By Dr. Binoy Kampmark. The Pirate Party are buccaneering their way into European politics, having found a foothold in the testy soil of Central Europe after colonising, in small measure, various hamlets in Sweden, Germany and Iceland.  The Czech Pirates (PPCZ), a term certainly exotic by current political pedigrees, managed to obtain over 10 percent of the vote, a result that gave them a rich harvest of 22 members in the parliamentary elections. It took nine efforts, but the Czech Pirates had been edging their way onto conspicuous terrain in various local elections, including netting 5.3 percent of the total vote in Prague in 2015. The city of Mariánské Lázně also found itself having a Pirate Mayor after garnering 21 percent of the vote. Retaining their oppositional colours, the Czech Pirates are insisting on avoiding the muddying nature of coalition talks with the overall winners. (The dangers of compromising collaboration!) Their agenda is one that has become fairly known across its other incarnations: the abolition of internet censorship, the favouring of institutional transparency, and the revision of, amongst other things, punitive copyright laws. But other agenda items form their twenty point program, including improving the lot of teacher salaries and tax reform. The latter point is particularly appropriate, given the party’s experimentation with testing EU laws on the subject of pirate sites through its “Linking is not a Crime” stance. This was sparked, in large part, by attempts by the Czech Anti-Piracy Union to target a 16-year-old for that great terror of the regulator: linking to content designated as infringing of copyright law. Launching several of their own contrarian sites, including Tipnafilm.cz and Piratskefilmy.cz, the latter carrying some 20,000 links to 5,800 movies, the Czech Pirate Party was overjoyed by the prospect of prosecution. “Our goal is to change the copyright monopoly law so that people are not fined millions for sharing culture with their friends.” As Czech Pirate Party chairman Lukáš Černohorský said at the time, belligerent and defiant, “Instead of teenagers, copyright industry lobbyists are now dealing with a political party which didn’t run the website for money but because of our conviction that linking is not and should not be a crime.” The gains of the party showed a certain mood at work and, as has been the case in much of Europe, proved boisterously, and at stages angrily, anti-establishment. Check the Polish, Polish the Czech “Europe’s redemption lies in the re-affirmation of the Lisbon Strategy of 2000 (and of Göteborg 2001), a ten-year development plan that focused on innovation, mobility and education, social, economic and environmental renewal. Otherwise a generational warfare will join class and ethnic conflicts as a major dividing line of the EU society in decline.” – prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic warned years ago in his seminal work ‘Future of Europe: Of Lisbon and Generational Interval.’ But as with other intellectual farsighted voices, it was largely ignored. Well so, until the recent alarming elections results in central Europe. Thus, across its own political spectrum the Czechs were clearly showing they can add fuel to a brewing EU political fire, setting matters to rights on the continent while tearing down assumptions. As with any fire, however, the consequences can be searing. While the Pirates did well, the Freedom and Direct Democracy party (SPD), a strident right wing outfit, nabbed similar numbers from the other side of the spectrum, sporting its own anti-EU, anti-immigrant brand. As its leader, Tomio Okamura, insists, “We want to leave just like Britain and we want a referendum on EU membership.” Billionaire fertilizer tycoon Andrej Babiš, the sort of oligarchic figure who should always trouble democratic sensibilities, weighed in the elections with some 30 percent of the vote with his ANO party. His version of politics, another confection of anti-politics dressed for disgruntled consumption, reprises that of the businessman turned party leader. The claim made here is common: that the machinery of governance is somehow analogous to running a business. Traditional parties, foremost amongst them the long performing Social Democrats, with whom Babiš had been in coalition with after gains made in 2013, found themselves pegged back to sixth position in the tally. The swill stick of politics did not tar Babiš all that much, a figure who has managed to develop a certain Teflon coating in a manner similar to other billionaire leaders (think Silvio Berlusconi and a certain Donald Trump in the White House). He had become the focus of suspected tax crimes, and lost his job as finance minister. European subsidies, it was claimed, had found their mysterious way into his pocket. Such suggestions merely touched the tip of a considerable iceberg, one which also consists of allegations of previous employment with the Czechoslovak secret state security service Stb. According to Slovakia’s Institute of National Memory, his code name for collaboration during his espionage stint was Bureš. The billionaire seemed distinctly unperturbed, and his party’s showing suggested that some water will slide off a duck’s back. “I am happy that Czech citizens did not believe the disinformation campaign against us and expressed their trust in us.” He roundly insisted that his was “a democratic movement” positively pro-European and pro-NATO “and I do not understand why somebody labels us as a threat to democracy.” These elections, however, will be savoured by a party that promises a fresh airing of a stale political scene, and one not nursing those prejudices that provide all too attractive gristle. Legislation, should it be implemented, may well remove the cobwebbed fears long associated with the Internet. But facing these newly elected figures will be ANO and an invigorated, indignant right-wing of politics, a far from easy proposition. ——————  About the author: Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.    

