By Elizabeth Naumczyk and Duke Michael of Mecklenburg (reported on Judge Howard Morrison’s speech).
Commemorative lecture ‘70 years Nuremberg’
To commemorate the 70th anniversary of the Nuremberg Trials against the principal perpetrators of the Hitler regime the Peace Palace Library held the Commemorative Lecture ’70 Years Nuremberg’ in the Auditorium of the Academy Building of the Peace Palace on the afternoon of 14 November, 2015.
After the opening remarks by the Director of the Peace Palace Library, Mr Jeroen Vervliet, the three speakers were introduced: H.E. Justice Shirin Avis Fisher, Residual Special Court of Sierra Leone (SCSL), H.E. Judge Howard Morrison, International Criminal Court (ICC) and Mr. Alex Fischer, researcher at the Philipp University of Marburg, Germany.
Judge Fisher’s topic was Gender Crimes in International Criminal Justice. She started by saying that the Nuremberg Trials, despite their criticism as victor’s justice, their legacy and uniqueness as part of the annals of jurisprudence, including the establishment of foundation legislative documents cannot be disputed. There were four judges from four countries, five different legal systems and four different languages. Between 1945-1949, 22 of the important leaders of the Third Reich were put on trial, culminating in 13 trials. The Charter of the Tribunal does not mention specifically gender crimes and ‘war and rape’ are not listed.
The Nuremberg Trials other legacy was that it provided an accessible record in all the six United Nations official languages, with press coverage to assure the German population of the substantial evidence at hand. Evidence requires participation with particular subjects being accommodated to provide testimony and have their voices heard, even if corroboration is not always possible. The Nuremberg Trials facilitated this and now we can identify the gender crimes of sterilization, medical experiments, rape and sexual humiliation. We now see that such crimes cannot be treated as gender neutral.
Trials are important to the development of gender law and 50 years later at The International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY, 1993) and The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR, 1994) sexual violence and rape were regarded as a serious crime in international law as any other crime because of the disproportionate sexual violence. At the ICTY and ICTR rape was illegal under customary international law and in Article 2 and 5 of the Statute of the ICTY it states it is a crime against humanity, alongside torture and extermination. In 2001, the ICTY became the first international court to find an accused person guilty of rape as a crime against humanity.
In 1998, the ICTR became the first international court to find an accused person guilty of rape as a crime of genocide. Rape against Tutsi women was used to perpetrate genocide and constituted a war crime and crime against humanity.
The Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) expanded rape, as a crime against humanity to include sexual violence in many forms such as prostitution and forced pregnancy, Article 2 (g) (i) of the Statute of the SCSL. The definition of forced marriage was not listed separately under its Statute but was developed through case law as a crime against humanity and a crime of sexual violence. Judge Doherty in her partially dissenting opinion in Trial Chamber II in The Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) case, said forced marriage qualifies as an “Other Inhumane Acts” causing mental and moral suffering, which was upheld on appeal.
The creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) at the Rome Conference in 1998 allowed the drafters to adopt the Rome Statute which came into force in 2002. The OTP issued a Policy Paper on Sexual and Gender Based Crimes in June 2014 https://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/otp/OTP-Policy-Paper-on-Sexual-and-Gender-Based-Crimes–June-2014.pdf and the Executive Summary states “The Statute of the ICC is the first international instrument expressly to include various forms of sexual and gender based crimes including – rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilisation, and other forms of sexual violence – as underlying acts of both crimes against humanity and war crimes committed in international and non-international armed conflicts. The Statute also criminalises persecution based on gender as a crime against humanity. Sexual and gender based crimes may also fall under the Court’s jurisdiction if they constitute acts of genocide or other acts of crimes against humanity or war crimes. The Rules of Procedure and Evidence … and the Elements consolidate important procedural and evidentiary advancements to protect the interests of victims and enhance the effectiveness of the work of the Court.” The Office of the Prosecutor has made sexual and gender based crimes one of its Key strategic goals in its Strategic Plan 2012-2015.
The second speaker was Judge Howard Morrison from the International Criminal Court, who gave his personal perspective on the Nuremberg Trials, their development and legacy.
He began by saying that at the time of the Nuremberg Trials and its military courts international law and procedures were being developed on a daily basis.
Initially, the most important war criminals were tried before the International Military Tribunal (IMT). Judgements were issued quickly giving rise to criticisms of victor’s justice. Despite the political nature of the trials and the necessity for justice, there was a determination to apply the rule of law and underscore the abhorrence of the crimes against peace and the crime of aggression and the jurisprudence developed with subsequent trials.
They were lengthier and fairness as well as consistency became part of the proceedings. The Allies believed in the historical value of the trials and that they would be judged by future generations. The Nuremberg Trials were a precursor to the UN ad hoc tribunals, the ICC and the development of international criminal law and international humanitarian law. “The ICC is intended to complement existing national judicial systems and it may therefore only exercise its jurisdiction when certain conditions are met, such as when national courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute criminals or when the United Nations Security Council or individual states refer investigations to the Court”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court The ICC was created using both common law and civil law traditions and like the Charter and the Judgment of the Nuremberg Tribunal the Rome Statute recognizes the principle of individual responsibility for crimes under international law.
Judge Morrison said, it is important to understand that Germany was not on trial, but the war criminals who as leaders had obligations to the state’s past and for its future.
He stated, “aggression is the biggest problem of the elements of crime”, and he defined “a crime of aggression as a crime of the leadership, due to the leaders control over their forces”. The Rome Statute was amended by Article 8 bis adding the definition of the crimes of aggression, adopted at the first review conference of the ICC in Kampala, Uganda, in June 2010. However the Court will only be able to prosecute individuals for these crimes when the amendment has entered into force for 30 states parties and on or after 1 January 2017, the Assembly of States Parties has voted in favor of allowing the Court to exercise jurisdiction.
