The International Nuremberg Principles Academy (Nuremberg Academy) held a seminar on the Legacy of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the Nuremberg Principles on 5 and 6 May 2017 in Nuremberg, Germany.
The event was organised under the auspices of the Director of the Nuremberg Academy, Mr Klaus Rackwitz, in collaboration with the ICTY. All three Principals of the Tribunal â President Carmel Agius, Prosecutor Serge Brammertz, and Registrar John Hocking â as well as current and former ICTY Judges and senior staff, took active roles in the seminar and made presentations on various aspects of the Tribunalâs work.
Together with other legal experts, practitioners and academics from diverse backgrounds, they discussed the impact of the ICTY in the region of the former Yugoslavia, and its influence on the development of international criminal law and the furtherance of the Nuremberg Principles.
Opening remarks were made by the Nuremberg Academy Director and the ICTY President, followed by six panel discussions examining different aspects of the Tribunalâs work and its legacy. The first panel, moderated by Prosecutor Serge Brammertz, addressed the establishment of the ICTY as the first international criminal tribunal since Nuremberg, and the second, moderated by Registrar John Hocking, discussed the transition from international to domestic jurisprudence, as well as the development of an outreach strategy.
The remaining panels on the second day focused on the evolution of substantive and procedural criminal law, along with the operational challenges, lessons learned and working practices of both the Prosecution and Defence.
This seminar, which took place in the historic Courtroom 600 of the Nuremberg Palace of Justice, is one in a series of public events to be held over the course of this final year to mark the closure of the ICTY. The aim of these events is to ensure that the Tribunalâs contribution to accountability for war crimes endures long after its doors have closed, in particular by enabling others to build on its work and achievements.
The endangered Eastern black rhino is being translocated to Akagera National Park in Rwanda from South Africa to restore the species to the countryKigali, Rwanda: Eastern black rhinos are coming back to Rwanda after the last individual was documented in the country 10 years ago â a historic move for the nation and the species. African Parks, a conservation non-profit that manages national parks and protected areas on behalf of governments across the continent, in collaboration with the Rwanda Development Board and with funding provided by the Howard G. Buffett Foundation, is translocating a founder population of up to 20 Eastern black rhinos to Akagera National Park in Rwanda from South Africa. This extraordinary homecoming will take place over the first two weeks of May. The Peopleâs Postcode Lottery and the Dutch Government are also providing additional support to the project.Back in the 1970s, more than 50 black rhinos thrived in Akagera National Park, but their numbers declined under the pressure of wide-scale poaching until the last confirmed sighting of the species in 2007. The park, which is a protected savannah habitat in Rwanda, has undergone a remarkable transformation since African Parks assumed management in 2010 in partnership with the Rwanda Development Board.âRhinos are one of the great symbols of Africa yet they are severely threatened and are on the decline in many places across the continent due to the extremely lucrative and illegal rhino horn trade,â said African Parks CEO Peter Fearnhead. âThe rhinoâs return to this country however is a testament to Rwandaâs extraordinary commitment to conservation and is another milestone in the restoration of Akageraâs natural diversity.âSince 2010, African Parks has overhauled law enforcement in the park, reducing poaching to an all-time low in six years and today the park is flourishing. Seven lions were successfully reintroduced in 2015, whose population has since more than doubled. Security measures have been implemented specifically to ensure the safety and well-being of the rhinos once in the park. This includes an expertly-trained rhino tracking and protection team, a canine anti-poaching unit, and the deployment of a helicopter for critical air surveillance to enhance protection of the park â all made possible with funding provided by the Howard G. Buffett Foundation. âThe return of the rhinos to Rwandaâs Akagera National Park opens a new chapter in our conservation journey and we are grateful to all our partners that contributed to this achievement. We are fully prepared to welcome them and ensure their safety for the benefit of our tourism industry and the community at large. We couldnât be more excited for their return,â said Clare Akamanzi CEO- Rwanda Development Board.âSeveral years ago, as we were struggling to have success combating rhino poaching in other parts of Africa, I made a commitment to President Kagame that we would support the reintroduction of rhinos in Rwanda because we knew this country would protect them,â said Howard G. Buffett, Chairman and CEO of the Howard G. Buffett Foundation. âToday marks another milestone in Rwandaâs emerging leadership on the continent in conservation, eco-tourism and most importantly, good governance.âWith fewer than 5,000 black rhino remaining across their range in the wild, of which approximately 1,000 are the Eastern black rhino subspecies, this reintroduction is an urgent, progressive, and valuable opportunity for their conservation, and serves as a story of hope for the species. ——–Visit www.rhinomove.org to learn more.
European Commission recommended draft negotiating directives.
Brussels, 3 May 2017
The College of Commissioners has sent a recommendation to the Council to open the Article 50 negotiations with the United Kingdom. It includes draft negotiating directives. This legal mandate follows the adoption on Saturday by the European Council of political guidelines.
Today’s text complements the guidelines and provides the necessary details to conduct the first phase of the negotiations. This reflects the two-phased approach put forward by the leaders of the 27 Member States and prioritises those matters which are necessary to ensure an orderly withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union.
