By Jhr. mr. Alexander W. Beelaerts van Blokland.   The Hague as city of peace and justice is more than just host of international courts and tribunals. It supports the very promotion of this universal goal, as comprised in the Sustainable Development Goal 16 by the United Nations. To underline The Hague’s support, Mayor Jozias van Aartsen expressed during his visit to the Secretary General of the United Nation, Dr. Ban Ki-moon, the commitment the city has towards the SDG’s. Mending the lack of peace and justice is supported by the city in a wide variety of ways, with multiple stakeholders, from academia, think tanks, international organizations, NGOs, and the private sector. Developments around the world over the past decades often brought home that peace and justice is not a final stage. They need permanent maintenance and attention. Even in those countries where war is absent and rule of law governs society. How to achieve and maintain stability, peace and justice is a matter that always had its own dynamics. Over the past decades, urbanization has been a hallmark of development in many countries where cities now produce the largest part of the national GDP. Regional cooperation on every continent after World War II has become common practice. Societies are increasingly globally connected, while the phenomenon of non-state actors is clear and present. These factors have an influence on how the world approaches issues and how solutions can be implemented. As the Albright-Gambari Commission on Global Security, Justice & Governance said in its report on UN reform (2015), the UN is very much a 20th century organization, increasingly unable to address the issues the world community has to tackle in the 21st century. Most notably the effects of climate change, the way fragile states are ravaged, and the way governance can be organized for the hyper connected world. Many of these issues are no longer neatly defined within national borders, national parliaments and governments. Cross border cooperation, input and ownership by other stakeholders than national institutions, are crucial for this day and age. No doubt, these developments will be discussed during the week of April 18th, when The Hague will see a flurry of activities related to the United Nations, including a visit by its Secretary General, Dr. Ban Ki-moon. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) will celebrate its 70th anniversary, while the International Criminal Court (ICC) has taken up its new premises. Also, the Dutch ‘Hoge Raad der Nederlanden’ (the Supreme Court) will open their doors of a new building and will commemorate its 200th anniversary, making it one of the oldest legal institutions in the Netherlands. During this ‘Week of Justice’, preparations will already be underway for another project related to peace and justice. Cities are bound to take up their responsibilities connected to the place where the majority of mankind will live, work, play, argue, and sometimes fight. This position comes with many challenges and possibilities. Seizing the opportunities provided by this undeniable trend requires also taking ownership and shoring up expertise. That is why the City of The Hague will host the inaugural session of the Global Parliament of Mayors in September, in cooperation with Dr. Benjamin Barber, the American author of ‘If Mayors Ruled the World.’ This platform provides an excellent opportunity to share knowledge and improve practical cooperation between cities. Especially in the peace and justice related fields of expertise The Hague has to offer. As said, just being host of institutions is not enough, it is not an ambition The Hague has. Connecting the courts and tribunals with other stakeholders for the development of international law and the promotion of peace and justice is. a.beelaerts@planet.nl The author is Justice (Judge) in the (Dutch) Court of Appeal and honorary Special Advisor International Affairs, in 2004 appointed by the Mayor and Aldermen of The Hague.            

By Prof. dr. André Nijhof & Nika Salvetti “I’ve never heard so many CEOs talk politics. Richard Branson says that’s a good start.” This quote was recently published online and it illustrates the presence of the corporate voice in reaching the ambitions laid down in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set by the United Nations. Whereas the first RIO-conference was dominated by heads of state, the COP-21 in Paris illustrates that CEOs where the first to speak out about ambitious goals towards the future. However the quote of Richard Branson triggers a more fundamental question. Should we listen to CEOs when it comes to climate change, alleviating poverty, injustices in the world and the other topics of the SDGs? Traditionally CEOs are in charge of the strategy of their corporation, should they now also be involved in politics? Partly Yes, because corporations should be part of the debate about the appropriate norms to make progress towards the SDGs. The reason is that for many of these issues new potential business opportunities are created in a domain where regulation by national governments cannot be effective. This results in what is called the `the global regulatory gap’, creating direct dialogues between civil society organizations and corporations resulting in new norms – in the form of standards, codes, alliances and sometimes regulation – being developed by these actors, which directly or indirectly influence public policies. The sector initiatives like the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil and the Rainforest Alliance are influential examples. This development is described in literature as the transition from liberal democracy to deliberative democracy (see Scherer and Palazzo, 2007). And partly No, because if CEOs come with an open or hidden agenda focusing on driving sales and profit maximization there is no guarantee that the provision of other fundamental goods and services to targeted beneficiaries – like access for all to health care, equal distribution of resources, i.e. drinkable water, or living without fear of terrorism – will be reached. There are just too many examples where ultimately it seems that only the companies involved benefitted at the end of a project. This creates an interesting playing field for international diplomacy. On the one hand we need to involve companies and on the other hand there is always the risk that involvement of CEOs turns out to be old-fashioned lobbyism focusing on corporate benefits. How to balance this? Maybe the best advice is to make it personal. Amitai Etzioni argues with his I & We paradigm that every person has a part focusing on self-interest and at the same time has a part that values the connectedness between people and contributing to collective goods. Learning how to differentiate ‘good from bad’ CEOs, making personal intentions part of the conversation and joint action might be some of the most important skills of the modern diplomat in the age of sustainability.

Nyenrode Business Universiteit is the only private university in the Netherlands, founded for and by business. Nyenrode pillars of Leadership, Entrepreneurship and Stewardship are reflected in all of their programs which include undergraduate and graduate degrees in management, business, finance and accounting.   Nyenrode is a proud partner of Diplomat Magazine. Together, they have developed the Nyenrode – Diplomat Magazine Award which recognizes the talents from the diplomat network in the Netherlands and worldwide by providing them with exclusive scholarships for the programs Bachelor of Science in Business Administration, Master (MSc) in Management, full-time International MBA and part-time Executive MBA. For more information visit www.nyenrodemasters.nl/diplomat and register for the launching event on June 1st at the Carlton Ambassador Den Haag.   Prof Dr André Nijhof is full professor in Sustainable Business and Stewardship and is visiting professor at Chang Gung University in Taiwan and the University for Peace in Costa Rica.   Nika Salvetti is a PhD candidate and practitioner in the field of CSR, Sustainability, Social Responsibility where she worked on in different developing countries such as Bangladesh, Uganda, Guatemala, as well as in Costa Rica, the overall Balkans and Middle East.