By Andree Cardona. The European Union is a trade and diplomatic partner absolutely strategic for Latin America, the bilateral relations could be better and preserve. The present article will be concentrate to highlight the trade influence that the European Union represents in Central and South America. With Central America- the European Union- subscribe the Association Agreement (AA) with political, trade and international cooperation pillars since June 2012 the Agreement was signed in Tegucigalpa, Honduras; the trade pillar has begun- ratified by Central American countries- in December 2013, product of that AA, highlights the (PRAIAA in Spanish) Regional Project of Support to the Central American Economic Integration and the implementation of the AA between European Union and Central America) this have as purpose support the Central American Economic Integration process, trade facilitation and the AA implementation. The AA in numbers- according to Central American Economic Integration Secretariat- Costa Rica and Honduras have more participative percentage of the exportations with the European Union (51.8% and 18.7% respectively) about the importations, the principles countries are Panama with 26.1% and Costa Rica 23.6%. “The trade pillar of the AA, its ambitious and cover more than only goods and duties. Besides of promote the regional integration with concrete commitments, the AA pursues the chains between two missions” said Pelayo Castro, European Union Ambassador to Costa Rica last year in a forum. In the other side, in South America, was published-in Reporte Brasil and Infobae- an opinion article named: Seen the difficulties of the EU-Mercosur Agreement, it’s convenient to see Canada? Worked by the international negotiation themes consultant and member of the Group of Producers Countries of the South (GPPS in spanish) Gustavo Idígoras with Sabine Papendieck and Pablo Elverdín. The article suggest more dynamism in the international negotiation between European Union and South America. The international negotiations between EU and Mercosur started in 1996, now Mercosur (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay) have a favorable economic and politic situation, are working to have the Customs Union. The Mercosur represents arround 25% of the importations of the European Union ($23 thousand millions approximately) the principle trade partner is Brazil, is the second provider of bovine meat to the European Union. For November in Brasilia and December is Brussels it’s the possibility to have new bilateral trade negotiations. Thus, the European Union as trade partner it’s very important to our development in the Americas, this strategic and diplomatic agreements could be a great cooperation and help to consecute the Social Development Goals of United Nations. ——— About the author: Mr Andree Cardona is an international Relations opinion columnist in Central America.          

By Jan Dop. Russell Advocaten is often asked by Embassies and Consulates what to do in the event of employee illness. In general, Embassies and Consulates employing local employees fall under Dutch law and are treated like any other employer in the Netherlands. Therefore, during the first two years of illness, you, as an employer, have several obligations with regard to the employee, such as: Maintaining the employment contract

• Continuing to pay wages of the employee
• Making efforts for the re-integration of the employee.

Prohibition against termination of employment during an employee’s illness You are not allowed to unilaterally terminate the employment contract with the sick employee during the first two years of illness. This prohibition does not apply in case of termination:

• During the probationary period
• With immediate effect
• With written agreement by the employee, and
• Due to business discontinuation.