The negotiating directives cover 4 main areas. Safeguarding the status and rights of citizens â EU27 citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU27 â and their families is the first priority of the negotiations. The Commission’s recommendation also states clearly that agreement on the principles of the financial settlement must be reached before it is possible to move on to the second phase of the negotiations.
The negotiations should not undermine in any way the Good Friday Agreement. Solutions should be found to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland. Finally, arrangements must be found regarding dispute settlement and the governance of the withdrawal agreement.
Michel Barnier, Union negotiator for the Article 50 negotiations with the UK, said “With our recommendation today, we are on track to make sure that the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union happens in an orderly fashion. This is in the best interests of everyone. As soon as the UK is ready, we shall start negotiating in a constructive manner.”Next steps
Today’s recommendation will be sent to the Council, where it is set to be adopted by the General Affairs Council on 22 May.
By Anton Lutter, MA.
More then ever the international press has focused on the Dutch parliamentary elections last April. The reason: the surge of populist influence in Europe. After the Brexit referendum in Great Britain the elections in The Netherlands would be the first parliamentary elections in Europe, before the much awaited presidential election in France on April 23 and second round in may, parliamentary elections in Germany on the 24th of September this year and quite unexpectedly general elections June 8 in Great Britain.
Europe was obviously relieved that the populist PVV (Party for Freedom) under its well-known leader Mr. Geert Wilders, although gaining 4 seats ending up a total of 20, didn’t become the largest party in parliament. What didn’t hit the international press was that beforehand most parties had excluded forming a government coalition with PVV, so in reality even if the PVV had become ultimate winner, they would never had obtained cabinet positions. If populism has been defeated is of course another question. Elections don’t solve problems good government does, so it is up to the new government to address the issues which underlie the existence of populism.
The march 15 elections with a record setting 81,9% turnout and 28 parties contending 150 parliamentary seats, have brought some significant changes in the political landscape. The government party VVD (Peoples party for Freedom and Democracy), with its leader prime minister Mr. Mark Rutte lost 8 seats in parliament, though with 33 seats still remains the largest group in parliament. Traditionally the largest party will take the lead in forming a new government, VVD minister of health, welfare and sport has been chosen to act as the so-called informateur, whose role is to explore possible governing alliances. The second government party the PVDA (Labour party) has taken the biggest loss in seats of any party in Dutch history. They went from 38 to 9 seats losing more then 1.7 million popular votes, meaning their participation in a new government is highly unlikely. Thus the combined government parties lost a total of 37 seats, the biggest loss since the elections of 2002.
Minister Schippers has chosen to look into alliances which include the most significant winners, being CDA, D’66 and GL. CDA (Christian Democratic Appeal) with 19 seats has ended being the third party in parliament. Under its current leader Mr. Sybrand van Haersma Buma the CDA gained 6 seats. Without doubt they will enter government again, being excluded in 2012 due to heavy losses. Since the founding of the CDA in 1977 they have been in opposition only three times and delivered the prime ministers up until 1994 and lastly between 2002-2010. The fourth party D’66 (Democrats 66) gained 7 seats also having 19 seats. Their party leader Mr. Alexander Pechtold, also a former minister of government reform and kingdom relations (2005-2006) is expected to enter the cabinet again. The “big win” has been GL (Green Left). The youthful leadership of Jesse Klaver has won the party 10 seats ending with 14 seats being the fourth largest party in parliament. GL, which has never been in government, have a strong left-green program which will make it a challenge to form a coalition with the previously mentioned parties.
Also remarkable of this election is the fact that parliament has to divide its seats amongst 13 parties, whereby DENK and Forum for Democracy have entered as new parties obtaining 3 and 2 seats respectively. DENK was founded in 2015 by two former PVDA members of parliament of Turkish descent who broke away forming Group Tunahan/ĂztĂŒrk. They attracted mostly voters with a migrant background winning strongly in cities with large migrant inhabitants like Rotterdam, Amsterdam and The Hague, beating the PVDA in all instances. Strictly speaking Forum for Democracy is the sole new party in parliament, obtaining two seats in parliament, an impressive accomplishment considering that on the right site of politics many parties contended. This party campaigned on themes like ending political clique forming and the introduction of a binding referendum. PvdD (animal welfare party), 50+ (party for the elderly) and CU (Christian Union) also won extra seats in parliament, the latter having entered government for the first and only time in 2007could be considered so again.
The conclusion of the Dutch 2017 parliamentary elections is that although a more right-wing oriented tendency has increased, straightforward populism has not, also the loss of the PVDA has made the left-wing block smaller then ever. The Dutch electorate voted in varied way, but the end result makes a stable middle of the road government possible. More then likely Mr. Mark Rutte will return as prime minister, with parties like D’66 and CDA returning to power again. A coalition with GL would then make up a majority of 85 seats, although more scenarios are possible including forming a minority cabinet with changing support from different parties.
About the author: Anton Lutter, MA. is a Consultant in Protocol and Public Diplomacy, former City Councillor of The Hague.
On the picture Tanja Pacifico, Martin Wyss and Dr. Ramez Ali Abu Safia, Second Secretary of the Embassy of Palestine, Palestinian Mission in The Hague.
