The Immigrant “Other” in US and EU Politico-Religious Experiences: a Comparative Perspective By Dr. Emanuel L. Paparella Refugees trying to get into Europe. Can the EU welcome and integrate the immigrant “other”? Nowadays this urgent question is often asked by historians, sociologists, and political scientists. It has given rise to a plethora of books and academic conferences on the subject. In the light of the events of the recent “refugee European crisis” the conclusions and prognosis are, more often than not, rather inconclusive and ineffective. In the short analysis that follows I’d like to examine the reasons for the deficiency, namely that the philosophy of religion is often ignored, if not downright excluded from the diagnosis, thus ending up with the wrong prognosis. Another aspect of the wrong diagnosis is the lack of comparative perspective on the issue. By that I mean a hard look at the immigrant experiences of both the American and European continents, preferably by scholars who have lived and worked on both sides of the Atlantic. After all, it was European societies that were the primary immigrant-sending regions to America, South Africa, Oceania and Australia and just about every corner of the globe during the colonial industrialization phase of their history (1700-1920); we are talking about some 85 million Europeans; some 60% of which emigrated to the Americas (some 50 millions). The present paradox is that the flow has now reversed and several Western European societies have now in turn become centers of global immigration. A comparison is logical and in order. There may be hard lessons to be learned from it. There is now a ratio of approximately 10% immigrants living in several European countries (UK, France, Holland, West Germany, Italy). However, they still have difficulty viewing themselves as permanent immigrant societies, the way the US viewed and continues to view itself; or for that matter of viewing the native second generations as nationals irrespective of the legal status of their citizenship. A de facto, second rate citizenship seems to be in place. The question arises: Why is that? This question can only be answered by analyzing how these Western European countries have tried to accommodate immigrant religions, particularly Islam. Although European laws and regulations are now in place, each nation, deals with immigrant religions in markedly different institutional and legal structures on how the immigrants may publicly express religious beliefs and practices. Here a thorough knowledge of modern Western European history vis a vis religion can be useful in assessing the different reactions of various EU nations. The French model of laicitè (or secularism) is primary in this respect. In practice secularism means a strict privatization of religion, its elimination from the public forum, while pressuring religious groups to organize themselves into a single centralized churchlike structure and serve as intermediary between it and the state, so as to better regulate and manipulate it. The model is in part the concordat with the Catholic Church established in Italy in 1929. Religion is tolerated but it is a private matter even when its symbols are pervasive in the country’s traditional culture. A great wall of separation between Church and State exists, as indeed is also the case in the US whose founding fathers well remembered the disastrous European wars of religions of the 17^th century. The Concordat of 1929 between Italy and the Church Great Britain, by contrast, while maintaining the established Church of England, allows greater freedom to religious associations, who deal directly with local authorities and school boards to press for changes in religious education, diet, etc., with little direct appeal to the central government. Germany, following the multi-establishment model, has tried to organize a quasi-official Islamic institution, at times in conjunction with parallel strivings on the part of the Turkish state to regulate its diaspora. But the internal divisions among immigrants from Turkey, as well as the public expression and mobilization of competing identities (secular and Muslim, Alevi and Kurd) in the German democratic context, have undermined any project of institutionalization from above. Holland, following its traditional pattern of pillarization, seemed, at least until very recently, bent on establishing a separate state-regulated but self-organized Muslim pillar. Lately, however, even traditionally liberal and tolerant Holland is expressing second thoughts, and seems ready to pass more restrictive legislation setting clear limits to the kinds of un-European, un-modern norms and habits it is prepared to tolerate. But let us now look more closely at the comparison between the EU and the US. If one looks at the European Union as a whole, there are two fundamental differences with the situation in the United States. In Europe, first of all, immigration and Islam are almost synonymous. The overwhelming majority of immigrants in most European countries, the UK being the main exception, are Muslims, and the overwhelming majority of Western European Muslims are immigrants. This identification appears even more pronounced in those cases where the majority of Muslim immigrants tend to come predominantly from a single region, e.g., Turkey in the case of Germany, the Ma’ghreb in the