  Notes: For the quote of Richard Branson, see: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ive-never-heard-so-many-ceos-talk-politics-richard-branson-roth) Andreas Georg Scherer and Guido Palazzo (2007), Toward a Political Conception of Corporate Responsibility: Business and Society Seen from a Habermasian Perspective, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32, No. 4, 1096-1120  

By Professor Anis H. Bajrektarevic. 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. Twin Paris shootings and this fresh Brussels horror, terrible beyond comprehension, will reload and overheat those debates. However, these debates are ill conceived, resting from the start on completely wrong and misleading premises. Terrorism, terror, terrorism!! – But, terror is a tactics, not an ideology. How can one conduct and win war on tactics? – it is an oxymoron. (In that case, only to win are larger budgets for the homeland security apparatus on expenses of our freedoms and liberties, like so many times before.) The January assassins in the Parisian Satirical Magazine, as well as those behind the bloody Paris Friday of November, and those behind the Black Tuesday in Brussels (butchering randomly selected victims) are labeled as the so-called Islamofascists. The fact that these individuals are (again) allegedly of Arab-Muslim origins and seemingly clero-indoctrinated does not make them less fascists, less European, nor does it abolish Europe from the main responsibility in this case. How do we define that challenge will answer us whether we live the real democracy or are blinded by the formal one. Fascism and its evil twin, Nazism are 100% European ideologies. Neo-Nazism also originates from and lately unchecked blossoms, primarily in Europe. Many would dare say of today; an über-economy in the center of continent, surrounded from all sides by the recuperating neo-fascism. How else to explain that the post-WWII come-and-help-our-recovery slogan Gastarbeiter willkommen became an Auslander Raus roar in a matter of only two decades, or precisely since the triumph of the free will – fall of the Berlin Wall. Suddenly, our national purifiers extensively shout ‘stop überfremdung of EU, we need de-ciganization’ of our societies, as if it historically does not always end up in one and only possible way– self-barbarization. In response, the socially marginalized and ghettoized ‘foreigners’ are calling for the creation of gastarbeiterpartie. Indeed, the first political parties of foreigners are already created in Austria, with similar calls in Germany, France and the Netherlands. Their natural coalition partner would never be any of the main political parties. We should know by now, how the diverting of the mounting socio-economic discontent and generational disfranchising through ethno engineering will end up, don’t we? The Old continent tried to amortize its deepening economic and demographic contraction by a constant interference on its peripheries, especially meddling on the Balkans, Black Sea/Cau-casus and MENA (Middle East–North Africa). What is now an epilogue? A severe democratic recession. Whom to blame for this structural, lasting civilizational retreat that Europe suffers? Is it accurate or only convenient to accuse a bunch of useful idiots for returning home with the combative behavior, equipped with the European guns and homegrown anger of the misused? *          *          *          *          * My voice was just one of the many that included notables like Umberto Eco, Bono Vox and Kishore Mahbubani –foster moderation and dialogue, encourage forces of toleration, wisdom and understanding, stop supporting and promoting ethno-fascism in the former Yugoslavia and Ukraine. These advices were and are still ridiculed and silenced, or in the best case, ignored. Conversely, what the EU constantly nurtured and cherished with its councils, boots and humanitarian aid starting from Bosnia 25 years ago, Middle East, until the present day Ukraine was less of a constructive strategic engagement and lasting-compromise, but more of a history-rewriting, cult of death, destruction, partition, exclusion and reverse drive to fascism.[1] Some of the most notorious regimes on this planet are extensively advertised and glorified all throughout the EU– including its biggest sports events and the most popular sports. No matter, that one of these hereditary theocracies considers as a serious criminal offence– brutally coercing like European Nazis did in 1930s – if the prescribed state religion is not obeyed as the only existing one. On the other side, European temple of multiculturalism – Sarajevo, was barbarically sieged and bombed for 1,000 days – all that just a one-hour flight from Brussels. Still, 20 years after falling a victim of unthinkable genocide, Bosnia remains the only UN member state in the world that does not exercise its sovereignty. It is administratively occupied by the opaque and retrograde international bureaucracy (that is out of any institutionalized democratic control and verification) – predominantly overpaid secondhand European apparatchiks that institutionalized segregation in this, victimized then criminalized, country. Illuminating cradles of millennial multiculturalism – some of the brightest verticals of entire human civilization such as Jerusalem, Bagdad and Damascus still suffer unbearable horrors of externally induced, rather ahistorical destruction, hatred and perpetuated purges. With such a dismal ‘export’ record, universal claim of the European political system or even its historic perspective does not hold water any longer, hardly appealing to anyone anymore. Europe still defies the obvious. There is no lasting peace at home if the neighborhood remains restless. Ask Americans living at the Mexican border, or Turks next to Syria. The horrific double Paris massacre and this fresh Brussel’s shock is yet another a painful reminder of how much the EU has already isolated itself. For unreasonably long, Europe promoted in the Middle East and Africa everything but the stability and prosperity of its own post-WWII socio-economic model. No wonder that today, instead of blossoming neighborhood, the EU is encircled by the ring of politico-military instability and socio-economic despair – from Ukraine, Balkans to MENA, and countless refuges pouring from there. (How many times is history to repeat itself? – The colonial overstretch/economic chauvinism, yesterday abroad – means a moral overkill, today at home. In this context, one should understand also the recently released Oxfam study ‘Wealth: Having it All and Wanting More’, /January, 2016/. It documents into a detail, all the enormous wealth accumulation on the side of 1% over the last 25 years, as well as the further acceleration of wealth gap. Rather mistakenly, many would consider 99% as a principal victim, although 99% themselves are primarily, sustained and for years, responsible for this cleavage by ignoring and silencing it.) Hence, when there is no opportunity, give at least a lame (Spring) hope. That is what Europe keenly helped with in the Middle East: The very type of Islam Europe supported in the Middle East yesterday, is the version of Islam (or better to say, fascism), we are getting today in the Christian Europe as well as in the Christian neighborhoods of Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. Thus, in response to the Balkans, MENA and Ukraine crises, the EU repeatedly failed to keep up a broad, single-voiced consolidated agenda and all-participatory basis with its strategic neighborhood. The EU missed it all – although having institutions, WWII-memory, interest credibility and ability to prevent mistakes. The very same mistakes it did before at home; by silently handing over one of its most important questions, that of European identity, anti-fascism and otherness, to escapist anti-politics (politics in retreat) dressed up in the Western European wing-parties.