With its 166 member states and more than 400 field locations, The International Organization for Migration (IOM) is providing a much-needed voice to migrants in the international community. In the Netherlands, IOM plays an important role, particularly in supporting the voluntary return of migrants and their resettlement to the Netherlands.
However, integration constitutes an increasingly important aspect of IOMâs work in the Netherlands. We talked about this subject with Martin Wyss, Chief of Mission of IOM in the Netherlands, and Tanja Pacifico, Head of Unit of Migrant Training, Resettlement and Integration.
By Carlotta Duken.Why was the topic of this yearâs reception labor market integration? Does it reflect a shift of priorities for IOM Netherlands?Martin: The choice of topic was very conscious. Labor market integration is indeed a priority, but it is not a priority which eclipses other priorities – au contraire – we just wanted to give it more visibility given its specific relevance at the moment.Tanja: Indeed, labor market integration is one of the lesser known activities of IOM in the Netherlands. Since 2015 IOM started with post-arrival integration activities in the Netherlands. Before that, we were working with pre-departure activities in the country of departure. Why labor market integration? Because it is very important. Not doing anything for a long time, not having any sort of perspective can be very hard for people. We really try to encourage approaches where on the one hand you can learn the language and culture, but you can also be start working or volunteering, being busy and planning your future. This way people start working, contributing and they are able to learn the language more quickly, get to know the working culture of the country and build a social network. All this has a positive impact on their well-being.Compared to other European countries, where do the Netherlands stand in terms of integration of refugees? Tanja: Where the Netherlands really stands out is that there are a lot of good will and initiatives. Both the private and public sector showed a lot of interest and willingness to participate in the integration efforts of newcomers. Refugees and migrant support groups, for example, received many requests by people wanting to help, volunteer and donate. It is definitely good that there is so much interest, even though with so many initiatives it is difficult to have a good overview of who is doing what and how well the different approaches are working. Adding to this, something which makes it easier to integrate in the Netherlands, to a certain extent, is that many people are very friendly and welcoming to refugees. This makes a really big difference. It is very difficult to integrate in a country where you are discriminated against and rejected by those you meet.Can you elaborate on IOMâs initiative âSkills2Workâ and âVOORWerkâ and their effectiveness so far in the Netherlands?Tanja:The project Skills2Work is a European cooperation with nine participating EU countries funded by the European Commission. The focus is on skills validation and recognition of beneficiaries of international protection. What we see is that the situation in the different countries is very different and approaches vary greatly. There are countries that are historically less experienced with migration and integration and countries that see very different migration trends than here in Netherlands, like Italy and Spain. Therefore, we need a customized approach taking into account the specific situation.With Skills2Work we review tools, instruments and policies. We are also working on a digital platform called the Pathfinder which will help guide beneficiaries, intermediaries and employers in navigating the information which is available in the nine participating EU member states. The Pathfinder will be launched in the next months.The project VOORWerk is a cooperation of the Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers (COA) and the Foundation for Refugee Students UAF. This initiative is focused on residence permit holders in reception centers to support integration in the Netherlands by providing training, personal guidance and volunteering opportunities.
“Recalling the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, and the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (CWC) ratified by the Syrian Arab Republic on 14 September 2013, and the Councilâs resolutions 1540 (2004), 2118 (2013), 2209 (2015), 2235 (2015), 2314 (2016), and 2319 (2016),
Expressing its horror at the reported use of chemical weapons in the Khan Shaykhun area of southern Idlib in the Syrian Arab Republic on 4 April 2017 causing large-scale loss of life and injuries, affirming that the use of chemical weapons constitutes a serious violation of international law, and stressing that those responsible for any use of chemical weapons must be held accountable,
Noting the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has announced, in addition to its ongoing investigation, that its Fact Finding Mission (FFM) is in the process of gathering and analyzing information on this incident from all available sources and will report to the OPCW Executive Council,
Recalling that in resolution 2118 (2013) the Council decided that the Syrian Arab Republic shall not use, develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile or retain chemical weapons or transfer, directly or indirectly, chemical weapons, to other States or non-State actors and underscored that no party in Syria should use, develop produce acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer chemical weapons,
Recalling its determination that the use of chemical weapons in the Syria Arab Republic represents a threat to international peace and security,
1. Condemns in the strongest terms the reported use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic, in particular the attack on Khan Shaykhun reported on 4 April 2017, expresses its outrage that individuals continue to be killed and injured by chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic, and expresses its determination that those responsible must be held accountable;
2. Expresses its full support to the OPCW Fact Finding Mission, demands that all parties provide delay-free and safe access to any sites deemed relevant by the OPCW FFM, and, as applicable, by the JIM, to the reported incident in Khan Shaykhun in accordance with resolution 2118, and requests that the FFM report the results of its investigation as soon as possible;
3. Requests that the Secretary General make the necessary arrangements for the UN-OPCW Joint Investigative Mechanism to liaise closely with the Fact Finding Mission to expeditiously investigate any incident the FFM determines involved or likely involved the use of chemicals as weapons in order to identify those involved in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 5 of its Resolution 2235;
4. Recalls that in its resolutions 2118 and 2235 it decided that the Syrian Arab Republic and all parties in Syria shall cooperate fully with the OPCW and the United Nations including the Joint Investigation Mechanism;
5. Emphasizes that this includes the obligation upon the Syrian Arab Republic of complying with their relevant recommendations, by accepting personnel designated by the OPCW or the United Nations, by providing for and ensuring the security of activities undertaken by these personnel, by providing these personnel with immediate and unfettered access to and the right to inspect, in discharging their functions, any and all sites, and by allowing immediate and unfettered access to individuals that the OPCW has grounds to believe to be of importance for the purpose of its mandate, and decides that all parties in Syria shall cooperate fully in this regard; [op. 7 of op. 2118]
6. Requests the Secretary-General to report on whether the information and access described in paragraph 5 has been provided in his reports to the Security Council every 30 days pursuant to paragraph 12 of resolution 2118.