case of France. This entails a superimposition of different dimensions of “otherness” that exacerbates issues of boundaries, accommodation and incorporation. The immigrant, the religious, the racial, and the socio-economic de-privileged “other” all tend to coincide. In the United States, on the other hand, Muslims constitute at most 10 percent of all new immigrants. it is estimated that from 30 to 42 percent of all Muslims in the United States are African-American converts to Islam, making the characterization of Islam as a foreign, un-American religion even more difficult. The dynamics of interaction with other Muslim immigrants, with African-American Muslims, with non-Muslim immigrants from the same regions of origin, and with their immediate American hosts are, depending on socio-economic characteristics and residential patterns, much more complex and diverse than anything one finds in Europe. A nuance this which escapes the simple-minded approach of a Donald Trump and his cohorts. The second main difference has to do with the role of religion and religious group identities in public life and in the organization of civil society. Western European societies are deeply secular societies, shaped by the hegemonic knowledge regime of secularism. As liberal democratic societies, they tolerate and respect individual religious freedom. But due to the increasing pressure towards the privatization of religion, which among European societies is now taken for granted as a characteristic of the self-definition of modern secular society, those societies have much greater difficulty in offering a legitimate role for religion in public life, and in the organization and mobilization of collective group identities. Muslim organized collective identities and their public representations become a source of anxiety, not only because of their religious otherness as a non-Christian and non-European religion, but, even more significantly, because of their religiousness itself as the “other” of European secularity. Presently, a post-secular Europe as envisioned by the German philosopher Jurgen Habermas, is not on the horizon yet, if anything, things are going from bad to worse with the advent of right-wing ultra-nationalistic parties resurgent all over Europe and threatening the democratic system buttressed by Christian principles as envisioned by the EU founding fathers, the likes of Aedenauer, Schuman, Monet, De Gasperi, etc. Signing of the EU Constitution in Rome on the 29^th of October 2004 In this context, the temptation to identify Islam and fundamentalism becomes all the more pronounced. Islam, by definition, becomes the other of Western secular modernity allegedly rooted in a universal European enlightenment. Therefore, the problems posed by the incorporation of Muslim immigrants become consciously or unconsciously associated with seemingly related and vexatious issues concerning the role of religion in the public sphere, which is a question European societies assumed they had already solved according to the liberal secular norm of the privatization of religion. The assumption has resulted premature. Americans, by contrast, are demonstrably more religious than Europeans. Therefore there is a certain pressure for immigrants to conform to American religious norms. It is generally the case that immigrants in America tend to be more religious than they were in their home countries. I can confirm this on a personal level: I do not remember my parents attending Church on a regular basis on Sunday in Italy while they did so once they emigrated to America. I am quite sure such was the case for my grandfather once he emigrated to New York when my father was born in 1912. Statue dedicated to the Italian Immigrant in America (St. Ambrose Church) But even more significantly, today as in the past, religion and public religious denominational identities play an important role in the process of incorporating new immigrants. The thesis of Will Herberg concerning the old European immigrant, that “not only was he expected to retain his old religion, as he was not expected to retain his old language or nationality, but such was the shape of America that it was largely in and through religion that he, or rather his children and grandchildren, found an identifiable place in American life,” is still operative with the new immigrants. The thesis implies that collective religious identities have been one of the primary ways of structuring internal societal pluralism in American history. Due to the corrosive logic of racialization, so pervasive in American society, the dynamics of religious identity formation assume a double positive form in the process of immigrant incorporation. Given the institutionalized acceptance of religious pluralism, the affirmation of religious identities is enhanced among the new immigrants. This positive affirmation is reinforced, moreover, by what appears to be a common defensive reaction by most immigrant groups against ascribed racialization, particularly against the stigma of racial darkness. In this respect, religious and racial self-identifications and ascriptions represent alternative ways of organizing American multiculturalism. One of the obvious advantages of religious pluralism over racial pluralism is that, under proper constitutional institutionalization, it is more reconcilable with principled equality and non-hierarchic