He then predicted that in the future there would be other types of wars linked to our fundamental needs as humans being food, water and living space. He foresees a direct link between climate change, conflict and terrorism. These kinds of wars have already been fought in the past, for instance World War II was also a war about living space, ‘Lebensraum’. A significant consequence of past wars is that they caused mass migration, a result of changes to demography. He foresaw demographic changes in the future and this is already evident as a result of the conflicts in the Middle-East and the recent terror attacks in Paris. Therefore, he believed we are at the beginning of the development of new laws.
Furthermore, Judge Morrison described how in the future the crimes against humanity might be expanded to include arms trade and environmental crimes, such as illegal logging or oil spillage at the North Pole. Could transnational corporate crimes be classified as crimes against humanity and a species of war crimes? The ICC could expand its remit, provided it received the appropriate funding.
Mr Alex Fischer spoke, as the third speaker about International Criminal Law as a Success Story – The Nuremberg Trial Films of the U.S. Authorities. The films were produced by the OSS Field Photographic Branch/War Crimes, Office of Military Government, United States (OMGUS) and the U.S. Signal Corps.
He explained how the United States wanted to shape the Trial explaining to the public in Germany and worldwide the most heinous and mass crimes. The lead U.S. prosecutor, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson and the OSS Field Photographic Branch/War Crimes were involved in rebuilding the trial site and enhancing the film aspect of the first Nuremberg Trial (formally known as the International Military Tribunal) convened November 20, 1945 and the verdict rendered October 1, 1946.
The purpose was to show the German public that the Nazi leadership had been given a fair trial. It promoted the US Constitution idealizing American democratic values to stabilize Europe and create legal certainty as well as to create a historical record and an enduring lesson for mankind. Jackson and the OSS decided on how the trial should be told emphasizing the criminal character of the perpetrators who were viewed in compromising situations, essentially convicting themselves. Their ‘evidence films’ used elaborate editing to tell the story, rather than simply film evidence.
Despite disagreements between the Americans the 78 minute film Nuremberg: Its Lesson for Today was shown to German audience in November 1948 in Stuttgart and received mainly positive reactions from the German people who did not see it as propaganda. On Thursday November 26, a movie screening of this documentary will take place in the Auditorium of the Academy Building. Door open at 16:30.
In conclusion, Mr Jeroen Vervliet mentioned that in the foyer is a selection of the drawings of the defendants, prosecutors and Geoffrey Lawrence (1880-1971), President of the Judges at Nuremberg made by Gunter Peis (1927-2012) an Austrian journalist and historian who was present at the Nuremberg Trials. The drawings were printed in : Nuremberg Court Cartoons, photographs of the Judges and Prosecutors. Cartoons of the Defendants and in The Nurnberger Extra Blatt. This project was made possible by the generous contribution of the Austrian Embassy in The Hague. The drawings are part of the archives of Peter Martin Bleibtreu, an Austrian journalist and a reporter at the Nuremberg Trials, recently purchased and added to the special collections of the Peace Palace Library.
Picture by tabletmag.com
Par Mariarosaria Iorio, analyste politique.
Un nouvel équilibre mondial est nécessaire.
Les attaques à Paris (11 janvier 2015 et 13 novembre 2015) ainsi que la prise d’otages à Bamako (20 novembre 2015) redessinent le monde et ses équilibres géopolitiques et représentent l’escalade du terrorisme. Ces événements m’interpellent, d’une part, par leur violence d’un point de vue humain. La vie d’innocents est prise dans une perspective qui semble être une pure folie meurtrière. D’autre part, ces événements m’interpellent d’un point de vue politique.
Que se passe-t-il ?
L’analyse qui suit va tenter de contribuer à l’analyse de cette nouvelle donne internationale: la nouvelle géopolitique de la terreur et les réponses que l’Europe peut et doit donner.
Elle sera structurée comme suit :
Le contexte / Les principales tendances / Les réponse
Le contexte
L’escalade de la violence dans le monde et des attaques terroristes a caractérisé l’actualité de ces dernières années. Le monde a été touché par ce phénomène depuis la fin de la guerre froide entre l’Union Soviétique et les Etats Unis en 1989. La guerre froide avait étouffé ces dynamiques. La fin de bipolarisation du monde a sans doute marqué l’accélération d’une nouvelle phase des relations internationales: le début de la fragmentation des intérêts nationaux et régionaux et des tendances politiques (nous croyons fermement que ces événements doivent être lus avec les lunettes de la lutte politique et non dans une perspective religieuse).
Nous sommes ainsi rentrés dans un monde multipolaire. Depuis plusieurs années (à partir de 1995), l’escalade des attaques aux pays européens, aux Etats Unis et à d’autres pays comme la Tunisie, le Mali, le Nigéria, le Cameroun et le Niger a été constante. L’organisation, les ressources et les stratégies des groupes terroristes sont de plus en plus précises. Leur capacité de frappe s’est renforcée au fur et à mesure du temps. La terreur est en train de redéfinir les équilibres mondiaux en créant une mondialisation de la terreur.
Cette tendance impose une réflexion sur la géopolitique mondiale qui en résulte. Dans le discours politique véhiculé par les médias occidentaux, il serait question d’un ennemi qui serait maintenant « en guerre » avec l’Europe et la France. Or, la problématique est plus large.
A ce propos, il convient de noter que :
Le désengagement de l’Etat de l’espace publique résultant de la philosophie libérale a laissé les évolutions sociales au naturalisme, à savoir une sorte de sélection naturelle qui au fur et à mesure du temps a amené à une double échelle de valeurs. L’évolution vers une société multiculturelle a été traitée uniquement d’un point de vue légaliste, par exemple à travers l’interdiction du voile intégral dans les lieux publics en France. La question sociale a été ignorée ou laissée à une évolution « naturelle » qui aurait dû emmener à l’acceptation des valeurs occidentales fondées entre autres sur la liberté individuelle. Au contraire, les tensions sociales se sont désormais transformées en vrais conflits sociaux car les opportunités ne sont pas les mêmes pur tout le monde.
