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.    

By Tomislav Jakić. When more than a month ago Donald John Trump took over as President of the USA, there were – not many though – reasonable, cold analysts who, basing on his pre-election statements, predicted that a man who is going to wage war against the establishment (the empire) is entering a conflict with a very uncertain result. Some of them even did not hesitate to say that Trump is bound to lose this battle. Judging by what is happening now, those who spoke about a war with uncertain result were completely right and those who predicted Trump’s defeat might be right. We will see in a not very distant future. Trump’s throne – if one can say so – was seriously shaken the moment when one of his closest associates, national security advisor general Michael Flynn, was forced to resign. And, let us not be misguided, not because he was “insincere” with vice-president Pence, but because he dared to contact, how horrific, the ambassador of Russia before the elections and – allegedly – spoke with him about the possibility of abandoning sanctions against his country. And when, immediately after that, White House spokesman said that Russia is expected to return the Crimea peninsula to Ukraine, there was no doubt whatsoever if Trump will be able to fulfill what he promised in the election campaign. With those promises, the key ones, he managed – despite his lack of political experience, despite his sexism and despite his entertainment past – to arouse the hopes of all those in the world who were fed up with the American policy of interventionism and with imposing of what has been “sold” for decades as democracy, with massive help of an enormous army and more that 700 military bases around the world. Just to remind you: Trump explicitly promised that America will stop with imposing regimes, or as he put it in his inaugural address – the American way of life. And, very important, he expressed his willingness to normalize the relations with Russia, which were deteriorating rapidly and dangerously. General Flynn backed such a policy. And that is the reason why he had to go. His resignation is the first serious blow delivered by the system (establishment) against the new man in the White House. After getting rid of Flynn, influential circles not only in the Democratic party (including the Clinton clan), but in the Republican party too (which never really got to terms first with his nomination as presidential candidate and after that with him as the President), as well as those who are often described as the invisible centres of influence, directing the politicians as actors on the stage, they all “smelled blood”. And this is not a conspiracy theory, this is something quite obvious to everybody who is willing to see, to hear and to draw the only possible conclusions from what he (or she) saw or heard, without becoming the victim or the hostage of anybody’s propaganda, regardless whose. Do not be mistaken: those who smelled blood will not stop. And who is, after all, this general Michael Flynn? He is former chief of the US military intelligence, most decorated high ranking American officer on this position in the last two decades. From this position he was relieved when he dared to put into question the way the US intelligence community worked and its results (the very same intelligence community which spies for years now whomever it wants, around the globe, including heads of states, American allies; this is, by the way a proven fact!). Did he speak with the Russian ambassador prior to the elections? Yes, he did. Did he, by doing so, violate an old act (Logan act) which forbids, to put it in the most simple terms, private persons to engage in diplomatic activities? Again: yes, he did. But, did anybody invoke this same act when some 8 or 9 years ago a certain Barack Obama, at that time just a presidential candidate (a private person too) travelled around the world meeting heads of states and governments? The answer is: no! Had Flynn have spoken with ambassadors of, let us say, Germany or France, nobody would have said a word. But he sinned, because he spoke with the Russian ambassador and Russia is, as everybody “knows”, an enemy of the West, an enemy of democracy, a power which is on the verge of sending its armed forces to conquer Europe (if one would believe the main-stream media, or for that matter, the Secretary General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg). On the tracks of the anti-Russian hysteria, which becomes more and more present for almost a year, Flynn was accused, without any evidence, that for him “Putin comes first and only than the US”. Demands are being made, imperatively, to investigate all links between the general and Russia. And all this only to be able to repeat the “old song” from the US election campaign: Russia’s role in the US presidential elections should be investigated (although this role was never proved by solid evidence, or what the Americans call “the smoking gun”, it was only talked about). And all of this to repeat that Trump is a puppet in Russian hands, backed now with the “expertise” of more than 30 “shrinks” who have concluded, on the basis of Trump’s behavior and his statements that he is not fit to be the President of the US. And again: the story will not stop here. The empire (establishment) strikes back and hits a man who thought, because he practically alone, against all odds, won the presidential elections, that he can change the system. It is more than likely that he cannot. The war hero, CIC of the Normandy invasion and later US President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, was clever (or wise) enough to mention the military-industrial complex and its dangerous role only at the end of his term in office. Trump who cannot be compared with legendary Ike in any way, did practically the same thing in the first days of his mandate, challenging this system. And sealed, thus, his destiny – as it seems now. He will be, with the “logistic help” of the Europeans who are already describing him as somebody able to launch in the next two years “a cultural revolution” (allusion to communist China and Mao Ce Tung) either be chased out of the White House (under any pretext), or he will be forced to become a tool in the hands of others. After all, one should remember Obama and his big promises with which he won the Peace Nobel price (hand stretched to the Muslim countries, a world without nuclear weapons etc.) He did nothing of that sort, but continued the policy of his predecessors, becoming “famous” because of his bombings of a number of countries and destabilizing the Middle East, not to mention the direct and indirect support to those who are today known as Islamist (djihadist) terrorists. In short: he allowed to be “eaten” by the system. And this is the least that could happen to Trump. Why did this “deconstruction” of Trump begun with general Flynn? The answer is simple. Because the general backed the normalization of the relations with Russia, even more he backed the cooperation with Russia in the fight against global terrorism, which means stopping any support and help for the Islamists, who are still called by many in the West “opposition”, “armed opposition”, or “fighters against tyranny and for freedom”. The military-industrial complex lives from wars and it imposed on the West the confrontation with Russia, the policy of enlarging and strengthening of the NATO (which, being a genuine relict of the cold war, was called by Trump “obsolete”), the policy which resulted in bringing to Europe hundreds of American tanks and thousands of troops. To put it quite simply: without the confrontation with Russia, without the continuation of the policy of imposing regimes and taking control over energy sources and main energy routes, there is no money, there is no profit. This is the reason why those who evaluated the fall of socialism in Europe as their final victory, only to see how Putin is putting into question this victory (namely standing up against a unipolar world), after absorbing the shock of Trump’s victory and his announced foreign policy, decided to take things into their hands again. Thus we may expect strengthening of anti-Russian sentiments (allegations of Russian meddling into elections, never proven though, are being repeated again and again, now prior to the presidential elections in France). We may expect a changed rhetoric both from President Trump and from the White house. And we should stop hoping for the end of the renewed cold war. This war means profit and those who are making this profit are not prepared to let anybody else to take it from them, or to stop them making it at all; despite the fact that it is a bloody profit, “earned” at the cost to hundreds of thousands of human lives. General Michale Flynn made this experience. President Trump, this is what can be concluded now, has still to learn the lesson. And the “rest of the world”? Well, those who survive, will tell the story.