diversity, and therefore with genuine multiculturalism. American society is indeed entering a new phase. The traditional model of assimilation, turning European nationals into American “ethnics,” can no longer serve as a model of assimilation now that immigration is literally worldwide. America is bound to become “the first new global society” made up of all world religions and civilizations, at a time when religious civilizational identities are regaining prominence at the global level. At the very same moment that political scientists like Samuel Huntington are announcing the impending clash of civilizations in global politics, a new experiment in intercivilizational encounters and accommodation between all the world religions is taking place at home. American religious pluralism is expanding and incorporating all the world religions in the same way as it previously incorporated the religions of the old immigrants. A complex process of mutual accommodation is taking place. Like Catholicism and Judaism before, other world religions, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism are being “Americanized” and in the process they are transforming American religion, while, much as American Catholicism had an impact upon the transformation of world Catholicism and American Judaism has transformed world Judaism, the religious diasporas in America are serving as catalysts for the transformation of the old religions in their civilizational homes. This process of institutionalization of expanding religious pluralism is facilitated by the dual clause of the First Amendment which guarantees “no establishment” of religion at the state level, and therefore the strict separation of church and state and the genuine neutrality of the secular state, as well as the “free exercise” of religion in civil society. The latter includes strict restrictions on state intervention and on the administrative regulation of the religious field. It is this combination of a rigidly secular state and the constitutionally protected free exercise of religion in society that distinguishes the American institutional context from the European one. In Europe one finds, on the one extreme, the case of France, where a secularist state not only restricts and regulates the exercise of religion in society but actually imposes its republican ideology of laïcité on society, and, on the other, the case of England, where an established state church is compatible with wide toleration of religious minorities and the relatively unregulated free exercise of religion. As liberal democratic systems, all European societies respect the private exercise of religion, including Islam, as an individual human right. It is the public and collective free exercise of Islam as an immigrant religion that most European societies find difficult to tolerate, precisely on the grounds that Islam is perceived as an “un-European” religion. The stated rationales for considering Islam “un-European” vary significantly across Europe, and among social and political groups. For the anti-immigrant, xenophobic, nationalist Right, represented by Le Pen’s discourse in France and Jörg Haider’s in Austria, the message is straightforward: Islam is unwelcome and un-assimilable, simply because it is a “foreign” immigrant religion. Such a nativist and usually racist attitude can be differentiated clearly from the conservative “Catholic” position, paradigmatically expressed by the Cardinal of Bologna when he declared that Italy should welcome immigrants of all races and regions of the world, but should particularly select Catholic immigrants in order to preserve the country’s Catholic identity. Sad to say, when it comes to Islam, secular Europeans usually liberal in their views on religion in general, tend to reveal the limits and prejudices of modern secularist toleration. The politically correct formulation tends to run along such lines as “we welcome each and all immigrants irrespective of race or religion as long as they are willing to respect and accept our modern liberal secular European norms.” Revealingly enough, some time ago Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin, in his address to the French legislature defending the banning of ostensibly religious symbols in public schools, made reference in the same breath to France as “the old land of Christianity” and to the inviolable principle of laïcité, exhorting Islam to adapt itself to the principle of secularism as all other religions of France have done before. “For the most recently arrived, I’m speaking here of Islam, secularism is a chance, the chance to be a religion of France.” The Islamic veil and other religious signs are justifiably banned from public schools, he added, because “they are taking on a political meaning,” while according to the secularist principle of privatization of religion, “religion cannot be a political project.” Time will tell whether the restrictive legislation will have the intended effect of stopping the spread of “radical Islam,” or whether it is likely to bring forth the opposite result of further radicalizing an already alienated and maladjusted immigrant community. The positive rationale one hears among liberals in support of such illiberal restrictions on the free exercise of religion is usually put in terms of the desirable enforced emancipation of young girls, against their expressed