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/Öztürk. 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 IOM’s 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 year’s 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 IOM’s initiative “Skills2Work” and “VOORWerk” 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.
Chemical weapons in Syria and UN Security Council: no resolution adopted. Would you like to know why?
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 restraint” (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 “U.S. ‘backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad’s regime’“ 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: “1. Condamne avec la plus grande fermeté l’emploi qui aurait été fait d’armes chimiques en République arabe syrienne” / “Condemns in the strongest terms the reported use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic” /” Condena en los términos más enérgicos el presunto empleo de armas químicas en la República Árabe Siria”. Spanish official version is extremely interesting due to the fact that “presunto” is closer to “alleged” that “reported”. 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 “chemical weapon attack”, 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 “reported” or “qui aurait été fait” of chemical weapons. In case of the adoption of such a resolution, it would have been a very first “premiere” in UN Security Council´s practice. On this very particular point we would be extremely grateful to know of any precedent of a UN Security Council resolution condemning “reported” 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 Denmark´s 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 químicas 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 JIM’s 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.
Document 2: Draft resolution E-10
“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 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 Council’s 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 Syria’s 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 – 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 – 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 – the Holy land – 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, Nyenrode’s flagship full-time MBA program will be based in the iconic heart of Amsterdam at the Vijf Keizers, a building complex located at the Emperor’s Canal (Keizersgracht) Increased interest from the school’s international students to become better connected with the European business environment during their studies, has also been instrumental in the program’s 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 school’s 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. “Company 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. “Our 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/imba
But … to achieve Goal 6 more urgency is needed in sector reform and systems building.
By Dr Patrick Moriarty, Chief Executive Officer, IRC.
A bit over a year ago I wrote a blog welcoming the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and particularly Goal 6 promising universal access to Water and Sanitation by 2030. I’ve actually written several blogs welcoming the SDGs – the SDGs are, I believe, a GOOD THING.
In that particular blog, I emphasised the urgency of action. It was called 15 years to make change, 5 years to make history, and emphasised the need to make real and radical progress in the then five (now four) first years of the SDG period. Why? Because, if we are to have a chance of achieving the monumental goal of everyone in the world having access to water and sanitation services then we need to do our groundwork now.
Glass half full
So, where are we now? Glass half full first: the SDGs were much more widely owned and better launched than the Millennium Development Goals that preceded them. People are aware of 2030 as a deadline, and in the WASH sector there is a real sense of urgency around getting to grips with Goal 6. It’s particularly encouraging that the twin pillars of creating strong national systems and greatly increased investment are both increasingly recognised – at least in policy discussions.
Glass half empty
From the glass half empty perspective, and the reason for two rather than three cheers, despite more money and stronger systems being things that we talk about, there’s not yet much evidence that we’re actually doing all that much about them. As a sector I’m worried that we risk missing a fundamental point. Building strong national systems (competent regulators, strong water and sanitation authorities, effective monitoring systems) isn’t a nice to have addition to the real work of building more infrastructure. It’s the essential foundation for that infrastructure to effectively deliver services. It’s also, as it happens, an essential precursor to getting more money into the sector.
Private and public money needed
It’s become something of a truism to say that only private money will solve the sector’s financing gap. And while I could quibble about how true this really is, there is no doubt that private money is part of the solution. But here’s the thing, private money for the sort of long term investments (20 years or more) needed to develop water and sanitation infrastructure goes to places where there is low risk and steady (if not spectacular) returns. And to generate these returns calls for – strong systems and the implicit or explicit commitment that government stands behind the guarantees made to investors.
In April, Ministers of Water and Sanitation from around the world joined their Finance colleagues at the World Banks “Spring Meetings” in Washington DC. Our message to the Ministers attending the meetings: that if you want to pull in private money to fund capital investments, you need to make sure you are investing public money in the systems needed to make those investments a good bet. And that those investments, in urgent programmes of sector reform and systems building, need to be made immediately if we are to have any chance of achieving the SDGs.
——
About IRCIRC is an international think-and-do tank that works with governments, NGOs, entrepreneurs and people around the world to find long-term solutions to the global crisis in water, sanitation and hygiene services. At the heart of its mission is the aim to move from short-term interventions to sustainable water, sanitation and hygiene services.With over 45 years of experience, IRC runs projects in more than 25 countries and large-scale programmes in seven focus countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America. It is supported by a team of over 80 staff across the world.For more information please visit http://www.ircwash.org
By Jhr. Alexander W. Beelaerts van Blokland LL.M.
