Article series on The New Diplomat / Part 1

By Dr. Huub Ruël and Irene Felius. These are interesting and challenging times for diplomacy in general and the diplomat in particular. It is an open door to state that the world of diplomacy, international relations and international business is experiencing major changes such as a global economic power shift to Asia, an emerging multi-polar international system with shifting power coalitions, collaboration efforts to face global challenges such as climate change and sustainability, emerging societal dynamics such as the rise of populism, violent conflicts around the world, international terrorism, technological progress, cyber security, cyber intelligence, social media driven information and news overload, and the increased role and power of international businesses and NGOs, just to mention a few. This dynamic context has consequences for today’s and tomorrow’s diplomat. The new diplomat needs to be able to operate in this context and add value to the governments, societies and citizens he or she is serving. The competences of the new diplomat are different from those of the ‘traditional’ diplomat and the career paths of the new diplomat will be different as well. Many countries around the world are preparing their diplomatic corps, those employed at foreign posts and the related policies and practices, for this dynamic context. In a series of articles, I will address the challenges that the new diplomat is facing, the competences that will be needed as well as the facilitation of tomorrow’s diplomat. This first article addresses the issue of the relatively new stakeholders in the international arena that the new diplomat needs to deal with. Key questions for diplomats are how to deal with these stakeholders and how to add value in the context of and with new stakeholders in the international diplomacy arena. For the new diplomat, it will mean that he or she will have to understand the competence of co-creation, adding value in collaboration rather than solely. Three of those relatively new stakeholders that diplomats will have to deal with are multinational corporations (MNCs), international NGOs and the public. The role and power of MNCs in today’s global economy cannot be easily underestimated. Especially due to globalization, a single nation state has limited powers in many cases to deal with MNCs. On top of that, governments around the world fully acknowledge that MNCs are the necessary partners in dealing with global challenges such as climate change. Diplomats will need to be able to understand the language of MNCs and their perspectives on the global economy. Finally, the fact that ties between business and government in many countries are close implies that diplomats need to be able to understand those ties and the impact of those ties. International NGOs are in many cases important agenda-setting actors. Supported by their sponsors, in many cases citizens around the world, they are able to investigate and to raise societal awareness. That some governments decide to forbid international NGOs to have a representation in their countries is telling in terms of the power international NGOs are perceived to have. Diplomats need to be able to build relationships with NGOs, understand their perspectives and agendas and again the impact NGOs can have on the society diplomats represent. The public has become a more prominent stakeholder than ever. Although diplomats are representatives of states, governments and their citizens and therefore by nature have to deal with the public’s opinion, it seems that in developed nations more than before, the public does not easily accept the authority of their governments and elected leaders. The distrust between politicians and citizens has become an important issue for diplomats since it results in hard to predict consequences. The recent outcomes of referenda and elections in developed nations have shocked governments and societies. For today’s and tomorrow’s diplomats, it means that he or she has to deeply sense the public opinion, to understand what is beneath rather than what is on the surface and to understand the complexity of societies of their home countries as well as of their host countries. In order to be effective in such a dynamic and more intensified international arena, co-creation is a core competence for diplomats. As explained above, the nation state and its representatives have seen new stakeholders entering the stage. They all have their interests and agendas. To be able to align stakeholders, to contribute to coalitions of stakeholders and to serve national interests in collaboration with other stakeholders is a highly-qualified competence that the new diplomat needs to have. In co-creation lies the power for diplomats to create value.  ———————————- About the authors: Dr. Huub Ruël, Phd, is a Professor of International Hospitality Business at Hotelschool The Hague/The Hague Hospitality Business School. Irene Felius BSc. is a research assistant / project team member at the University of Twente                