will if necessary, from gender discrimination and patriarchal control. This was the discourse on which the assassinated liberal politician Pim Fortuyn built his electorally successful anti-immigrant platform in liberal Holland, a campaign that is now bearing fruit in new restrictive legislation. While conservative religious persons are expected to tolerate behavior they may consider morally abhorrent such as homosexuality, liberal secular Europeans are openly stating that European societies ought not to tolerate religious behavior or cultural customs that are morally abhorrent, insofar as they are contrary to modern liberal secular European norms. What makes the intolerant tyranny of the secular liberal majority justifiable in principle is not just the democratic principle of majority rule, but the secularist teleological assumption, built into theories of modernization, that one set of norms is reactionary, fundamentalist and anti-modern, while the other is progressive, liberal and modern. In conclusion, from the above considerations and reflections, we can safely assume that sociological-historical considerations, while helpful for the analysis of the issue of religion vis a vis the secular “enlightened” state, are not sufficient by themselves to arrive at a proper diagnosis and prognosis of the problem. What is also needed, and is solely missing in the ongoing dialogue, is an analysis that takes seriously and incorporates the philosophy of religion. Without a philosophy of religion the analysis and consequently the prognosis will continue to remain incomplete and ineffective. But let the dialogue continue among people of good will, be they believers or non-believers. About the author: Dr. Emanuel Paparella has a Ph.D. in Italian Humanism with a dissertation on Giambattista Vico from Yale University (1990). He currently teaches philosophy at Barry University and Broward College in Florida, USA. One of his books is titled Hermeneutics in the Philosophy of G. Vico, Mellen Press, N.Y., 1993. He also authored two books on the EU and the Transatlantic relationship titled A New Europe in Search ot its Soul, AuthorHouse, Bloomington, Indiana, 2005, and Europa: an Idea and a Journey, Xlibris, Bloomington, Indiana, 2012. His e-book Aesthetic Theories of Great Western Philosophers was printed in Ovi magazine in June 2013.

Pictured  President Muhammadu Buhari. Nigerian government is working round the clock to address the security and economic challenges confronting the oil rich nation. The Special Adviser on Media and Publicity to President Muhammadu Buhari, Mr. Femi Adesina in this interview with our West Africa Editor, Sunday Oyinloye speaks on what government is doing to bring the economy back on track, the fate of the school girls abducted by Boko Haram, Nigeria-Netherlands relations and other topical issues.

The Netherlands is the second largest exporter of Agricultural products in the world, what is the government of Nigeria doing to tap from the Netherlands experience in view of the fact that the country is the largest European investor in Nigeria? Nigeria and Netherlands do things together particularly in the area of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture, Chief Audu Ogbeh recently visited the Netherlands. We know that Netherlands is very strong in dairy products. That is an area Nigeria wants to develop because the amount we spend on milk importation annually is huge and if we are able to conserve that it, will help our economy. There is a lot Nigeria can benefit from the Netherlands, and with the emphasis of this government on agriculture, solid minerals, manufacturing and other ways in which the economy will be diversified, you can be sure that we will have a lot to do with the Netherlands. The government of Nigeria is trying to diversify the economy with more emphasis on Agriculture. What parts of the world is the government partnering with to achieve this goal? I know that wherever the President has traveled to in the past one year and three months in which he has been in office, Agriculture has always been one of the key things he discussed. Any country that has something to bring to the table in terms of agricultural development, Nigeria is ready for such partnership. There is the allegation that some of the state governors are mismanaging the bailout funds given to them to pay salaries of workers. What is the Federal Government doing to ensure accountability in the use of these funds? We are a federation and in a true federation, the Federal Government cannot dictate to the states, however since the Federal Government is the one giving the package to the states, it has also come up with some conditions. Those conditions are meant to help use the package they collect for the good of the people. For instance, the last one that was done, you have to subscribe to TSA in your state which is one way to ensure that the money is not mismanaged. There are other conditions like that before they could access the money. However, what is important is for citizens themselves to begin to monitor what their leaders do. Citizens have to be interested in what is happening in their states. If your governor has collected stimulus package, you have to be interested in how it is used. Some critics of President Muhammadu Buhari have described his anti-corruption fight as being selective. How would you react to this?