[2] (It leads the so-called western democracies into the deadlock of perpetuated cycles of voters’ frustrations: elect and regret, vote against and regret, re-elect and regret again… A path of an ongoing trivialization of our socio-political contents and subsequent formalization of substantive democracy.) Eventually, the ‘last world’s cosmopolitan’ – as the EU is often self-portrayed – compromised its own perspectives and discredited its own transformative power’s principle. The 2012 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, EU did so by undermining its own institutional framework: the Nurnberg principles and firm antifascist legacy (UN and CoE), Barcelona Process as the specialized segment of from-Morocco-to-Russia European Neighborhood Policy (EU) and the Euro-Med partnership (OSCE). The only direct involvement of the continent was ranging between a selective diplomatic de-legitimization, satanization in media, false-flag or proxy assaults, and punitive military engagements via the Atlantic-Central Europe-led coalition of the willing (the Balkans, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine).[3] This naturally results in a massive influx of refugees, a consequence to which Europeans (with their inherited low-tolerance of otherness) usually respond by criminalizing migrations and penalising the immigrants’ way of life. Confrontational nostalgia prevailed again over both that is essential for any viable future: dialog (instruments) and consensus (institutions). The consequences are rather striking and worth of stating once more: The sort of Islam that the EU supported (and the means deployed to do so) in the Middle East yesterday, is the sort of Islam (and the means it uses) that Europe gets today. Small wonder, that Islam in Turkey (or in Kirgizstan and in Indonesia) is broad, liberal and tolerant while the one in Atlantic-Central Europe is a brutally dismissive, narrow and vindictively assertive. Our urgent task – if we are any serious about Europe– is denazification. Not a one-time event, but a lasting process. Let’s start from Bosnia, Ukraine and Brussels at once.   Post scriptum: Back in November 2011, reflecting on the tragic events from Norway, I wrote for the Oslo’s Nordic Page the following: “No doubt, just as the cyber-autistic McFB way of life is the same in any European and Middle Eastern city, so are the radical, wing politics! Have you spotted any critical difference between the rhetoric of Norwegian serial killer Breivik and the Al Qaida Wahhabi ‘Islamists’? ‘Just like Jihadi warriors are the plum tree of Ummah, we will be the plum tree for Europe and for Christianity’– many news agencies reported these as words allegedly written by the Christian Jihadist Anders Behring.[4] The European (rightwing) parties opposing e.g. Muslim immigration are nothing but the mirror image of the MENA’s Islamist parties. In both cases, there are: (i) Socio-political outsiders (without much of any coherence, integrity and autonomy) that are denouncing the main, status quo, parties as a ‘corrupt establishment’; (ii) Extensively exploiting domestic economic shortcomings (e.g. unemployment, social inequalities, etc.), but they themselves do nothing essential to reverse the trend; (iii) Making ethnic and religious appeals (preaching the return to tradition), attacking foreign influences in their societies and otherwise ‘culturally purifying’ population; (iv) Generally doing better in local rather than in national elections (the ‘Rightists’ win on the national elections only when no other effective alternative exists to challenge the governing party/coalition block); (v) More emotionally charged populist movements than serious political parties of the solid socio-economic and socio-political program (per definition, these parties have very poor governing score).” How many more have to die before we accept and acknowledge the inevitable – Denazification process is urgently needed in Europe!   Anis H. Bajrektarevic, Vienna, 24 March 2016 Author is chairperson and professor in international law and global political studies, Vienna, Austria. He authored three books: FB – Geopolitics of Technology (published by the New York’s Addleton Academic Publishers); Geopolitics – Europe 100 years later (DB, Europe), and the just released Geopolitics – Energy – Technology by the German publisher LAP. No Asian century is his forthcoming book, scheduled for later this year. Contact: anis@bajrektarevic.eu     [1] Lasting conflicts in the multireligious and multinational countries nobody can win. Therefore, the severity and length of atrocities as well as the magnitude of suffering of civilians in the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine are meaningless from the military or any logical point of you, unless the very objective is something else. What if war is used as an instrument of mass torture, not for a geostrategic advancement but for a social reengineering, e.g. Nazification? The conduct is as follows: (i) destabilized central authority; (ii) systematic and prolonged sectarian violence to the point of ‘we cannot forgive, we cannot live together anymore’; (iii) partition, hysteria, further atomization; (iv) ethno-fascism; (v) permanently dysfunctional government, easily controllable on remote control (or remote detonator – as to occasion). [2] Clearly, Europe’s far right benefits from almost everything in the EU: a contracting economy; a galloping unemployment rate; labour-rights brutalization and job insecurity; a deepening fear of loss of elementary social status; a cracking welfare system and corroded public services; a repellent Maastricht project; a multiple waves of migration, heightened by chaos in the Euro-Med (from Greece to Iraq, from Portugal to Algeria). And a Socialist/Social-democrat ‘left’ that for almost 30 years have shared with the conservative center-right the direct responsibility for neoliberal policies now locked in through the EU treaty system, and a project of remaining in power indefinitely by presenting itself every election as the last defense against the ultra-right, as the only cure, salvation possible. The result: no other political force displays as much momentum and cohesion as the far right, and none communicates as effectively the feeling that it knows the way and owns the future. No party has any convincing strategy for challenging the far right on a long run. [3] It is worth to recall my warnings against destruction of the most successful African state, one of the very few MENA countries that generously offered a universal health, universal schooling and universal housing to its citizens and permanent residents. This is my voice from autumn 2011: “To conclude with the Huntingtonian Clash of Civilizations wisdom: When the predominantly Christian air-force is bombing a predominantly Muslim country for 4 consecutive months and keeps doing so all throughout the ‘Muslim Christmas’ – the holy fasting month of Ramadan and Eid-ul-Fitr – it surely will not help to maintain secularism and introduce democratization locally, nor will it assist the war against Islamist radicals regionally… The nomadic tribes that got its first nationhood in 1951, and were effectively united only under Gaddafi, have finally managed to overthrow the only indigenous governing structure they have ever experienced. It has been done after nearly six months of armed struggle and with the help of over 7,000 NATO air-raids deployed against their own country and the properties built for generations. Deliberately or not, the current momentum of Libya– with the infrastructure devastated, police force dismantled, properties plundered, and the streets full of civilians (of minor and older ages, but some with the previous criminal prison dossiers, sporadic racist killers or looters) of many nationalities, armed with long guns (including the air-defence mobile rockets) without any visible command – does not create a context for any political debate or any promising future. With its social cohesion brutally fractured, and society deeply traumatized, Libya may sink into the limbo and a lasting, bloody interregnum.” (Bajrektarevic, A. (2011), Libya – The Unbearable Lightness of Being, Africa, Addleton Academic Publishers CRLSJ, 3(1)2011) [4] Tim Lister Europe’s resurgent far right focuses on immigration, multiculturalism, CNN (July 24, 2011).