L’Europe a pendant trop longtemps hésité sur la stratégie à adopter pour faire face aux menaces d’attaques terroristes. Il est vrai que cette « guerre » est différente de la guerre traditionnelle car elle se joue sur le terrain de l’effet surprise et de la « désintégration » de la menace. Nous ne voyons pas « l’ennemi » en face, ensuite nous ne pouvons l’attaquer avec une stratégie militaire traditionnelle. Mais, l’hésitation et la multiplication des stratégies nationales en dehors d’une véritable politique européenne ont paralysé l’action européenne. La situation actuelle résulte aussi de la série d’erreurs faites par l’Europe et les Etats Unis dans la gestion de l’émergence des groupuscules terroristes dans multiples pays, notamment en Iraq, en Lybie et en Syrie, suite à leurs interventions militaires. L’Europe paye encore une fois le manque de politique étrangère commune et de son aveuglement économique vis-à-vis des pays qui jouent un double jeu sur la scène internationale.
L’Europe a aussi sous-estimé les dangers et la puissance politique de ces groupuscules soutenus par des pays qui ne l’annoncent pas ouvertement, mais qui les soutiennent dans les coulisses financièrement et idéologiquement. Ces groupuscules ont développé des capacités stratégiques et des revenus, provenant du trafic de pétrole, d’armes et de drogue qui leur permettent d’opérer comme une « multinationale ». Ils profitent du libéralisme économique mondial comme une véritable entreprise.
Ainsi, si tout le monde est d’accord pour dire que les attaques terroristes sont imprévisibles et que tout le monde peut être touché à tout moment, les principales tendances liées à ce phénomène demeurent moins claires.
La section qui suit en met en exergue les principales.
Les principales tendances
Avant de mettre en lumières les réponses proposées dans la section 3, il convient de rappeler les principales tendances politiques et sociales. Elles sont les suivantes:
L’économisme actuel a exclu beaucoup de jeunes des opportunités créées par la mondialisation économique. Cette jeunesse désemparée est facilement récupérée car sans repères et sans perspectives d’emploi et donc d’avenir. Les causes sont différentes dans les pays du Nord et dans ceux du Sud. Les effets sont les mêmes, notamment un certain nombre de jeunes qui basculent dans les rangs des terroristes.
Au Nord, une question importante se pose: qu’est-ce qui pousse des jeunes qui sont nés et qui ont grandis en Europe (et dans d’autres pays du Nord) à basculer dans le terrorisme ayant comme objectif principal l’annulation des sociétés dans lesquelles ils ont grandi ? La perte de repères est une cause importante de ce basculement.
Cette situation doit nous interpeller sur la capacité des sociétés européennes et des autres pays industrialisés à créer des valeurs fédératrices pour les jeunes de toute couche sociale et de toute origine. L’évidence montre que le décrochage scolaire résultant d’un système éducatif figé à l’ère industrielle, la dérive familiale, un système social qui stigmatise l’échec ont fait de beaucoup de jeunes des proies faciles de l’embrigadement. Ces jeunes cherchent à exister dans un monde qui les a annulés. Une société ne peut se développer et ne peut garantir la paix en son sein tout en laissant une frange de sa jeunesse sur le carreau. Cette tendance crée la haine et la colère contre un système économique qui n’a de place que pour les forts. L’individualisme économique n’est plus fédérateur car il n’est pas égalitaire. Il est nécessaire de revenir à un capitalisme à visage humain et qui prenne en compte la justice sociale.
Au Sud, le manque de développement économique équitable et de perspectives d’emploi dans les pays pauvres est un élément déterminant. La faiblesse des institutions nationales, un faible contrôle du territoire et l’absence de véritables politiques éducatives et de formation des jeunes ont créé un terrain fertile pour les recruteurs de terroristes. Les jeunes sans emploi ou avec des emplois précaires et qui ne leur permettent pas une vie décente sont nombreux. Ici, une interpellation du système des Nations Unies est inévitable. Les Objectifs du Millénaire[1] n’ont pas été atteints: c’est une évidence. La pauvreté est toujours présente, l’alphabétisation reste un défi, l’emploi est absent et l’injustice sociale une réalité dans beaucoup de pays dans la région. En plus, le terrorisme enfonce ces pays, déjà en pleine crise économique résultant d’une économie globale qui creuse l’écart entre pays riches et pays pauvres.
Dans ce contexte, les jeunes peuvent être facilement récupérés par tout type d’organisation car sans perspectives d’avenir et dans certains cas sans une véritable conscience des manipulations desquelles ils peuvent être victimes.
Deux visions de la vie ensemble et du monde s’affrontent. Les visions auxquelles nous pensons relèvent de la division entre Etat de droit basé sur le droit tel que décidé par des humains et les droits d’inspiration divine. Ce débat a lieu dans tous les pays car il s’agit de décider si dans l’espace publique l’état de droit « des humains» doit prévaloir sur le droit « divin » ou le contraire.
La séparation entre sphère étatique et les textes fondateurs des religions monothéistes est un débat ancien qui revient sur la scène politique. Les peuples deviennent de plus en plus conscients du type de société qu’ils souhaitent sur terre sans nier leurs croyances quelque qu’elles soient. Cette interaction entre croyance religieuse et espace publique redessine les relations sociales et politiques. L’Europe reste attachée à une séparation entre les sphères religieuses et l’espace publique. Ces débats ont déjà eu lieu à l’intérieur du catholicisme et ont été tant bien que mal résolus par la séparation entre les affaires de l’église et les affaires des Etats. Les sphères des croyances privées restent ou devraient rester du domaine du choix personnel. Ce débat est de nouveau à l’ordre du jour car la composition de la population européenne a changé avec le temps. Cet état de fait polarise le débat politique car il touche à l’organisation des sociétés et à leurs fonctionnements dans la vie quotidienne.
Les réponses
L’internationalisation des phénomènes de la terreur est désormais une réalité à laquelle aucun pays n’échappe. Elle change la donne de la géopolitique mondiale et oblige à interpréter ces phénomènes à travers une nouvelle grille de lecture. La « guerre », réponse à court terme, à elle seule ne résoudra pas le problème à long terme.