The European Union is one of the most urbanised areas in the world. Today, more than 70% of Europe’s citizens lives in an Urban Area. At present, 73% of all jobs and 80% of all people aged 25-64 with a tertiary education are based in European cities, towns and suburbs. Urban Areas are also places where challenges such as segregation, unemployment and poverty are concentrated. The development of Urban Areas will have a major impact on the future sustainable development (economic, environmental and social) of the EU and its citizens.
On 30 May 2016, in Amsterdam, upon the invitation by the Netherlands Presidency of the Council of the European Union, the Informal Meeting of EU Ministers responsable for Urban Matters and several international organizations involved was held. It led to the establishing of the ‘Pact of Amsterdam’, the Urban Agenda for the EU. It strives to involve Urban Authorities in achieving Better Regulation, Better Funding and Better Knowledge (knowledge base and exchange).
The Ministers agreed that, taking into account the priorities of the EU 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, the initial list of twelve Priority Themes (in no particular order) for the Urban Agenda for the EU is as follows: (1) inclusion of migrants and refugees, (2) air quality, (3) urban poverty, (4) housing, (5) circulair economy,(6) jobs and skills of the local economy, (7) climate adaption (including green infrastructure solutions), (8) energy transition, (9) sustainable use of land and nature-based solutions, (10) urban mobility, (11) digital transition and (12) innovative and responsabele public procurement.
All cities involved participate in one of the abovementioned themes. The Hague is one of the four Dutch cities involved (the others are Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Utrecht).
The City of The Hague is participant in the important group that works on the Priority Theme Circular Economy. The objective is to increase the re-use, repair, refurbishment and recycling of existing materials and products to promote new growth and job opportunities. For instance, additional measures to increase resource productivity by 30% by 2030 could boost GPD by nearly 1%, while creating 2 million additional jobs. The focus will be on: waste management (turn a waste into a resource), sharing economy and resource efficiency.
————–
About the author: Jhr. Alexander W. Beelaerts van Blokland LL.M. is Justice (Judge) in the (Dutch) Court of Appeal and Special Advisor International Affairs appointed by the Mayor and Aldermen of The Hague.
a.beelaerts@planet.nl
By Barend ter Haar.
The Paris Agreement that entered into force on 4 November 2016 is an important step in the direction of limiting the rise of global temperatures to 1.5oC, but not more than a step. To make it happen, countries will have to do more than they have pledged to do so far. The global stocktake that will take place every five years, will not suffice to make them do that. Major efforts will be needed to stimulate governments to increase their commitments, to help them to implement them and to prevent free-riding. Part of this will have to be done at a global level, but for practical reasons, what can be done at the regional level, should be done at the regional level.
Maybe some new institutions will have to be set up for that purpose, but where possible use should be made of existing institutions. An organisation that seems well equipped to play a more active role in this field is the Vienna-based Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).
The OSCE recognizes the close connection between environmental issues and security and has therefore set up a framework for discussing economic and environmental issues, consisting of three forums: an annual Economic and Environmental Forum, a yearly Implementation Meeting “to assess progress to assess the implementation of economic and environmental commitments by the OSCE participating States and to identify priorities for future work” and the monthly Economic and Environmental Committee, a subsidiary body of the Permanent Council of the OSCE.
In addition the Office of the Co-ordinator of OSCE Economic and Environmental Activities (OCEEA) supports a wide range of environmental projects and activities, mainly in South-Eastern Europe, Eastern Europe, the South Caucasus, and Central Asia. These projects concern inter alia sustainable use of water, energy security, disaster reduction, climate change and management of hazardous waste. Furthermore a network of 60 Aarhus Centers in 14 OSCE participating States addresses environmental issues, inter alia by promoting public participation in environmental decision-making. All this is done in close cooperation with the development and environment programmes of the UN (UNDP and UNEP), the UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and the Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (REC).
The OSCE is therefore well positioned to take up a larger role in the environmental field. That is not to say that it will be easy. Environmental threats are quite different from military threats and often require different approaches. This will require intellectual flexibility from delegations, capitals and secretariat. However, these difficulties are peanuts in comparison to the challenges posed by climate change.
By H.E. Ms. Jana Reinišová, Ambassador of the Czech Republic to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
The Czech Republic has a long history during which the alternation of good and bad times was symptomatic. Not going into details, let us demonstrate it on reminding us of some of the periods connected with the anniversaries we have been recently or are to be commemorated.