By José Mármol. The Singaporeans tied their economic and social development strategy to the achievement of a public and private education of excellent quality. In an article written by the awarded Nobel Prize Mario Vargas Llosa (El País, November 12, 2016), published before announcing the results of the 2015 edition of PISA which took place on December 6, the writer comments on the achievements of this small island of Asia, warned on his second visit. He sustains that the Singaporean “miracle” was due, rather than to its privileged geographic location, which facilitated trade with India and China in the nineteenth century, to efficient government policies which eliminated poverty, unemployment, housing deficit and corruption, as well as a fair public education of the highest technical and professional level, which still absorbs one third of the nation’s budget, its most expensive social objectives. During the six days he spent there, “I asked all the people I was with to take me to see the poorest neighborhood in this city-state. And that miracle, which I have seen with my own eyes, is true: here there is no misery, no crowding, no shacks, and yes, instead, a health system, education and work opportunities available to the whole world; also a controlled immigration that benefits the country and the foreigners who come to work in it “. This achievement was due, to a great extent, to his Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, between 1959 and 1990, the leader of a socialist vision, although of authoritarian practice with democratic ideas. In a great book titled “Identity and Violence. The Illusion of Destiny” (2007), The Nobel Prize-winning economist, born in India, Amartya Sen, among other innovative truths that overturn the assumption of intellectual, technological and cultural superiority of the West over the Orient, as well as the deceptive nature of the Cultural destiny and the apocalyptic “clash of civilizations” by Samuel Huntington, states that the attention that Buddhism gives to enlightenment or knowledge (in fact, Buddha means enlightened) “and the priority given to reading texts, instead of leaving it in the hands of the priests, can encourage the expansion of education, “as has happened in Korea, China, Thailand, Sri Lanka and Burma (Myanmar). When the book “Diamond Sutra” is translated from Sanskrit into Chinese in 402 AD and printed in 868, it advocated universal free distribution. Although it is a moot idea, because Islam also literates its children with the verses of the Koran, not always reaching high levels of education due to sectarianism, the fact is that, for example, in Japan, inspiring country of the so-called East Asian miracle, the Fundamental Code of Education of 1872 declared war on illiteracy, and by 1868 that nation had a higher literacy rate than Europe. The leader Kido Takayoshi argued that the central issue in development was education or the lack of it. In the first decade of the twentieth century, Japan allocated 43 percent of its budget to education, and by 1910, primary education had become universal. Staying away from the English and Japanese dominions and being expelled from the Federation of Malaya, Singapore became independent in 1965. Today it draws the attention of the world for its common socioeconomic progress and because its children reach the highest places of excellence in mathematics, science and language in PISA. It’s the education, silly..

By Alfred Kellermann. The abolition, between EU Member States, of obstacles to the free movement of persons and services is one of the objectives of the European Union (Article 2 TEU). For nationals of the Member States, this includes, in particular the right to pursue a profession in a self-employed or employed capacity, in a Member State other than the one in which they have obtained their professional qualifications. In November 2013 Directive 2013/55/EU was published amending Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications for all nationals of a Member State, including those belonging to liberal professions, wishing to pursue a regulated profession in a Member State other than that in which they obtained their profesional qualifications. These Directives are considered to be one of the twelve levers for growth set out in the Single Market and aims at further facilitating professional mobility across the European Union and its Member States. The rights of citizens in the European Union to practise economic activities in another EU Member State is a fundamental right enshrined in the EU Treaty. However, within the limits of the Internal Market rules, each Member State is free to make access to a particular profession legally conditional upon the possession of a specific professional qualification issued on its national territory. This is an obstacle to the free movement of professionals in the European Union in so far as those qualified to practice the same profession in another Member State hold a different professional qualification, i.e. the qualification acquired in their own Member State. Therefore mutual recognition of professional qualifications between the Member States is necessary. Consequently, the European institutions have established rules in Directive 2005/36/EC of 7 September 2005, to facilitate the mutual recognition of professional qualifications between the Member States. The directive provides a modern EU system of recognition of professional experience and promotes automatic recognition of professional experience across the EU. The European Commission has developed a User Guide to find an answer on everything you need to know about the recognition of professional qualifications In order to realize the free movement of professionals within the Common Market, the national laws of all the Member States and candidate countries on recognition of professional qualifications have to be updated and adapted. In an EU Project, I was for example involved in Macedonia in 2016, to advise on