The new President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), H. E. Carmel Agius addresses the Diplomatic Community, Thursday the 25^th of February, 2016.   By Elizabeth Naumczyk.   On the 25^th of February, 2016 the new ICTY President Carmel Agius held a briefing for the diplomatic community in The Hague on the work of the Tribunal, as well as on his priorities and plans for the biennium. The President was joined by the Vice-President, Judge Liu Daqun and the Tribunal Registrar John Hocking who also addressed the states’ representatives. The addresses by the President and the Registrar were followed by a session of questions and answers. The briefing was attended by over 90 diplomats. President Agius is not new to the ICTY having served as a Judge since 2001 and as Vice-President for the 4 previous years before assuming the Presidency in November 2015. He is also a judge of the MICT ( Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals). He pointed out his key priorities:  “first and foremost, meeting the 2017 deadline for the closure of the Tribunal; second, ensuring the efficiency of proceedings without sacrificing the fairness and quality of judicial proceedings and third, consolidating the image of the Tribunal and the impact of its work.” (See ICTY Press Release http://www.icty.org/en/press/president-agius-addressed-diplomatic-community ). After the closure of the ICTY, the MICT will take over completely with a branch in Arusha, Tanzania and another in The Hague, The Netherlands. For additional Kim Vermaat’s pictures, please click here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/121611753@N07/albums/72157663110712323

President Agius stated he was fortunate to take office at a time when the Tribunal is fully operational, strong and has been well-prepared for its last biennium. He explained the forthcoming month would be a hugely significant month for the Tribunal with the pronouncement of two Judgements. That of the Radovan Karadžić Trial on the 24^th of March and the Vojislav Šešelj Trial on the 31^st of March. He also indicated the remaining cases (4 ongoing cases and 2 appeals) were well on track to be concluded in a timely manner. He saw no difficulties with the Security Council extending the offices of 7 judges, whose term will end this year, until the end of 2017. To date the Tribunal has indicted 161 persons and concluded the proceedings for 149 accused. There are no outstanding indictments and no fugitives. Furthermore, he said “ the Security Council requested that the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) carry out an evaluation with respect to the methods and work of the ICTY, in the context of the implementation of the Completion Strategy pursuant to resolution 1966 (2010), and to present its report by 1 June 2016. It also further requested for the Tribunal to report on the implementation of the OIOS recommendations in its next six-monthly report to the Council”. (See United Nations Meetings Coverage and Press Releases 22 December, 2015 http://www.un.org/press/en/2015/sc12177.doc.htm) President Agius said he looked forward to addressing the recommendations and being able to make the work of the Tribunal additionally efficient. He thanked China for responding to requests made by the ICTY to the Security Council for experienced staff and for sending a team of academics and lawyers to assist with the drafting of judgements. He thanked Vice-President, Judge Liu Daqun for his work to make this happen. He also thanked the services of all the past and present talented staff of the Tribunal who had contributed to the success of the Tribunal. The President stressed how important it was for ambassadors to assist the Tribunal’s continuing work with both domestic and international authorities with respect to creating information centres in the ex republics of Yugoslavia and an archival legacy for people of the region and scholars. He mentioned the significant contribution of the European Union (EU) to the outreach program. In 2017 the Tribunal is planning conferences both in The Hague and the former Yugoslavia focusing on legacy issues. Exhibitions, some permanent, will also be created in the region and this activity will be continued by the MICT. The Tribunal’s legacy is also its contribution to developing and enriching international criminal and international humanitarian law since the Nuremberg Trials. Universities have now introduced the study of international criminal law and the study of international humanitarian law didn’t exist in the past. The ICTY receives visitors who participate in proceedings. In total a 1,000 interns have been trained and 7,000 staff have worked at the ICTY.

