By Jhr. Alexander W. Beelaerts van Blokland LL.M. On Wednesday March 15th 2017 the Dutch will elect a new Parliament, for the first time since 2012. In the recent weeks many foreign diplomats, judges and other expats frequently asked me about it. I noticed a lot of misunderstandings about these elections. I will mention some of them now. No, the Dutch do not elect both parts of our parliament, but only the 150 members of the House of Representatives (the so called ‘Tweede Kamer’, the Second Chamber). The Senate (the so called ‘Eerste Kamer’, the First Chamber) will be elected in another year and not directly by the people but via indirect elections:  by the members of the so called ‘Provinciale Staten’, the counsillors of the twelve provinces, who themselves are elected directly by the people. No, the Dutch do not elect a Prime Minister. We vote for a party, most people vote for the number one of a party on the list, but one can vote for another person of that list as well. If that party receives for instance ten times the votes a party needs for one seat, the first ten persons of that list will be elected, but it can happen that a person lower on the list gets so many so called preferential votes that he or she will be elected directly in stead of the –in my example- number ten of the list. We have many parties. Never in our history one party won the majority of 50 % plus one or more. In the polls the two leading parties both have less than twenty percent of the voters at this moment, three weeks before the elections. No, the leader of the winning party will not become automatically the Prime Minister. In most cases that leader will try to form a government together with other parties. Together they seek (but that is not obligatory) at least 76 seats in the new Tweede Kamer and a majority in the Senate as well. Although normally the leader of the winning party will become after some months the new Prime Minister, in recent history it happened that the number two in the elections (1977, Mr van Agt) or even the number four (1971, Mr Biesheuvel) became Prime Minister. The government of this moment has only two parties, but that is an exception. Most people expect a coalition of at least four or five parties later this year. No, when the elections do bring another party into power, that does not have as a consequence that Dutch ambassadors, prosecutors, judges etcetera will be replaced by others. Judges have been even nominated for life, nevertheless they will have to retire at the age of seventy. In my case: next year. ——– About the author: Jhr. Alexander W. Beelaerts van Blokland LL.M. is Justice (Judge) in the (Dutch) Court of Appeal and was appointed Special Advisor International Affairs by the Mayor and Aldermen of The Hague. a.beelaerts@planet.nl    

Multiculturalism is dead? Not quite yet. Recalibrate expectations and travel beyond Europe.   By Alessio Stilo.   Multicultural approaches and policies vary widely all over the world, ranging from the advocacy of equal respect to the various cultures in a society, to a policy of promoting the maintenance of cultural diversity, to policies in which people of various ethnic and religious groups are addressed by the authorities as defined by the group to which they belong. Two different strategies, as recently pointed out by Ms. Camilla Habsburg-Lothringen, have been developed through different government policies and strategies: The first, often labelled as interculturalism, focuses on interaction and communication between different cultures. The second one, cohabitative multi-culti does center itself on diversity and cultural uniqueness; it sees cultural isolation as a protection of uniqueness of the local culture of a nation or area and also a contribution to global cultural diversity. A sort of “third way” between the two above-mentioned strategies has been traditioned and further enhanced by core Asian counties, e.g. Azerbaijan, where state policy has been accompanied, in a complementary way, to a certain activism of intermediate bodies (civil society, universities, think tanks). Multiculturalism is a state policy of Azerbaijan and it has become a way of life of the republic ensuring mutual understanding and respect for all identities. The year 2016 has been declared the Year of Multiculturalism in Azerbaijan, as stated by President Ilham Aliyev on January 10. This decision was made taking into account the fact that Azerbaijan brings an important contribution to the traditions of tolerance and intercivilization dialogue. Its peculiar location between Eastern Europe and Western Asia and its sociopolitical context – where people of various religions and ethnicities have lived together in mutual respect – have allowed Azerbaijan to adopt a multicultural-led agenda as a strategic tool of foreign policy. Despite challenges due to the instability of the area and unresolved armed conflict with neighboring Armenia for the control of Nagorno-Karabakh, Baku has made an effort to create and foster the necessary political and social conditions for developing and strengthening the country’s traditions of multiculturalism and tolerance. From a historical perspective, representatives of many ethnic and religious groups have lived together with Azerbaijanis since the era of the Safavids’ empire and during the XIX-XX centuries, including the period of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic incorporated into the Soviet Union. Today Azerbaijan, a country which established the first secular democracy in the Muslim world in 1918 and offered women the right to vote in 1919, acts as a model for peaceful coexistence of members of different cultures. It hosts one of the oldest mosques in the world, in the city of Shamakhi, dating from 743, and also one of the oldest Christian churches, an Armenian