the adaptation of the respective national laws. For this reason a review and alignment of the legislative Macedonian Framework was required. The question was raised if these EU issues and requirements should be regulated in a new Macedonian horizontal law on professional qualifications or in sectoral laws like the Law on Higher Education, the Law on Health care, the Law on Veterinary Health, or in by-laws. While Directive 2005/36/EC may facilitate recognition, in practise there is no single solution for the recognition of professional qualifications within the European Union. The Directive was supplemented by a code of conduct approved by the Group of coordinators , composed of representatives from the Member States. You can find this code on webpages, providing practical information on EU legislation governing the recognition of professional experience in the EU. The aim of this code of conduct or guide is to use a simple question and answer format to explain your rights when you want to have your professional qualification recognised in another Member State. Firstly you should check if the rules of Directive 2005/36/EC apply in your case. In this Guide 66 questions and answers are drafted and given as examples. Answers are different in case you practise your profession temporarily or in case it is permanently. It is important to note that the rules of the Directive differ depending on the profession in question. There are three main categories of professions subject to different rules: – the professions for which minimum training requirements were harmonised at European level: a) doctor, nurse,dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon,midwife,pharmacist and architect.These professions are referred tro as “sectoral professions”. b) the professions in the field of trade,industry or business. c) all other professions which are referred to in the guide as general system professions. The answer to the last question of the Guide helps in practice the professional who is involved in the free movement of professionals: reference is made to the National Contact Points (PSCs) which are online e-government portals that allow you to find out about the rules, regulations and formalities that apply to recognition of professional qualifications. The PSCs are there to help you to deal with a wide range of practical issues for example answers on questions like how can I get my professional qualifications recognized. Or how can I benefit from the advantages conferred by Directive 2005/36/EC if I want to practise a professional activity temporarily or permanently in another Member State. Thanks to the Points of Single Contact you do not have to go to the individual offices of different authorities in different countries, one by one. In each EU country applications can now be dealt with online through one single access point , the PSC. All national PSCs are part of the European EUGO network. Eight years later, the Council of the European Union adopted the modernised Directive 2013/55/EU. Modernising the legislation of professional qualifications was considered as key to improving mobility of EU professionals in respect of mutual trust. Not only are labour markets expected to work more efficiently in the absence of diversities in the national qualification systems, but customers,clients and patients will equally benefit from the internationalisation of free movement of professionals. While extending its scope to trainees and apprentices the Directive continues to offer three different routes on recognition : 1. Automatic recognition for a limited number of professions (doctors, dentists, nurses, midwives,pharmacists,veterinary surgeons and architects); it introduces changes in the definition of the minimum training requirements and new ways to establish common training frameworks 2. A key feature is the introduction by 2016 of an European Professional Card (EPC),taking the form of an electronic certificate. This wil be delivered in the home Member State and transmitted via the Internal Market System (IMI) to the host Member State,to present the documents for the recognition proces both for permanent and temporal mobility. As regards professions with health implications and professionals dealing with children the directive launches an Alert Mechanism which foresees that the competent authorities of a Member State shall inform the competent authorities of another Member State about those professionals who have been restricted or prohibited to practice even temporarily by national authorities or courts. Nevertheless the agenda for the free movement of professionals is far from complete. The Commission targeted modernisation of the existing provisions driven notably by the objectives of reducing the complexity of procedures, promoting mutual recognition through efficiency and patient safety and enhancing cooperation through IMI (Internal Market System) and Points of Single Contact (PSCs). It is a pity, however expected that by BREXIT the UK will miss the advantages of the EU systems on the free movement of professionals, because access to the Single Market requires acceptance of all four freedoms, as was concluded by the European leaders after their first European Council post-Brexit meeting on 27 June 2016. ———— About the author: Alfred Kellermann, 3 January 2017. Professor in European Law. Institution Building Expert. Support to Preparation of the National Strategy for Harmonization with the EU Acquis in the “Right of Establishment and Freedom to Provide Services” Chapter.