Further, it is possible to ask the Judge to dissolve the employment contract due to personal reasons such as disfunctioning or culpable acting of the employee. The Judge has to deny the request in case it is related to the illness of the employee. A dismissal in breach with the prohibition against termination is subject to annulment. Requirement to continue to pay wages During the first year of absence from work due to illness you must continue to pay at least 70% of the employee’s wages and at least the statutory minimum wages. During the second year, you still have to pay at least 70% of the wages but you do not have to pay the statutory minimum wages any longer. If you do not continue to pay wages, the employee can enforce this in court, including an increase that can amount to half of the salary due. Re-integration obligation You are obliged to take care together with the employee that he or she will return to work as quickly as possible. If you do not make (sufficient) effort to achieve the re-integration of the employee, the term for continued payment of wages may be extended. Therefore, engage a company doctor or occupational health and safety service (‘Arbodienst’) and ask them to draw up a problem analysis within six weeks after the first date of reporting ill. Together with the company doctor or occupational health and safety service you then draw up an action plan specifying the arrangements regarding re-integration made between you and the employee. During the employee’s illness absence, make sure you will discuss the progress with the employee at least once every six weeks and plan a first–year evaluation after one year of sickness. If the employee is able to work, but only in a different position with changes to the working hours, or by means of training, you will have to explore the options together with the employee. If the employee cannot be re-integrated into your company, you will have to find out in good time whether the employee can re-integrate into another company, which is referred to as “second track” reintegration. Important: Make sure all re-integration efforts are laid down in writing! Obligations of sick employee However, in the event of long-term sickness of an employee the employee must make an effort for re-integration too. If the employee does not fulfil his or her obligations, and, for instance, postings on social media show that he or she is not that sick any longer or impedes re-integration, you can impose sanctions. More information Would you like to learn more about your obligations towards sick employees? We will gladly tell you what you may and may not do! Please contact Jan Dop of our Embassy Desk at jan.dop@russell.nl or by phone: +31 20 301 55 55.  ———– About the author: Jan Dop is partner and Head of the Embassy Desk at Russell Advocaten. He advises and represents corporations, entrepreneurs, HR departments, Embassies and Consulates in corporate and commercial matters.  