  There will always be critics. There will always be people who differ. They are critics, so they don’t have to agree with everything the government does. But the question is, are these critics right? The answer is No, they are not. When they say anti-corruption is selective, I say give me examples, but they have not been able to provide one. There are retired Generals currently facing trails. Are they members of the opposition, Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)? .They are not. Don’t forget that PDP was in power for 16 years, and it is those who have access to the treasury that can abuse it. They abused the treasury so they are answering for it But some of the major players in the last administration are now in the ruling party. Is that not a way of escaping probe? Being in the ruling party, All Progressives Congress (APC) does not amount to a cover automatically. If there is an indictment against anybody, not just in APC even if the person is in government, you can be sure we will not spare such a person. Some people have been arrested for their roles in the alleged massive looting of the treasury during the last administration especially over the arms funds which were looted. Interestingly the Head of that government who was the Commander –in-Chief of the Armed Forces is still walking as a free man. Is that fair enough? You don’t just put people in detention; something has to be traced to that person, so let’s leave it at that. Are you saying that nothing has been traced to former President Goodluck Jonathan? Let us leave it at that. The Senate President is currently on trial over alleged false declaration of assets. The Speaker of the House of Representatives is also alleged to be involved in budget padding; these are leaders of the ruling party. Is the Federal Government comfortable with that? Each person will answer for what he or she has done. That is what I can say about that. If they have done what they were alleged to have done, then, they didn’t do those things because they members of All Progressives Congress (APC) they did it as individuals, so let each individual answer for what he or she has done The abducted Chibok girls by Boko Haram are still in captivity, will they ever be found? We are hopeful, we are positive. We believe in God that one day they will be reunited with their families. Why is it so difficult for Nigerian security agencies to track the girls considering their large number? Because reaction was l ate. The government that was in power then didn’t even believe that the girls were abducted. It was after two weeks that they made moves by which time; the abductors had gone far with the girls. It was difficult to track them by the time the administration accepted that there was abduction. Do you believe that the girls are still alive? From the video released by Boko Haram, we believe a good number of them are still alive, but nobody can say with certainty what number is still alive. Some Nigerians are critical about the pace of economic efforts of the President. They said the President is slow. How would you react? In his October last year broadcast, he said one significant thing. He said order is better than speed. That answers the question. Easy does it, they stumble that run fast. The state which Nigeria is, you need to be methodical, you need to be systematic. It doesn’t calls for speed that will cause further confusion. Eventually, we will get to where we are going. What makes President Buhari different from other Heads of Governments that Nigeria has had His integrity. He was a Military Governor; oil Minister, after that he became Head of State and later PTDF Chairman for five years and he remains simple, he remains a man of modest means. Have you ever seen an oil Minister without an oil block? Very rare, have you ever seen a former governor who will not have a foreign account? Very rare. So integrity and transparency make him stand out. What should Nigerians expect from the Federal Government in the next three years? Nigerian can look forward to a diversified economy, an economy that is not solely dependent on oil. They can look forward to a regenerated and rejuvenated infrastructural development. They can look forward to a better quality of life; they can look forward to a more secured country. The President is working towards a more secured country. They can look forward to a country where probity and transparency are held in highest esteem. Photography by State House Press.