By Barend ter Haar. Many people are looking with disbelief to what is happening in the Western world. The United States and the United Kingdom used to be the steadfast and reliable pillars of Western cooperation, but now these countries seem to have lost their way. Where exactly they are going is not clear, but it is clear that they want to go there on their own, impeded as little as possible by the restraining straps of international cooperation. Still, in retrospect, Dutch politicians could have seen this coming, because the aversion of a majority of their own fellow-citizens against ever closer international cooperation had already become clear at the referendum about the European Constitution on 1 June 2005. To the dismay of most political parties, a majority of 61.5 % voted against the Constitution. How is this possible? The world has never been as prosperous and peaceful as it is today, thanks in large part to ever closer European and international cooperation. So why are enormous numbers of Western citizens revolting against this cooperation? The short answer is that main stream political parties have too long failed to recognize that for many people the economic and financial benefits of globalisation do not outweigh the psychological and cultural costs. In the course of the last fifty years almost every Western citizen has become more prosperous. However, what counts is not only the absolute level of prosperity, but also the relative level. When everybody is walking, the owner of a bicycle feels rich, but when all his neighbours buy a car, he suddenly feels poor. Now what has happened is that while outside the West hundreds of millions joined the middle classes and in the West the rich elite became even richer, the position of Western middle classes deteriorated, if not in absolute terms, at least in relative terms. From an economic point of view, the migration of people from countries with a lack of economic activities to countries with a lack of manpower makes a lot of sense. However, the difficulties of integrating people with a very different cultural background have been gravely underestimated. The people that are confronted in their daily lives with the resulting problems are often the same people that are benefiting relatively little from globalisation. So what to do? We have to recognize that the neo-liberal ideal of economic growth and free trade has lost much of its appeal, both because the benefits were not spread evenly and because of the unintended negative consequences for social cohesion and environmental security. But what vision should take its place? Closing mental and physical borders and replacing cooperation by unilateral action might attract some voters, but will eventually only worsen our problems. The paradox of international cooperation is that the most effective way to promote the national interest is not to ignore the interests of others, but to take them into account and find common solutions. That is the story we have to tell.

By Dr. Emanuel L. Paparella.   “The Brussels wall will have come down just like the Berlin wall came down. The EU, this oppressive model, will have disappeared. But the Europe of free nations will have been born… The EU should not last more than two minutes longer.” –Marine Le Pen. Marine Le Pen, leader of France’s far right National Front, seems poised to become the next President of France in 2018. Political pundits are predicting her victory following Donald Trump’s victory in the US. They aver that Trump’s populism has paved the way for a veritable political revolution in Europe which portends to reshape the existing world order. How so? Well, for one thing, Le Pen wants the EU to withdraw from NATO, alleging that it would end American dominance in Europe. She repeats Trump’s assertion that NATO is now obsolete, and has in fact declared publicly that Trump’s victory makes such a feat quite possible now. To her way of thinking, NATO is a “tool for making sure countries that are part of it comply with the will of the United States.” She finds this unbearable. What would she substitute it with? She has some interesting proposals in this regard. She has called for “cooperation agreements” with Russia with close cooperation between European capitals and Moscow. In other words, Washington gets substituted with Washington. She claims that there is “absolutely no reason we should turn systematically to the United States.” This may sound a bit incoherent. She sees Trump’s victory as an additional stone in the building of a new world order but at the same time wants the EU to take its distance from the US. How does Le Pen square this circle? Thus: “Obviously we have to compare this victory [Trump’s] with the rejection of the European constitution by the French people, of course, with the Brexit vote, but also with the emergence of movements devoted to the nation—patriotic movements in Europe. All these elections are essentially referendums against the unfettered globalization that has been imposed upon us, that has been imposed upon people, and today has been clearly shown to have its limits.” That is to say, she sees Trump’s victory as a “victory of the people against the elite.” This of course is populism at its best, or perhaps its worst. What is most intriguing about the above glaring statements is that they seem to reveal a mind-set quite similar to that displayed by Trump and Putin. All three seems to have quite a few affinities and seem to like each other. The major affinity seems to be this: they see the political struggles currently going on as struggles of civilizations against each other. Le Pen is on record as saying that next year’s presidential election in France would “establish some real choices of civilization.” She made such a statement