La lutte se joue sur le terrain des valeurs aux niveaux national et international. Nous assistons à une virée « à droite » de la politique européenne, notamment une nouvelle tendance au nationalisme, la montée de la demande du contrôle aux frontières, la montée des partis de droite qui en profitent pour revenir sur des acquis illustres de l’Union européenne, comme la libre circulation des personnes.
Nous ferions, encore une fois, fausse route en ne suivant que ces tendances de repli. Sans pour autant pleinement saisir la dynamique de la confrontation entre l’Europe[2] (et les Etats Unis et la Russie) et les terroristes.
Voici les principales propositions de réponses :
Une réflexion en profondeur et une action pédagogique doivent être lancées par les autorités des pays européens et les institutions européennes pour réfléchir sur la gestion et les défis des sociétés multiculturelles.
Nous devons réinventer notre mode de vivre ensemble, sans nier personne. Il est possible de vivre ensemble en donnant des chances à tous, indépendamment de leurs croyances et de leurs origines. Il est fondamental de travailler sur le vivre ensemble. Nous devons redéfinir les zones communes qui existent et mieux gérer nos différences. Nier les différences ne les fera pas disparaitre, mais au contraire les cristallisera dans une logique d’opposition et de haine. La colère grandit quand nous devons nous nier pour être acceptés. L’action publique citoyenne est dans ce cas primordiale.
Les opinions publiques européennes dans beaucoup de cas ignorent les responsabilités des pays européens par rapport à leurs interventions militaires tardives ou hâtives sans vision politique du suivi à donner après l’intervention militaire, leur silence complice ou l’appui logistique à des situations politiques tout au moins douteuses de tout point de vue. L’entêtement dans certaines situations, comme celle en Syrie, ont amené au chaos politique. Ce n’est pas le repli identitaire sur le drapeau national qui résoudra la situation. Attention à la politique des tripes. Elle n’est que l’autre côté de la folie à laquelle nous assistons.
L’Europe a besoin d’une politique étrangère commune. L’affrontement nationaliste à l’intérieur des frontières européennes et à son extérieur n’est pas la réponse. La réponse est dans une plus grande intégration de la politique étrangère commune et dans une coopération transfrontalière et militaire plus approfondie et systématique. L’abandon des égoïsmes nationaux au profit d’une vraie coopération européenne non seulement quand il y a une alerte terroriste, mais dans une vision d’intégration européenne qui change le visage de l’Europe est vitale pour l’existence de l’Europe. Nous ne sommes pas allés assez loin dans la réflexion à long terme sur la politique étrangère européenne, sur une armée européenne et une Europe qui aille au-delà des actions d’urgence[3].
La paix ne peut être atteinte qu’en s’attelant aux causes profondes de ce malaise mondial. La réponse doit être politique. D’abord, l’Europe doit avoir une politique claire et cohérente avec les pays qui encouragent d’une façon directe ou indirecte les groupes terroristes et la vision passéiste du monde. Il est temps d’arrêter la politique de deux poids deux mesures avec les pays qui soutiennent ces groupes. L’Europe doit arrêter de fermer les yeux sur le commerce avec les pays qui soutiennent de façon directe ou indirecte le terrorisme et lancer des négociations avec ces pays.
Pour ce qui est de la gestion des affaires publiques et des territoires en Afrique, en général et au Mali, en particulier les responsables politiques africains ont aussi une responsabilité par rapport au contrôle de leurs territoires respectifs. Les premiers pas dans ce sens ont été faits, notamment par le G5 sahélien. Il faut aller plus loin et plus rapidement. L’intégration régionale en Afrique est plus que jamais d’actualité. La création d’armées sous régionales qui permettraient de faire face à des attaques et de reprendre le contrôle du désert du Sahara doit être une priorité. Une telle création éviterait à long terme la dépendance des armées étrangères. Le désert du Sahara, désormais devenu une zone de non droit, doit être repris par les forces de la légalité. Le contrôle du territoire et la mise en œuvre des accords internationaux dans cet espace doit revenir sur l’agenda des relations internationales.
La réponse militaire reste une réponse à court terme. Si nous partons du postulat que la situation actuelle est le résultat des inégalités et de la tentative de conquête de territoires à transformer en un autre système de fonctionnement social la réponse militaire ne peut avoir comme fonction que d’arrêter l’avancée des conquérants. Le cas du Mali est exemplaire. Il ne s’agit pas seulement d’une intervention militaire française ou internationale, mais aussi d’un choix des autorités maliennes de ne pas se soumettre à des groupes qui changeraient le visage du gouvernement et du paysage social du Mali. Les événements du Mali sont les plus spectaculaires, mais il y a aussi des attaques continues dans les pays de la sous-région, notamment entre autres au Cameroun, au Nigeria, en Tunisie et au Niger. Il est aussi important de retenir que le projet politique est d’étendre la conquête dans toute l’Afrique de l’Ouest et ensuite monter vers l’Europe. Il s’agit d’une vision politique.
L’Europe (et non les pays membres de l’Union de façon isolée) doit prendre une position forte tout en préparant un avenir humaniste.
Il est aussi important de changer le modèle économique mondial basé sur l’exploitation des pays pauvres par les pays industrialisés. La division internationale du travail ne responsabilisent pas les pays du Sud et les gardent en situation de dépendance. Il est temps de changer les rapports Nord-Sud. Il s’agit d’un ancien débat. Il reste ouvert.
La mondialisation de la terreur tend à lier dans un seul cordon les pays du monde entier.
Cette évolution doit nous amener à réfléchir à une nouvelle façon de vivre ensemble et à trouver des moyens pour faire en sorte que la jeunesse dans le monde ne soit pas laissée sur le carreau par un économisme qui à lui seul est désormais trop aride pour constituer une valeur identitaire, d’autant plus en période de crise économique
Le seul espoir que nous pouvons avoir est que ce phénomène amène les responsables politiques en Europe et dans le monde à saisir l’occasion pour changer le monde de façon à réduire les inégalités et à créer des opportunités pour la jeunesse mondiale.