church from the 12-13 century. Not to mention one of the oldest churches in the Caucasus near the city of Sheki – the Church of Caucasian Albania, and a Zoroastrian temple, a temple of fire worshipers, not far from Baku. Azerbaijan has been inhabited by representatives of different religions and cultures throughout history, demonstrating a deep heritage of coexistence among different religions. Indeed, currently there are more than 649 registered religious communities in the Republic of Azerbaijan, among which 37 are non-Islamic. It has 13 functioning churches. The building of the Jen Mironosets Church (built by Hadji Zeynalabdin Tagiyev in 1907) was granted to the Russian Orthodox Church in 1991. Aleksi II, Patriarch of Moscow and all Rus’, who was on a visit in Azerbaijan in May 2001, granted the status of church to this temple. Currently there are three Russian Orthodox Churches in Baku, one in Gandja and one in Khachmaz. The Catholic community was registered in Azerbaijan in 1999. A special building for the conduction of religious ceremonies was purchased for the community and it became a church in 2000. According to the agreement between the Azerbaijani Government and Vatican, the Roman Catholic Church has been constructed in 2007 in Baku. It is more than 2500 years that the Jews have settled in Azerbaijan, never suffering religious intolerance or discrimination; currently six Jewish religious communities are registered and seven synagogues are functioning. Azerbaijan contributes also to the world heritage. Restoration of Roman catacombs, Strasbourg Cathedral Church, ancient masterpieces in Versailles (Paris), Capitolini Museum (Roma), Louvre Museum (Paris), Trapezitsa Museum (Bulgaria) etc. by Heydar Aliyev Foundation are typical example of these contribution. Development of multiculturalism and tolerance at the level of State policy in Azerbaijan is based on ancient history of statehood of the country and on development of these traditions. Nowadays, thanks to efforts of the government, this political behavior has acquired a form of ideology of statehood and political practice (state policy), whereas the political bases of these concepts have found their reflection in relevant clauses of articles of the Constitution, legal acts, decrees and orders. Regarding one of the facets of this conception – religious freedom – it is also worth noting that article 48 of Azerbaijani Constitution ensures the liberty of worship, to choose any faith, or to not practice any religion, and to express one’s view on the religion. Moreover, the law of the Republic of Azerbaijan (1992) “On freedom of faith” ensures the right of any human being to determine and express his view on religion and to execute this right. According to paragraphs 1-3 of Article 18 of the Constitution the religion acts separately from the government, each religion is equal before the law and the propaganda of religions, abating human personality and contradicting to the principles of humanism is prohibited. The above-mentioned laws make Azerbaijan a modern de jure secular state, as well as de facto. As a consequence of this public support, expressed through material and financial assistance from the budget of Country and Presidential foundation, there are dozens of national-cultural centers functioning at present. They include “Commonwealth” society, Russian community, Slavic cultural center, Azerbaijani-Israeli community, Ukrainian community, Kurdish cultural center “Ronai”, Lezgin national center “Samur”, Azerbaijani-Slavic culture center, Tat cultural center, Azerbaijani-Tatar community, Tatar culture society “Tugan-tel”, Tatar cultural center “Yashlyg”, Crimean Tatars society “Crimea”, Georgian community, humanitarian society of Azerbaijani Georgians, Ingiloyan community, Chechen cultural center, “Vatan” society of Akhyska-Turks, “Sona” society of the women of Akhyska-Turks, Talysh cultural center, Avar society, mountain Jews community, European Jews (Ashkenazi) community, Georgian Jews community, Jewish women humanitarian association, German cultural society “Kapelhaus”, Udin cultural center, Polish cultural center “Polonia”, “Mada” International Talysh Association, “Avesta” Talysh Association, Udin “Orain” Cultural Center, “Budug” Cultural Center, Tsakhur Cultural Center. Not to mention the club-based amateur societies, national and state theatres, amateur associations and interest-focused clubs in areas with compact minority populations. The State also supports dozens of magazines, newspapers, radio and television programs which are expression of language minorities. Declaration of the Year of Multiculturalism in Azerbaijan took place against the backdrop of religiously motivated ethnic conflicts in the Middle East. This kind of State-led multiculturalism, which could be considered as a form of soft power, is intended to be introduced as a model of multiculturalism elsewhere, especially to states and societies of the Middle East, where radicalism has spread rapidly over the last 20 years. In recent years Baku has hosted numerous international events, starting from the Baku International Humanitarian Forum. The capital of Azerbaijan has hosted this Forum since 2011, which aims to build an authoritative international platform for world scientists and culture figures as well as acclaimed experts to discuss pressing global humanitarian challenges. The Baku International Humanitarian Forum is attended by well-known statesmen, public figures and prominent scientists, including 13 Nobel Prize winners, as well as journalists, representatives of non-governmental organizations and other distinguished guests. Since 2011 Baku has hosted the World Forum on Intercultural Dialogue, in partnership with UNAOC, UNESCO, UN World Tourism Organization, Council of Europe and ISESCO. Through this