Last year we celebrated the 700 years anniversary of the birth of Charles IV. (1316 – 1378, the son of Jan of Luxembourg and Eliška Přemyslovna, descendant of the Czech royal family), the Czech King and Roman Emperor, who was one of the most important monarchs in the medieval times. He consolidated the Czech lands, which had been known as the “Czech crown” since then. The country flourished during the Charles IV. Reign – he established in Prague the oldest university in Central Europe, today known as the Charles University, he built the large New Town of Prague, the Charles Bridge, number of castles, the Karlštejn being the most famous of them. He also achieved the significant territorial expansion of the Czech State.
Let us jump over few centuries and let us look to the so called Age of Dark – starting after the battle on the White Mountain (near Prague) in 1620, which was the battle of the Thirty Years War and in which the army of Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand II. Styria and the German army of the Catholic League clashed the Czech estates. The battle sealed the fate of the Bohemian Revolt and for the next 300 years influenced the destiny of the country. Jan Amos Comenius (1592 – 1670), the last bishop of the Unity of Brethren and one of the greatest Czech thinkers, philosophers and writers, was one of the persecuted victims as to his protestant confession. Among other things, he is recognized as the “teacher of nations” due to creation of new methods of education based on didactics and as the founder of modern pedagogy. He also devoted a great attention to peaceful relations among the nations. Comenius could not stay in Bohemia and so became a refugee and after living in Poland, Hungary, visits to England or Sweden he spent the last 14 years of his life in Amsterdam where he could live and work in peace. He is buried in Naarden (at present a part of Gooise Meren) where there is Comenius Museum and Mausoleum, the 80-th anniversary of which we will celebrate on 8 May this year.
There was another favourable period for the Czech nation between the First and Second World Wars. During the World War I the idea to create a new state – Czechoslovakia – after the dissolution of the Austria-Hungary Monarchy – was elaborated in detail by Tomáš Garique Masaryk (1850 – 1937), the Czech professor, philosopher and politician, later on the first Czechoslovak President, and his collaboraters, the most important of which was Milan Rastislav Štefánik, the Slovak politician, French Army General and also astronomer, who is being considered as co-founder of the Czechoslovak Republic in 1918. The monument of T.G. Masaryk, reminding the role of the Netherlands in this process, can be found at Geldersekade in Rotterdam. Nearby, in the hotel Weimar (bombed down during the World War II), T. G. Masaryk held secret meetings with the British historian and publicist Robert W. Seton-Watson who helped to disseminate the Memorandum outlining the contours of a future new state among the European politicians. This year, it will be 80 years anniversary of the Masaryk´s death. During his presidency Czechoslovakia was well developed country with competitive industry.
The Second World War and the communist putsch in 1948 got Czechoslovakia into the period of oppression and unfreedom with economic slowdown. This year we commemorate 40 years since Charta 77 had been created as an informal civic society initiative with the goal to point out on the lack of democracy, respect for human and civil rights. Through this initiative whose documents were published abroad or in a form of samizdat people not only in Czechoslovakia could learn more about the communist regime of the country. The spokesmen, signatories and supporters of Charta 77 (and not only them, all people who were actively fighting against the regime) were persecuted, often put in jail, their property was being confiscated, they were forced to leave the country, lost their jobs etc. To name some of its leading personalities we can mention first and utmost Václav Havel, later on the first Czechoslovak and Czech president (the Havel´s bench, designed by Bořek Šípek, the Czech architect and glass designer who also spent part of his life in the Netherlands, can be found at Lange Voorhout in the Hague), other well known persons were e.g. prof. Jan Patočka, Pavel Kohout, Petr Uhl or Ludvík Vaculík. In those times the support from free democratic countries was highly appreciated. In this respect we can point out the meeting of the Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs Max van der Stoel with the so called dissidents in Prague in 1997 during his official visit to Czechoslovakia. To the memory of this Dutch politician and the events of 1997 the Monument of Max van der Stoel was unveiled in Prague on 1 March this year. Even few years earlier the park where the monument is situated was named after him as well.
The year 1989 and the velvet revolution brought new light into the lives of Czech and Slovak people. Despite of the dissolution of Czechoslovakia in the end of 1992 there are now two free countries where the way of living, economy, culture, international relations etc. have been restored to “normal”.