in the context of a lashing out against the EU and its immigrant policies based on open borders. She added: “Do we want a multicultural society, following the model of the English-speaking world, where fundamentalist Islam is progressing…or do we want an independent nation, with people able to control their own destiny, or do we accept to be a region, managed by the technocrats of the European Union?” She has gone as far as comparing the European Union to the Soviet Union: “I don’t see why we should recreate, virtually, this wall between European countries and Russia, unless to obey the orders of the United States, which up until now, have found an interest in this.” She has moreover blamed the EU and the US for destabilizing Europe’s relations with Russia, and has claimed that there is not “a hair’s breath” between her party and the UKIP regarding immigration and the European Union. Keep well in mind that Russia is currently footing the bill for her campaign expenses. What can one conclude from the above analysis? It could prove useful in answering this crucial question: is this the beginning of the end of the world order established after World War II with its culmination the formation of the European Union and the NATO Alliance? Professor Anis H. Bajrektarevic rightfully asked: “…is this unionistic condominium the best of Europe, or Europe itself? Is this Reality or metanarrative of dogmatic universalism?” To put it another way: is this now the beginning of the breakdown of overall pan-European stability? Let’s attempt an answer beginning with some historical background in a rather personal mode. Back in the 50s, when I was a teen-ager, still living in Italy, when the EU institutions were still fragile, I remember writing an essay launched by the lyceum I was attending at the time, where I opined that I was rather skeptcal that the Western Alliance and the European Union would ever take off. In the 70s I was living and studying in the US (where my father was born) and lived through the Vietnam War and read the news about the Red Brigades, and began having doubts again about the survival of the West. I was then in college and was reading books like “The Decline of the West” by Oswald Spengler. That might have influenced me. But in all my adult life I am hard pressed to remember a dramatic moment such as the one we are now witnessing. All we need now is for good men to do nothing and the decline and possible destruction of the West is pretty much assured. I hope I am wrong, but, following Trump’s inauguration on January 20, 2017, with a President, so called, totally uninterested in “shared values” with our allies (“not worth American lives” as he puts it), seeming to prefer the company of dictators such as Putin with whom he can make deals, to that of democratic allies, deeming the geo-political world as a huge transactional stage to be exploited on which to negotiate deals, incapable of conceiving the greater good, it would appear that we are two or three bad elections away from the end of NATO, the end of the European Union, and possibly the end of the liberal world order. The almost inevitable consequence will be the return of nefarious ultra-nationalism and fascism in Europe and the loss of democracy in America. Putin and his Trojan horses all over Europe are waiting in the wing. Their strategy is simple: divide and conquer. To repeat the urgent question: are the lights going out; is it the end of the West as we presently know it? What I call “the Caligua Presidency” constituted by political entertainment and double talk, has begun, people unfortunately end up getting the government they deserve and the monsters they have created. The omens are bad, but let’s not forget Le Pen. She is now the front runner in next year’s French presidential elections and she also finds alliances burdensome. Some of her campaign commitments are that she will withdraw from both NATO and the EU, will nationalize French companies, will restrict foreign investors, will promote a special relationship with Russia, the same Russia whose banks are funding her election campaign. The question persists: is Le Pen at least partially right in considering what is going on a civilizational breakdown? More specifically: once France is out of the EU too (after Brexit), possibly followed by other copycats, can Europe’s economic single market survive in any shape or form? Will NATO and the Atlantic Alliance crumble? Trump of course will not be sorry for that, as his misguidedly appealing rhetoric to his misguided followers has made clear; indeed, the short term cost of alliances is easier to see and assess than the longer-term benefits. Let’s not forget that his span of attention is that of the time needed to write a tweet. There is little doubt that shared economic space, nuclear deterrence via the NATO alliance, and standing armies, while being costly short term, produced more than half a century of political stability and prosperity in Europe and North America. We all take those benefits for granted now, until they are gone for good. Those who have ears to hear, let them hear. ————- About the author: Dr. Emanuel Paparella has a Ph.D. in Italian Humanism with a dissertation on Giambattista Vico from Yale University (1990). He currently teaches philosophy at Barry University and Broward College in Florida, USA. One of his books is titled Hermeneutics in the Philosophy of G. Vico, Mellen Press, N.Y., 1993. He also authored two books on the EU and the Transatlantic relationship titled A New Europe in Search ot its Soul, AuthorHouse, Bloomington, Indiana, 2005, and Europa: an Idea and a Journey, Xlibris, Bloomington, Indiana, 2012. His e-book Aesthetic Theories of Great Western Philosophers was printed in Ovi magazine in June 2013.    

