The South African Embassy in The Hague would like to congratulate Ziyanda Majozi who was nominated as the 2017 recipient of the prestigious Thami Mnyele Foundation Artist-in-Residence programme.
Ziyanda is a very ambitious young woman; mosaicist, artist and human rights activist who would like to make change through Art. She creates personal art that aims ta change how people see things.
Established in 1992, the Thami Mnyele Foundation has been running a unique three month artists- in-residence program for the past 20 years with the Residency being based in Amsterdam. The main objective of the Foundation is to enhance and promote cultural exchange between artists from Africa, the Netherlands with Amsterdam as the host city.
ziyanda Majozi @majozi_ziyanda
The Foundation is named in commemoration of the South African artist and former member of the ANC MEDU group, Thami Mnyele.
Thami Mnyele inspired Dutch artists to set up an artists-in-residence program, after a visit with the CASA cultural project in the Netherlands in the nineties. The first years the focus was only on artists from South Africa, however, since 1997 artists from all African countries could apply.
The Embassy would like to wish Ziyanda well during her stay in the Netherlands and would also like to commend the Thami Mnyele Foundation for its continued commitment to strengthening people to people relations and promoting young artistic talent from South Africa.
Issued by the South African Embassy.
———
On the image: Converse takkies (2013) by Ziyanda Majozi.
By Barend ter Haar.
Until seven years ago, Dutch governments used to consist of 26 to 29 ministers: 14 to 16 full ministers and 10 to 14 state secretaries, that carry the title of minister when they are abroad.
Since 2010 this number has come down to 20. At first sight that might seem a welcome sign of frugality in times of austerity, but in reality it has harmed Dutch interests.
What national politicians tend to forget is that major decisions concerning the future of the Netherlands are at present usually taken outside the Netherlands and that ministers are needed as national representatives to influence these decisions as much as possible.
In former times the most important issues on the national agenda were domestic affairs. International conferences were a sideshow that could be left to the minister of Foreign Affairs, but this has changed dramatically. Domestic matters, such as public health, tensions in inner cities and the state of local nature and environment are nowadays strongly influenced by what happens abroad. Climate change, cyber security and migration are among a growing number of matters that cannot be effectively handled at the national level, but require intensive international cooperation, often in the form of ministerial conferences.
What every diplomat that has attended international conferences knows, is that the influence a country can exert depends on the formal level of its participation. In theory all heads of delegation are considered to be equal, but in practice a distinction is made between ministers and professional diplomats.
Take for example a UN conference that is attended by 120 of the 193 member states of the United Nations and let us assume that two states are represented by their president, seventy by a minister and the rest by professional diplomats. The two presidents will have the opportunity to speak at the beginning of the conference and will therefore be able to get their message across to all delegations. Most ministers will have the courtesy to listen to at least some of their colleagues, but when, at the end of the plenary meeting, it is the turn of the other high officials, most seats will be filled by young trainees.
What is even more important are the opportunities that ministers have for informal consultations during coffee breaks, lunches and dinners. Foreign ministers might be willing to listen to Dutch diplomats, but they will interpret the absence of a Dutch minister as a sign that the Netherlands takes the subject of a conference less seriously and will therefore tend to ignore the Dutch position.
By being absent at many conferences, Dutch ministers have left many opportunities to influence the international agenda unused. In order to safeguard Dutch values and interests a new Dutch government should make sure that it has sufficient ministers available to participate in international conferences at the appropriate level.
S.E. M. Philippe Couvreur est arrivé à La Haye en avril 1982, où il a d’abord occupé le poste d’assistant spécial aux bureaux du greffier et du greffier adjoint de la Cour internationale de Justice.
Il a ensuite exercé les fonctions de Secrétaire, Premier Secrétaire et Secrétaire juridique principal, avant d’être élu Greffier de la Cour en 2000, et réélu en 2007 et 2014.
Pour marquer l’anniversaire de ses débuts à la Cour, il y a 35 ans, Diplomat Magazine l’a invité à témoigner de son expérience unique au service de cette institution, des évolutions qu’il a pu y observer, et à partager le regard qu’il porte sur les changements qui ont marqué la Cour et La Haye au cours des trois dernières décennies.
Philippe Couvreur avec le Pape Jean-Paul II prise le 13 mai 1985.
Je suis arrivé à La Haye en avril 1982 — de façon aussi inattendue que j’avais entamé des études de droit treize ans auparavant (mais c’est là une autre histoire…) — pour occuper un poste temporaire à la Cour internationale de Justice. La Cour était alors la seule institution judiciaire internationale existante au plan universel.