At present, the Czech Republic, member of NATO, EU and many other international organizations, is a country firmly anchored in Europe. The respect for human and civil rights is back, its economy is on a good track, it provides favourable conditions for investments, economic cooperation, trade, culture, tourism etc. The GDP growth was 4,3 % in 2015 and 2,3 % in 2016, the unemployment rate is 4,8 % at present. For illustration some figures from the bilateral trade with the Netherlands. The trade exchange volume reached nearly 8 billion euro in 2016. The Czech exports grow faster than the Dutch ones – by almost 10% a year, so we keep the positive trade balance in the range of 500 million euro. The total trade turnover makes the Netherlands the top 9th trading partner of the Czech Republic (and the 7th in import ranking). If comparing economic flows in services (balance almost of 200 million euro for the Netherlands) and the capital flows (already balance more than 10 billion euro for the “Dutch” investors in 2016) the figures are in favour of the Netherlands.
——–
Photography by the Embassy of the Czech Republic in The Hague.
Pictured Ambassador Ngo Thi Hoa on the day she presented the Letter of
Credence to the King of the Netherlands.By H.E. Ngo Thi Hoa, Ambassador of Viet Nam to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Viet Nam and the Netherlands established diplomatic relations in 1973. After 1975, the Netherlands opened their embassy in 1976. Viet Nam opened its Embassy in the Netherlands in 1998. The cooperation between the two sides therefore gained momentum.
Over the past 44 years, Viet Nam – the Netherlands relationship has recorded remarkable achievements. In terms of political relations, the two sides have regularly exchanged delegations at all levels, especially at the highest level. Prime Minister Wim Kok visited Viet Nam in 1995 and Prime Minister Phan Van Khai visited the Netherlands in 2001.
From Viet Nam to the Netherlands, there were the visits by:
Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dzung in 9-10/2011
Deputy Prime Minister Hoang Trung Hai in 11/2012
Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dzung to attend the Nuclear Security Summit in The Hague in 3/2014
Vice Chairman of the National Assembly Uong Chu Luu 6/2014
Deputy Prime Minister Hoang Trung Hai 9/2014
There were similar visits to Viet Nam paid by:
Crown Prince Willem Alexander in 10/2005
Prince Willem Alexander and Princess Máxima in 3/2011
Prime Minister Mark Rutte in 6/2014
The close political relations have laid a firm foundation for cooperation in all other fields, with the conclusion of numerous significant bilateral agreements, namely, the Agreement on Investment Promotion and Protection (1994), the Agreement on Avoidance of Double Taxation (1995), the Framework Agreement on Development Cooperation (2000), the MOU for defense cooperation (2011). In recent years, the Strategic Partnership for Climate Change and Water Management (2010) and the Strategic Partnership for Development on Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security (2014) were signed, ushering the relations into a new era of strategic and sectoral cooperation.
These agreements serve as an impetus for bilateral cooperation development in all fields.
About trade, in 2016, the Netherlands is Viet Nam’s largest trading partner in the EU. Vietnamese goods such as textiles, footwear, seafood, agro-products, etc. are imported to the Netherlands. The main imports from the Netherlands are milk and dairy products, pharmaceuticals, raw materials, iron and steel, plastic materials, animal feed…
Trade turnover between Viet Nam and the Netherlands 2009-2016. Unit: billions of dollars.
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
1.75
1.96
2.81
3.182
3.615
4.32
5.453
6.68
In terms of investment, the Netherlands ranked 14/88 countries and territories investing in Viet Nam (2015). In 2016, Dutch investment in Viet Nam reached $ 7.61 billion and the Netherlands was the top European investor in Viet Nam. Trademarks and brands of the Dutch famous corporations have already been popular in Viet Nam, such as Philips, Heineken, Unilever and Shell …
In term of development cooperation after the establishment of diplomatic relations in 1973, the Netherlands began providing non-refundable ODA to Viet Nam, mainly in humanitarian, education-training and health areas. At present, Viet Nam is classified as a middle-income country and no longer among the 30 priority countries for Dutch aid. However, the Netherlands continues to provide ODA to Viet Nam as an equal partner for mutual development.
About climate change adaption and water management, implementing the Strategic Partnerships in Climate Change Adaptation and Management, the two sides held 05 intergovernmental committee meetings (IC) to discuss cooperation on climate, resources and environment issues, especially the Mekong Delta project (launched in 2013). The 6th IC will be held this month in the Hague on 20 April 2017 and co-chaired by Viet Nam Deputy Prime Minister Trinh Dinh Dzung. Regarding the Strategic Partnership on Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security, the two sides identify the areas of cooperation including farming, animal husbandry, veterinary, smart agriculture, and science.