By Jhr. Alexander W. Beelaerts van Blokland. Since over a hundred years The Hague is the International City of Justice and Peace. Tens of thousands of people work here on a peaceful , just and safe world. They do that in big but also in small organizations. They meet each other, share their knowledge and develop new ideas. Lots of international disputes have been solved by the international courts and tribunals in The Hague. With the Peace Palace – built in 1913- as the well known icon, in which the world famous International Court of Justice and the Permanent Court of Arbitration of the United Nations are settled. Nowadays no less than twohundred international organizations –IGO’s as well as NGO’s- work in The Hague. The former Secretary General of the United Nations Boutros Boutros Gali said that The Hague is –today and in the future- the legal capital of the world and the most recent former Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said that The Hague is the world wide recognized seat of international jurisdiction. In February 2017 the City of The Hague will publish a new brochure that gives information about all international organizations on peace and justice in The Hague as well as back ground interviews.  A ‘must’ for the many people who want a general view of the many things that happen in this field in The Hague as well as some more information. The brochure will be in Dutch, English, French and German and can be found on the website www.denhaagvrederecht.nl (The Hague Peace Justice). One can order the brochure also by sending an e-mail to rocelle.vanderkemp@denhaag.nl. ————————–   About the author: Jhr. Alexander W. Beelaerts van Blokland LL.M. is Justice (Judge) in the Court of Appeal and Special Advisor International Affairs, appointed by the Mayor and Aldermen of The Hague a.beelaerts@planet.nl            

By Samantha Brletich. “As defining terrorism in any particular case implies a political component, this very category becomes quite extensive – a subject to different readings and understandings. Having permanent – primarily political – disputes over the category and scale of ‘conflict’, contemporary international community repeatedly failed over decades to agree upon a single and comprehensive but universal instrument determining, prescribing and combating terrorism. As a consequence of these – mostly political and less legal – implications, today we are confronted with some two dozen international (universal and regional) instruments. These instruments are good, but far from being a norm-setting standardized and harmonized. Thus, the tentative political definition of (international) terrorism could be as follows: Terrorism is the use of violence as political means of pressuring the government and/or society into accepting a radical socio-political or/and socio-economic change (ideological or/and territorial). The word terrorist is obviously self-incriminating (demonizing and alienating), and consequently most terrorists would not apply the label to themselves. Experts estimate that for every apprehended/detained terrorist another 9 remain at large (rating it to 10%). Therefore, many describe terrorism like a balloon: squeeze one end and it expands at the other.” – professor Anis H. Bajrektarevic analyzed in his seminal work ’JHA Diplomacy – The Palermo Treaty System 10 years After’ Hereby is the take on the national legislation with the huge regional impacts that comes from the ‘heart of gold’, biggest and most relevant Central Asian republic – one of the key pivots to continental Asia. * * * * In President Nursultan Nazarbayev’s first speech to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), Kazakh Head of State set forth what is considered a landmark initiative called the “Astana Code of Conduct” focused on preventing and tackling terrorism and extremism while maintaining human rights standards. The Astana Code of Conduct reflects Kazakhstan’s four main UNSC priorities and trends in international security: energy security, food security, counter-terrorism measures, and nuclear safety. These four priorities reflect greater Central Asia interests “to ensure its stability and security, to effectively respond to regional challenges and threats, to