  In response to questions regarding legacy, The President further elaborated that the ICTY was created in a hurry and, unlike the ICC, had no body of rules of evidence and procedure. The rule of evidence and procedure had to be built from scratch by the first judges and their successors.   International criminal law has subsequently improved on the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials with a greater variety of crimes and crimes that were not fully developed under international criminal law, such as sexual crimes. However, there is still fragmentation as different Courts and Tribunals adopt differing interpretations, for example, the ICTY, European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), the International Court of Justice (ICJ) take a different approach in what is vital for the element of genocide.   All this triggers fertile experiences to achieve uniformity and it depends on the ICC, as the permanent court, to decide what it considers important to be left as a legacy. Speaking about the key goals of the Tribunal, President Agius said that “it is fundamental that in the remaining biennium, the Tribunal continues its commitment to fostering peace and security in the former Yugoslavia, to ending impunity for the commission of international crimes and to preventing their recurrence in the region.” President Agius ended his remarks by stressing he was not only the new ICTY President, but also the last, stating that: “As the last President of the ICTY, I have the honour of guiding its closure in 2017, which must be done in an efficient, professional and exemplary manner.” The Registrar, John Hocking, pointed out that the Tribunal had downsized from 1300 staff, when it operated at full capacity, to 400 staff. Auditors had praised the Tribunal for its fairness and transparency in its downsizing operations of staff with no internal disputes. The Registry, he reiterated, needs the support of its Member States and its Host State.   It is the engine of operations and generates, judicial, legal and external support.   To date all the accused had access to highly qualified defence lawyers; the detention centre met required standards and is monitored by the Red Cross; the Registry continues to provide support to victim and witnesses; and there is now an increased number of domestic courts in the former ex Yugoslavia.  Last year the General Assembly had decreased the budget by half.   The ICTY will undertake liquidation proceedings and transfer its assets, functions as well as the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) to the MICT. The Registrar also added that the immortal legacy of the ICTY is its best practice as an international criminal court and enriching the heritage of the Bosian, Serbian, Croatian (BSE) languages.   The Tribunal continues to welcome visitors and improve access to its records and outreach to the Balkans. Internationals Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia  ICTY http://www.icty.org/en/about    

By Barend ter Haar. The Global Go To Think Tank Index Report[1] has become a global affair. More than hundred think tanks participated this year in the launch of the Report, that ranks the world’s leading think tanks in 50 categories. Think tanks are increasingly forced to finance their operations by “short term, project specific grants”. The report warns that this increases the danger that think tanks, by concentrating on the short term like most politicians do, will become part of the problem rather than part of the solution of today´s problems. Although it is said that ideas know no boundaries and although most countries are confronted with largely the same problems, most think tanks still mainly target their home audiences. This might change when institutes are forced to compete on a regional or even global market, but so far, very few think tanks are internationalizing. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is an exception with offices in Beijing, Beirut, Brussels, Moscow, Washington DC and (soon) India. A different approach is taken by the OSCE Network of Think Tanks and Academic Institutions. This network was set up in 2013 by 16 think tanks (including Clingendael) and now encompasses 54 think tanks from 36 countries. It has so far produced three reports, inter alia on Threat Perceptions in the OSCE Area and on The Future of OSCE Field Operations. The Network contributes actively to the transboundary exchange of ideas, but funding remains a problem. According to the Global-go-to-index, Dutch think tanks have been doing well in 2015. Fifteen Dutch think tanks are included in one or more of the lists, against twelve last year, and these were mentioned 34 times, against 20 times last year. Clingendael remains the only Dutch think tank in the global top 100 (nr 46 in the global list, nr 24 when US think tanks are not taken into account). Clingendael was mentioned seven times, inter alia among the think tanks with the best external relations and the best use of media. The Hague Institute for Global Justice and The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies did particularly well. Two years ago, neither of them was mentioned in the index. Now THIGJ was mentioned in no less than eight categories, inter alia for its support of the work of the Commission for Global Security, Justice, and Governance Report on Confronting the Crisis of Global Governance and HCSS was mentioned in five categories, including that of Top Energy and Resource Policy Think Tanks. Three Dutch institutes are new on the index: the Institute of Social Studies, the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism (ICCT) and the Quid Novi Foundation. However, the criteria for including an institute in the index remain mysterious. Why, for example, is the Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis (CPB) included, but are the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) and the Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR) missing?   [1] See also my previous columns on the subject: https://diplomatmagazine.eu/2015/03/01/future-think-tanks/ https://diplomatmagazine.eu/2014/04/06/ranking-think-tanks/

By Mr. Li Fei, Economic and Commercial Counsellor of the Embassy of People’s Republic of  China in the Netherlands.

China and Europe started doing business with each other more than 2000 years ago. Silk made in China travelled over 6500 km through the vast land of Eurasia on camel back, to arrive at the hands of European admirers. Hence came the name of Silk Road. Four centuries ago, direct trade links between China and the Netherlands was established when the first Dutch ships arrived in China through the maritime Silk Road, and brought tea, porcelain and silk back to Europe. Silk Road has represented the spirit of cooperation, openness and mutual benefit.