By Jasna Samic. Recently it was suggested to forbid carrying all religious signs in the Bosnian courts. In the connection with that, I am following a ‘lament” over « the  Hijab » (“mahrama”, headscarf) for days and cannot believe to which extent the totallitarism started governing in Bosnia (especially Sarajevo), and to which degree the woman’s hair became the main enemy against freedom and democracy, to which measure those ladies hiding their hair started ruling this newly folkloric society, and how much primitivism succeded to force their prescriptions, their « democracy » and their concept of faith and religion (without real understanding), to which level the primitivism and a lack of knowledge cause a fier to all those who do not accept their rules (which are arrogantly by principle of opposite logic called the democratic ones). For days, those “democrates” are calling me a”fashion fashista from the West”, because I am against “Hijab”, that “every Muslim’s duty”. That is why I would like to point out and strongly underline that “Hijab” does not have any connection with a headscarf, especially the way it is being wrapped around the head these days. The expression “Hijab” in Quran means “the veil hiding God”; in another words one can never see and get to know God, because our intellect is too weak for it. This is a well known fact to all teachers (Hodjas) who work in religious schools -“Madressa” in Bosnia, but why they do not say it openly so ? Is it convenient for them that a female person stays as an inferior human being to them? When I was studying Sufism, I myself respected that rule when going to the tekke pf Sinan Agha of Sarajevo. After all, one sincere and poetic explanation for hiding women’s hair was given to me by the rare islamic democrat and  authority, the former Sheikh at Sinan’s tekke, Fejzulah Hadzibajric: “When Angels came down from the sky they got lost in women’s hair, that’s why it has to be hidden”. But what are Angels, or where they are? Most probably they too deserted, or are exiled  from today’s « neophyte society » giving a space to Iblis (and Sotona). A public wearing of headscarfs, especially  “Niqab”(black Saudi Muslim gowns which cover completely woman’s body and face) are the first signs of not obeying to God (Muslim= a person who is submissive to the only God= al-Lah), but of female repentants to males; those are clear signs or warnings to a reinstitution of slavery, especially for women who were oppressed by men from the beginnings of monoteistic religions. Wearing a headscarf (“mahrama” ) and hiding of woman’s hair is not only an islamic obligation, even so in its origin itself. Is it necessary to emphasize that Islam is the youngest monoteistic religion? It is well known fact  that women  are hiding hair and face with a veil in Catholicism, or shaving head and wearing wigs in Judaism. Those habits (and today even more so hiding the whole female’s body)  are transferred from Orient to Balkans and that it could be partially related to Hadiths (Muhammad’s tradition and behaviour) which are quite often apocryphal Even if something is being written in Quran (but it is not) about hiding women’s hair, do not forget that Islam is expecting from believers, as well as from women too, an ultimate humbleness and contrition, to be delicate, not to show off with own religion. In another words by Islam a person who does not go to mosque is not less Muslim than one who does, not to mention a woman who does not wear the headscarf. Is there a chance nowadays that the Bosnian women go further away from those Middle Age darkness from their own deliberate choice to be a slave to a totalitarian male? I am afraid there is no chance for it to happen. Talking about this phenomenon it is important to say that (in this case in the most radical shapes of religion and  Islam) it is a manipulation of broad people joined with foreign currencies, i.e. Saudi Arabis “dukats”. It is a well known fact that today’s Islam is imported directly from Saudi Arabia and that Wahabi and Salafits have more and more success in the whole world in general, so in Bosnia too. Sarajevo is looking today less  like some democratic european secular city, and more looks like a Bedouin village in the middle of a dessert, where a woman is a priori excluded from society and whose primary role is to give a birth to males. First Karadzic and Milosevic opened the door to this foreign Islam in Bosnia by ethnic cleansing (during the war 1992-1995), and after them Izetbegovic with his ambivalent relationship with the state and his  weakness towards the extreme Islam and Muslim country money. Further, it is well known that the first sign of the extreme Islam- Wahabism and Salafism – is headscarf (“mahrama”) , which is wrongly called “Hidjab’ ; after that the other symbols come easy such as “Niqab” (wrapping of women in total black clothes), than male short beards plus short trousers, next to expect would be the excision or clitorydectomia in women, supression of music and paintings (which is a « haram » in Islam), than closing of public schools, burning books and the accepting completely the macabre ideology of the Daesh. This ideology is glorifying death, submission to a male Muslim and hatred towards West. Although there are many reasons for which West could be criticized and regardless how much it is responsibility of the “black Islam”, it can be concluded that still much more rights exist at West than in other countries. Long time ago it was said by Churchill: « Democracy is not good, but there is nothing better than that ». If we can further comment that Muslim in western countries – for ex. in France – were humiliated, why this radical Islam is gaining more and more success in Bosnia ? Why it is not possible to say anything against such Islam?  How come that these foreigners from Saudi Arabia have such a power at Balkans ? What is typical for western countries, it is a hypocrisy in connection with those questions. In Bosnia, this hypocrisy is caused by fear. It is very symptomatic that many Bosnian women who do not agree wearing headscarf , Hijab, (“mahrama”), even more so with this religious exhibitionism at public places (schools, courts etc.) do not have a courage to express their opinion publicly. Yes, those big believers and those satellite followers became so powerful and aggressive that everybody else pertaining a different opinion is being called fasist, non tolerant or scary person. That is being known as a reverse logic or paranoia. We have already seen that before and during the aggression on Bosnia in the 90th, when it was not possible to say anything against extreme Serbs, because you would be labelled as Serbs ennemy. The situation is very similar, except that now we have more and more extreme Muslims who are being identified by all those who do not believe to be extreme, but accusing the others of the same. Christians are scared of not being called “islamophobic” and they are silent. Therefore the slavery to a primitive male, mafia guy or corrupted leaders is being spread in Bosnia. Is it necessary to quote the famous writer who said that the tolerance against non tolerance equalls a crime? The Bosnian society should have decided about the existence of Sharia (in which case almost all politicians should loose both arms), or of a real secular country where finally religion would be separated from the state and consequently all religious signs would be removed  from public places. Jasna Samic Specialist of Oriental languages and civilizations, Jasna Samic taught at the Universities of Sarajevo and Strasbourg, was a Director of research associate to CNRS. She is author of many books written in Bosnian and French.      

On the picture Irina Simon-Renes. By John Dunkelgrün.   Since 2010 Wassenaar has had a unique music festival, the ICMF or International Chamber Music Festival.

