closely related to the ideal that the Peace Palace was founded. Sign: and then? By signing the Sustainable Development Goals Charter lays the Carnegie Foundation – Peace Palace itself to promoting tangible progress towards peace. The Peace Palace symbolizes the ideal of world peace and justice, but the Carnegie Foundation also seeks actively to translate this ideal into concrete steps towards a more peaceful world. This makes the organization by bringing parties together and encourage dialogue in a unique building that was erected as a temple for peace and justice.

By Barend ter Haar. The decision of the British government to leave the European Union is so full of contradictions that it is doubtful whether Brexit really will take place. Take for example the fact that the leaders of both major British parties were against Brexit because they understood that Brexit would not be in the interest of the British people but now feel obliged to do their best to implement the outcome of the referendum. What to expect from them? Do they want to go down in history as politicians that, against their better judgement, implemented a decision that harmed their country, or will they try to win time looking for a way out? Or take the popular slogan “take back control”, that is used as an argument for Brexit, although Brexit will have the opposite effect, in particular because of the Irish question. Whether one likes it or not, the future of the United Kingdom is increasingly decided outside its borders. Global challenges such as climate change, new infectious diseases, migration and proliferation of nuclear weapons are of direct concern to the British people, but cannot effectively be addressed at Whitehall. They require action at the global level. If the United Kingdom wants to have real influence on global decision making, it will have to do so through the European Union because on its own it is not a global player like the United States and China. Leaving the European Union will therefore not give back control to London, but only diminish the British influence in Brussels and the world. Apart from that, taking back control would only very partially address the problems that brought most people to vote for Brexit. Would they rejoice when the power to set standards for nuclear safety would move back from the technocrats in Brussels to the technocrats in London? Probably not. They voted for Brexit because they feel that while others enjoy the benefits of globalisation, they are its victims because immigrants keep salaries down and threaten to take over their jobs. However, it is very doubtful whether the populist remedy of renationalisation and closing borders will help to close the growing gap between the people that benefit from globalisation and those that threaten to stay behind. But the main reason why Brexit and Take back control will not go together is the Irish question. As argued convincingly by Fintan O’Toole in the New York Review of Books , it “opens a crack into which the whole Brexit project may stumble”. On Good Friday 1998 most of Northern Ireland’s political parties and the British and Irish governments reached an agreement that made an end to a conflict that took the life of thousands of people. The agreement recognized the right of the people of Northern Ireland to be British or Irish or both, a revolutionary approach that was facilitated by the EU-membership of both countries. Needless to say that an open border between both parts of Ireland is an essential part of the deal. A hard Brexit is therefore out of the question. That leaves open a soft Brexit after the example of Norway. That would in theory restore the sovereign independence of the United Kingdom, but in practice would mean that London would continue to have to follow the rules made up in Brussels, but this time without a seat at the table. In other words: a soft Brexit might result in the exact opposite of Take back control: London would give up its control over European decision making without getting much real control back in return. When that becomes clear, the British government might reconsider Brexit.  

On the picture Mr. Armen Oganesyan, editor-in-chief of the magazine International Affairs. On 5th of October in Budapest (Hungary) will be held an international conference «Russia and Europe: Topical Issues of Contemporary International Journalism». The conference is organized by the International Affairs magazine with support of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Federal Agency for Press and Mass Media of the Russian Federation. The main topics to be discussed this year are: «Russia-Europe relations: is “reset” possible? Role of media», «Revival of neo-Nazism: analysis of media technologies used by interested parties. Creating a Counterstrategy» and «Media of Russia and Europe. View from the inside». The conference is held annually in different countries. List of participants traditionally included directors of European media, politicians, diplomats, political and media scientists, management of international media companies. The first version of the conference took place in November 2011 in Paris and has proved the importance of collaboration between Russian and European media. It received status of a topical annual event with the main goal to boost cooperation between Russian and European media. By Polina Ostrovskaya.  Today we speak with Mr. Armen Oganesyan, chairman of the conference and editor-in-chief of the magazine International Affairs. 