After many centuries, trade and economic exchanges between China and the Netherlands has become ever more prosperous. In 2015, bilateral trade reached 68 billion US dollars, ranking top 3 among European countries. Every day, hundreds of thousands of containers arrive at the Rotterdam port or the Schipol airport with toys or smart phones, and leave for China with chemicals or machinery.

In 2015, Chinese companies invested 3.6 billion US dollars in the Netherlands in the form of non-financial direct investment. This figure accounts for half of China’s FDI in the EU in 2015. Presence of Chinese companies can now be found in a wide spectrum of sectors, from agriculture to logistics, from financial services to high-tech. Their investment has created decent jobs for local communities, offered quality products and services for Dutch consumers, and brought new vigor to the economy of the Netherlands.

Such achievements in bilateral exchanges do not come as a surprise. On one hand, the Netherlands is one the most open economies in the world. With its strong competitiveness in multiple industries and strategic position as the gateway to Europe, the Netherlands has always been among the most prominent traders and investors in the world.

On the other hand, China, after many decades of remarkable growth, has become the world’s second largest economy, the biggest trader and No. 3 investor. In 2015, China’s GDP growth contributed over 25% to the world’s economic growth. Its total trade accounted for over 13% of the global trade, and FDI inflow and outflow both exceeded 100 billion USD.

We are fully confident that China will continue to be a most important player in global trade and economy in the years to come. From the demand side, China has a huge market with unfathomable potential. As is widely known, China boasts the largest population in the world. Something not so widely known is that, China’s middle class has overtaken the US as the world’s largest and has been growing much faster, as revealed in a study by Credit Suisse. As the Chinese people gets richer, their immense consumption power is manifested in amazing numbers. For example, according to incomplete statistics, in 2015 Chinese tourists spent over 230 billion USD on traveling overseas, and at least half of the spending is on shopping.

From the supply side, China has what it needs to further boost competitiveness, and will do what it takes. China has a comprehensive industrial chain and a large pool of highly educated talents, which provide a wonderful platform for innovative companies to try out new ideas and scale up production capacity quickly. For instance, DJI, a technology company founded in 2006 and headquartered in Shenzhen, is now at the forefront of the civilian-drone industry. With advanced technology in flight control and cradle head, DJI’s products have dominated the global market with 70% market share. The Chinese government is also making every effort to create a better business climate through deepening reform. For example, the Shanghai Free Trade Zone was launched in 2013, followed by three more free trade zones in 2015. Bold measures of streamlining administration and liberalizing market are first tested in the free trade zones, and then rolled out all around the country.

We believe that the development of China will bring tremendous business opportunities for our partners all over the world, and thus bring better lives to their peoples. This is why China proposed the “Belt and Road” initiative – to carry on the spirit of cooperation, openness and mutual benefit. By connecting infrastructure and development strategies of countries along the “Belt and Road”, and by stepping up bilateral and regional cooperation, the time-honored Silk Road will upgrade into a highway for the exchanges of goods, services, technology, culture and friendship between East and West, and will be exuberant with new vitality.

The Netherlands is well-known as an open and pragmatic country, and always stands for free trade. China will maintain steady and healthy economic growth as it continues to deepen reform. As the two ends of “Belt and Road”, the Netherlands and China have huge cooperation potential. Now it is high time for us to work even closer together, to usher in a new golden age in the 21 century.

Embassy of the People’s Republic of China http://nl.china-embassy.org/eng/

Photography by Mr. Kang Yin, Second Secretary, Embassy of  the People’s Republic  China.

 