It is not only original in concept, but of truly high quality. Now in its seventh year it is the brainchild of Irina Simon-Renes and Liesbeth Hessels. Irina is Romanian and has been living in Wassenaar for seven years. As a teenager while on a concert tour to Cognac in France, her parents, who lived in communist Romania, managed to organise her escape to Berlin. There, with the financial help of a friend of her parents and the parents of a friend, she was able to attend the Lycée Français and the Hochschule der Künste. She was lucky to meet Prof. Thomas Zehetmair, who taught her that music is a beautiful language which needs to be handled very carefully. As a real musician, you are a medium to bring beauty into a world where there is too much ugliness. These lessons have become a red line throughout Irina’s life. She feels compelled to share the beauty of her music. While working with the Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra she was thinking of what she could meaningfully do after she moved to Holland with her Dutch husband. Through a daisy chain of chance contacts, she met Liesbeth Hessels. Together with Margaret de Vos van Steenwijk they hatched the idea of the ICMF. This was not just intended to be yet another local music festival, but to bring accessible classical music of world quality to Wassenaar, and also to attract people who may never have attended a live classical music concert. The festival has been a real success story. While the organisation is entirely in the hands of volunteers, they run it very professionally. Each year the program brings surprises and becomes a little more ambitious. Some program elements are chosen specifically to attract young listeners. This year’s program is a good example of that. The first day features a concert at the Rijnlands Lyceum by two young Syrian musicians Shaza Manla (12) and Jawa Manla (19) together with Irina Simon-Renes. The Lyceum students will work two weeks prior to the festival on a variety of activities around Syria as well as on the concept of music and freedom. This year’s festival highlight is a major gala candlelight concert in Castle Duivenvoorde to celebrate the work of the Dutch composer Unico Wilhelm van Wassenaer, who died 250 years ago. Prof. Hans Jeekel of the Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam will give a lecture on the curative power of music. The traditional concert in the Dorpskerk in Wassenaar offers some of the most special works by Mozart, Prokofiev and Brahms with the principal woodwind players from the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra and an international string section. The festival ends with a spectacular family luncheon concert featuring Ukrainian percussionist Konstantyn Napolov. Children will sit among the performers. Following the concert they will have the opportunity to try various instruments and even sign up for the Music School B+C Leiden-Wassenaar. It is Irina’s most ardent wish to introduce and welcome children and their parents to the worldwide community of music lovers. The festival is traditionally held in May when the Wassenaar garden city is at its most beautiful. For more information and tickets, go to www.icmf.nl. But hurry, they go fast!        

   By Anna van der Vliet. Tragedy after televised tragedy brought the plight of migrants to the world’s attention in the summer of 2014. Since that time, European  Union has adjusted itself to cope with the largest influx of refugees since the end of the Second World War. Only this month, the number of refugees to Europe surpassed one million people. While member states continue to implement national policies on refugee acceptance and the political world is confronted with stark polarisation in the face of such a crisis, the European Union works to provide overarching policies to ensure that neither their member-states’ sovereignty, the security of Europe , nor the rights of the refugee population are compromised. The European Union is under immense pressure and as such suffers from some organisational weaknesses, as pointed out by the European Council on Foreign Relations. Despite this, the climate remains hopeful. In their October report entitled “EU Global Strategy: Internal and External Challenges on the Refugee Crisis”, the ECFR brought to attention the vital role of trust between EU member states and the institutions managing the crisis response. The situation as is  suffers from a fundamental shortage of such confidence. The Council recommends a renewed commitment to trust, flexibility, and resolve, all of which are instrumental to the EU’s ability to “weather this storm” (ECFR). This trust can be achieved by placing emphasis on both the sharing of intelligence as well as the commitment to realistic financial pledges. The political and economic sacrifices required by the EU are immense. However, amidst the difficult task of settling an estimated three million migrants by 2017, a positive aspect has emerged for member states ready to take on the challenge. The EU has recently published a report regarding the economic effects of the large inflow of immigrants that declares a net economic gain of approximately 0.25% to be had by 2017. The ambitiousness required to overcome the crisis will demand intense cooperation on all fronts, but perhaps as time goes by further economic and socio-cultural benefits will be unearthed. Though the road ahead is long and unpredictable for the European Union and migrants alike, it is up to policy makers continue to seek renewed trust and realistically commit to flexibility to ensure that overcoming the so-called “crisis” can be looked back upon as a high point in international history. Information: International Organization for Migration http://www.iom.int/ http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/eeip/pdf/ip011_en.pdf http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/business/international/european-union-economic-forecast-migrants-refugees.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/world/europe/migrant-crisis-europe-million.html    

  The European Commission adopted the European Agenda on Security on 28 April 2015, setting out the main actions envisaged to ensure an effective EU response to security threats over the period 2015-2020. Since its adoption, significant progress has been made in its implementation. This first year since its adoption has also been marked by tragic terrorist attacks around the world and notably on European soil in Paris in November 2015 and in Brussels in March. Against this background, this Memo highlights the actions to be completed as a matter of urgency in view of the current challenges faced, and summarizes the actions already completed. Completed actions since the adoption of the European Agenda on Security On terrorism The European Counter Terrorism Centre (EU ECTC) in Europol was launched on 1 January 2016. The aim is to step up the institutional support to Member States fighting terrorism and radicalisation by facilitating coordination and cooperation between relevant authorities within a secure environment with the highest confidentiality in its communication. As the Commission recalled in several meetings of the Justice and Home Affairs Council, sufficient expertise needs to be made available by Member States. The Commission has proposed an amending budget to increase the ECTC by 25 staff. On border management The Commission revised the Schengen Handbook in line with the need for additional checks against the relevant databases. As a result, today there are more than 66,000 alerts for discreet and specific checks. This is a 300% increase compared to June 2013. In 2015, the Commission made legal and technical improvements to the Schengen Information System (SIS) to provide for real-time communication from officials operating on the ground to the competent services in other Member States. The Commission also distributed an explanatory document to Member States at the beginning of October 2015 to help border guards in the seizing of invalidated documents. In the context of the revision of the SIS already foreseen for 2016, the Commission will look into possible needs to enhance the law enforcement aspect of the SIS. In the meantime, the Commission is urging Member States to make full use of the possibilities to enter into the SIS alerts relating to all measures involving expulsion, refusal of entry or removal from the territory of a Member State. The Commission finalised in May 2015, in close cooperation with national experts, the EEAS, EU Agencies and Interpol, a first set of Common Risk