Sans jeunesse, pas de développement économique, social et politique.
Sans développement équitable, pas de paix durable.
[1] Voir article – Is There Anything New with the Post-2015 United Nations Agenda on Sustainable Development ? Disponible sur: http://post2015.org/tag/post-2015-process.
[3] Voir article – Thoughts on the Economic Crisis in Europe : Federalism or Failure ? Global Governance Trade and the Crisis in Europe, Novembre 2014.
By H. E. Guillaume Kavaruganda, Ambassador of Rwanda in Singapore and in Indonesia, former member of Diplomat Magazine during his assignment in The Hague.
For so long, many people for so many times have considered the African Continent as a hopeless one. Africa, especially Sub-Sahara Africa, has been identified as a place whereby it is a common to find wars, genocide, diseases, illnesses, poverty, corrupted leaders, illegal immigrants and so on. Many have been wondering what was wrong with Africans and many good wishers have lost their patience and abandoned their noble causes. Can we blame them after those described negative qualifying adjectives? I do not think so.
But, if we look carefully, a starting point of change and hope is raising for the last 10 years. Let us not loose the momentum. Of course, all those negative adjectives that I described above can still be found in some areas of Africa, but let us avoid to go into harsh generalization.
Take an example of Rwanda. This small country, in East Africa, overpopulated with 12 millions habitants, who has succeeded in attracting so many investors and tourists due to its safety, clean cities and good governance. For the last 10 years, Rwanda has always been ranked number one to have a big number of women in Parliament (64%); in that tiny country, where you find easily very tall women and men, it has been a custom that in every decision making organs, at least a third must be women. This one example on gender equality is one among the many.
Few Singaporean investors have decided to make Rwanda their home. They did not regret their decision. The number of tourists from Singapore to Rwanda has increased by 8 in the last 5 years. Trade between both countries is also booming.
In 1994, Rwanda went through the worst genocide in the history of humanity; the genocide against Tutsi claimed over 1 million people in just three months. From the ashes, Rwanda is cited worldwide as a model in different fields.
The Rwandan example gives hope for Africa. If they did it why not other African nations cannot? It was high time for things to change in that desperate continent. As the saying goes ”better late than never”. Let us as well change our mindset on Africa.
“It was the best of times; it was the worst of times” So begins Charles Dickens’s novel A Tale of Two Cities. It is an observation that could equally apply these days to NATO. By Jamie Shea, Deputy Assistant Secretary General Emerging Security Challenges NATO.
In the first place, Russia’s annexation of Crimea and its military incursion into Eastern Ukraine, have given the Alliance a new lease of life. In the 18 months since the Kremlin’s actions upended the post-Cold-War European security order and raised alarm bells regarding the extent of Russia revisionism, NATO has been busy around the clock organizing exercises, and deployments in Central and Eastern Europe.
These have intended to reassure the Eastern Allies that NATO will stand by them if Russia attacks. The Alliance has substantially changed its force posture to be ready to respond with new high alert multinational reaction forces.
It has placed six new Headquarters on the territories of its Eastern Allies and overhauled its command and control arrangements and air defences, so as to be able to handle the requirements of large-scale manoeuvres and major incoming forces should it come to the worst case scenario.
As it heads towards its next Summit in Warsaw in July 2016, the question will be just how many soldiers and how much hardware NATO will need to station durably in Eastern Europe to deter Russia as well as reassure its own member nations. Enough to prevent war – or to successfully fight one – but not so much that Vladimir Putin concludes that Russia is now locked into a long-term confrontation with the West; nor so much that the Alliance has no forces left for crisis management or the next generation of military interventions elsewhere.
Getting this balance right between a capacity for military escalation on the one hand and political de-escalation on the other will be the crucial task for NATO ambassadors and their military colleagues in the months ahead. T
his said, the spring in its step that the Alliance is getting from returning to its classical mission of collective defence should not make us think that NATO is now condemned to be successful, or that security is once again automatic. It is also, if not the worst of times for NATO, certainly one of the most demanding and challenging in its entire history, and this for a number of reasons.
First is that defence budgets do not necessary follow new threats. Governments will try to avoid cutting their military forces further but the costs of re-settling hundreds of thousands of refugees and bailing out the weak Eurozone economies, will make it difficult for many Allies to respect their NATO commitment to spend 2% of their GDP on defence. Currently only five out of 28 Allies do this.
The modern demands of security with the focus on terrorism, border controls and intelligence services, also means that the classical military no longer has the monopoly on security funds that it once enjoyed.
Many governments will take a gamble that they can re-establish effective deterrence relatively on the cheap through more military activity and joint multinational units rather than new capabilities and additional soldiers. This will make risk assessment a very important topic on the NATO agenda.
Secondly, what if Russia does not pose a direct military threat to NATO, given NATO’s overall superiority in budgets and capabilities, but tries instead to exploit the Achilles Heel of hybrid warfare? This involves intelligence operations, infiltrating special forces, economic pressures and propaganda campaigns to intimidate an adversary and undermine his will to resist.
We saw this with the “little green men” in Crimea and the way in which Russia rapidly took over key facilities and the entire communications system of the local Ukrainian government and armed forces.
Although it is beyond question that NATO countries are less vulnerable than Ukraine to hybrid warfare, it will still be a challenge for the Allies to identify the early warning indicators of this type of covert campaign and to sort out who is the best responder: the nation, the EU with its economic instruments or NATO with its military forces? How does NATO help its member states to identify their vulnerabilities and improve their resilience against hybrid warfare? The third issue concerns the South where the threats stemming from the breakdown of governments and sometimes entire societies in North Africa and the Middle East are arguably as severe as those posed by Russia – and certainly not something that any diplomat can negotiate his way out of in the foreseeable future.