In other fields, such as defense cooperation, the two sides have concluded military shipbuilding contracts.
In education and training, the Netherlands and Viet Nam have cooperation in higher education. Many universities and research institutions in Viet Nam have established close collaborative research and training partnerships with Dutch partners. From 2006 to present, there are approximately 1000 Vietnamese students studying in the Netherlands, or an average of 170 students/year in which bachelor degree accounts for 46.3%, master degree 28.5%, and PhD 14%.
Over the years, the Vietnamese community in the Netherlands has been growing with about 19,000 people, serving as a bridge connecting the two countries.
At present, the two countries share many similarities in terms of natural and geographical conditions, having rivers and long coastlines with advantages for agricultural development, marine economic development and international trade. The Netherlands is the world major trading powerhouse, especially in agricultural export, is the giant in water conservation, fishery and modern agriculture. Viet Nam is at the gateway of Southeast Asia, the Netherlands is an entrance to Western European. The people of Viet Nam and the Dutch people are strong, vibrant, innovative and creative. Given current challenges posed by climate change, sea level rise, regional and global security issues, the two countries have new opportunities to work together on regional and international forums.
The Netherlands always considers Viet Nam a priority partner. The policy of promoting cooperation with the Netherlands has always been highly supported by the State, Government and localities and Vietnamese enterprises.
Given these opportunities and the firm foundation of long-lasting cooperation, both Viet Nam and the Netherland are optimistic about the future development of the bilateral relations./.
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 restraint” (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 “U.S. ‘backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad’s regime’“ 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: “1. Condamne avec la plus grande fermeté l’emploi qui aurait été fait d’armes chimiques en République arabe syrienne” / “Condemns in the strongest terms the reported use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic” /” Condena en los términos más enérgicos el presunto empleo de armas químicas en la República Árabe Siria”. Spanish official version is extremely interesting due to the fact that “presunto” is closer to “alleged” that “reported”. 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 “chemical weapon attack”, 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 “reported” or “qui aurait été fait” of chemical weapons. In case of the adoption of such a resolution, it would have been a very first “premiere” in UN Security Council´s practice. On this very particular point we would be extremely grateful to know of any precedent of a UN Security Council resolution condemning “reported” 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 Denmark´s 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 químicas 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 JIM’s 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.
Glass half full
So, where are we now? Glass half full first: the SDGs were much more widely owned and better launched than the Millennium Development Goals that preceded them. People are aware of 2030 as a deadline, and in the WASH sector there is a real sense of urgency around getting to grips with Goal 6. It’s particularly encouraging that the twin pillars of creating strong national systems and greatly increased investment are both increasingly recognised – at least in policy discussions.
Glass half empty
From the glass half empty perspective, and the reason for two rather than three cheers, despite more money and stronger systems being things that we talk about, there’s not yet much evidence that we’re actually doing all that much about them. As a sector I’m worried that we risk missing a fundamental point. Building strong national systems (competent regulators, strong water and sanitation authorities, effective monitoring systems) isn’t a nice to have addition to the real work of building more infrastructure. It’s the essential foundation for that infrastructure to effectively deliver services. It’s also, as it happens, an essential precursor to getting more money into the sector.
Private and public money needed
It’s become something of a truism to say that only private money will solve the sector’s financing gap. And while I could quibble about how true this really is, there is no doubt that private money is part of the solution. But here’s the thing, private money for the sort of long term investments (20 years or more) needed to develop water and sanitation infrastructure goes to places where there is low risk and steady (if not spectacular) returns. And to generate these returns calls for – strong systems and the implicit or explicit commitment that government stands behind the guarantees made to investors.
In April, Ministers of Water and Sanitation from around the world joined their Finance colleagues at the World Banks “Spring Meetings” in Washington DC. Our message to the Ministers attending the meetings: that if you want to pull in private money to fund capital investments, you need to make sure you are investing public money in the systems needed to make those investments a good bet. And that those investments, in urgent programmes of sector reform and systems building, need to be made immediately if we are to have any chance of achieving the SDGs.
——
About IRC
IRC is an international think-and-do tank that works with governments, NGOs, entrepreneurs and people around the world to find long-term solutions to the global crisis in water, sanitation and hygiene services. At the heart of its mission is the aim to move from short-term interventions to sustainable water, sanitation and hygiene services.
With over 45 years of experience, IRC runs projects in more than 25 countries and large-scale programmes in seven focus countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America. It is supported by a team of over 80 staff across the world.
For more information please visit http://www.ircwash.org 