Son activité, particulièrement faible à la fin des années 1970, ne pouvait en ce temps-là guère laisser présager du succès que rencontrerait la Cour dans les décennies à venir. Mon bienveillant maître de Louvain, le professeur Paul de Visscher, fils du célèbre internationaliste Charles de Visscher, unique juge belge à la Cour, m’avait prédit des jours aussi sereins qu’heureux, écoulés à lire et à écrire des ouvrages dans la solitude des imposants murs de la bibliothèque du Palais de la Paix…
Les mémoires ont été dûment déposés dans l’affaire El Salvador c. Honduras dans la salle Bol le 1 juin 1988, l’affaire du Différend frontalier terrestre, insulaire et maritime.
En rejoignant la Cour, un frais matin d’avril, dont je garde un souvenir très précis, le jeune juriste que j’étais découvrit, non sans étonnement, une organisation de taille très modeste, le Greffe, qui en est l’organe administratif, alors composé de moins d’une quarantaine de fonctionnaires. Le fonctionnement de la Cour reposait entièrement sur cette équipe restreinte de personnel permanent, auquel s’ajoutait, selon que de besoin, un personnel temporaire pour faire face au surcroît de travaux linguistiques et de sténodactylographie lors des sessions (publiques et privées) de la Cour.
Je me rappelle avoir été frappé par la personnalité haute en couleur de certains de ces traducteurs indépendants, dont la grande culture littéraire m’émerveillait. Cette structure très économique du Greffe impliquait une grande polyvalence de ses membres, et les Secrétaires de la Cour — ses fonctionnaires supérieurs — étaient appelés, en sus de leurs travaux de recherches juridiques, de préparation des documents de la Cour, et de rédaction de la correspondance diplomatique, à assumer eux-mêmes l’essentiel des tâches linguistiques (traduction et interprétation) et d’information, ainsi que la supervision de nombreuses activités administratives et logistiques.
La Grande salle de Justice, l’affaire Relative au Timor Oriental (Portugal c. Australie) Arrêt du 30 juin 1995.
Il n’était nullement rare qu’un nouveau venu comme moi ait à passer week-ends et nuits blanches au Palais de la Paix à effectuer les travaux les plus divers… allant jusqu’à imprimer et polycopier, sur de vieilles machines à stencils ronéotype, des décisions dont la Cour devait donner la lecture en séance publique le lendemain !
Dès mon arrivée au Greffe, j’ai eu le bonheur et le privilège d’être initié et associé à l’ensemble des fonctions de l’institution sous la patiente supervision de personnalités d’exception, tels que MM. Torres Bernárdez et Pillepich, alors respectivement Greffier et Greffier adjoint. J’en ai retiré le plus grand bénéfice, puisque cette immersion sans préparation dans toutes les facettes de l’activité du Greffe m’a permis d’acquérir de ce dernier une connaissance unique — de l’intérieur — et sous tous ses aspects —, un acquis particulièrement précieux au moment où j’ai été amené, bien des années plus tard, à assumer la délicate responsabilité d’en assurer la gestion au plus haut niveau.
Devenir un fonctionnaire du Greffe au début des années 1980 signifiait accepter de se couler sans discussion dans un moule à tous égards exigeant, et se donner corps et âme, avec humilité et discrétion, à l’institution, sans penser à soi ni parler de soi.
Depuis ces années d’initiation, j’ai été le témoin de profondes transformations de la Cour, rendues inévitables à la fois pour répondre à l’accroissement considérable de ses activités, avec la disparition du monde bipolaire qui avait relégué le règlement judiciaire à un rôle quelque peu marginal, et pour saisir les opportunités nouvelles offertes, notamment, par le progrès des technologies et de la communication. Entre 1982 et aujourd’hui, le nombre de fonctionnaires a ainsi presque triplé (il a quasiment doublé depuis l’an 2000, année de ma première élection en tant que Greffier). L’organisation du travail a été progressivement spécialisée entre les divers départements, juridique, linguistique et chargé de l’information, qui furent créés en 1997, et les services techniques. Par ailleurs, les Membres de la Cour ne disposèrent pas, pendant longtemps, de « référendaires » — ils s’y sont d’ailleurs longtemps refusés—, et l’assistance apportée aux juges en matière judiciaire était principalement répartie entre les fonctionnaires du Département des affaires juridiques.
H.E. Philippe Couvreur avec la Reine Beatrix photo prise pendant le 50 eme anniversaire de la Cour (18-04-1996).