Success here will require patient conflict resolution and institution and defence capacity building to help legitimate local governments stand on their own feet. Ultimately, interventions on the ground may be needed to eliminate the most radical and extremist elements, like the Islamic State, which unfortunately are also the best equipped, financed and organized and unlikely to submit to pressure from air campaigns alone.
Here the Alliance is not 80% of the solution, as it is in dealing with the military threat posed by Russia in the East and its brain power in forging alliances with local actors and other organizations like the UN and the EU, will be as important, if not more so, than its military brawn. So ultimately, the pressures on NATO have never been more diverse.
Gone are the days when the Alliance could deal with one challenge at a time and have it more or less under control before a new challenges arises. Moreover after 20 years in which NATO member states have had partnerships and cooperation and stabilization missions as the principal DNA of NATO’s raison d’être and daily activities, restoring NATO’s reputation as a major military power to be feared as well as respected will not be straightforward.
It will not be the task that many NATO ambassadors would have looked forward to at the beginning of their mandate or that Alliance-watchers had hoped would be necessary in the new Europe after the Cold War; but it has become, whether we like it or not, the new prerequisite for transatlantic security in the decades ahead.
What makes a university stand out from the crowd? For the discerning, internationally mobile individual, what are the main qualities and opportunities that a university can offer?Nyenrode Business Universiteitis the only private research university in the Netherlands. It was founded in 1946 with a clear mission: to serve society by developing globally-active and responsible leaders and entrepreneurs through action-oriented education and research. Built upon the motto: “For business by business”, its founding fathers include Air France-KLM, Shell, Unilever, Philips, Heineken and AkzoNobel. Together, they defined Nyenrode’s purpose as being to develop “new business leaders who are action-inclined and internationally-oriented”. Thus the university has always placed a major emphasis on serving the international community.
Nyenrode is dedicated to fulfilling its mission through diverse education and development programs for talented, enterprising and ambitious individuals who are result-oriented and have global perspectives. The many personal and professional development options offered by Nyenrode are best represented by its values: Leadership, Entrepreneurship and Stewardship.
Nyenrode is also known for its personal approach to education, and is committed to providing students with the highest levels of personal attention. Each and every aspiring global talent is respected and nurtured, so they can become the best leaders they can be. All of its practical courses and programs focus strongly on career and personal development, enabling the students to embark on a journey of self-discovery which can ensure maximum Return on Education.
Nyenrode’s flagship degree programsBachelor of Science in Business Administration (BSc)
The Bachelor of Science in Business Administration (3 years, full-time) is a three-year program on Nyenrode campus. By experiencing the intense campus life, students will be able to develop their passion and strength while improving their understanding of business.
Master of Science in Management (MSc)
The Master of Science in Management (16 months, full-time) provides students with the best tools to enter the global labor market as a skilled starter. Nyenrode’s close connection with the corporate world ensures that students experience the reality of business through the program.
International Master of Business Administration (IMBA)
Business is not run as a set of courses or islands of knowledge. Rather, business is run based on interconnected and interdependent business practices. Nyenrode’s recently redesigned International MBA (1 year, full-time) revolves around intergraded business practices and in-company projects rather than traditional individual courses.
Executive Master of Business Administration (EMBA)
Executive MBA (part-time, 21 months) provides a learning environment for seasoned professionals that mirrors the realities and pressures of business: one boot camp after the other. The intense 2-week modules ensure that the program is easy to combine with participants’ busy lifestyles.
Register now for the upcoming events!
February 5th-6th, 2016: EMBA Experience Weekend
February 13, 2016: BSc Open day
February 26th-28th, 2016: IMBA Campus Weekend
March 4th-5th, 2016: MSc Business Game
For more information, visit www.nyenrode.nl
By Joseph Román.
The terrorist attacks committed against Paris by Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) operatives on 13 November 2015 brokered shock and disgust by heads of state and government and citizens around the world.
Terrorist attacks of any sort are always committed in the name of a political aim and intentional or not, civilians bear the brunt of and the response to that violence. Paris is still in the minds of many. Questions about why ISIS operatives cold-bloodedly slaughtered 130 people and injured 368 people remain unanswered even though explanations have been tendered.
Perhaps the attack was a response to the West’s intervention against ISIS’s barbarism in the Levant. Perhaps Paris was a sort of one-upmanship between ISIS and al-Qaeda in the battle of being the voice of Islamists. Whatever the case may be, as of this writing, French authorities are still sorting through the motives behind November 13. If anything can be gleaned from the attacks on Paris, though, countries need to rethink national security by shifting their focus onto securing cities. After all, is there a better place to maximize death, destruction, and fear than terrorizing a busy city centre?
Borders have been and continue to be the preoccupation of states. Monitoring and controlling borders and the people who seek to pass through them are undeniably essential for national security. Yet, as important as border security may be, it becomes irrelevant when the threats to citizens originate in local neighbourhoods. While calls for beefing up national intelligence services in the wake of a terrorist attack are not unexpected, national governments would be better served by providing local police forces with the necessary human and material resources to build relationships with residents in high-risk communities.
Relationship building is less about monitoring local populations and more about local police forces having an awareness of the dynamics and personalities of neighbourhoods by building a rapport with residents in order to acutely recognize when something is amiss. There are clear benefits for securing cities in this manner. The criminalization of entire populations can be avoided when local police officers obtain everyday knowledge through conversations with local residents and observing the daily rhythms of neighbourhoods. Moreover, cities will not have to be fated to becoming citadels as a “just in case” response to terrorism. Indeed, turning a city into a fortress in the name of security kills public space far more efficiently and effectively than any terrorist attack. The ways in which Los Angeles has planned its urban spaces with general crime in mind certainly confirms this. So, even as Parisians gleefully demonstrated their resilience and commitment to going about their daily life to spite Islamists, the likelihood of this happening in a beautifully mundane way diminishes once fear becomes the foundation for city planning.