7. Recalls its decision in response to violations of resolution 2118 to impose measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations charter.
Document 3: Draft resolution presented by France, United States and United KingdomRecalling the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, and the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (CWC) ratified by the Syrian Arab Republic on 14 September 2013, and the Councilâs resolutions 1540 (2004), 2118 (2013), 2209 (2015), 2235 (2015), 2314 (2016), and 2319 (2016),
Expressing its horror at the reported use of chemical weapons in the Khan Shaykhun area of southern Idlib in the Syrian Arab Republic on 4 April 2017 causing large-scale loss of life and injuries, affirming that the use of chemical weapons constitutes a serious violation of international law, and stressing that those responsible for any use of chemical weapons must be held accountable,
Noting the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has announced, in addition to its ongoing investigation, that its Fact Finding Mission (FFM) is in the process of gathering and analysing information on this incident from all available sources and will report to the OPCW Executive Council,
Recalling that in resolution 2118 (2013) the Council decided that the Syrian Arab Republic shall not use, develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile or retain chemical weapons or transfer, directly or indirectly, chemical weapons, to other States or non-State actors and underscored that no party in Syria should use, develop produce acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer chemical weapons,
Determining that the use of chemical weapons in the Syria Arab Republic represents a threat to international peace and security,
1. Condemns in the strongest terms and use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic, in particular the attack on Khan Shaykhun reported on 4 April 2017, expresses its outrage that individuals continue to be killed and injured by chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic, and expresses its determination that those responsible must be held accountable;
2. Expresses its full support to the OPCW Fact Finding Mission investigation and requests that it report the results of its investigation as soon as possible;
3. Recalls paragraph 9 of resolution 2235 (2015), which requested the FFM to collaborate with the JIM to provide full access to all the information and evidence obtained or prepared by the FFM, and stresses that the JIM should begin to fulfill its mandate alongside the FFM as it seeks to determine whether the incident on April 4 2017 involved the use of chemicals as weapons;
4. Recalls that in its resolutions 2118 and 2235 it decided that the Syrian Arab Republic and all parties in Syria shall cooperate fully with the OPCW and the United Nations including the Joint Investigation Mechanism;
5. Emphasizes that this includes the obligation upon the Syrian Arab Republic to provide the JIM and FFM with the following:
(a) flight plans, flight logs, and any other information on air operations, including all flight plans or flight logs filed on April 4 2017;
(b) names of all individuals in command of any helicopter squadrons;
(c) arrange meetings requested including with generals or other officers, within no more than five days of the date on which such meeting is requested;
(d) immediately provide access to relevant air bases from which the JIM or the FFM believe attacks involving chemicals as weapons may have been launched
6. Requests the Secretary-General to report on whether the information and access described in paragraph 5 has been provided in his reports to the Security Council every 30 days pursuant to paragraph 12 of resolution 2118.
7. Recalls its decision in response to violations of resolution 2118 to impose measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations charter.