initiative known as “Baku process”, Azerbaijan acknowledges the power of intercultural dialogue and the possibility to create the conditions for positive intercultural and inclusive relations. At the same time, hosting the first ever European Games in 2015, Azerbaijan will conduct the Islamic Solidarity Games in 2017. This year Baku has hosted the 7th Global Forum of the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations (April 25-27), which aims to reach a more peaceful and socially inclusive world, by building mutual respect among people of different cultural and religious identities, and highlighting the will of the world’s majority to reject extremism and embrace diversity. With the same purpose, in 2014 was established the Baku International Multiculturalism Center, aimed to preserve ethnic, religious and cultural diversity of the country. It has also been created to introduce Azerbaijan as a centre of multiculturalism to the world, and carried out research into and promoted existing multicultural models of the world. One of the mainstream projects of the Centre is promoting a special University course entitled “Azerbaijani multiculturalism” at local and foreign universities. The promoters already managed to incorporate this course into the teaching programs of some top ranked universities (Sapienza University in Rome, Charles University in Prague, Fribourg University in Switzerland) across Europe, as well as in Russia, Georgia and in Indonesia. The Center has also initiated the publication of a series of books under the title “Sources of Azerbaijani Multiculturalism”. Within the framework of the Year of Multiculturalism, Baku International Multiculturalism Centre launched the Summer School and Winter School programs every year for students and researches interested in enhancing and deepening their knowledge in this issue (theoretical and practical knowledge), and explore new topics regarding Azerbaijani multiculturalism. In a recent visit to Baku (October 2016), Pope Francis  praised Azerbaijan as a place of religious tolerance after meeting with Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev and after a private meeting with Sheikh ul-Islam, the region’s grand mufti, before the two men held an interreligious meeting at the country’s largest mosque with Orthodox Christian, Muslim and Jewish leaders. A significant activism of civil society in this issue is also demonstrated by many initiatives and projects created by Azerbaijani think tanks and academic groups. One of the most interesting and relevant is the International Multicultural Network (IMN) founded and headed by Dr. Khayala Mammadova, which is “an online presence to connect researchers and practitioners with an interest in multiculturalism, aimed at promoting and disseminating research on the multifaceted multicultural agenda and for comprised of scholars, state and community actors specialising in the fields of multiculturalism, intercultural and interreligious relations across diverse disciplines and geographical regions”. It connects researchers from all ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Likewise, it appoints Country Representatives, and promotes publications (books, journal articles, research reports), discussions and events in order to advise, educate and inform on subjects related to multiculturalism and cultural diversity. We can mention, among the most significant international partners of the International Multicultural Network, “The Prisma – The Multicultural Newspaper”, a London-based newspaper which “works for the elimination of racial and cultural prejudices, and is committed to social justice and equality of opportunity”, and is aimed at promoting and defending these values of the multicultural society of the UK, especially in the case of Latin Americans. Using its peculiar way to multiculturalism as a strategic tool of foreign policy and defending itself from religious and political extremism, Azerbaijan represents a country’s success story that could give Europe a contribution in its difficult approach to this issue. Multiculturalism is a divisive subject of debate in almost all European nations that are associated with a single, national cultural ethos. As the latest datas confirm, European Union is facing unprecedented demographic changes (ageing population, low birth rates, changing family structures and migration) which are likely to change the internal structure of its member states over the next 50 years. Despite Europe has always been a mixture of different cultures, unified by the super-position of Imperial Roman Christianity, the ideology of nationalism (XIX-XX century) transformed the way Europeans thought about theirselves and the state. The new nation-states sprang up on the principle that each nation is entitled to its own sovereignty and to engender, protect, and preserve its own unique culture and history. Social unity, according to this ideology, is seen as an essential feature of the nation, understood as unity of descent, unity of culture, unity of language, and often unity of religion. The European nation-state, at least until the mid-twentieth century, constitutes a culturally homogeneous society, although some national movements recognizes regional differences. Bearing in mind this context, during the latest decades some of the European countries – especially France – have tried to culturally assimilate the regional minorities, or any other ethnic/linguistic/religious group different from the national majority, while ensuring them every individual and group right. Nevertheless, after the economic crisis of 2007-2008 and the increasing of migration resulting from riots and civil wars within the Arab-Islamic world, criticism of multiculturalism has become stronger and stronger in the Old Continent. This position