Needless to say, securing cities in the way that has been suggested will not be foolproof. Radicalization will happen no matter what, but there is nothing inevitable per se about the scale of the attacks that occurred on November 13. Undoubtedly, local actions must be connected to national efforts for a more robust response to increasingly localized forms terrorism. Yet, as long as attention is paid to neighbourhoods only when the worst possible scenario materializes, governments will be running on a treadmill to address national security.
Joseph Román, obtained his PhD from Carleton University’s Department of Political Science in 2011. He currently teaches at the University of Ottawa’s School of Political Studies and his primary research interests revolve around urban politics and international relations.
Supporting OPCW’s disarmament efforts in Syria is a top priority for German foreign policy.By Ambassador Dr Christoph Israng, Permanent Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany to the OPCW.
Although almost all countries in the world have acceded to the treaty banning chemical weapons, they still pose a threat: the international community is facing a great challenge in Syria.
The country joined the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) in 2013 and had to dismantle its chemical weapons programme. This was a great success for the international community. However, it is disappointing that even now, more than two years after Syria’s accession to the CWC, doubts remain over whether the Syrian authorities have declared all elements of their chemical weapons programme. Sadly, there is even worse: the truth is that toxic chemicals such as chlorine are being used in Syria, regularly killing and severely harming mostly civilians including children.
Disarmament and non-proliferation have always been a top foreign policy priority for the Federal Republic of Germany. Therefore, Germany actively works for the full and global implementation of the CWC as well as its universalisation. That is why Germany is actively contributing to ending the threat posed by Syrian chemical weapons, including the destruction of the declared Syrian chemical weapons outside of Syria.
German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier commented on this, saying: “No-one who takes their international responsibility seriously can refuse to live up to this obligation [supporting the destruction of the Syrian chemical weapons]. That also applies to our country, as we have fully developed technical facilities for destroying chemical substances. It is especially important that agreements are honoured, for we are facing the next stage in difficult negotiations and it is essential that the reliability of the international community’s pledges be beyond doubt.”
Germany, as well as our international partners, have actively supported and continue to support the efforts of the OPCW to implement the CWC in Syria, through both ad hoc support (e.g. by providing air transport for OPCW inspectors) and more complex missions.
Most of all, however, Germany contributed five million euros to the OPCW Trust Fund for the Destruction of Syrian Chemical Weapons. Moreover, we support the use of EU funds for this task. The German Armed Forces (Bundeswehr) provided assistance by conducting a maritime escort operation for the US vessel Cape Ray while it was executing the at sea destruction of Syrian chemical weapons. Naturally, this took place in accordance with international agreements and UN mandates.
In this maritime escort operation, German soldiers ensured that the transport and destruction of Syrian chemical warfare agents were finalised successfully and safely. The method of ‘hydrolysis’ was used, meaning that the destruction of these chemical weapons took place in a closed system and thus no substances were released into the air or sea.
About 400 tons of liquid and solid residues of mustard gas, created by this method, were transported to Germany for their complete disposal at the publicly-owned disposal company GEKA in Munster, northern Germany. These substances, known as hydrolysate, were burned in compliance with environmental regulations by April 2015. Hydrolysate and other remaining chemical agents were transported to Finland, the United States and the United Kingdom for their final destruction.
On the occasion of the finalisation of the destruction operations in Germany and Finland, OPCW Director-General, Ambassador Ahmet Üzümcü stated: “This is yet another milestone on the path to eliminating chemical weapons stocks from Syria – one that was achieved in a safe and efficient way, thanks to the valuable support provided by the German Government and Finnish industry.”
Additionally, the German Armed Forces have run several safety training courses for OPCW inspectors. Germany has also financed two projects to improve the protection and treatment of civilian chemical weapons victims in Syria: on behalf of the German Government, GIZ (German corporation for international cooperation) provided the supply of medical equipment with a total value of more than two million euros to Syrian civil society.
Desmond Parks/U.S. Navy. Photography courtesy of www.bundeswehr-journal.de.
A third project is currently under way. The delivered equipment does not only provide urgent medical support to local hospitals and doctors in the region between Aleppo and Hama, it is also perfectly suited to the difficult situation in the area: the equipment is portable and can be relocated quickly and easily to other hospitals if necessary. Furthermore, medical staff of the German Armed Forces have contributed to an OPCW handbook on the treatment of victims of chemical weapons.
Continuing reports of the ongoing use of chemical weapons in Syria are a challenge for the entire OPCW family. Germany stands ready to continue to actively support the OPCW’s work as well as to help make the OPCW’s main objective a reality: a world free of chemical weapons.
By Jhr. mr. Alexander W. Beelaerts van Blokland LL.M., Justice (Judge) in the (Dutch) Court of Appeal and honorary Special Adviser International Affairs, appointed by the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of The Hague
From January 1st, 2016, The Netherlands will be presiding the EU during half a year. Although the ‘Scheepvaartmuseum’ in Amsterdam – being the formal capital of this country- will be the location of the meetings of EU ministers, the city of The Hague will play an important role as well of course.
As far as Europe is concerned, The Hague is not only the home town of the embassies of all other 27 EU countries, but that city (with some smaller towns around The Hague) is since many years also hosting many important EU organizations like the European Patent Office (EPO), the European Space Research and Technology Centre (EAS/ESTEC), Eurojust, Europol, the European Cybercrime Centre (ECC), the High Commissioner on National Minorities of the OSCE (HCNM/OSCE) and the bureaus of the representatives in the Netherlands of the European Commission and the European Parliament, as well as a great number of European NGO’s.
In fact The Hague stood as early as 1948 at the cradle of what now is the EU with an European Congress in the ‘Ridderzaal’ (Hall of Knights). In 1956 the government in The Hague was one of the six Founding Fathers of the predecessor of the EU: the European Common Market.
During the Dutch presidency there will be three priorities: we want (1) an innovative EU, (2) an EU that limits itself to essentials and (3) an EU that connects. Key words will be: serve, saving expenses and economization.
Because of the upcoming Dutch presidency, the President of the European Parliament already visited The Hague in December 2015, the European Commission will follow early January 2016.