Document 4: Draft resolution submitted to Security Council on 12 April 2017 with the following result: 10 votes in favour, 2 against and 3 abstentionsFrance, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America: draft resolution
The Security Council,
Recalling the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, and the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (CWC) acceded to by the Syrian Arab Republic on 14 September 2013, and its resolutions 1540 (2004), 2118 (2013), 2209 (2015), 2235 (2015), 2314 (2016), and 2319 (2016),
Expressing its horror at the reported use of chemical weapons in the Khan Shaykhun area of southern Idlib in the Syrian Arab Republic on 4 April 2017 causing large-scale loss of life and injuries, affirming that the use of chemical weapons constitutes a serious violation of international law, and stressing that those responsible for any use of chemical weapons must be held accountable,
Noting the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has announced, in addition to its ongoing investigation, that its Fact Finding Mission (FFM) is in the process of gathering and analysing information on this incident from all available sources and will report to the OPCW Executive Council,
Recalling that in resolution 2118 (2013) the Council decided that the Syrian Arab Republic shall not use, develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile or retain chemical weapons or transfer, directly or indirectly, chemical weapons, to other States or non-State actors and underscored that no party in Syria should use, develop produce acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer chemical weapons,
Recalling the report by the Director-General of the OPCW (EC-82/DG18 dated 6 July 2016) that the OPCW Technical Secretariat is not able to resolve all identified gaps, inconsistencies and discrepancies in Syriaâs declaration, and therefore cannot fully verify that Syria has submitted a declaration that can be considered accurate and complete in accordance with the CWC or OPCW Executive decision EC-M-33/DEC.1 dated 27 December 2013 or resolution 2118 (2013),
Recalling its determination that the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic represents a threat to international peace and security,
1. Condemns in the strongest terms the reported use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic, in particular the attack on Khan Shaykhun reported on 4 April 2017, expresses its outrage that individuals continue to be killed and injured by chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic, and expresses its determination that those responsible must be held accountable;
2. Expresses its full support to the OPCW FFM, demands that all parties provide delay-free and safe access to any sites deemed relevant by the OPCW FFM, and, as applicable, by the OPCW-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM), to the reported incident in Khan Shaykhun, including the site of the reported incident on 4 April, in accordance with resolution 2118 (2013), and requests that the FFM report the results of its investigation as soon as possible;
3. Requests that the Secretary-General make the necessary arrangements for the JIM to liaise closely with the FFM to expeditiously investigate any incident the FFM determines involved or likely involved the use of chemicals as weapons in order to identify those involved in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 5 of its resolution 2235 (2015);
4. Recalls that in its resolutions 2118 (2013) and 2235 (2015) it decided that the Syrian Arab Republic and all parties in Syria shall cooperate fully with the OPCW including the FFM and the United Nations including the JIM;
5. Emphasises that this includes the obligation upon the Syrian Arab Republic of complying with the relevant recommendations of the OPCW and the United Nations, including the FFM and the JIM, by accepting personnel designated by the OPCW or the United Nations, by providing for and ensuring the security of activities undertaken by these personnel, by providing these personnel with immediate and unfettered access to and the right to inspect, in discharging their functions, any and all sites, and by allowing immediate and unfettered access to individuals whom the OPCW or the United Nations, including the JIM, has grounds to believe to be of importance for the purpose of its mandate, and specifically that this includes the obligations upon the Syrian Arab Republic to provide the JIM and FFM with the following and take the following steps:
(a) flight plans, flight logs, and any other information on air operations, including all flight plans or flight logs filed on 4 April 2017;
(b) names of all individuals in command of any aircraft;
(c) arrange meetings requested including with generals or other offi cers, within no more than five days of the date on which such meeting is requested;
(d) immediately provide access to relevant air bases from which the JIM or the FFM believe attacks involving chemicals as weapons may have been launched;
6. Requests the Secretary-General to report on whether the information and access described in paragraph 5 has been provided in his reports to the Security Council every 30 days pursuant to paragraph 12 of resolution 2118 (2013);
7. Recalls its decision in response to violations of resolution 2118 to impose measures under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations;
8. Decides to remain actively seized of this matter.
———–
For reference : http://derechointernacionalcr.blogspot.nl/2017/04/chemical-weapons-in-syria-and-un.html
———-
About the author:
Nicolas Boeglin, Professor of International Law, Law Faculty, University of Costa Rica (UCR).
By H.E. Mr. Aviv Shir-On, Ambassador of the State of Israel to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
This year we celebrate the 69th Independence Day of the state of Israel, however 2017 is a year in which we are celebrating a number of other important jubilees.
It is 120 years since the first Zionist Congress, that was convened in Basel, in 1897, and marked the foundation of Zionism, which is actually, the political national movement of the Jewish people.
Additionally it is 100 years since the “Balfour Declaration”, which is the statement of the British government from November 1917, supporting the creation of the national home for the Jewish people in its historic homeland. Another important step towards the creation of Israel was the UN General Assembly resolution 181 in November 1947 that called for the establishment of an independent Jewish state alongside with an Arab state.
This resolution, that was adapted with a clear majority, was the legal international basis for the establishment of the State of Israel in May 1948.
Another celebration this year is the 50th anniversary of the reunification of our capital city Jerusalem, during the “6 Day War” of June 1967. We also remember the first and bold step towards peace in our region, as the Egyptian president Anwar Sadat, took the initiative, visited Israel in 1977, and paved the road for the first peace treaty between Israel and an Arab state.
However, we are not only marking important anniversaries, but also witnessing some positive developments. Last year was a good year for the Israeli economy, with a growth rate of 3.8%, among the highest in the OECD, and a low unemployment of 4.8%. The Israeli currency is strong, the exports went up and many Israeli startup companies made successful exits. One should not forget that those accomplishments were made despite relatively high expenditures for defense, as Israel is facing constant substantial security threats, and a complicated political and military situation in the Middle East. The whole region is in turmoil, is destabilized and looks with great uncertainty at its future. On the background of these problematic developments, Israel stands out in its ability to preserve a solid economy, keep a stable and functioning democracy, a pluralistic society, and achieve remarkable results in the areas of science and culture. In 2015, 20% of the world’s investments in cyber security were made in Israel and in 2016 â this amount grew even more. Israel has solved its water problem, as more of 3/4 of our drinking water comes today from sea water desalination plants that are based on Israeli technology and know how, which we are ready to share with our neighbors. Many Israeli scientific research projects, in cooperation with European partners, are being supported by the EU “Horizon 2020” program. Israeli developments and experts are helping to advance agriculture and food security in developing countries.