Indicators concerning foreign terrorist fighters, with a view to detect terrorist travel. Common Risk Indicators support the work of national border authorities when conducting checks on persons. To operationalise the Common Risk Indicators, FRONTEX has developed a handbook to support Member States. On radicalisation The establishment of the EU Internet Referral Unit (IRU) at Europol aims to help reduce the volume of terrorist material online. It was launched on 1 July (pilot phase). In its first three months, it has made over 550 referrals. The Commission intends to support the IRU in reaching out to more internet companies, as well as encourage the companies to have adequate arrangements in place to receive referrals from the EU IRU. The Commission launched the EU Internet Forum on 3 December 2015, bringing together Ministers and CEOs of major internet companies and other internet actors. It provides a framework for more efficient cooperation with the industry. The aim is to contribute to (i) reducing accessibility to terrorist material online (removal of content), (ii) making better use of the internet to challenge the terrorist narrative (development and dissemination of counter narratives), and (iii) exploring the concerns of law enforcement on new encryption technologies. Communication between terrorists is increasingly taking place using highly sophisticated encryption techniques. To respond to the requests coming from the EU Internet Forum and from several Member States, internet companies have already implemented significant changes to their Terms and Conditions to take down terrorism propaganda and extremism content from their platform. Moreover, the companies have launched several campaigns at EU level to empower civil society to work on alternative narratives to radicalisation. Beyond the initial participants of the forum, there is high interest from other internet companies to join the action. A roadmap with concrete activities for 2016 is being finalised together with the companies. The Commission has launched in 2015 an initiative in dialogue with the IT companies to tackle online hate speech in accordance with EU law (Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia) and national law, with a view to ensuring that hate speech is expeditiously taken down. The Radicalisation Awareness Network (RAN) Centre of Excellence has been operational since 1 October 2015. The aim is (i) to facilitate and enhance the exchange of experiences and cooperation between the relevant stakeholders (inside and outside the EU), in particular through the RAN; (ii) to support the EU and the Member States in their prevent efforts through different support services, practical tools and policy contributions; and (iii) to consolidate, disseminate and share expertise, best practices and targeted research in the field of preventing radicalisation. The RAN Centre has stepped up its support to Member States and to priority third countries. It has been reinforced with a budget of EUR 25 million for the next 5 years. On cross border cooperation A platform bringing together Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) from the Member States is in place. Its purpose is to detect and disrupt terrorist finance and money laundering activities. It meets on a regular basis with the Commission services with a view to enhance cooperation, develop common tools and better identify suspicious financial transactions. They have developed well-performing IT tools for direct information exchange (FIU.NET) among FIUs, that since 1 January 2016 is embedded in EUROPOL, and in particular in its ECTC. On firearms The Commission adopted an implementing regulation on common firearms deactivation standards on 18 November 2015. It will enter into force on 8 April 2016 to ensure that deactivated firearms are rendered irreversibly inoperable and cover both domestic and cross-border situations in order to fulfil the security objectives. On the external dimension The Commission also took action, in close cooperation with the External Action Service and the EU Counter Terrorism Coordinator, to ensure further coherence between internal and external actions in the field of security. Security and counter-terrorism experts have been deployed in the EU delegations of Turkey, Tunisia, Morocco, Jordan, Algeria and Egypt. Targeted and upgraded security and counter-terrorism dialogues have been established, in particular with Tunisia, Lebanon, Morocco and Turkey, and concrete action plans are being agreed with those countries. Relevant actions  launched by the Commission which need to be sped up Priorities for implementation Action Plan on Terrorist Financing: On 2 February 2016, the Commission announced a wide range of measures to cut terrorists off from their sources of revenue and to trace them through financial activities. Among the immediate priorities in the Action Plan are measures to enhance the effectiveness of sanctions and asset freezing measures within the EU and in third countries. In the first half of 2016, the Commission will propose targeted amendments to the EU Anti-Money Laundering framework to address emerging terrorist financing risks and potential loopholes. Also this year, the Commission intends to propose EU legislation against illicit cash movements, including possible limits on cash or assets carried or transported across borders. The Commission will also assess the need for additional EU legislation for freezing terrorist assets within the EU and the possibilities to complement the existing EU-US Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme. Action Plan on firearms and explosives: The Commission presented on 2 December 2015 an Action Plan on firearms and explosives that called for a number of measures to prevent terrorist attacks such as those that occurred in Paris and Brussels. These include (i) specific actions on the use of detection technology and towards standardising its use (soft targets, critical infrastructures, public areas; (ii) development of innovative detection tools, (iii) strengthening of existing measures and creation of new tools for increasing the security of passengers on international train services; (iv) use of new technologies to reinforce security in rail transport. The Commission has already identified significant gaps in the implementation of Regulation 98/2013 on explosives precursors and is taking action to improve the situation. Dissemination of guidance on soft target protection: In May 2015 the Commission and the EU Airport Police network completed work on an EU Airport Soft Target Protection manual. This manual has been translated into the official EU languages and should be shortly distributed to all the Police forces so that the recommendations can be used to better secure airports against similar attacks to the one that occurred on 22 March 2016. Similar work has been launched in October 2015 by the Commission to develop guidance material on protection against other soft target areas such as rail and metro and other areas (sport stadiums, shopping malls, public garages, transport hubs, etc). The issuance of the Manual will be accelerated and accompanied by adequate training. Detection and protection trials: Detection and protection trials have been launched by the Commission together with several Member States in February 2015 in different operational environments such as airports, train station, sport events and public buildings. New trials are scheduled for May 2016. Dedicated manuals for Member State practitioners have been issued by the Commission together with AIRPOL on airport security and protection. Pending proposals to be adopted by the co-legislators Commission proposal for a directive on terrorism: Following the adoption of the additional protocol to the Council of Europe convention of terrorism, the Commission proposed on 2 December 2015 a directive harmonising the criminalisation of offences linked to terrorist travel, passive training, financing and facilitation of such travel. Following the general approach reached by the Council at the Home Affairs Council on 11 March, the Commission invites the co-legislators to agree on the Commission’s ambitious proposal as a matter of priority. Commission proposal for revised firearms legislation: On 18 November 2015, the Commission presented a proposal for the full revision of Directive 477/91 setting the legal framework on firearms. The revision aims at strengthening rules and reducing the legal uncertainty caused by national divergences, thus facilitating the role of national police and investigation authorities. The adoption