Les cinq premiers postes de juristes référendaires ne furent obtenus de l’Assemblée générale et créés qu’en 2002, à l’issue de difficiles négociations que je me souviens avoir menées avec beaucoup de plaisir et d’intérêt ; le nombre de ces postes s’est progressivement accru, pour s’élever à quinze aujourd’hui.
Les divers développements qui ont marqué le monde au cours des dernières décennies n’ont pas manqué de soulever pour la Cour de nouveaux défis. Comme c’est le cas pour toute institution, elle n’a pu les relever en faisant table rase des enseignements de son histoire ni, à l’inverse, en ne saisissant pas toutes les opportunités offertes par le temps présent. A ces différents égards, la Cour est certainement parvenue, au fil des ans, à assurer un équilibre, toujours délicat, entre changements et continuité.
La continuité de la Cour est bien sûr inscrite dans son Statut, qui fait partie intégrante de la Charte des Nations Unies, et reflétée dans ses méthodes judiciaires, qui ont été très largement élaborées par sa devancière, la Cour permanente de Justice internationale, et héritées d’elle. Cette continuité historique était particulièrement présente lorsque j’ai rejoint le Greffe.
Ainsi, en manière d’anecdote, divers hauts fonctionnaires alors en poste avaient eux-mêmes côtoyé, au début de leur carrière, d’anciens fonctionnaires de la Cour permanente. Tous nourrissaient à l’égard de cette dernière le plus grand respect. Il régnait d’ailleurs dans les couloirs du Palais de la Paix une atmosphère feutrée et délicieusement surannée, évocatrice de la défunte Société des Nations. Je me souviens en avoir encore utilisé maintes fournitures de bureau !
La continuité jurisprudentielle et procédurale entre les deux Cours constitue pour les Etats une garantie importante de sécurité et de prévisibilité juridiques. Cette continuité, juridique et historique, de même que l’expérience accumulée en plus de quatre-vingt-dix ans d’exercice de la fonction judiciaire, sont pour la Cour un facteur crucial de légitimité.
H.E. Philippe Couvreur vec le Roi Willem-Alexander photo prise pendant le 70 eme anniversaire de la Cour (20-04-2016).
En même temps, la Cour a eu, à l’évidence, à s’adapter aux changements du monde réel dans lequel elle opère, comme aux nécessités et opportunités nouvelles de chaque époque traversée.
L’une des transformations notoires auxquelles j’ai assisté fut l’ouverture croissante de la Cour sur l’extérieur : longtemps à l’écart, à dessein, des organes politiques des Nations Unies, la Cour a souhaité se faire plus et mieux entendre de ces organes et des Etats membres. Elle a ainsi rompu avec ce qui était parfois perçu comme un « splendide isolement » au sein des Nations Unies, même si elle défend toujours jalousement son autonomie. La Cour doit en outre désormais également tenir compte des nombreuses autres juridictions, internationales ou régionales, qui ont été créées ces dernières années, et veiller, autant que possible, à assurer l’harmonie du « concert judiciaire » que permet ce foisonnement de cours et tribunaux sur la scène internationale.
Davantage ouverte sur la communauté internationale et ses réalités, la Cour s’est montrée de plus en plus attentive, non seulement à sa place dans l’Organisation des Nations Unies, mais aussi à la poursuite des objectifs de celle-ci et à sa mission propre au service du règlement pacifique des différends internationaux. Des différends de plus en plus complexes, tant juridiquement que factuellement, en même temps que politiquement plus denses, lui ont été soumis. En révisant constamment, selon que de besoin, ses méthodes de travail, elle a su les résoudre rapidement et efficacement, à un coût particulièrement modeste pour la communauté internationale, tout en assurant le développement du droit.
Enfin, pour conclure sur une note plus prosaïque, mais qui est loin d’être négligeable, je ne peux taire la chance que j’ai eue de connaître l’extraordinaire développement de la ville de La Haye au cours des 35 dernières années. Celle-ci offre aujourd’hui à la Cour, comme aux nombreuses institutions internationales qui s’y sont installées à sa suite, une qualité de vie et un cadre de travail uniques, qui sont très loin de ressembler à ce que j’ai trouvé en y arrivant.
A l’image de l’imposante stature du Palais de la Paix où elle siège, symbole mondialement connu de la justice internationale, la Cour est une institution solidement établie. En dépit des périodes de doute ou de désaffection qu’elle a traversées par le passé, son rôle est unanimement salué au sein de la communauté internationale et le recours à ses services par les Etats n’a jamais été aussi soutenu. 35 ans après, je continue de mesurer chaque jour le privilège qui est le mien de servir au mieux de mes capacités l’organe judiciaire principal des Nations Unies.