questions the ideal of the maintenance of distinct ethnic cultures within a state and sometimes argues against cultural integration of different ethnic and cultural groups to the existing laws and values of the country. Alternatively critics may argue for assimilation of different ethnic and cultural groups to a single national identity. Thirty years ago, many Europeans saw multiculturalism as an answer to Europe’s social problems. Today, according to multiculturalism’s critics, it allowed excessive immigration without demanding enough integration, a mismatch that has eroded social cohesion, undermined national identities, and degraded public trust. However, as argued by Kenan Malik on Foreign Affairs, multiculturalism in Europe has become a proxy for other social and political issues: immigration, identity, political disenchantment, working-class decline. “As a political tool, multiculturalism has functioned as not merely a response to diversity but also a means of constraining it”, writes Malik. “And that insight reveals a paradox. Multicultural policies accept as a given that societies are diverse, yet they implicitly assume that such diversity ends at the edges of minority communities”. In his luminary book ‘Europe of Sarajevo 100 years later’, prof. Anis Bajrektarevic diagnosed that ‘multiculturalism in not dead but dread in Europe’. “There is a claim constantly circulating the EU: ‘multiculturalism is dead in Europe’. Dead or maybe d(r)ead?… That much comes from a cluster of European nation-states that love to romanticize – in a grand metanarrative of dogmatic universalism – their appearance as of the coherent Union, as if they themselves lived a long, cordial and credible history of multiculturalism. Hence, this claim and its resonating debate is of course false. It is also cynical because it is purposely deceiving. No wonder, as the conglomerate of nation-states/EU has silently handed over one of its most important debates – that of European anti-fascistic identity, or otherness – to the wing-parties. This was repeatedly followed by the selective and contra-productive foreign policy actions of the Union over the last two decades.” – writes prof. Bajrektarevic on the most pressing issue of today’s Europe. Thus, as it seems to look for the multiculturalism one has to search beyond Europe.Starting from this theoretical point, the traditional and modern reinvigorated Azerbaijan experience about multiculturalism could teach Europe an important lesson: addressing issues and policies on multiculturalism requires an approach that combines state policies with resourcefulness of civil society and intermediate bodies. An approach which would avoid, on the one hand, the distortion of local peoples and migrants, and on the other hand would waste assimilationism. In other words, a new “foedus” (pact, alliance) which would preserve rights and culture of minorities, while ensuring the values of the majority of the population. —————– About the author: Alessio Stilo, Research Associate at Institute of High Studies in Geopolitics and Auxiliary Sciences (IsAG), Rome, Italy, and Ph.D. researcher at University of Padova, is IMN Country Representative in Italy.

By Nika Salvetti and André Nijhof.   It is remarkable to see how fast the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development has become a common language for governments, corporates and not for profit organizations. This agenda was adopted by world leaders in September 2015 at the United Nations. For example the photo illustrates how two people from a public and a private company pose for the 17 SDGs with “Sierra Leone and the World want to achieve these 17 goals by 2030” on top. Before we had the Millennium Development Goals. In 15 years they never had such an impact on the debate between governments, NGOs and companies as the SDGs achieved in just 1,5 years. How come? We believe the main reason is that the “power engine” for the SDGs is different! Standards like the SDGs are delivered with three different engines. A first engine is labelled as compliance. This engine requires the combination the establishment of clear and unambiguous norms, monitoring whether behavior and results are in congruence with these norms and the application of meaningful sanctions or rewards to link consequences to compliant behavior. The OEDC guidelines for multinational enterprises with the complaint mechanism at the national contact points is a good example of this approach. A second engine is labelled as engagement. It requires a sense of responsibility of the people involved, open space to learn how to build upon this responsibility and complete transparency about the progress so all actors involved can ask for justification in order to stimulate continuous improvement. The “We are the World” campaign was a typical example of this approach. However there is also a third engine that is used way too often. It is labelled as the Laissez Faire approach. It basically means that certain intentions are established and that it is left for good faith to see what might come from these intentions. The next figure summarizes the three approaches. The success of the SDGs is in our opinion based on a strong engagement approach. Engagement is not based on “blind trust” – like the Laissez Faire approach. It is based on “deserved trust”. And that requires ongoing dialogue about the 17 principles of the SDGs and why they might be important to the actors involved. It also means space to learn and become more capable. This has to happen in a context with many obstacles like anti-trust legislation while pre-competitive dialogues are crucial for engagement. And a strong engagement approach has to come together with extreme transparency and a culture of justification. That is still largely lacking. At present the transparency about