By Zlatko Hadžidedić. A few days ago Observer published a column under the title Putin-Proofing the Balkans: A How-To Guide, written by John Schindler. In this article the author advocates some new geopolitical redesigns of the Balkans which are actually far from being a novelty.  These ideas represent a pale copy of the ideas recently published by Foreign Affairs in the article under the title Dysfunction in the Balkans, written by Timothy Less, a former British diplomat who served as the head of the British diplomatic office in Banja Luka, the capital of the Serb entity in Bosnia-Herzegovina, as well as the political secretary of the British Embassy in Macedonia. Less advocates a total redesign of the existing state boundaries in the Balkans: the imagined Greater Serbia should embrace the existing Serb entity in Bosnia-Herzegovina, but also the entire internationally recognized Republic of Montenegro; the Greater Croatia should embrace a future Croatian entity in Bosnia-Herzegovina; the Greater Albania should embrace both Kosovo and the western part of Macedonia. All these territorial redesigns, says Less and Schindler agrees, would eventually bring about a lasting peace and stability in the region. It is easy to claim that both Schindler and Less are now only freelancers whose articles have nothing to do with their former employers’ policies. However, the problem is that certain circles within the foreign policy establishment in both Great Britain and the United States, in their numerous initiatives from 1990s onwards, have repeatedly advocated the very same ideas that can be found in these two articles, such as the creation of the imagined monoethnic greater states – Greater Serbia, Greater Croatia and Greater Albania – as an alleged path towards lasting stability in the Balkans, with Bosnia’s and Macedonia’s disappearance as a collateral damage. Of course, these ideas have always been spread below the surface of official policy, but they have never been abandoned, as the ‘coincidence’ of almost simultaneous appearance of Schindler’s and Less’s articles in the renowned mainstream magazines demostrates. Ostenstibly, the ideas advocated by Schindler and Less are rooted in the plausible presupposition that, as long as the existing nationalist greater-state projects remain unaccomplished, the nationalist resentment will always generate ever-increasing instability. However, the history has clearly demonstrated, both in the Balkans and other parts of the world, that such a presupposition is nothing but a simple fallacy. For, the very concept of completed ethnonational states is a concept that has always led towards perpetual instability wherever applied, because such ethnonational territories cannot be created without projection of extreme coercion and violence over particular ‘inappropriate’ populations, including the techniques which have become known as ethnic cleansing and genocide. The logic of ‘solving national issues’ through creation of ethnically cleansed greater states has always led towards permanent instability, never towards long-term stability. Let us only remember the consequences of the German ruling oligarchy’s attempt to create such a state in the World War II. And let us only try to imagine what the world would be like if their geopolitical project was recognized and accepted in the name of ‘stability’, as now Schindler and Less propose in the case of some other geopolitical projects based on ethnic cleansing and genocide. What is particularly interesting when it comes to ‘solving national issues’ in the Balkans is the flexibility (i.e. arbitrariness) of the proposed and realized ‘solutions’. First, the winners in the World War I, among whom the British and American officials occupied the most prominent positions, advocated the creation of the common national state of the Southern Slavs at the Peace Conference in Versailles. Then, more than seventy years later, Lord Carrington, the longest serving member of the British foreign policy establishment, chaired another international conference in The Hague where he oversaw the partition of that very state in the name of ‘solving national issues’ between ethnonational states which constituted it. Together with the Portugese diplomat, Jose Cutileiro, Lord Carrington then also introduced the first, pre-war plan for ethnic partition of Bosnia-Herzegovina (the Carrington-Cutileiro Plan), again in the name of ‘solving national issues’ between the ethnic groups living in Bosnia-Herzegovina, which was eventually sealed, with some minor changes, at the international conference in Dayton. And now, here is yet another plan for fragmentation of the Balkan states, again in order to ‘solve national issues’. What is needed in addition is yet another international conference to implement and verify such a plan, and thus turn the Balkans upside-down one more time. Therefore it comes as no surprise that such a conference on the Western Balkans has already been scheduled for 2018 in London. Yet, how the proposed dismemberment of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia, as well as the absorbtion of Montenegro into Greater Serbia, can be made politically acceptable to the population of the Balkans and the entire international community? What is required to accomplish such a task is a scenario that would make an alternative to dismemberment and absorbtion of sovereign states even less acceptable. It is not difficult to imagine that only a war, or a threat of war, would be such an alternative. However, its feasibility is limited by the fact that no state in the Balkans has the capacities and resources – military, financial, or demographic – to wage a full-scale war, and their leaders are too aware of this to even try to actually launch it. In such a context, the available option is to create an atmosphere that would simulate an immediate threat of war, by constantly raising nationalist tensions between, and within, the states in the region. Of course, such tensions do exist since 1990, but it would be necessary to accumulate them in a long-term campaign so as to create an illusion of imminence of regional war. Significantly, following the appearance of Less’s article, and simultanously with Schindler’s one, the tensions within Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia have begun to rise. This growth of tensions can hardly be disregarded as accidental, given the fact that the Balkan leaders can easily be played one against another whenever they receive signals, no matter whether fake or true, that a new geopolitical reshuffle of the region is being reconsidered by major global players. Since they are already well-accustomed to raising inter-state and intra-state tensions as a means of their own political survival, it is very likely that they will be able to accumulate such tensions to such a level as to gradually generate a mirage of imminent regional war. Also, a part of the same campaign is the systematic spread of rumours, already performed all over Europe, that a war in the Balkans is inevitable and will certainly take place during 2017. In the simulated atmosphere of inevitable war, a radical geopolitical reconfiguration of the entire Balkans, including dismemberment of the existing states proclaimed as dysfunctional and their eventual absorbtion into the imagined greater states, may well become politically acceptable.  All that is needed is to juxtapose this ‘peaceful’ option and the fabricated projection of imminent war as the only available alternatives, and offer to implement the former at a particular international conference, such as the one scheduled for 2018 in London. What is required for implementation of the proposed geopolitical rearrangement of the Balkans is to spread the perception that the permanent rise of political conflicts in the region inevitably leads to a renewed armed conflict. In that context, all the proposed fallacies about usefulness of geopolitical redesigns in the Balkans may easily acquire a degree of legitimacy, so as to be finally implemented and verified at the 2018 London conference on the Western Balkans. Of course, if that happens, it can only lead to further resentment and lasting instability in the region and Eastern Europe, and that can only lead to growing instability in the entire Europe. One can only wonder, is that a desired ultimate outcome for those who promote greater state projects in the Balkans as an alleged path towards its stability? ———– About the author: Graduate of the London School of Economics, prof. Zlatko Hadžidedić is a prominent thinker, prolific author of numerous books, and indispensable political figure of the former Yugoslav socio-political space in 1990s, 2000s and 2010s.