—–
Les photos dans l’article sont une courtoisie de la Cour International de Justice.
By H.E. Mr Wu Ken, Chinese Ambassador to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
In May, the most beautiful season of the Netherlands, we will celebrate the 45th anniversary of diplomatic relations at ambassadorial level between China and the Netherlands, which is a historic moment for both our countries.
China and the Netherlands are located at the two ends of the Eurasian continent respectively, but the two peoples share a long history of enduring exchanges, despite the geographical distance. Over 400 years ago, the “Maritime Silk Road” stretching from Guangzhou of China to the Netherlands had already linked the two peoples together. Tea, silk, porcelain and other Chinese products were introduced into Europe through the merchant vessels of the “Sea Coachmen”. The Netherlands was one of the first Western countries to recognize the People’s Republic of China and the two countries established diplomatic relations at chargé d’affaires level in 1954. On 18 May 1972, the leaders of the two countries, with a far-sighted strategic vision and political wisdom, upgraded the diplomatic relations to the ambassadorial level, thus ushering in a new era of development of friendly bilateral relations.
The past 45 years have witnessed the increasingly mature political relations between our two countries. During this period, the China-Netherlands relations have kept moving forward despite the volatile international situation and twists and turns of the bilateral ties. Especially since 2014, with the historic mutual state visits by President XI Jinping and King Willem-Alexander, both sides together enhanced the China-Netherlands relationship to a new position of “Open and Pragmatic Partnership for Comprehensive Cooperation”, which laid a solid foundation for its future development, and promoted bilateral relationship into its best period of development in history. Recently on 12 April, two Giant Pandas, Wu Wen and Xing Ya have just arrived in the Netherlands from China and will make their public debut very soon. This is an important fruit of the mutual visits of our two Heads of State, and the most convincing example of the China-Netherlands friendship and cooperation as well.
The past 45 years have also witnessed the substantial development of our pragmatic cooperation. The bilateral trade volume grew from a mere US$69 million in 1972 to US$67.2 billion in 2016, an increase of almost 1,000 times in 45 years. The Netherlands is now China’s second largest trading partner in the EU and China is the Netherlands’ second largest trading partner outside the EU. Meanwhile, the Netherlands has nearly 3,200 investment projects in China and China has almost 600 in the Netherlands. Our bilateral cooperation in agriculture, water management, chemical industry and logistics is among the best in the cooperation between China and European countries and there are more and more similar amazing achievements. With the continuous transformation and development of China’s economy and society, and with the deepening and implementation of the Belt and Road Initiative, I firmly believe that the potential of our pragmatic cooperation in various fields will be tremendous.
The past 45 years have moreover witnessed the steady deepening of the friendship between our two peoples. The Dutch famous philosopher Baruch Spinoza once said, “The heart is not conquered by force, but by love and tolerance”. In China there is also an old saying, “Amity between the people holds the key to relations between countries”. In recent years, the two countries have often mutually sent high-level art troupes and held performances and exhibitions of various kinds. For example, the “Happy Chinese New Year” performances have been held in the Netherlands for 11 consecutive years and have become widely participated highlights among local people. The China Cultural Center in the Haguethe new important fruit of bilateral cultural exchanges, was officially inaugurated last year.
As more and more Dutch people begin to learn Chinese, following Leiden Confucius Institute and Groningen Confucius Institute, the third Confucius Institute will be unveiled within this year. At present, 10 Dutch middle schools have already set up Confucius Classroom and the number will reach 13 this year. The Netherlands saw more tourists coming from China than from any other Asian country and China has become the second largest origin of overseas students of the Netherlands. The cultural and people-to-people exchanges have enhanced the understanding of the two peoples, further consolidated the public and social foundation for the development of bilateral relations and become one of the “three locomotives” for the steady and sound development of bilateral relations along with political and economic exchanges.
The achievements in the past 45 years are really hard-won. As the incumbent Chinese Ambassador to the Netherlands, I have great confidence in the future development of the China-Netherlands relations. Yesterday, one of my Dutch friends asked for my opinion on the following development of bilateral relations. I told him to have a look at the spring flower field in the Netherlands and there lies my answer. Yes, indeed, just like the vast beautiful sea of flowers, the prospect of the China-Netherlands cooperation will surely be broad and the China-Netherlands friendship will definitely enjoy a brighter tomorrow!
By Judge Theodor Meron, President of the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals.
The Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals is an institution that finds itself, in many ways, at a critical juncture in the evolution of international criminal justice.