the SDGs is a showcase of good practices but extreme transparency also requires sharing the doubts people have, the projects that failed and a culture that is based on the belief that full transparency will strengthen the development. We believe embassies and other actors in international diplomacy can fulfil a very important role to strengthen the engagement approach around the SDGs in the specific countries and regions. And we know it will be rewarding role because the SDGs envision what might be come possible. Especially if we add an 18th principle that is proposed by our colleague Herman Mulder: “SDG 18 – Leave no SDG behind”. ————— About the authors: Phd Candidate Nika Salvetti, Program Leader Business & Peace. UPEACE Centre The Hague. Email: mailto:nsalvetti@upeace.org(for more information about the Program on Business & Peace please check our website www.upeace.nl)   André Nijhof, Professor in Sustainable Business and Stewardship, Nyenrode Business Universiteit. Email: A.Nijhof@nyenrode.nl

By Corneliu Pivariu, CEO INGEPO Consulting, MG (two stars general – ret.) At the end of the first decade of this February, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini, paid an official visit to the USA where she had multiple meetings with important political personalities of the new Administration, the Secretary of State Rex Tillerson included. She was also invited to the Atlantic Council on 10th of February where she had an extended public debate particularly on the prospects of the UE-USA relationship after the inauguration of the new Administration in Washington. The assertion according to which the new Donald Trump Administration “would have mentioned that the European Union is not really a good idea and suggested to dismantle what the Community block succeeded to build and confered Europe not only peace but also economic strength” stood out. “It is nor up to me and neither up to other European to talk about internal political elections or USA’s decisions. The same thing applies to Europe, no interventions”, Mogherini stated. “America First means also you have to deal first with the USA” she went on. She stressed as well that “80% of the foreign investments in the USA come from Europe”. Were really these accents neccesary to be part of the panoply of arguments the high representative of the EU should have displayed at Washington? Or stressing instead that the EU is “still made up of 28 states and we will continue to be 28”. These assertions and others we do not mention here leave the impression – at least to a neutral observer – that Her Excellency Federica Mogherini did not come to the European Union’s most important political partner in order to find common possibilities of developing the relationship between the two sides but to present the strengths and the possibilities to an interlocutor… who doesn’t know the European realities. Or, considering the USA as such a partner is at least a devoid of inspiration attitude, unrealistic or even unfortunate and we could continue the series of the epithets suitable to HE Mogherini’s attitude. Has her position anything to do with president Donald Tusk’s mention in a letter sent to the 28 member countries of the EU where he describes the USA under Donald Trump’s presidency as “an external threat” to Europe’s stability the same way as Russia, China, radical islamism and terrorism are? Or with the UE’s chief negotiator for BREXIT – Guy Verhofstandt (former Belgian prime minister), in a speech delivered at Chatham House, that president Trump has in view to undermine the unity of the Western Europe’s nations? The EU’s unity is best undermined by some member countries and the specific interests of each of them that prevails many times over the Union’s general interest which remained more of a slogan on paper and in which fewer and fewer believe. HE Mogherini is proud of the 60th anniversary of the Union in March, this year but forgets completely that during the last decade the EU witnessed a crisis it didn’s solve yet and which accentuated during her mandate (begining of 2014) at least by the refugees crisis. How could HE Mogherini consider the EU’s inability (not to use another term) to secure at least a limitation of the energy dependency to Russia during the last 15-20 years, the failure of NABUCO being the most telling example in this regard? Is it a signal of unity and of a common action to Europe’s interest? Or how could the more and more frequent signals coming from different member countries concerning setting out more clearly a two-speed Europe even within the eurozone be interpreted? What will happen with the eurozone countries’ debt (as percentage of GDP): Greece around 180%; Italy almost 140%, France almost 100%; around 90% for the eurozone in total or 85% of the 28 countries? If we don’t acknowledge the realities, does it mean they do not exist? At the end we could relieve ourselves: president Jean Claude Junker declared he would not run for a new mandate. As if he was already intensely required to continue leading the EU towards…abyss. For those interested in details concerning the position of the European leader in Washington we reccomend the transcript titled “Remarks by High Representative/Vice-President Federica Mogherini at the public event A Conversation with H.E. Federica Mogherini at the Atlantic Council”, https://eeas.europa.eu (around 16 pages). ————- About the author: Corneliu Pivariu, former first deputy for military intelligence (two stars general) in the Romanian MoD, retired 2003. Member of IISS – London, alumni of Harvard – Kennedy School Executive Education and others international organizations. Founder of INGEPO Consulting, and bimonthly Bulletin, Geostrategic Pulse”. Main areas of expertise – geopolitics, intelligence and security. Photographer: Ionus Paraschiv.