Honorable Ankie Broekers-Knol with the Italian  Ambassador and  mayors from Norcia, Subiaco and Cassino passing  the Peace Torch of St. Benedict. By Catherine Dailey. As we look forward to the second weekend of September, when “National Monument Day” is observed throughout the Netherlands and more than four thousand monuments will be open to the public, it is a fitting time to reflect upon Europe’s common cultural heritage with respect to St. Benedict, the “heavenly patron saint of the whole of Europe.” Pope Paul VI, on October 24, 1964, in his Apostolic Letter Pacis Nuntius proclaimed him as the principal patron of Europe and noted that “he inspired in the peoples of Europe that loving care of order and justice that forms the foundation of true society.” In this light, such a reflection is particularly fitting today. It should also be recalled that Pacis Nuntius was proclaimed on the occasion of the reconsecration of the Cathedral Basilica of Montecassino, following the tremendous destruction done to the Abbey at Montecassino, in 1944 and the Herculean task required to reconstruct it.

St. Benedict of Nurcia (ca. 480-ca 547), is the father of “western monasticism” and the author of the “The Rule,” a simple set of guidelines ordering how monks should live. He founded the Abbey at Montecassino and the Order of St. Benedict (OSB). Even though St. Benedict did not formerly establish the order as such, he is honored by the Benedictines as their as the founder and guide under the motto “Ora Et Labora” (“pray and work”).

This past spring, in a splendid ceremony held at the Church of Our Saviour in The Hague, on Friday, March 11, 2016, the “St. Benedict Torch of Peace” was brought to The Hague by the Embassy of Italy, under the patronage of the European Parliament, and on behalf of the towns of the three medieval towns of Cassino, Norcia and Subiaco. The unique event marked the first time that the Torch has visited the Netherlands since Pope Paul VI’s proclamation in 1964. For readers of Italian, the Apostolic Letter Pacis Nuntius can be accessed on webpages of the official website of the Holy See. A digital version of an English translation was published, on Zenit, on July 11, 2012, the date that Europe remembers her patron Saint. The evening program began with a Solemn Mass, concelebrated by H.E. Bishop of Rotterdam Monseigneur Johannes H.J. van den Hende and the Apostolic Nuncio H. E. Aldo Cavalli. Liturgical songs were performed by the choir accompanied by an orchestra from the towns of Norcia and Subiaco. Following the Mass, a short introduction was given by the Ambassador of Italy and the evening concluded with a 100 piece orchestra performing a concert of the Cantica de Santo Benedicto by the Dutch composer, Jacob de Haan, who was also present. In addition to the Ambassador; mayors from Norcia, Subiaco and Cassino were present, in a visible and symbolic gesture of unity, to pass the Peace Torch of St. Benedict before a large assembly of diplomats, senior state functionaries, public officials, members of the clergy, academics and other specially invited guests. Today, Norcia, the birthplace of St. Benedict, is the start of the 300 km “Cammino di San Benedetto”, the Umbrian cultural route along medieval towns and villages, which is becoming increasingly popular with tourists seeking cultural “slow tourism” experiences. The town is also linked the international “cittaslow” network, a concept for tourism development which originated in 1999 in the Chianti region of Italy. The Cammino di San Benedetto is popular with walkers, cyclists and hikers and the autumn months are an especially good time to visit. Tourists visiting Rome can also easily make arrangements for a day trip to visit the Abbey of Montecassino known as the “lighthouse of western civilization.” Visit the official website of the Montecassino Abbey for more information to assist you with planing your visit. Holy See: http://www.vatican.va Embassy of Italy: http://www.amblaja.esteri.it/Ambasciata_LAja Montecassino Abbey http://abbaziamontecassino.org Cammino di Benedetto (Italian) http://www.camminodibenedetto.it Cittaslow International Network http://www.cittaslow.org Open Monumenten Dag (September 10 and 11, 2016) http://www.openmonumentendag.nl Pictures by Jan van der Loos.      