---

About the author: Tomislav Jakić, born 1943. in Zagreb, is a Croatian journalist – TV and press – specialized in covering foreign policy. He served as foreign policy advisor to the second President of the Republic of Croatia, Mr. Stjepan Mesic.        

By Duke Michael of Mecklenburg. The Tulips Ball is not far away. On March 31st the ball commences its third edition with more than 15 nationalities and over 140 guests. This year the Tulips Ball Committee hopes to also serve the Diplomatic Community in the Kingdom of the Netherlands showcasing a traditional Dutch ball having a young twist programme for an international audience.

The agenda includes the Nederlands Studenten Orkest and the Dutch Student Orchestra. Mahler and the violin concert of Takemitsu will be followed by a waltz by Strauss. “A ball as such is a new experience for us, for which we are very excited”, says Clemens van Steijn, the ball organizer. Duke Michel of Mecklenburg is grateful that the orchestra, composed of 13 musicians, will accompany the Grand Tulips Ball on Saturday 1st of April to ennoble the Dutch weekend with guests coming from Europe and overseas. Jonkheer Thomas Stoop L.L.M. says “the ball also provides opportunities for all participants!”

Another talent is the New York Opera Soprano Lauren Andree. She has announced to join again this year the Tulips Ball Committee, offering a touch of opera to it.  Lauren Andree, an ambassador of the Tulips Baal, has recently performed  for a benefit concert to benefit the Holy Family Hospital of Bethlehem, which is under the patronage of the Permanent Observer Mission of the Order of Malta to the United Nations in New York City. Having started her career at the Michigan Opera Theatre in her childhood, she commenced her professional opera career in 2014. With Mozart and Puccini as her favourite pieces of opera, Ms Andree has performed in Italy, Mexico and of course the United States of America. As she will perform also on the Grand Tulips Ball at the stunning Koepelkerk in Amsterdam, the acoustic of the halls together with her voice will surely trickle a special moment during the weekend.

Her Royal Highness Princess Christine of Prussia has shared with the Ball Committee her sympathy for balls as the Tulips Ball. “I am looking forward to visit the Netherlands, to take part in the guided tours and the sightseeing. Beautiful music, beautiful dresses and friendly people, a lovely city. I hope, that the charity project, which helps children in need in the Netherlands, will be greatly supported.”  “I am happy to be associated with the Tulips Ball, and look forward to meeting all of the fine guests who will be attending this year’s edition” says Senator Professor Dr Jan Anthonie Bruijn (VVD), Once again, Diplomat Magazine, which some of its founders are professional classical musicians and career diplomats, will be the main diplomatic media supporting  the Tulips Ball 2017.  For additional please visit: http://tulipsball.com/    

“Schmelztiegel Wien” – this is a term usually used in the socio-cultural studies to describe the capital of a vast Habsbourg empire, today’s seat of the Republic of Austria, Vienna. Inspired by the past and present meanings of its colours shapes rhythms and ambient, trying to capture a glimpse of everlasting cultural fusions, walking a grace of tradition and charm of modernity in one leap, ethnomusicologist and designer Sofi B., with her collection‚ Unique K by Sofi B.‘ for the Vienna Fabric & Design, is illustrating this jewel of central Europe – historical city of Vienna. Each and every item in this collection is exclusively designed, handmade tailered and unique. Many pieces are of the fabrics which are not produced anymore. The Unique K. items are purchasable exclusively and only in the Vienna Fabrics and Design premises (Schwarzenbergplatz 10, A-1010 Wien) or at the sporadic fashion show reviews. For additional information: http://www.vienna-fabrics.at/news/unique-k/ Photography by Anna Lechner.