Peace Palace Library Report Lecture nr. 6 on ‘Peacebuilding in Progress’ by former Dutch diplomat Mr. Herman Schaper: ‘The Candidature of the Netherlands for Membership of the Security Council 2017-2018’. ‘On a Dutch bike in New York’ On Wednesday February 3, 2016, UPEACE Centre The Hague, in cooperation with the Peace Palace Library, organized a lecture on the Dutch candidature for membership of the United Nations Security Council. This Peace Palace Library report will give an overview of the lecture with the main focus on the keynote speaker: former Dutch diplomat Mr. Herman Schaper. ‘Today, it’s me talking’, announced Mr. Schaper at the start of his Lecture after being introduced to the audience by Library Director, Mr. Jeroen Vervliet. Mr. Schaper’s idea of the lecture was to discuss the Dutch campaign for membership of the UN Security Council based on his own experiences of the campaign in the past years. In addition, he also explained to his audience the work process that has been going on at the United Nations in New York to achieve this goal of the Dutch government. United Nations Security Council Elections 2016 Schaper first discussed the election procedure and gave us an explanation of the system. The 2016 UN Security Council election will be held in June 2016 during the 70^th session of the UN General Assembly, held at the UN Headquarters in New York. Elections are held for five non-permanent seats on the UN Security Council. These five seats rotate among five regional groups. Three of these groups are based on geographical location, two of them on the old East-West division. The Netherlands is currently competing with Sweden and Italy for two seats in the Western European and Others Group. Sweden presented its candidacy in 2004, the Netherlands in 2005, and some years later, Italy put forward its own candidacy. ‘If you look at the history of the candidacies of the countries,’ Schaper illustrated, ‘Italy has been a member of the Security Council 6 times, The Netherlands 5 times and Sweden 3 times.’ The Dutch Campaign: The Kingdom of the Netherlands The campaign for the candidature of the Netherlands will focus on 5 themes:

1. I) The Kingdom of the Netherlands. II) Partnership. III) Peace. IV) Justice. V) Development. Mr. Schaper explained to us that a main theme of the campaign is to show other countries that the Kingdom of the Netherlands consists in fact of four different countries, namely the Netherlands and 3 small island states in the Caribbean. Since 2010, the island states of Sint Maarten, Curacao and Aruba are constituent countries and only depend on the Netherlands for foreign policy and defence matters. They have a special status within the Kingdom, which in effect means that they are autonomous countries with their own governments.

According to Mr. Schaper, the Kingdom of the Netherlands means the Netherlands on the mainland of Europe and the Netherlands in the Caribbean. The Kingdom has intensive bilateral relations with other Caribbean states and as a member of the UN Security Council the Netherlands will give special attention to the problems and interests of small island states. Mr. Schaper emphasized that there are nearly 40 small island states in the world, all of them with a vote in the elections in June. Dutch Campaign: Peace, Justice and Development Mr. Schaper continued to discuss the peace, justice and development themes. The primary task of the Security Council is maintaining and restoring international peace and security. The Netherlands is providing troops to the UN and assists the UN in fulfilling its peacekeeping role in the world. As a potential member of the Security Council, the Netherlands will advocate for improved planning, training and preparing for peacekeeping actions. The Netherlands will put forward a more serious approach with regard to the use of military force by the UN. ‘At the same time, we will not only focus on military solutions. We are aware of non-military ways to help maintain international peace and security,’ Mr. Schaper said in his speech. He also spoke about the peaceful settlement of international disputes to maintain international peace and security, pointing out the fact that the Netherlands is host to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the UN. The focus of the Dutch campaign will also lie on these peaceful alternatives to military force, for example, by promoting mediation and arbitration. ‘We hope to strengthen relations between New York and The Hague’. The United Nations Security Council From 2009 to 2013, Mr. Schaper was the Permanent Representative (Permrep) of the Netherlands to the UN in New York. It was during this period that Mr. Schaper actively promoted the enlargement of the Security Council. The Netherlands is in favour of opening up the Security Council and wants to be a partner with other UN countries outside the Security Council. At the moment, one of the main criticisms of the Security Council relates to its position as a ‘closed body’ with many private meetings. Additionally, a debate is taking place in New York on the functioning of the Security Council. This debate focuses on the veto rights of the permanent members. Mr. Schaper explained the Netherlands is in favour of limiting the reach of the veto in special situations, for example in case of mass atrocities. It was suggested by France that in such cases the five permanent members will not use their veto. Unfortunately, limiting the veto rights will not be easy, because it requires the support of the five permanent members of the Security Council. Campaign Strategy The Netherlands started its bid for the candidature more than 10 years ago, in 2005 to be precise. To be elected a candidate needs at least 129 votes (two-thirds of the total membership of the UN, which is 193). The campaign of the Netherlands focused on promoting its candidacy trough bilateral and multilateral meetings with officials of individual countries. Often this takes the form of agreements of mutual support: ‘We support another country in their candidacy in a UN-election, and in return they support our candidacy for the Security Council,’ Mr. Schaper explained. ‘We also emphasize our substantial contribution to the UN over many decades in the maintenance of international peace and security, the promotion of human rights and international law, and the support of developing countries.’ Mr. Schaper also explained that it was important for the Netherlands to distinguish itself from the two other candidates of the same regional group, in particular Sweden. An example he gave was the fact that while he worked in New York, he preferred to travel around the city by bike, honouring a well-known Dutch tradition. He truly enjoyed this means of transport, but also considered it part of the national profile. Mr. Schaper even went to meetings and dinners by bike, which was sure to lead to comments from other participants and guests, which he could then use to explain Dutch society and to promote the candidacy for membership of the Security Council. All in all, the outcome of the elections remains unpredictable and a lot can happen until June 2016.   Sophie Brinkel, Fé de Jonge & Candice Alihusain, Peace Palace Library   Biography Herman Schaper Herman Schaper (1949) is currently a professor at the Campus The Hague of Leiden University, as well as a senator for the political party D66 in the Dutch Senate. From 2009 to 2013, Mr. Schaper worked as the Permanent Representative of the Netherlands to the UN in New York. From 2005 to 2009, he was the Dutch Permanent Representative of the Netherlands at NATO. After his return to The Hague in the summer of 2013, he was appointed Special Envoy for the Candidacy of the Netherlands for membership of the Security Council 2017-2018, a position he held until his retirement in 2014.