strengthen cooperation and promote its growth and development.” President Nazarbayev’s political address “at the UNSC addresses seven key priorities, the fourth priority emphasizing the acute problem of international terrorism. The fourth priority introduced the Astana Code of Conduct was hailed by members of Kazakhstan’s Government as a landmark initiative, hoping that nations would “refrain from the actions which may lead to destruction of statehood” emphasizing Kazakhstan’s desire push to end or mitigate global conflict. It also reflects the ubiquitous diplomatic trends of engagement, cooperation, and partnerships, in Kazakhstan’s multi-lateral and regional policies and arrangements. The Astana Code of Conduct is nascent. The Code of Conduct will probably be based on Kazakhstan’s prior national-level programs and priorities, cooperative efforts, and current counter-terrorism efforts. The central tenet of the Astana Code of Conduct, ending extremism and terrorism, is already visible in Kazakhstan’s attempts to be the mediator in high-profile negotiations and talks aimed at sustaining peace such as Syria and Iran. Kazakhstan hopes that the Astana Code of Conduct will lead to the formation of the Global Anti-Terrorist Coalition (Network) to defeat terrorism and reduce the global terror threat. Kazakhstan will chair the Security Council 1267 Committee on ISIL and Al-Qaida. The Astana Code of Conduct will be a multi-lateral effort focusing on challenging the root causes of terrorism, confronting transnational groups, preventing power vacuums, and destabilization. In March 2016, Kazakhstan called for a new program, “Manifesto: The World. The 21st Century,” focusing on non-proliferation, global cooperation, and ending war. Kazakh officials met with the OSCE Astana Program Office to discuss anti-counter terrorism efforts in mid-October 2016. Kazakhstan would also benefit from European assistance and cooperation combating terrorism online. After 2011, Kazakhstan reformed its counter-terrorism strategy through community participation by creating web-based instruments to prevent terrorism: www.counter-terror.kz , and a mechanism created recently for citizens to report terrorist or extremist activity via the Prosecutor General’s Office website. Changes to the Counter-Terrorism Law improving counter-terrorism methods, increased regional security and cooperation through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the Collection Security Treaty Organization aid Kazakhstan’s fight against domestic terrorism. Kazakhstan also shut down 950 websites (with court approval) and increased the use of information technology against terrorism, and in January 2013, the Kazakhstan National Security Committee announced the launch of a Security Academy to train specialists. Kazakhstan has long been the recipient of criticism about its human rights records, the misapplication of anti-terrorism measures to silence the opposition, and the absence of basic civil liberties including freedom of press, assembly, religion, and association. Changes to the Counter-Terrorism Law resulted in violations of religious freedoms among Muslims, arbitrary detention, and increased powers among the security services. Like its chairmanship of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the Kazakhstan’s position on the UNSC provides the country with access to materials, resources, and the opportunity to implement policies and improve its human rights record. This Central Asian colossus did not live up to its commitments as OSCE chair. Kazakhstan recently announced future basic constitutional reforms to redistribute power among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Kazakhstan must be willing to implement resolutions and programs developed during its UNSC chairmanship and not use the UNSC as a way to push an international agenda without a domestic commitment. —– About the author: Samantha Brletich is a researcher on the region of Central Asia and Russia. She focuses on extremism and terrorism, governance, culture, mining, and foreign policy. She holds a Master’s in Peace Operations Policy from George Mason University. She is an employee of the U.S. Government (opinions and ideas are her own).