On the picture the Mayor of Wassenaar, Mr Jan Hoekema, Ambassador Timothy Broas and Mr Willem Post. The Raadhuis Pauw, in Wassenaar, was the venue for a “Pauwlezing” on Wednesday evening. Mayor Jan Hoekema welcomed some fifty guests attending the presentation, before introducing his special guest, former USA Ambassador Mr. Timothy Broas. President Obama appointed Mr. Broas to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to the Netherlands; a position which he held from March 19, 2014 to February 12, 2016. He is a strong supporter of the Democratic Party and has worked on many past Democratic Presidential Campaigns. With just 60 days remaining until the November 8 presidential election; he briefly briefly to the Netherlands and agreed to generously share some of his impressions, of the current election cycle. Mr. Willem Post, a widely recognized Dutch political commentator and expert “on all things American,” was also invited to share his views. He briefly mentioned the release of his latest book, “De Spiegel van Amerika” (The Mirror of America). Post, a man of many hats, is associated with the Clingendael Institute as an expert on American politics and foreign policy and has written numerous articles for Dutch newspapers and journals. He has also maintains a close relationship with the city of The Hague and represents the municipality in various capacities.

Former Ambassador Broas, diplomatically predicted that, “the polls will continue to tighten” in an unusually “ugly campaign” adding that one of Clinton’s strengths is that she is “good on national security.” Post, seemed strongly influenced by the Clinton Camp and described Trump, as a marketeer who “plays with figures” and a “Winner with capital letters’; adding that even “his name (Trump) is a marketing slogan.” As a Republican Presidential Candidate, Trump has earned the confidence and trust of unprecedented numbers of voters—many of whom will be voting for the first time in an election, which pundits on both sides of the political spectrum are describing as the most important elections in a lifetime. Both speakers were troubled by the unprecedented level of polarization in the U.S. which, when combined with the deep anger felt by voters across the political spectrum, make the outcome of the elections impossible to predict. Broas, who attended the 2016 July Democratic National Convention, remarked that “the Sanders people were a threat every day” adding that the Clinton people were constantly trying to appease them in order to avoid a “sit-in”or “stand off.” Trump and Sanders supporters were described as anti-globalists. The former ambassador mentioned that, while serving as the U.S. Ambassador to the Netherlands, he had worked to support the Transatlatic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) and TTP negotiations with the European Union. Trump’s temperment and alleged “flip flopping” with respect to NATO was also raised by Post, who even suggested that Trump seeks to abolish or “drop out” of the alliance.  The Right Side Broadcasting Network (RSBN.tv) livestreams all of the Trump-Pence campaign events and speeches and posts them on YouTube, where viewers can listen to Trump’s own words. His September 7 “Peace through Strength” on the campaign’s vision for U.S. defense policy in the near future, is likely to be of particular interest. The evening program, concluded with a short question and answer period, followed by a traditional Dutch borrel—being light reception accompanied by snacks.                                                                                                                                              

By Professor Andre Nijhof and Nika Salvetti (PhD candidate). In February 2016 a new index was launched: The Access to Seeds index. It is another example of a movement that started in 2004 with the development of the Access to Medicine Index. Instead of just “naming and shaming” an index creates a platform for collective dialogue surrounding issues in a certain sector and independently ranks the performance of the main players. This proves to be an effective way to counter a race to the bottom that is apparent in so many international value chains and transforms it into a competition towards good practices. The first Access to Medicine Index was published in 2008 and ranks the world’s 20 largest research-based pharmaceutical companies according to their efforts to improve access to medicine in 107 low- to middle-income countries. Every two years a new index is published and this has become very influential in the pharmaceutical industry. Can the Access to Seeds index do the same for the agro food sector in developing countries? The future will unwrap the answer, but we are convinced that these indices are signs of a new phase in the area of sustainable development that has important implications for international diplomacy. Over the past 10 years more and more organizations – both public and private – developed sustainability ambitions and implement this in their way of working. That’s an important step to be able to contribute to the Global Goals set by the United Nations. However, the next step is how to