1. Why is it important for the press to strengthen relations between Russia and the European Union? I believe your question actually potentially contain 2 questions: a) Why is it important for Russia and European Union to maintain strong relations?; b) Why should media be the facilitator of the dialogue? To respond to the first question, let’s just look at history, both cultural and historical. Going back to the 18th century and beyond, Russia has invariably been part of both the intra-European and extra-European dialogue. As we fast-forward to the 21st century, European Union is facing a number of internal and externally imposed crises. Just to enumerate some of them: demographic squeeze; internal and external migration; financial shocks and responses; terrorism, both externally exposed and penetrated into the national fabric; climate change; many others. I cannot fathom how a comprehensive lasting solution to the issues I’ve mentioned, as well as to innumerable others, can be attained without participation of Russia. Now, to answer the second question, let’s look at the role, a high-level purpose of media. We believe that media should essentially be a mirror, an instrument that exposes basic truths. We don’t believe we should affect the historical flow but we do believe we should make the facts, ideas and opinions known and promulgated. When the responses to the two parts of your question are combined, I believe we can derive the mission we undertake: using the unique skills of media, fully explore the ideas and opinions underpinning the historical and of-the-moment relationship between the European Union and Russia. For example, look at just two of a number of round tables we’ll conduct: “Russia-Europe relations: is a reset possible? Role of media” and “Media of Russia and Europe. View from the inside.” They aim to exactly achieve what I have written about: take the long, almost historical view of relations between the parties and explore the role media can play in the discussion. 2. What is your opinion on anti-Russian media propaganda? It would be primitive to say that there is a single center that coordinates anti-Russian propaganda, even though in the Cold War period there were centers that provided stereotypes. There are such centers today, and there are experts who work for them. People talk of censorship. As for Ukraine and Crimea, each and every one are free to interpret them as they see it fit. But journalists are not free to express their opinions, yet the way the media spoke about these complicated issues can be described as nothing but obviously biased. The guilt here should be evenly spread between politicians and the journalists who listen to them. Today in Russia exist around 80.000 media organizations each having its own different opinion. Radio-stations Echo of Moscow and Serebryany Dozhd are the most outspoken critics of the official foreign policy line in relation to the West. There is no uniformity: colors are different and each and every one is free to choose a channel or an information niche to his/her liking. Is there anything similar in Europe? There is no such variety in Europe especially when it comes to Russia. 3. What actions should be taken to resist the false information? To fight fake news one must go back to basics, namely invest into the fact checking group. These are the people left on the sidelines by the rise of social media and the financial squeeze on traditional media. Many publications have scaled down in this area. Well, now we can see that professional fact checkers are indispensable to prevent proliferation of untrue information 4. How can a journalist remain non-biased in the modern world? I believe the best thing a journalist can do to present information objectively is to be well informed in a broad sense of the expression. Yes, the journalist needs to dig into the story, to interview all sides and to ask difficult question. But, I think, a journalist must also see the story in the context of historical and social backgrounds. Only then can truly meaningful coverage emerge 5. Why is the conference going to be in Budapest? As I’ve stated above, we aim to explore the opinions of the Russia-EU relationship. It becomes almost intuitively correct to hold such a conference in a city that is somewhat between the philosophical positions of Russia and EU, cities that can easily comprehend the positions of each side. We have always held that view and our previous conferences took places in ideologically similar cities to Budapest: Vienna, Berlin, Bratislava. To my view, Budapest, is if i may say so, a highly “dialogical”, open city, nothing to say about traditional hospitality 6. How can the cultural connection between Russia and Hungary be strengthen? Older and middle-aged Russians are more familiar with Hungarian history and culture. From my childhood I remember reading well-translated Hungarian folk tales. Several times I re-read the novel Eclipse of the Crescent Moon, admiring the legendary captain István Dobo. Hungarian literature and, of course, the poetry of Sándor Petőfi have been and remain in the standard university curriculum. In general, Hungarian culture is close to Russian. Histories of Hungary and Russia are full of dramatic events that have challenged the very existence of our people, in turn influencing respective cultures. Russian and Hungarian cultures belong to the world, not only to Europe. However your question is related to the dialogue between the cultures. It seems to me that not enough is being done to popularize Hungarian language in Russia and Russian in Hungary. Post-Soviet generations are poorly acquainted with the best examples of Russian and Hungarian cultures. I think that we need to do more on both sides to support individual and collaborative projects with the aim of building bridges between our countries that would help renew an active dialogue between the cultures. 7. Role of the “International Affairs” magazine worldwide Founded in 1922 as a weekly of the USSR People’s Commissariat for Foreign Affairs and re-established as a monthly edition in 1954, International Affairs is a journal of Russia’s Foreign Ministry covering a broad range of subjects in international politics, diplomacy, and global security. Today’s International Affairs is among the world’s key forums for discussions of international policy issues. The English-language version is distributed in the US, digests are published in French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Polish, Chinese and Arabic. The journal is available to individual and corporate subscribers in Russia and 150 other countries. International Affairs offers a round-up and competent analysis of Russia’s and the world’s most pressing political and economic problems. Extensive connections within Russia’s Foreign Ministry reinforce the journal’s ability to serve as a credible and well-informed source of information. Contributors to International Affairs comprise a unique team of diplomats and experts from Russian and international politics, research, business, and policy analysis communities.  