by the co-legislators should be a priority for ensuring the high standards of the Commission’s proposal. EU PNR Directive: The agreement found on the Commission’s proposal for a Directive on the use of Passenger Names Record (PNR) data by law enforcement authorities should be formalised as soon as possible by the co-legislators, replacing a set of diverging national rules. Revised Europol Regulation: The final adoption of the revised Europol Regulation, following the political agreement reached between the co-legislators on the Commission’s proposal, will constitute a decisive step towards making Europol a hub for information exchange for law enforcement authorities within the EU and to better support their actions. Border package: The package was adopted by the Commission on 15 December 2015. It proposes the setting up of a European Border and Coast Guard to move towards integrated border management to raise common standards at the external border. It also contains proposals for the modification of the Schengen Borders Code to impose the obligation of carrying out systematic checks at the external borders on all persons, including those enjoying the right of free movement under Union law (i.e. EU citizens and members of their families who are not EU citizens), in order to verify that such persons do not represent a threat to public order and internal security. The discussion in the Council on the package should be sped up under the Dutch Presidency, ensuring the high level of ambition proposed by the Commission. Extension of ECRIS to Third Country Nationals: The Commission proposed on 19 January 2016 to amend the EU system for the exchange of information on criminal convictions to render it more effective for the exchange of criminal records of Third Country Nationals. The Commission invites the co-legislators to agree on the Commission’s proposal as a matter of priority. Current challenges and related actions? Member States have the primary responsibility to ensure security on the ground. Action at EU level must focus on where we can bring added-value to the action of the Member States. In that regard, the Commission has devoted significant efforts under the European Agenda on Security to address the main challenges for an effective and sustainable action at EU level to fight terrorism and organised crime: (1) the exchange of information between Member States’ law enforcement authorities and with the EU Agencies, and (2) the issue of the inter-operability of relevant databases and information systems. A number of actions are being undertaken to address these challenges: Communication on stronger borders: The Commission is working on a Communication, which will build on the synergies between the European Agendas on Security and Migration. It will present a way forward on how technology and information exchange systems could develop in the next five years to ensure that border guards and police officers have the necessary information at their disposal in order to effectively manage external borders and ensure internal security. It will urge the better application and implementation of existing EU instruments, maximising the benefits of existing EU measures and, where necessary, delivering new and complementary actions. It will highlight the need to achieve a more joined-up, inter-agency and cross-sectoral approach, which is coordinated at the nexus of different threats, actions and policies. Information exchange for law enforcement purposes: In view of the importance of cross-border information exchange for law enforcement purposes within the EU and the challenges that such exchanges raise, the Commission continues to prioritise the enforcement of the existing Prüm framework (an information exchange tool that can offer automated comparison of DNA profiles, fingerprint data and vehicle registration data) as a matter of urgency. The first EU Pilots were sent at the end of 2015. A more systematic use of Interpol’s Stolen and Lost Travel Documents database is also a high priority, in line with JHA Council Conclusions from November 2015. Action plan on SIS and foreign terrorist fighters’ movements: The Council Presidency, in close cooperation with the Commission, is preparing an action plan to be issued by the end of the current Presidency on the use of SIS in relation to foreign terrorist fighters and to address important operational difficulties. Joint Framework on countering hybrid threats; the Commission and the High Representative will soon present a Joint Communication to address hybrid threats more effectively with a coordinated response at EU level by using EU policies and instruments, to build on European solidarity, mutual assistance and the full potential of the Lisbon Treaty.  

By Samantha Brletich. The Kazakhstan snap Parliamentary elections were held on 20 March 2016. The snap elections were called amidst economic turmoil and fears that the Kazakhstan government would lose voter and public confidence because of the economic situation in Kazakhstan. The elections will solidify autocratic President Nursultan Nazarbayev’s rule over the country and make it appear that he has the unwavering support of the people of Kazakhstan. Reports of crackdown of dissent suggest otherwise. The crackdowns, aimed at political dissidents and non-conformists to President Nazarbayev’s policies, is a way to control civil unrest and silence critics which is a longstanding criticism of the Nazarbayev Administration. The elections did not generate significant differences in the country’s political landscape which has remained relatively unchanged since Nazarbayev gained power in 1989. Arguably, the elections are part of Nazarbayev’s attempts to make Kazakhstan appear as a democratic country and are part of “managed democracy.” The elections are being held against the backdrop of a failing economy, fluctuating tenge, low oil revenue prices and the oil market crash, political dissent, and Nazarbayev’s need to be reaffirmed by the people of Kazakhstan. The election will also show regional countries that Kazakhstan handle economic problems and is a reliable partner. Nazarbayev’s victory was predictable and negative implications stemming from a minor Parliamentary mix-up are non-existent. A Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) mission monitored the elections. Kazakhstan’s past elections have fallen short of international standards citing lack of competitive candidates and corruption. As many as 234 candidates from the following six parties vied for 98 available parliament seats: the ruling Nur Otan party and the Party of President Nursultan Nazarbayev (127 candidates), Ak Zhol (35 candidates), Auyl (19 candidates), the Communist People’s Party of Kazakhstan (22 candidates), the Nationwide Social Democratic Party (23 candidates) and the Birlik party (eight candidates). Over 1,000 candidates are running for seats in the lower Parliament. Not much has changed as the other parties platforms do not vary that greatly. Political parties are prohibited from forming blocks. According to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the results of the March 20, 2016, parliamentary elections show, “that three parties will have seats in the Majlis[:]Nur-Otan got 82.15 percent of the vote; Ak Zhol, 7.18 percent; and the Communist People’s Party of Kazakhstan took 7.14 percent.” These results are similar to the 2012 Parliamentary elections which highlights the lack of political variety and true democracy in the country. The elections were hailed a success by regional organizations, the SCO and the CIS. The ODIHR did not agree as Kazakhstan has a long way to go to fulfill its democratic agreement. International observers were not surprised at the results. As early voting commenced on Sunday, the Kazakh Central Election Committee, stated that the elections were transparent. The OSCE have been heavily involved as “the OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission opened in Astana on17 February, with an11 member core team and 28 long-term-observers deployed throughout the country.” Whether or not the elections will expedite the reforms or guarantee implementation, the economy continues to slow. If Nur Otan retains its majority in Kazakhstan’s Parliament, the speed of implementation would not be effected. The snap elections directly are not being held to give the government a mandate on “100 steps.” The legitimacy of “100 steps” is derived from the President and support from Parliament and the overall willingness to reform Kazakhstan. Fifty-nine laws have already entered into force citing information