Israeli films are praised in international festivals, and Israeli wines are gaining top scores in international competitions. All that being said, we can not ignore the current difficult reality. The western world including Europe and Israel is facing common challenges, like terror, migration and extremism, with which Israel has been confronted for many years already, and was therefore, able to gain knowledge and experience, as well as to develop adequate technologies and best practices. Israel is now sharing it with its allies in Europe, North America and many other states and organizations all over the world.
The present complicated and dangerous situation in the Middle East is preventing advancement in the peace process, therefore, we are trying at this time to achieve progress in some concrete areas such as developing infrastructure and improving the economic situation of the Palestinians in the territories. We are doing that in cooperation with the UN, the EU, and governments of friendly countries, like the Netherlands. The successful economic and security cooperation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah, is also worth mentioning in this context.
Dear readers, as we all know – the media is usually concentrating on conflicts, tensions and political difficulties and this is what it does when reporting from and about Israel, but Israel is much more than that! It is a modern flourishing country, with wonderful and diverse landscapes, much sun and beautiful beaches, rich in history and high level culture, good restaurants and of-course, holy sites, sacred to billions around the world, who can enjoy freedom of warship, that did not exist there, before the creation of the state of Israel, the only democracy in the whole region.
After 2000 years of exile and persecutions, which reached its peak in the Holocaust, the Jewish people returned to its homeland and were able in relatively short time, to build an amazing country, which is undoubtedly one of the biggest success stories of the 20th and the 21st centuries. The pioneers, and the immigrants and refugees, who had followed them and started with almost nothing, with swamps, desert, and war â succeeded in creating a vibrant multi-cultural society in a high tech power house that exports today, food and medicines, computers and sophisticated technologies, to the whole world. We are proud about what we have achieved, and I hope that many of you will have the opportunity to visit Israel â the Holy land â this year, or the next, and be able to enjoy the “Israeli experience” from first hand.
Shalom!
—–
Photography by Opher Hod, Israeli MFA
Starting from next September, Nyenrodeâs flagship full-time MBA program will be based in the iconic heart of Amsterdam at the Vijf Keizers, a building complex located at the Emperorâs Canal (Keizersgracht) Increased interest from the schoolâs international students to become better connected with the European business environment during their studies, has also been instrumental in the programâs recent developments.This relocation is part of a wider initiative to further immerse the program within the European business landscape. Nyenrode already connects students with the Dutch labour market through activities such as ‘Meet the CEO’ sessions, careers events held through the schoolâs Career & Personal Development Centre. Furthermore, in 2016 Nyenrode launched European Immersion Modules on the Full-time MBA, through which students can visit companies operating in a variety of sectors in key European capitals of; Brussels, Copenhagen, Dublin, Milan and Paris.Photography by  Duco de Vries.For Prof.Dr. Dennis Vink Program Director of the Full-time MBA, moving the program to Amsterdam was a natural step. âCompany visits connect our students with business executives of top tier companies and institutions, providing a great opportunity for them to expand their network, learn about the latest developments in international business, and enables them to explore employment possibilities,” he says. âOur strong connection with the business world plays a big role in providing employment possibilities to our students. Currently, 82 percent of them find a job within three months after graduation. Living and studying in Amsterdam will bring our students even closer to such opportunities.”Every year, the full-time MBA program welcomes between 40-50 talents from all over the world and with backgrounds that range from marketing, science, finance and diplomacy. During their journey, participants are exposed to Executives of companies and organizations operating across multiple sectors and receive intensive leadership development coaching through Nyenrode faculty, alumni and staff. Nyenrode holds a partnership with Diplomat Magazine offering talents from the Diplomatic network with Awards for this one-year full-time program. For more information, visit nyenrode.nl/imbaÂ
Back in the 1970s, more than 50 black rhinos thrived in Akagera National Park, but their numbers declined under the pressure of wide-scale poaching until the last confirmed sighting of the species in 2007. The park, which is a protected savannah habitat in Rwanda, has undergone a remarkable transformation since African Parks assumed management in 2010 in partnership with the Rwanda Development Board.
âRhinos are one of the great symbols of Africa yet they are severely threatened and are on the decline in many places across the continent due to the extremely lucrative and illegal rhino horn trade,â said African Parks CEO Peter Fearnhead. âThe rhinoâs return to this country however is a testament to Rwandaâs extraordinary commitment to conservation and is another milestone in the restoration of Akageraâs natural diversity.â
Since 2010, African Parks has overhauled law enforcement in the park, reducing poaching to an all-time low in six years and today the park is flourishing. Seven lions were successfully reintroduced in 2015, whose population has since more than doubled. Security measures have been implemented specifically to ensure the safety and well-being of the rhinos once in the park. This includes an expertly-trained rhino tracking and protection team, a canine anti-poaching unit, and the deployment of a helicopter for critical air surveillance to enhance protection of the park â all made possible with funding provided by the Howard G. Buffett Foundation. âThe return of the rhinos to Rwandaâs Akagera National Park opens a new chapter in our conservation journey and we are grateful to all our partners that contributed to this achievement. We are fully prepared to welcome them and ensure their safety for the benefit of our tourism industry and the community at large. We couldnât be more excited for their return,â said Clare Akamanzi CEO- Rwanda Development Board.