  Ecological Globalistan – Political Terroristan / From Paris (COP 21), of Nearly Everything.   By Professor Anis H. Bajrektarevic. Speaking in Paris on December 7, 2015 – only a morning after the landslide victory of the far right French political party, the UN Secretary General again reminded the world leaders that: “More than 1 billion people worldwide live without electricity. Nearly 3 billion people depend on smoky, dangerous traditional fuels for cooking and heating. Access to modern, reliable, affordable clean energy is equally important for ending extreme poverty and reducing inequality…The clock is ticking toward climate catastrophe.” Politely ignoring the domestic French politics, as much as the climate change hard-evidence, all international nihilists, professional optimists and other status quo conservators would call it ‘environmental alarmism’…or political alarmism – the same… What is really the state of our planet? *          *          *          * Back in 1990s, there was a legendary debate between two eminent scientists; Carl Sagan, astrophysicist and Ernst Mayr, evolutionary biologist. The issue was the question of all questions – is there any intelligent life out there? Sagan – closer to mathematics, and the counting of starts and worlds attached to it – argued that out of all the innumerable planets like ours, life must flourish at many of them. Quite a few of them, he claimed, must have developed advanced forms of living beings. Mayr – on the other hand – argued the opposite. His pessimism was coming from his profession, not from his character that was as vivid and optimistic as Sagan’s: What is a biology for natural sciences, that is a history for human sciences – spacetime-lined story of the past with a predicament, or sometimes an inevitable consequences, for our future. As prof. Naom Chomski beautifully reminds us of this great episode, Ernst Mayr took our mother planet as an example to illustrate his claim. The so-called biological success of species could be measure by their number, configuration and durability. By all three parameters, prof. Mayr stressed, the most adaptive systems are those conducting fast (non-cognitive) mutations caused/triggered by any environmental stress (e.g. varieties of bacteria, creatures stuck in a fixed ecological niches, like beetles or some sea biotas), and surviving even larger crisis including the cataclysmic events. But, as we go up the scale of what we assume as intelligence, the systems become less adaptive and scarcer by number, configuration and durability. Arriving to the top (as we classified a tip of the intelligence pyramid), from low mammals to higher primates, apes and Homo sapiens, the species tend to image a rarifying picture – by all three biological success parameters. By Mayr’s account, the average lifespan of upper-intelligence echelons is only around 100,000 years. Out of billions of spices that have inhabited (and quite some still inhabiting) our planet, we – along with other higher primates – are late arrival and temporal ‘accidents’. He attributes this to our intelligence, labeling it as a ‘lethal mutation’ – not a blessing but a curse. Mayr’s finding is intriguing: The higher the intelligence, the more likely to end up in self-destruction, past the transitioning on a curve of initial development. Indeed, our environmental, financial and politico-economic policies and practices is creating the global stress for us and all other species. Deep and structural, this must be a crisis of our cognitivity. Do we want to prove Mayr right with our global Jihad against cognitive mind?   Cognitive deficit crisis From Copenhagen, Durban, Rio+20 to the Paris COP 21, our conclusion remains the same: We need principles and accorded actions, as this is the only way to tackle the grave problems of this planet. We are lacking the elementary consensus in/on the Bretton Woods institutions, on the Tobin tax initiative, in the WTO Doha Development round, on nuclear non-proliferation (and NPT), on migrations, on the Middle East and ‘regime change mantra’, in the IPCC, on the post-Kyoto negotiations, and finally on the alarming state of environment. Ergo, on a global scale we fundamentally disagree on the realities of this planet and the ways we can address them.[1] I am neither moralizing, idealizing nor agonizing. The world based on agreed principles and commonly willing actions is not a better place. It is the only way for the human race to survive. Clearly, our crisis is real, but neither sudden nor recent. Simply, our much-celebrated globali-sation deprived from environmental concerns can only cage us into the ecological globalistan.