from the Astana Times. The snap elections center on economic recovery and political change. The snap elections are supported by the Majlis, and the miners and metallurgists to allow for “further implementation of reforms,” under Plan of the Nation (or “100 Steps”) and to “understand how we work in a new way, what laws should be adopted to meet the requirements of a market economy,” according to the Kazakh BNews news portal. The Head of the Assembly of Peoples of Kazakhstan (APK) stated elections will benefit the country politically and economically. Kazakhstan’s People’s Democratic Patriotic Party, known as “Aul” Party, also supports the snap elections. Support from Aul makes the elections and the decision not so one-sided appear pluralistic. The Astana Times, published astonishing, but not surprising, poll results about voting in a new Majlis and reforms: “92 percent of citizens believe the early elections make the public more confident the new reforms will be implemented.” Other poll results are similar. Recently, on 12 January 2016, protests were held in Astana against the Kazakh Bank and the falling tenge. In response, the Kazakh government offered powdered mare’s milk on the global market which “can generate product worth $1 billion (a year)” to mitigate declining global oil prices. Another recent incident was the firing of the Sovereign Wealth Fund manager, Berik Otemurat, stated Kazakhstan’s National Oil Fund would run out in the next six or seven years. The National Oil Fund, often used as an emergency fund, has fallen 17% from $77 billion since August 2014 and the government is withdrawing about according to the Wall Street Journal. The tenge strengthened slightly in February after the currency declined after the government began to float the currency and the country is still experiencing weakened GDP growth. By mid-March the tenge has recovered by 10%. Two activists in Kazakhstan, Serizkhan Mambetalin and Ermek Narymbaev, were convicted and sent to prison for two and three years respectively for Facebook posts “inciting national discord” (Article 174 of the Criminal Code) and the “authorities claimed the clips amounted to a ‘serious crime against peace and security of humankind’ ” according to Human Rights Watch. The two men were arrested in October 2015 and their trial began 9 December 2015. A third activist, Bolatbek Blyalov, has movement restricted for three years and cannot “[change] his place of residence or work, or [spend] time in public areas during his time off.” The punishment for the three activists violates many of Kazakhstan’s international commitments. On 22 February, the head of the Union of Journalists of Kazakhstan National Press Club, Seitkazy Matayev, was arrested on charges of corruption—accused of tax evasion and embezzlement of funds. According to TengrinNews, “the state anti-corruption agency said Matayev was detained along with his son Aset Matayev who heads the private KazTAG news agency.” Seitkazy Matayev was President Nazarbayev’s press secretary from 1991 to 1993. The Committee on Protecting Journalists reported that the Mateyevs sent statements to Adil Soz (a local press group) indicated harassment by city and state authorities began in January 2016. There was also a recent protest in Almaty on 18 March 2016 about the incarceration of activist Yermek Narymbayev, one of the facebook activists, jailed for incitement ethnic strife (Kazakhstan Criminate Code Article 174). Kazakhstan repeatedly has fallen short of commitments for democratic reforms (particularly press freedoms) and instead has strengthened Nazarbayev’s soft authoritarianism. Edward Schatz categorizes Kazakhstan as a soft authoritarian regime that engages in managed information and “[discourages] opposition and [encourages] pro-regime authorities.” Information management, according to Schatz, is not only through media, but by staging “many events to convey information dramatically.” Nazarbayev has a history of staging political events. Applying this notion to snap elections, Kazakhstan’s citizens know of the economic troubles. Snap elections are unnecessary to highlight the problem and snap elections give the impression the government is actively handling the problem and that political change is imminent. Kazakhstan does consider itself a democracy and whether or not Kazakhstan’s democracy meets international standards will be revealed once institutions are strengthened. The Kazakhstan-based Astana Times calls the 20 March elections the first step towards returning “to the levels of growth and prosperity we experienced.” Constitutional reforms may give more power to the lower house, redistributing more power from the strong Presidential system the country now has (in theory). Poor economic conditions are simple a pretext for squashing dissent and reducing political opposition. The poor economic conditions should be viewed as an opportunity to engage and strengthen civil society, establish dialogue between the government and non-governmental organizations, strengthen financial institutions, and explore alternatives in the energy sector. The crash of the commodities and oil markets presents Kazakhstan a unique opportunity to diversify its economy. The elections also present the opportunity to implement electoral reform as Nazarbayev has not picked a successor which greatly increases political instability and the possible formation of a power vacuum. Kazakhstan during its time as the Chair for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe has failed to live up to its democratic obligations. The early Presidential elections of April 2015 showed that democratic reforms have yet to materialize. However, failure of democratization (all-encompassing to include media and political rights) and constant criticism has not stopped Kazakhstan from taking on the role of an international mediator on many high-profile conflicts—Iran and Syria—and from becoming a reliable and cooperative economic, trade, and security partners to its neighbors. Kazakhstan’s slow rise on the stage fuel autocratic behaviors. Kazakhstan’s elections, while varied, reflect Kazakhstan’s wavering commitment to democracy and lack of party pluralism. Snap elections and early Presidential elections provide an opportunity for Kazakhstan to slowly implement electoral reforms and most importantly media reforms. Kazakhstan’s Election Law is weak as it does provide for equal party distribution and fails to provide a concrete and non-ambiguous criteria for campaign finance. About the author: Samantha M. Brletich is a researcher and writer specializing in Central Asia and governance, security, terrorism, and development issues. She possesses a Master’s in Peace Operations Policy from George Mason University in Virginia, United States. She works with the virtual think tank Modern Diplomacy specializing in Central Asia and diplomatic trends. Her work has appeared in multiple publications focused on diplomacy and Central Asia respectively. She is currently an employee of the U.S. Federal Government.

On 20 September 2015, shortly after his 64^th birthday, H.E. Ed Kronenburg, Ambassador of the Netherlands to France, completed The Hague Peace Marathon. H.E. Mr Kronenburg has been the Dutch Ambassador to France since 2012. He has held diverse official postings, including functions in the European Commission, NATO and the Service of the Royal House of Orange. The Ambassador has been running since 1999. His first great marathon was that of New York, which he since completed on several occasions. Other marathons under his belt include events in Berlin, Paris, Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Enschede, the Zuiderzee Marathon, Monschau and the Slachte marathon in Friesland. 2015 was the first time he had participated in a marathon in The Hague. He told the Marathon Newsletter that he hoped for good weather and was looking forward to an enjoyable event. He was particularly enthusiastic about the initiative to persuade more ambassadors to participate, telling the Marathon Newsletter that The Hague Peace Marathon “highlights the international character of the City of Peace and Justice.” He added that he hoped his own example would encourage other diplomats to run. The fact that Stichting The Hague Marathon organises this run as the Peace Marathon was much to the Ambassador’s liking. He observed that the need for peace and mutual goodwill is greater now than ever, given recent events in Europe. The Ambassador’s message to participants in the forthcoming Peace Marathon is simple: “Be well prepared at the start, and enjoy the event to the fullest.”