By Markus Wauran. There were so many controversial statements made by Donald Trump during the United States Presidential Election, which makes many parties underestimated Trump’s chance to victory towards the White House. One of Trump’s controversial statements was during an exclusive interview with the New York Times on Sunday, 20 March 2016. Trump said if he is elected as US President, he would be open to Japan and South Korea producing their nuclear deterrent. They should not always be depending on the US military to protect themselves from North Korea and China. The US military would not be able to protect Japan and South Korea for a long period of time. He argued that the US cannot always be the policemen of the world. Trump also asserted that there will be a point where the US could not be able to do all that anymore. North Korea probably has their nuclear arsenal, so he would rather have Japan and South Korea having a nuclear capability too, as we are living in a nuclear world right now. This controversial statement alarmed the world and received a strong reaction from various sides. President Obama, during the sidelines of Nuclear Security Summit in Washington on Friday, 1 April 2016, among others stated that all this time the US involvement in the Asia-Pacific region has been important. Because it is also the safeguard key that maintain the peace between the US and countries in that region up until now. Having US presence is very important to withstand any conflicts between each other. Therefore, Obama continued, the person (Donald Trump) who made such comments does not know much about policies, as well as nuclear policy, or the Korean peninsula, or even about the world in general. Japan and South Korea has been considered important as the pillars of US presence in Asia Pacific, as it advantaged the US quite substantially on the trade side, and prevent nuclear escalation and conflict. Japan’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Fumio Kishida as quoted by CNN, also reacted by expressing his disagreement with Trump’s proposal, saying it is impossible for Japan to build a nuclear capability. Japan is the only country that has experienced a nuclear attack, and if they follow Trump’s proposal, there will be a chance that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki tragedy can happen again. Contradict Jonathan Cristal, a professor and observer from a think-thank agency, the World Policy Institute in New York, also commented by saying that Trump’s proposal is contrary to the government’s commitment to strengthen the alliance with various countries like Japan and South Korea, the two strongest allies in Southeast Asia. Cristal, stated that Japan and South Korea will consider various options if true that the US is no longer protecting them. First option, Japan and South Korea will pay a protection fee to the US, similar to the way Estonia contributed 2% of their GDP to NATO for protection. Second option, Japan and South Korea will develop their own nuclear weapon. Cristal concluded his statement by saying if Trump ignored the US alliance in Asia and triggered Japan and South Korea to produce nuclear weapon, there will be a domino effect following to happen to other countries. Trump’s statements is in fact denying international convention, which regulated in the NPT (Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty) set by the United Nations on 12 June 1968 in New York, and effective from 5 March 1950, and which the US ratified. Basically, the NPT consists of three pillars, namely: first, non-proliferation, i.e. nuclear-weapon states pledge not to add and must reduce as well as revoke/separate their nuclear warheads; second, disarmament, i.e. nuclear weapons eradication which non-nuclear-weapon states pledge not to acquire and manufacture nuclear weapons; third, peaceful use, that is nuclear energy serve only for peaceful purposes. As a matter of fact, the NPT was inspired by President Eisenhower, one of Donald Trump’s predecessors (also from the Republic Party), from his speech in the UN General Assembly session, 18 December 1953, entitled “Atom for Peace”. Almost all states ratified the NPT except India, Pakistan, and Israel. North Korea ratified the NPT on 20 December 1985 and withdrawn from the treaty on 10 April 2003. On the other hand, after the NPT signing, there are only five states recognized as nuclear-weapon states, namely US, Russia, UK, France, and China. We can have a different opinion with the above statement from Trump. But as the new US leader, Trump will do his best for the people of the US, to make US great again as promised in his campaign. Trump’s statement is probably due to some of the following:

• First, US reducing the burden as a country that has been a guarantor of the security of Japan and South Korea if attacked by other countries, and the focus right now came from China and North Korea.
• Second, renegotiating the terms of payment to be received by the US from having their troops on the ground, as many as 54.000 in Japan and 28.500 in South Korea, in which Japan paid USD 1.6 billion and South Korea USD 866 million annually.
• Third, creating a balance of power among nuclear-weapon states in East Asia, which is currently being monopolized by China and followed by North Korea.
• Fourth, if there is a nuclear race, triggered by Japan and South Korea, the US will be very much advantaged as the main supplier, although it would violate the NPT, which the US is one of the signatories. The US weapon industry is allegedly influenced by sympathizers of the Republican Party and many prominent figures from the Party are known to be belligerent. For example when President Nixon, the Vietnam War happened, President Reagan with his Star Wars concept and the bombing of Muammar Kaddafi’s residence, the leader of Libya, President Bush (senior and junior) the Afghanistan War and Iraq War broke out.
• Fifth, diverting or creating East Asia as the new crisis region beside the Middle East, whereas the US will be benefited economically, politically, and militarily; sixth, balancing the military/arms advancement of China as well as to counter the aggressiveness of North Korea.