As the successor to the first international criminal courts of the modern era—the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and for the former Yugoslavia—the Mechanism is responsible for carrying out key residual functions inherited from its predecessors, such as the protection of vulnerable witnesses and the enforcement of sentences of those convicted by the ICTR or the ICTY. It is, in many ways, the guardian of the important legacies of these two pioneering Tribunals in Arusha and The Hague, and the embodiment of the international community’s abiding commitment to accountability and the rule of law, a commitment reflected in the establishment of the ICTR and the ICTY nearly a quarter century ago.
At the same time, the Mechanism is an active court in its own right, with two major appeal cases currently pending, a trial about to commence, and on-going proceedings related to requests for review and other relief. It must find a harmonized, one-institution approach to its operations spanning two continents, an approach that draws in an equitable manner on the traditions and practices of its predecessors while remaining capable of addressing the variable operational needs and constraints at its branches in Africa and Europe.
And it is very much at the vanguard of a new generation of institutions and initiatives aimed at harnessing innovations and identifying best practices with the goal of making international criminal justice more efficient, more cost-effective, and thereby more sustainable in the long-term. Indeed, thanks to the direction given to it by the UN Security Council to be small and efficient, the Mechanism is, in many ways, bound to question existing orthodoxies as to how international criminal courts can and should carry out their work and to seek out new, improved ways of accomplishing its work—so long as it does so without jeopardizing respect for the principle of normative continuity or the rights of those individuals for whom and to whom it is responsible.
The Mechanism’s Statute, for instance, provides for Judges to serve on a roster, to work only when needed and to carry out their functions remotely from their homes and offices in countries around the world unless they are called to one of the seats of the Mechanism’s branches. The Statute also provides for Judges to be paid by days of work (as is the case for the Judges ad hoc of the International Court of Justice), expands the competence of single Judges, and provides for certain matters to be addressed by three-Judge appeal panels. All of this reflects a new approach as compared to the ICTR and the ICTY—and is but one of myriad ways in which the Mechanism, as a matter of institutional design and through evolving practice, exemplifies an effort to address a chorus of criticisms of international criminal justice that has grown in recent years.
The rising tide of these criticisms—criticisms of the cost of international criminal courts’ operations and of the duration and selective nature of their proceedings—raises serious concerns with which all of us who care about this still developing field must grapple. Indeed, if such criticisms are left unaddressed, we risk seeing the important advances made in the fight to end impunity over the past twenty-five years fall away. As a result, it is imperative that our approach to ensuring accountability for violations of international law continue to evolve, that we encourage creative thinking and learn from past mistakes, and that we share these lessons broadly so as to maximize their benefit.
But there is only so much that international courts like the Mechanism can achieve on their own. Our success—as an institution and as a model for a new kind of international court—depends to a great extent on the support of States. Such support can take many forms: sharing ideas and suggestions for innovation; collaborating on and supporting information-sharing activities; providing vital services as a Host State; ensuring the protection of witnesses; enforcing sentences of convicted individuals; cooperating with court orders; facilitating the relocation of individuals who were acquitted or released following service of sentence; and contributing to the on-going efforts to arrest the eight remaining fugitives indicted by the ICTR, three of whom are expected to be tried by the Mechanism.
The support and cooperation of States are all the more vital given the unique structure of the Mechanism, with its operations spanning two continents and its Judges working from countries around the world, as demonstrated by the deeply troubling situation involving Mechanism Judge Aydin Sefa Akay of Turkey. The arrest of Judge Akay in Turkey in September 2016, and his continued detention there notwithstanding the formal assertion of his diplomatic immunity by the United Nations and a judicial order directing his release, has serious implications not just for the Judge himself and for the Mechanism case to which he was assigned at the time of his arrest, but also for the Mechanism’s ability to carry out its core judicial functions in accordance with the remote-judging model established by the Security Council.
Moreover, for all that the Mechanism can and will achieve as it moves forward, it inevitably will remain just one small piece of a much larger puzzle. Alone, it can never address the deeply destructive problem of the selective application of the law. The only way for the fight to end impunity for international crimes to succeed in the long term, and for the problem of selectivity—which is anathema to the rule of law—to be addressed, is for States to take action: to strengthen their own capacity to try cases involving international crimes; to contribute to the strengthening of that capacity in other States; to resist political manoeuvring aimed at shielding selected individuals from accountability; and to explore all possible avenues to ensure accountability, such as through regional courts. By taking such steps now, at this critical moment in the evolution of international justice, States will benefit from the momentum developed in the past twenty-five years in The Hague and elsewhere—and, together with the Mechanism, they will help to ensure that the ground-breaking advances made in accountability over the course of the last quarter century will benefit generations to come.