“Registan Square” in Samarkand city, photo from Uzbekistan National News Agency – UzA.

On November 10-11, 2017, international conference on ensuring safety and sustainable development in Central Asia under the auspices of the UN on “Central Asia: one past and a common future, cooperation for sustainable development and mutual prosperity” will be held in Samarkand.

The forum will become one of the important practical steps on implementation of the initiatives of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan Shavkat Mirziyoyev at the 72nd session of the UN General Assembly, aimed at ensuring safety, socio-economic prosperity and strengthening of regional cooperation in Central Asia. Transformation of Central Asia into a zone of stability, steady development and good-neighborliness is defined by the Head of Uzbekistan as the main priority of foreign policy of the country. Organizers of the conference are the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Uzbekistan, the UN Regional Centre for Preventive Diplomacy for Central Asia and the UNODC Regional Office for Central Asia. According to the organizing committee, more than 500 people will take part in the international event, including foreign ministers of Central Asian countries, high-level official delegations from the CIS countries, Europe, Asia and America, heads of more than 10 international organizations, including the UN, EU, OSCE, SCO, CIS, EBRD, about 100 authoritative international experts and employees of leading foreign mass media, as well as representatives of the diplomatic corps accredited in Uzbekistan. In accordance with the program of the forum, speeches will be delivered by the UN Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs Miroslav Jenca, the UN Assistant Administrator and Director of the Regional Bureau for Europe and the CIS at the United Nations Development Programme Cihan Sultanoglu, the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini, European Commissioner for International Cooperation and Development Neven Mimica, OSCE Secretary General Thomas Greminger, Chairman of the Executive Committee – the CIS Executive Secretary Sergey Lebedev, the SCO Secretary-General Rashid Alimov, heads of other international structures. Foreign ministers of the Republic of Kazakhstan – Kairat Abdrakhmanov, the Kyrgyz Republic – Erlan Abdyldaev, the Republic of Tajikistan – Sirojiddin Aslov, Turkmenistan – Rashid Meredov, the Republic of Turkey – Mevlut Cavusoglu, the Islamic Republic of Iran – Mohammad Javad Zarif, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan – Salahuddin Rabbani, Senior Director for South and Central Asia at the US National Security Council Lisa Curtis and other officials of foreign countries will also deliver speeches. It is expected that Samarkand conference will provide an opportunity for its participants to exchange views on current issues of security and development of the region, to develop proposals on effective ways of their solution. The two-day forum will allow to discuss specific areas of enhancing cooperation between the Central Asian countries in political, trade-economic, investment, transport-communication, hydropower, environmental, cultural and humanitarian spheres, as well as the role of international organizations and partner countries in promoting implementation of the regional development projects and enhancing the potential of countries in countering modern challenges and threats.  

                          On the picture: Owners Rik and Henriëtte Priester with Marit Bouwmeester (m) worldchampion sailing 2017. When you enter Absolutely Fit you are welcomed in a motivating, personal and challenging environment. This gym is open to every individual who wants to work on their body fitness. It’s also a National Trainings Center (NTC) for high performance athletes in the area and is equipped with professional and Olympic weight lifting material. Whatever goals you set for yourself, Absolutely Fit is the place to make them happen. Cardio, weightlifting, core strength, general fitness, losing weight, gaining muscle; everything is possible here! After your work-out there is the possibility to enjoy the sauna or solarium and finish your healthy day with a good cup of coffee or juice. The contract system is ideal for customers who participate on a regular base, since you can start and stop your contract each month, a flexible service that distinguishes Absolutely Fit! Get in Touch

Adress: Dr. Lelykade 240, Scheveningen

Tel: 070 358 77 81

E-mail: info@absolutely-fit.nl

Opening hours: mon-fri. 8:15 am – 22:00 pm, sat and sun 8:30 am – 15:00 pm

 www.absolutely-fit.nl

—— On the picture: Owners Rik and Henriëtte Priester with Marit Bouwmeester (m) worldchampion sailing 2017