After the statement and announcement of Donald Trump as the winner of the US Presidential election, there is an interesting development that can be analyzed further. The development is the signing of a nuclear agreement/treaty between PM Shinzo Abe from Japan and PM Narendra Modi from India on 11 November 2016, in Tokyo. The content of the agreement/treaty is that for Japan companies to be able to export nuclear technologies to India. We know that the India and China relation has been hostile for a long time, and just recently the dispute and tension over Senkaku Island is also escalated. The Japan-India nuclear agreement gave a strong indication that both countries are on their way to creating an alliance, in parallel with strengthening the longstanding strategic alliances between the US, Japan and South Korea, to counter the expansive behavior of China and the aggressiveness North Korea. To neutralize the agreement and as not to arouse any suspicions based from Trump’s statement, PM Shinzo Abe stated that the agreement constitutes a legal framework to ensure that India is using its nuclear energy responsibly. After the Donald Trump’s upcoming inauguration as the President of the US in 20 January 2017, it is hoped that Trump’s statement will not become his policy. The role of the UN to reassure Trump to comply with the NPT is very much needed, similarly to Japan and South Korea as member states of the Treaty, to adhere with the NPT and not to produce a nuclear weapon. As we know that Japan and South Korea are very advanced and have their grip on nuclear technology, so it will not be hard for both countries to produce a nuclear weapon. If Trump remains on his stance and Japan and South Korea implement the idea, it will create a domino effect where other states in the Asia region will not stay idle. They will definitely take measures to keep and defend their sovereignty. There may be an ASEAN state that will extricate itself from the joint commitment of SEANWFZ (South East Asian Nuclear Weapon Free Zone) Treaty, putting its national interest above all else. On the other hand, China and North Korea will keep on competing to enhance their nuclear capabilities. As a result, the East Asia region, including ASEAN, will be a hot zone and it is not impossible that a Nuclear War may well be started from East Asia. About the author: Markus Wauran, has a Bachelor in Public Administration, he was a member of the House of Representatives of Indonesia (DPR/MPR-RI) period of 1987-1999 and Chairman of Committee X, covering Science and Technology, Environment and National Development Planning (1988-1997). Currently Mr. Wauran is  an Observer of Nuclear for peace.

Tunisia has held yearly investment conferences since the revolution to promote its role as regional hub. Source: Magharebia. By Christiaan Duinmaijer, CEO Assarwa – MENA Business Consultants. Cradle of the Arab Spring, winner of the Nobel Peace Price and international investment destination. Tunisia was praised for its many successes over the last few years, but the road to success is a difficult one as His Excellency Elyes Ghariani, Ambassador of Tunisia in the Netherlands, and Mokhtar Chouari, General Delegate of the FIPA for the Benelux, can attest.

It all started with the 2010 Jasmine revolution when Tunisians took to the streets, demanding bread and jobs. Ambassador Ghariani: “It was a unique revolution as it was not driven by politics or ideology, but by social media and calls for dignity.” After the revolution new political parties were formed, elections were held and work started on a new constitution. However, the country soon faced a growing security crisis, cumulating in a political crisis in 2013 after the assassination of two opposition leaders. Ambassador Ghariani: “Terrorism was a new phenomenon in Tunisia. The Tunisian government spent initially more money on education than on security. Now 20% of the government budget goes to security.” Tunisia emerged stronger from this crisis thanks to its strong civil society, resulting in a new constitution and elections in 2014. Ambassador Ghariani: “The political situation in Tunisia is now excellent. Democracy is not like Nescafé, an instant solution. It needs time to grow.”

However, Tunisia still faced many economic challenges: high unemployment, underdeveloped regions and stagnating growth and investment. In order to tackle these problems the Tunisian government began working on an ambitious development plan, resulting in the National Plan 2016-2020. The plan focuses on good governance, green economy and economic, human and regional development. Mr. Chouari: “The most important goal of this plan is job creation. Unemployment for Tunisians with education is 30%.” Ambassador Ghariani adds: “We want to prevent that unemployed Tunisians join terrorist groups or migrate illegally to Europe. It is better to keep them in Tunisia.” Tunisia also replaced its old investment law with a new one. Mr. Chouari: “The new investment law gives investors more freedom, opens more sectors to foreign investment and offers investors more incentives. The old investment law gave mostly incentives for exporting companies or companies in less developed areas. The new law adds incentives based on employability and value added.” According to the IMF, these plans will give the Tunisian economy a boost and its GDP may grow to 4.3% in 2021. Ambassador Ghariani points out that Tunisia has a lot to offer: “Tunisia is currently negotiating a free trade agreement with the EU for agricultural goods. I was member of the team which negotiated the current Free Trade Agreement for industrial goods with the EU. We create a win-win situation in Tunisia. We offer companies a good production location, while they create jobs and transfer know-how. For this reason, large companies like Airbus and Benetton produce in Tunisia.”