———-
The author: Judge and past President of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia; former Judge of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda; Charles L. Denison Professor Emeritus and Judicial Fellow, New York University School of Law; Visiting Professor, University of Oxford, since 2014.
By Jhr. Alexander W. Beelaerts van Blokland LL.M.
The Hague is well known as the international city that hosts not only about one hundred embassies but also very many international tribunals and Intergovernmental Organisations (IGO’s) like the International Court of Justice (ICJ), The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), the International Criminal Court (ICC), OPCW, Yougoslavia Tribunal, Iran-US Claims Tribunal, the Lebanon Tribunal, the Kosovo Tribunal etcetera.
Less well known is that over a hundred (!) of Non Governmental Organisations (NGO’s) are settled in The Hague as well. They are the results of private initiatives and act independently from governments. The NGO’s are active in many fields. They are very divers, in their aim as well as in their size. Most NGO’s in The Hague are active in one of the fields The Hagues is well known for: law, peace, security but also water and sustainability. Especially for the very many small NGO’s the city of The Hague opened some years ago two buildings where these organisations can open their office (at Laan van Meerdervoort 70 and at Zeestraat 100).
One of the new NGO’s that The Hague welcomes is Mediators Beyond Borders International (MBBI). The headquaters of MBBI are nearby Washington D.C. in the USA, but MBBI decided to open an office in The Hague as well. MBBI will settle at Laan van Meerdervoort 70.
MBBI’s device is: people building peace. The only lasting peace is the one built by the disputants themselves. MBBI works to bring mediation and peace skills to communities around the globe so they can, in turn, build a more peace ‘able’ world. To this end, MBBI organizes initiatives to address three essential objectives: capacity building, promoting mediation through advocacy and delivering consultancy services.
MBBI builds local capacities of peace and promotes mediation worldwide. MBBI does that by enhancing local capacity upon invitation, advocating for mediation in all arenas and providing consultancy services that promote peaceful conflict solution. MBBI is member of and connected to many international institutions and organisations (ECOSOC, UNFCCC etc.).
MBBI is hosting its 8th Conference in The Hague in the Peace Palace 4 – 6 October 2017, also celebrating its 10th anniversary. You are welcome.
See www.mediatorsbeyondborders.org.
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
Dr. Chen Shih-chung, Minister of Health and Welfare, Republic of China (Taiwan).
Disease knows no borders. Only by working together, leaving no one out, can we adequately address the challenges of emerging infectious diseases, which have been made all the more complex by the effects of globalization on our health environment. As influenza viruses are constantly evolving and circulating in humans, as well as a number of animal species, the specter of a potential influenza pandemic haunts us constantly.
Outbreaks of avian influenza and novel influenza have repeatedly threatened global health security in the past few years. As a result, the World Health Organization (WHO) has continuously urged nations to invest more in the development and implementation of various pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions against pandemic influenza.
Taiwan was devastated by the 2003 SARS outbreak. Many of our frontline healthcare workers became infected while caring for patients, and unfortunately, some perished, including a nurse, then in her third trimester of pregnancy. Several hospitals were closed, more than 151,000 people were quarantined at home, a travel advisory was issued, and schools closed. We paid a heavy price to learn that disease indeed respects no national borders and to recognize the importance of international collaboration in tackling the threat posed by infectious disease.
At that time, Taiwan not being a WHO member, we did not receive timely information on the SARS virus and related disease control information. We were dependent on the expertise generously shared by the US CDC on how to control the outbreak. It was not until the SARS outbreak spread to Heping Hospital that the WHO finally dispatched experts to Taiwan. This was the first such assistance the organization had provided us in 31 years. SARS was a reminder to the WHO and the international community that they could not afford to leave Taiwan out in the cold, and led them to ponder ways of bridging this gap in the global health network.
In the post-SARS period, our public health officials and experts were invited to participate in WHO SARS conferences. Following the issuance of the WHO Pandemic Influenza Preparedness and Response guidance document, Taiwan established a national stockpile of influenza antiviral drugs in 2003, formulated a national influenza pandemic preparedness and response plan in 2005, and created a prepandemic stockpile of A/H5N1 vaccine for human use in 2007. In addition, we set up a three-tier preparedness plan that includes efforts by the central government, local governments, and healthcare institutions to maintain a 30-day stockpile of personal protective equipment. We also established a communicable disease control network, designating six pandemic response hospitals across Taiwan.