Climate Change – a brutal terror against nature We place ourselves in a centre of materialistic world – this, of what we perceive as a universe of dead (and linear) matter. Therefore, what we euphemistically call (anthropogenic) Climate Change is actually a brutal war against (living) nature. It is a covert armed conflict, since we are predominantly using the so-called monetizing-potent ‘technologies’, instead of firearms in our hands. (For this purpose hereby, the army units are replaced by the demolition-man of other name; ‘transnational corporations’.) This armed insurgency is waged against most of what is beautiful and unique on Earth – on the planet that gave us time and space enough to survive as species and to evolve as cognitive life. Thus, the known sustainability matrix of 3 maximums (of good, of species, and of time) becomes the minimum species, minimum time with a maximum harm. Intentionally or not, it is a synchronized attack: We are steadily and passionately polluting our public sphere with the diverting banalities manufactured by the so-call social networks, reality shows, ‘celebrities’ and the like – trivializing the contents of our lives. At the same time, we are massively contaminating our biosphere (waters, lands, air and near outer space) with non-degradable and/or toxic, solid or aerosol, particles radiation and noise – irreversibly harming our habitat. We pollute the time as well, turning it into cross-generation warfare’s battlefield: Our dangerous patterns might seal off the fate for untold number of generations and sorts of species to come. No wonder, our corrosive assertiveness has (time-space) parallels: acidifying of oceans and brutalization of our human interactions, as well as over-noising both of them, are just two sides of a same coin. What is the social sphere for society that is the biosphere for the very life on earth: the (space/time – content/form) frame we all live in. Seems we pay our space (linear possessions) by our time (future). Therefore, our crisis cannot be environmental, as it was never a financial or security (war on terror) – our crisis must be a moral one. This is a cognitive deficit crisis, which we eagerly tend to spend in a limbo of denial!   Πάντα ρει (panta rhei) Nature does not change. Change (as a cosmic constant) is a nature itself. Still, even Heraclitus understood, this force is never eruptive or destructive (explosive, combusting and polarising), but eternally gradual and constructive (holistic, inclusive and implosive). We are drifting, dissolving and retreating on all levels and within each and every organic (marine and continental biota) or inorganic (soil, glaciers, water, polar caps, etc.) system. For the grave, burning (hydrocarbon) planetary problems, our human race needs an urgent and lasting consensus which presupposes bravery, virtue, vision and creativity. All this will not result from fear of coercion (social haircut, austerity, financial straitjacket), from a further militarization of our societies caused by the accelerated confrontations called ‘war on terror’, but from the universally shared willingness to accord our common planetary cause. Cognitive mind can do it all. Let’s start our global war on terror – but this time – on the terror of a global environmental holocaust caused by our cognitive deficit crisis. Photography by Ms. Anna Lehner. —————————— Vienna, 08 DEC 2015 anis@corpsdiplomatique.cd Anis H. Bajrektarevic,  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 mid next year.   References: Ki-moon, B. (2015), Remarks to the opening of the High-Level session of the COP21, December 7, 2015, UNIS (Office of the Spokesperson of the UN SG) Chomsky, N. (2010), Human Intelligence and the Environment, University of North Caroline, Chapel Hill (Paper) Sagan, C. (1980), Cosmos Random House, NY /Carl Sagan Productions Inc. (page: 109) Dresner, S. (2002), The Principle of Sustainability, EarthScan London Smith, L.C. (2010), The World in 2050 – Four Forces Shaping Civilization’s Northern Future, Dutton (by Penguin group) [1] Additionally, we fundamentally disagree on a role to be played by technology, even on a very definition of what should be considered as technology. Technology is not a state-of-art of science; technology is a state of mind! It is not a linear progression in mastering the natural science disciplines, but a cognitive, emphatic cluster–mastering of the critical insight.