Mr. Chouari adds: “Tunisia is strategically located close to Europe, and offers as a regional hub access to the African market, especially French speaking Africa.” Already eighty Dutch companies are active in Tunisia along with hundreds of Italian and German companies and thousands of French companies, but both gentlemen hope that the new laws and incentives will attract more foreign companies.

In November a large international conference was held to promote Tunisia’s new economic agenda. The event was attended by more than sixty countries which pledged fourteen billion dollar to support Tunisia. The Netherlands showed its solidarity with a visit of prime-minister Mark Rutte to Tunisia. Ambassador Ghariani: “It was an historical visit and we are happy that we are on the radar in the Netherlands.” However, the Ambassador doesn’t understand why the Dutch travel advice for Tunisia is still ‘only essential travel’: “Why does the Netherlands consider Tunisia more dangerous for its people than France, Belgium or the USA? If there is a country that knows Tunisia, it is France. If the Netherlands wants to help Tunisia, it should let its tourists come.” Mr. Chouari: “It is the role of the FIPA to provide information on the investment opportunities in Tunisia to Dutch companies. The Netherlands and Tunisia are natural trading partners and Tunisia offers a lot of opportunities in important sectors, like the mechanical, electric and electronic industries and IT.” In order to enhance the visibility of Tunisia in the Netherlands Fenedex and FIPA Tunisia organize a special Tunisia seminar on April 21^st in Zoetermeer. Mr. Chouari: “We expect around 100 participants, including three Tunisian officers from different sectors. The event will help create new partnerships and offers network opportunities for Dutch companies.” ————- For more information on this event, visit the Fenedex website or send an email to info@assarwa.nl

Mr Nissana Thaveepanit, Minister Counsellor for Commerce, Royal Thai Embassy and his family. By Roy Lie A Tjam. Having had the pleasure of meeting with the Minister Counsellor for Commerce at the Royal Thai Embassy in The Hague, Mr Nissana Thaveepanit, on several occasions, Diplomat Magazine Editor Roy Lie-A-Tjam took the opportunity to find out more about what diplomats do with their leisure time when serving abroad. A diplomat’s job As head of the Thai Trade Centre, the Minister Counsellor has a close relationship with his team. Together they oversee Thailand’s trade interests in the Netherlands and are responsible for promoting Thai products in the Benelux region. The Office of Commercial Affairs does this by organizing several large- and small-scale interactive presentations throughout the year. These events are organized all over the Netherlands, and provide opportunities for the Minister Counsellor and his team to meet (local) business people and better understand Dutch consumers. Living in the Netherlands Nissana and his family have been in the Netherlands over a year now. Nissana particularly enjoys the tranquillity of his newly acquired town of The Hague and proximity to the beach. Among the first things he and his family noticed was the open-minded and friendly attitude of the Dutch people. Leisure activities Besides promoting Thai commerce, Nissana makes time for leisure. One of the many perks of the Netherlands is that museums are child-friendly, and Nissana enjoys visiting them with his wife and two children, who are 3 and 7 years respectively. Another activity Nissana enjoys is visiting local Thai restaurants. Authentic Thai food reminds him of home, and sometimes he is able to combine cuisine with work by taking delegations to Thai select restaurants. Diplomatic hobbies Many diplomats try to maintain some of their old habits when posted abroad, finding a club to practice a sport they love or a seeking a place frequented by kindred spirits. Nissana appreciates football but also loves cycling, reading, photography, and golf. You can’t beat the Dutch when it comes to cycling, he adds, joking that they always overtake foreigners no matter how hard they peddle. As for reading, Nissana focuses on (mostly local) political-economic subjects and history. The Minister Counsellor needs to keep a close track of the economic developments in the Netherlands, as well as in the EU more broadly. Room for improvement Nissana notes that one of the issues faced by diplomats and other expats is that there is no proper English daily newspaper in the Benelux region. The FD (Financieel Dagblad) used to carry an English business section some years ago, but no longer. He adds that there is also ample room for improvement in the professional and personal interaction between diplomats from different parts of the world; regular interaction among young diplomats in particular is often along regional lines. Doing business with the Dutch The Minister Counsellor of Commerce perceives doing business with the Dutch as pleasant and straightforward. The Dutch are trustworthy people, somewhat direct but always agreeable. Thailand and the Netherlands have been trading partners for over three centuries. Moreover, many Dutch nationals visit Thailand and vice-versa annually. This facilitates mutual understanding ease of doing of business.