Since 2005, we have been invited to attend certain WHO technical meetings on influenza, where we are able to exchange experiences with experts from around the world. Also, Taiwan was included in the framework of the WHO’s International Health Regulations (2005) in 2009, establishing a direct liaison with WHO headquarters so we could report major public health events directly to the WHO. Thanks to having these direct communication channels, Taiwan was able to effectively implement various control measures during the H1N1 influenza pandemic of 2009.
We practiced real-time surveillance, promptly notified the WHO, and shared genetic information on the H1N1 influenza virus with the international community. Further, we were able to obtain the vaccine strain to domestically produce a vaccine and reached a national vaccination coverage rate of over 70 percent, effectively reducing H1N1-associated mortality and preventing the further spread of the virus domestically and abroad.
Taiwan confirmed the world’s first human case of H6N1 avian influenza in 2013 and promptly shared genetic information on the virus with the international community. Earlier this year, we identified a human H7N9 case imported from China. Genetic data showed that the virus was highly pathogenic for poultry and had a mutation associated with resistance to commonly used antivirals. Besides reporting the case information and the test results to the WHO through the National IHR focal point, we submitted sequencing data to GISAID within three days of identifying the case and voluntarily shared the virus strain with WHO-collaborating influenza centers in the United States and Japan within a month. The sequencing data can serve as reference for the WHO Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System to select seasonal influenza vaccine strains. As a responsible member of the international community, Taiwan was glad to be able to share its experience, provide recommendations on the clinical management of H7N9, and offer other information that can serve as important reference for WHO antiviral stockpile guidelines.
Beside the continued occurrence of H5N2 avian influenza outbreaks in Taiwan, the highly pathogenic H5N6 avian influenza virus, with a mortality rate of 70 percent, and which has infected 17 people in mainland China, was found among poultry in Taiwan earlier this year. Although no human case of H5N6 has been found in Taiwan, due to our proximity to China and relevant migratory bird routes, we will continue to closely monitor avian influenza virus activity in an effort to prevent poultry-to-human transmission of the virus.
It is regrettable that political obstruction has resulted in Taiwan’s often being refused attendance at technical meetings of the WHO. This situation has created grave difficulties in Taiwan’s efforts to collaborate with the international community on disease prevention. We are profoundly disappointed that the WHO has failed to abide by its Constitution and has ignored widespread support in the international community for Taiwan’s participation in the WHA, instead bowing to political pressure from a certain member by excluding Taiwan from that body. The WHO is a professional, international health organization. It is obliged to abide by the principles espoused in its Constitution, particularly the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health for all people, regardless of race, religion, political belief, or economic or social condition. This right to health is the foundation underpinning the WHO’s previous invitations to Taiwan to participate in the WHA and, on an equal basis, in WHO activities and technical meetings.
We urge the WHO and related parties to acknowledge Taiwan’s longstanding contributions to the international community in the areas of public health, disease prevention, and the human right to health, as well as the healthcare partnerships it has forged with WHO member states. Taiwan is capable of and willing to fulfill its responsibilities and to collaborate with the WHO to deal with the challenges of disease control. The WHO should recognize the legitimacy and importance of Taiwan’s participation in the WHO and its Assembly. To bridge the gap in the global disease prevention network, Taiwan needs the WHO, but the WHO also needs Taiwan.
By Tom Chou, Representative, Taipei Representative Office in the Netherlands.
An outbreak of a highly contagious disease, such as MERS, Ebola or Zika, if not being dealt with promptly, can easily spread over the world. Therefore, no country should be left behind the security net of global health.
Taiwan has provided over US$ 6 billion in international and humanitarian aid efforts since 1996. It has benefited millions of people directly or indirectly in more than 80 countries.
Since 2009, Taiwan has been invited by the WHO to participate in the World Health Assembly (WHA) as an observer. With this new capacity, Taiwan has contributed further to the world community by sharing its valuable medical experience and advanced health technology.
Representative Tom Chou.
In the meantime, it has also benefited greatly in receiving timely information from the WHO that is critical in fighting new outbreaks of serious epidemics in other parts of the world.
Moreover, Taiwan administers the Taipei Flight Information Region, which sees over 60 million incoming and outgoing passengers, including Dutch visitors, a year. Taiwan’s participation to the WHA makes the world a safer place for all.
However, Taiwan has not yet received invitation to attend the WHA which will be held in late May of this year. The support of the international community to its continuing participation in the WHA is very important for the wellbeing of Taiwan and the world.