By Michael dr. Logies. “The over-financialization and hyper-deregulations of the global(-ized) markets has brought the low-waged Chinese (peasant converted into a) worker into the spotlight of European considerations. Thus, in the last two decades, the EU economic edifice has gradually but steadily departed from its traditional labor-centered base, to the overseas investment-centered construct. This mega event, as we see now with the Euro-zone dithyramb, has multiple consequences on both the inner–European cultural, socio-economic and political balance as well as on China’s (overheated) growth. That sparse, rarefied and compressed labor, which still resides in the aging Union is either bitterly competing with or is heavily leaning on the guest workers who are per definition underrepresented or silenced by the ‘rightist’ movements and otherwise disadvantaged and hindered in their elementary socio-political rights. That’s how the world’s last cosmopolitan – Europe departed from the world of work, and that’s why the Continent today cannot orient itself (both critically needed to identify a challenge, as well as to calibrate and jointly redefine the EU path). To orient, one need to center itself: Without left and right, there is no center, right?!” – prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic brilliantly summarized situation in Europe already years ago. Let’s see how it reflects on just closed German elections, and some fallacies surrounding (interpretations of) it. Contrary to the constant reporting the low unemployment figures in Germany are simply misleading. The volume of work has shrunken slightly over the last 30 years. Many once well paid jobs have become part time jobs with low incomes. The lower 40 percent of population have not made any economic progress the last decades or have fallen back in real terms. The economic gap between the lower 40% and upper 10 % has widened. Prices of rents and houses are exploding in the bigger cities due to immigration, speculations driven by low interest rates and bau-mafia. All this is putting economic stress on the lower and middle class. Merkel`s politics of initially open doors for over a million Arabic and African immigrants threatens the lower incomes classes because of more fierce competition on the labour market. And the SPD as a coalition partner in government did nothing to protect the lower classes from this competition, as it did traditionally. (For those interested in a in-depth analysis do a graph of the SPD results over time. You will quickly notice a huge bump. This happened when Schulz became candidate and made all the right noises about social fairness. The bump quickly faded, after he was unable to add meat to it. So we are NOT looking at an electorate, which wouldn’t vote for the classic profile of the SPD. Instead, we are looking at an SPD, which is unable to agree on a coherent program for it. Moreover, just yesterday, the Germans were polled about it. About 80% (!!!) responded, that the SPD wants to stand for social justice, but isn’t able to explain, how they want to do that.) And all this in a country which exports its unemployment by an export surplus of 8-9% of GDP to other countries. Simply, Germany exports more than any other country on earth. On the other hand since decades the German mainstream media are dominated by transatlantic elites with a neoliberal agenda for Germany and the EU, mimicking the US, ignoring most of these facts. The devastating effect on other countries in the EU by German underinvestment and austerity politics for the EU has been completely ignored in these German elections. For me this all means that German elites are not able to lead the EU proactively. German elites are only reacting, based on a misleading, neoliberal economic theory (for alternatives: e. g. Steve Keen, Richard Werner or look to Scandinavian countries). The EU may implode because other countries don`t want to remain the poor backyard of Germany. Or the national elites in other EU countries, also dominated by neoliberal economics, will continue to successfully suppress there lower incomes classes like in the US, provoking silly reactions like electing Trump after even more silly removal of reasonable, economic alternatives like Bernie Sanders by the elites. Of course Trump is unable to deliver, what he has promised, with the usual consequences of populistic right wingers: making the rich richer (although perhaps a different fraction of the rich), suppressing minorities, cooking wars, etc. ———— Michael dr. Logies’s picture by ML Germany