âSeveral years ago, as we were struggling to have success combating rhino poaching in other parts of Africa, I made a commitment to President Kagame that we would support the reintroduction of rhinos in Rwanda because we knew this country would protect them,â said Howard G. Buffett, Chairman and CEO of the Howard G. Buffett Foundation. âToday marks another milestone in Rwandaâs emerging leadership on the continent in conservation, eco-tourism and most importantly, good governance.â
With fewer than 5,000 black rhino remaining across their range in the wild, of which approximately 1,000 are the Eastern black rhino subspecies, this reintroduction is an urgent, progressive, and valuable opportunity for their conservation, and serves as a story of hope for the species.
 ——–
Visit www.rhinomove.org to learn more.
For additional Roy Strik’s pictures, please open the following link: https://www.flickr.com/photos/121611753@N07/albums/72157683525717345
H.E. Andrea Gustovic-Ercegovac, Ambassador of Croatia, H.E. Odette Melono, Ambassador of Cameroon, H.E. Vestine Nahimana, Ambassador of Burundi and H.E. Alireza Jahangiri, Ambassador of Iran.[/caption]
Diplomat Magazine gold medals were handed to the participants after reaching their final destination at Chalet ten Bosh, where a warm Dutch meal and snacks were served. 
Picture of Ambassador Nikki Haley of United States during a session of the Security Council on alleged chemical attack in Syria, taken from this note of UN Dispatch
On April 12, Security Council met again to discuss the issue of chemical substances that caused the death of 87 persons last April 4 in Syria. A first urgent session took place on April 5 on the very same topic (see S/PV.7915).
On April 5, three drafts of a future resolution circulated: a draft elaborated by Russia (see Document 1 at the end of this note), a draft called “E-10” prepared by Non Permanent Members (Document 2 reproduced at the end of this note) and a draft presented by France, United States and United Kingdom (Document 3 reproduced at the end of this note). The main difference between these two last drafts has to do with Operative Paragraph 5 (OP 5): the version of the second text is considered by some delegates excessive, due to the request of extremely detailed military data to Syria.
A new version of this second draft circulated on April 12, with minor modifications. The text maintains OP 5 (see Document 4 at the end of this note) with the detailed list of military information requested to Syria. As well known, France, United States ad United Kingdom consider that what happened in Idlib is the result of an attack with a chemical weapon, and that Syria is directly responsible for this attack, even if there is no for the moment any investigation made by an independent body since 4 April 2017 to clarify the alleged “chemical attack”: see, for example, French Minister of Foreign Affairs declaration that does not use “alleged” when refering to what happened on April 4 and declarations of British Prime Minister (see press note of BBC of April 13). The last investigation on use of chemical weapons in Syria has been presented in January 2017 to Security Council by OPCW Fact Finding Mission, regarding an incident of 2 August 2016 (see letter and reports of OPCW Fact Finding Mission available here). It can be read in the conclusions (p. 16) that:
“6.3 Based on the evidence presented by the National Authority of the Syrian Arab Republic, the medical records that were reviewed, the results of the sample analyses, and the prevailing narrative of all of the interviews, the FFM cannot confidently determine whether or not a specific chemical was used as a weapon in the investigated incident. From the results of the analyses of the samples, the FFM is of the opinion that none of the chemicals identified are likely to be the cause of death of the casualties in the reported incident“.
48 hours later after this alleged “chemical attack” of April 4, United States bombed with 59 Tomahawk missiles the Syrian military base to which, according to United States, “chemical attack” came. This strike constitutes a clear violation of United Nations Charter, as no military action can be taken without prior approval of UN Security Council. See on this particular point the analysis published by Professor Marko Milanovic (University of Nottingham) entitled: “The Clearly Illegal US Missile Strike in Syria” published by EJIL Talk.
In his statement at the Security Council, Staffan de Mistura, UN Special Envoy for Syria, commented the predictable effect of this strike ordered by President Trump in Syria without any kind of consultation:
“A few days later, the United States targeted Al-Shayrat air base with a strike of 59 Tomahawk missiles. Under-Secretary-General Feltman briefed the Council on that extremely serious development on Friday (see S/PV.7919). Since then, we have seen more fighting and violence, with new claims of the use of cluster munitions in inhabited areas, barrel bombs and incendiary weapons, including in close proximity to Khan Shaykhun itself. The Secretary-General has made clear his own position. He is appalled by the chemical weapons attack in Khan Shaykhun and calls for accountability for such crimes. In the aftermath of the United States strike, he is mindful of the risk of escalation and appeals for restraintâ (see official statement available at the beginning of the meeting, available reading S/PV.7921, p. 3).