To mark the third International Day of Yoga, the Embassy of India, The Hague and The Gandhi Centre, the Cultural Wing of the Embassy will be organizing an event in the Atrium, City Hall of The Hague on Sunday, June 18, 2017.
The event is open to the public, free of charge, and will also be attended by members of the diplomatic corps, Dutch, Surinami-Hindustani and Indian diaspora communities. Last year, around 650 people shared the beautiful experience of a guided group yoga session held in the tranquility of The Hague City Hall Atrium.
In India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi joined 45,000 of his countrymen and women in a yoga session hosted at Capitol Complex in Chandigarh on the second International Day of Yoga (IDY) on June 21. Similar sessions were held in 177 other countries which attracted both beginners as well as experienced practitioners of yoga, making the first International Day of Yoga a global success.
Mr. Amit Khanna, the Yoga Teacher at the Gandhi Centre, the Cultural Wing of the Embassy of India in The Hague.
As part of the event, a group yoga session will be held, which will be led by Mr. Amit Khanna, the Yoga Teacher at the Gandhi Centre, the Cultural Wing of the Embassy of India, The Hague.
Mr. Khanna has been a Yoga expert, instructor, and therapist at Morarji Desai National Institute of Yoga (MDNIY), an autonomous organization under the Ministry of AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga, Siddha, Unani and Homeopathy) in India.
He has provided yoga training and therapy to more than 20,000 people in India and abroad. His guidance during the group yoga session of the International Day of Yoga 2016 in The Hague made it an unforgettable experience for both beginners as well as experienced practitioners of yoga.
Yoga, a 5,000-year-old physical, mental and spiritual practice having its origin in India, aims to transform body and mind. The United Nations recognized the universal appeal of yoga through its Resolution 69/131 which was moved by India, and co-sponsored by a record 177 countries including the Netherlands and was passed unanimously. The word ‘yoga’ which derives from Sanskrit means to join or to unite, symbolizing the union of body and consciousness.
International Yoga Day 2016, The Hague City Hall.
21 June was declared as the International Day of Yoga by the United Nations General Assembly on 11 December 2014. The declaration came after the call for the adoption of the same by Indian Prime Minister during his address to UN General Assembly on September 27, 2014 wherein he stated: “Yoga is an invaluable gift of India’s ancient tradition. It embodies unity of mind and body; thought and action; restraint and fulfillment; harmony between man and nature; a holistic approach to health and well-being. It is not about exercise but to discover the sense of oneness with yourself, the world and the nature. ”
The Secretary General to the United Nations stated that through the Adoption of the UN Resolution on the International Day of Yoga, “The General Assembly has recognized the holistic benefits of this timeless practice and its inherent compatibility with the principles and values of the United Nations”.
He further stated: “Yoga offers a simple, accessible and inclusive means to promote physical and spiritual health and well-being. It promotes respect for one’s fellow human beings and for the planet we share. And yoga does not discriminate; to varying degrees, all people can practice, regardless of their relative strength, age or ability.”
Pianist Beka Gochiashvili and Ambassador Konstantine Surguladze.By Roy Lie A Tjam.
A double celebration: 26 years of reestablishment of independence and 25 years of bilateral diplomatic relations with the Netherlands
An Invitation by H.E. Mr. Konstantine Surguladze Ambassador of Georgia to attend a piano concert and reception on the occasion of Georgia’s National Day and the celebration of 25 years of cordial bilateral diplomatic relations between the Republic of Georgia and the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
For additional Robert Huiberts’ pictures, please open the following link: https://www.flickr.com/photos/121611753@N07/albums/72157682568778890Ambassador Konstantine Surguladze and his family.
The piano concert was by a renowned Georgian jazz pianist Beka Gochiashvili who currently resides in the USA.
Ambassador Surguladze, outfitted in an authentic Georgian attire the Chokha, stole the show. By putting on a chokha one is saying “I am a Georgian” Beka Gochiashvili played his well-known number Shumba, which he had dedicated to the victims of the enormous floods back in Tbilisi back in 2015.
Mr. Marko Korac, OPCW and H.E. Mikalai Barysevich Ambassador fo Belarus.
Enjoying the concert and braving the high temperature(27) was a large group of members of the Diplomatic community, Dutch entrepreneurs, Government representatives along with the Georgian diaspora. Ambassador Konstantine Surguladze in his welcome remarks, praised the long-standing good relationship with the Netherlands and commended the hardworking and proud Georgian people.
An exquisite Georgian buffet concluded an afternoon of Georgian hospitality at the Royal Theater in the Hague on 29 May 2017.
Mr. and spouse Ekatherina Dugladze.