create sustainable markets. This next step is crucial because, at present, many markets still drive unsustainable practices. As long as that is the status quo, corporate social responsibility initiatives can result in some good practices but will never grow from the margins to the mainstream. This will require the development of sustainable markets. What is needed to transform our current markets into markets that stimulate and reward sustainable products and services? Based on economic theory we know that markets can function if two conditions are met: Freedom of Choice and Full Transparency. But whose choice are we referring to? Economic theory refers to the customer of projects and services. But what about products for beneficiaries without purchasing power? And what about costs for society without a price tag attached to it? In the sustainability era, ‘the customer is king’ can no longer prevail in sustainable markets. And how can we create Transparency so that other stakeholders – next to and sometimes together with engaged customers – can stand up for these effects on society? That’s where more and more mechanisms are initiated to stimulate sustainable markets. Transparency International, the National Contact Points of the OECD, True Value and True Price measurements and the initiation of indices like the Access to Seeds index seem to be first line answers. This development has important implications for international diplomacy. How can international it ensure freedom of choice and transparency? For example by making local information available so it can be used in these indexes and adequately informing all parties about these issues. But most of all, by understanding these issues do not only relate to national interests. They are first of all embedded in a common interest to protect our planet and create fair living conditions for all its citizens. The more international diplomats voice this common interest, the more chance we have on reaching the Sustainable Global Goals. ———————————– About the authors: 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.   About Nyenrode Business Universiteit 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, we 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 sign up for a personal consultation.  

  By Prof. Sanmaya Rath. After the successful implementation of Digital India and Make in India campaigns, Government of India has made a nationwide launching parade of multiple skills programme called “Skill India Mission”, a saga in the academic world for all Indians by blood and taste. Now let’s analyse the nuts and bolts of Skill Development Mission by GoI which is illustrated below: About It? The primary aim is to create a framework of training, skill upliftment &employment opportunities for more than 500 million youth of India by 2020. Many schemes like PMKVY, DDU-GKY are also supposed to attain this objective. These training programmes would not only fulfil the domestic labour demand but also the global manpower requirements of countries like Japan ,the USA, China, Germany, Russia and rest of West Asia. Initially companies like IL&FS, CCD, and Centurion University have come forward to channelize the naxalites into main stream of society which is a notable success in the history of skill development. In the ages to come India will be witnessing many corporate biggies taking up skills as a CSR initiative in the industry. Key Features The whole focus is to create the employment avenues and scope of entrepreneurship in various trades like gems & jewellery, automobile, banking, retail sales, tailoring, sewing machine operation and so on. Rural India Skill is another milestone of this programme which emphasizes on domain & non domain training Rewind It has now become a priority of the nation & is quite different from the past ones. It is in fact a three tier system where the central & state governments and PIAs, SSCs, NCVT, NSDC etc. have joined hands for stability and better jobs than traditional jobs. Skill India as Trend The main concept is to enhance confidence, improve productivityof the youth through up skilling, new skilling and reskilling so that they get blue-collar jobs in order to get a better life& respect in the society. To Sum Up But the main challenges of its 2.0 version are as follows: It is quite pathetic that 2.3% of the Indian workers haveavailed the skill benefits, in comparison to 68% in UK and 52% in the US. Hence more dropped out candidates need to be channelized &mobilized. Skilling is deemed to be the final destination for those dropped outs that couldn’t succeed in traditional academics. Hence we need to create jobs across the universe instead sticking too local requirements only. The hardest task is sourcing & creating a pool of competent, knowledgeable and certified- Trainers who are ahead of time and know the sentiments of the policy, people & press .Again the target group to whom training is to be imparted is unaware about the SWOT analysis of the industry as well as future growth prospects. Photograhpy by Rinkan Das ————————— About the author: Prof. Sanmaya Rath, Training Head, Black Panther Guards & Services Pvt.Ltd, Bhubaneswar