It must be recalled that it is not the first time that chemical weapons in Syria are discussed in United States as a possible justification for a military intervention. In 2013, a very interesting press article entitled âU.S. âbacked plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assadâs regimeââ published in MailonLine was removed and deleted, and “captured” by other websites (see text of the article recuperated by Reseau International).
The draft voted this Wednesday of April 12 (see official version available here) obtained 10 votes in favour, 2 against and 3 abstentions. As predictable, Russia vetoed the text, and China abstained. Bolivia voted also against, while Ethiopia and Kazakhstan abstained. In addition to the five Permanent Members, the following States are Members of the Security Council: Bolivia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Senegal, Sweden, Ukraine and Uruguay.
If we read Operative Paragraph 1 of this draft, it says that the Security Council: â1. Condamne avec la plus grande fermetĂ© lâemploi qui aurait Ă©tĂ© fait dâarmes chimiques en RĂ©publique arabe syrienneâ / âCondemns in the strongest terms the reported use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republicâ /â Condena en los tĂ©rminos mĂĄs enĂ©rgicos el presunto empleo de armas quĂmicas en la RepĂșblica Ărabe Siriaâ. Spanish official version is extremely interesting due to the fact that âpresuntoâ is closer to âallegedâ that âreportedâ. Maybe our readers can find interesting wording in Russian, Arabic and Chinese official version of the draft resolution.
Despite strong political positions heard in France, in United States and United Kingdom on the direct responsability of Syria in the âchemical weapon attackâ, the representatives of these three Permanent Members at UN Security Council presented on April 12 a draft resolution trying to force UNSC to condemn the use âreportedâ or âqui aurait Ă©tĂ© faitâ of chemical weapons. In case of the adoption of such a resolution, it would have been a very first âpremiereâ in UN Security CouncilÂŽs practice. On this very particular point we would be extremely grateful to know of any precedent of a UN Security Council resolution condemning âreportedâ violence by a State against its own citizens.
It is probable that in a coming meeting, Security Council will consider the missile strike ordered by President Donald Trump of 6 April against Syria. A first urgent meeting took place last 7 April (see S/PV.7919), and legally speaking, no arguments can be found, despite the official statement made by United States during this meeting. Military reprisals are legally forbidden by United Nations Charter signed in 1945. Airstrikes launched without the consent of a State on its territory are in a very similar situation. On this last point, it can also be recalled that last December 2016, Denmark decided to withdraw from airstrikes in Syria (and Iraq), after Canada (February 2016): on DenmarkÂŽs decision, we refer to our modest note entitled “The decision of Denmark to withdraw from airstrikes on Syria and Iraq” (Debate Global, December 9, 2016).
On the different reasons and motivations to explain United States intervention in Syria, we refer to our recent note edited in Spanish, entitled “Armas quĂmicas en Siria: Consejo de Seguridad y Estados Unidos“. It must be noted that during his intervention at Security Council last April 12, the representative of Syria said that:
“This comes at a time when the Syrian army and its allies are achieving crushing victories against terrorism; national reconciliation is being concluded across Syrian towns and regions; and significant steps have been taken in the Astana talks, emphasizing, as Mr. De Mistura said, the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria” (see the text of his intervention at pp. 28-21 of S/PV.7921)
Document 1: Draft elaborated by Russia
“Recalling the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, and the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (CWC) ratified by the Syrian Arab Republic on 14 September 2013, and the Council’s resolutions 1540 (2004), 2118 (2013), 2209 (2015), 2235 (2015), 2314 (2016), and 2319 (2016),
Expressing its deep concern regarding the alleged incident with the chemical weapons in the Khan Shaykhun area of southern Idlib in the Syrian Arab Republic on 4 April 2017 reportedly causing large-scale loss of life and injuries, affirming that the use of chemical weapons constitutes a serious violation of international law, and stressing that those responsible for any use of chemical weapons must be held accountable,
Recalling that in resolution 2118 (2013) the Council decided that the Syrian Arab Republic shall not use, develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile or retain chemical weapons or transfer, directly or indirectly, chemical weapons, to other States or non-State actors and underscored that no party in Syria should use, develop, produce, acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer chemical weapons,
1.Requests the joint FFM and the JIM investigative team to visit as soon as possible the site of the alleged incident in Khan Shaykhun and adjacent territories to conduct full-scale investigation using the whole spectrum of relevant methods, including the alternative information collection efforts and investigative skills, as was strongly recommended for such cases in the 4th and 5th JIMâs reports (para. 49 and para . 11 respectively).
2. Demands all parties in the Syrian Arab Republic to secure in accordance with the resolution 2118 (2013) without any delay free and safe access for the joint FFM and JIM team to the site of the incident and adjacent areas;
3. Requests the Director-General of the OPCW Technical Secretariat and the head of the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) to forward through the United Nations Secretary-General to the Council for its consideration their proposals on the personal composition of the joint team to be dispatched to the Idlib Governorate of the Syrian Arab Republic based on the principle of a broad-based and balanced geographical representation;
4. Decides that the report of the joint FFM and JIM team should include all the evidences collected at the site of the incident and be provided to the Council for consideration;
5. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.