In a period of huge immigration from Syria and other countries, tensions with Russia and terrorist attacks from organizations like IS /ISIS and the necessity of an European joint approach, the Dutch Parliament will organize during the Dutch presidency interparliamentary conferences in The Hague on European affairs and on the common policy on foreign affairs and defence matters. Also two international conferences on energy and innovation, as well as on human trafficking from Africa, the Middle East and Asia. Apart from that, The Hague will organize lots of other European activities during the Dutch presidency.
As you can conclude, The Hague is not only the well known worlds capital of peace and justice, but also since a long time very much an important European city with many permanently based European institutions as well as important temporary activities during the Dutch presidency of the first half of 2016.
a.beelaerts@planet.nl
By Robert Kayinamura, Counselor, Embassy of the Republic of Rwanda, The Hague. Strong leadership and governance are required in order to set a clear vision for a shared direction by all actors in national building. After the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi, which claimed over a million innocent lives in just 100 days, Rwanda was left a shell of a nation.Very few people expected the country to achieve more than high levels of sympathy. But under the leadership of President Paul Kagame, Rwanda decided to start afresh; to begin a unique experiment in post-conflict nation building, which would steer it away from intractable cycles of a bad past and usher in impressive progress that was unthinkable.President Kagame believed that by uniting Rwandans behind the common cause of progress, they could construct a new national identity, Nd’umunyarwanda: a Rwandan, rather than Hutu or Tutsi. Based on this foundation, Rwandans are increasingly united. There is strong patriotism and belief in the government and trust in the leadership of their country. Rwandans can’t forget their tragic past but do not want to be defined by it. The older generation already knows all too well the cost of failure, but a majority of the population, born post-genocide, has inherited the possibility of a different future. Rwandans have chosen a different path because they found within themselves the resilience and courage necessary to rebuild from the ashes and stand as a model for other nations seeking progress and reconciliation. The progress Rwanda has achieved since its genocide may be the most significant example of human development in modern history. Rwanda has made the most progress, which is all the more impressive given that its level of development fell during the Genocide of 1994.We are talking of a country where life expectancy has more than doubled in 20 years, where a million people have been lifted out of poverty, where women are the majority of legislators, where 95 percent of the population has health insurance, and which is ranked as one of the safest places in the world to live in, according to the Gallup’s Global States of Mind poll.Under Kagame, Rwandans have become agents of their own destiny, and their narrative is one of ascent.Alongside visionary women and men, many of whom fought to stop the genocide, Kagame has led the country to the desired nation in Africa. Rwanda’s political leaders have been praised for their quality of technocratic governance and their proactive approach to creating an attractive business climate.The country aspires to become a middle class economy, through its Vision 2020 programmed since its launch in 2000. the government’s Vision 2020 puts people at the centre of our development process to become a knowledge based economy and, hence, the focus of national investments in education, health and inclusive development, among others.Per capita income has grown to USD 800 from USD 220 in 2000, which expected to push the poverty rate to less than 30% in 2020 from 60.4% in 2000, and an average life expectancy of 65 years from the 49 years in 2000.As we speak, the overall picture is quite encouraging. Rwanda’s economy is thriving and reported growth figures have been impressive, at 8% over the past ten year, and exceeding most of the Millennium Development Goals.September 2015 was the deadline for MDGs, after that, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) took center stage for the next fifteen years until 2030. This will too call for strong leadership and ownership of targets. Undoubtedly, Rwanda will not miss the goal.A country that has gained a lot from MDGs, it’s vital that its sustains its achievements to avoid back slipping and sustainable development goals are seen as the best way to achieve that.
By Fatou Bensouda, ICC Prosecutor.
As Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (“ICC” or the “Court”), my mandate is to investigate and prosecute perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, where we have jurisdiction and the relevant national authorities are either unwilling or unable genuinely to do so.
I have proudly served this important institution for more than 10 years, and since June 2012, as its Prosecutor. It is a great privilege and an honour to serve in this capacity. The role carries with it immense responsibilities, and I’m most committed to continuing to fulfil my mandate in accordance with the Rome Statute without fear or favour.
Much has changed since a decade ago. While challenges remain, the Court also has significant achievements to its name. The ICC has not seen busier days.
In the context of my Office’s preliminary examination work, we’re currently analysing eight situations from around the world, including with respect to Afghanistan, Georgia, Palestine, Iraq (regarding alleged detainee abuse by UK forces), Ukraine and Colombia, to determine whether the legal criteria of the Rome Statute have been met to open an investigation.
My Office has already opened nine investigations in Uganda; the Central African Republic (two separate investigations); Sudan, Darfur; the Democratic Republic of the Congo; Kenya, Libya, Côte d’Ivoire, and Mali. More recently, I also requested authorisation from the Court’s judges to open an investigation into the situation in Georgia. That judicial determination is pending.
On the strength of the Office’s new strategic plans, we continue our work in the courtroom by bringing cases built on solid foundation, and by so doing, demonstrating the severity of Rome Statute crimes and hopefully to deter future crimes. This brings me to an important point.
As calls for the exercise of our jurisdiction grow from all four corners, my Office continues to face resource challenges. This increase in demand for justice has not been fully matched by a similar increase in resources.
Support from States Parties for adequate resources is critical to carry out quality preliminary examinations, investigations, and prosecutions. Investing in justice will pay dividends for peace, stability and economic growth, while the return on that investment in human terms is incalculable.
Similarly, strong institutional structures and policies that allow us the flexibility to adapt to these increasing demands within the strict legal confines of the Statute are fundamentally important. For this reason, I have invested specifically in the development of a comprehensive Code of Conduct for my Office as well as policies, and new strategic approaches to our work.
In June 2014, we promulgated the Office’s Policy Paper on Sexual and Gender-Based Crimes. We are also busy working on a similar Policy Paper on Children in and affected by armed conflict. Other policies are being contemplated, including a comprehensive Office policy on protected property, including historical buildings and monuments, under the Rome Statute. All such efforts are geared towards enhancing the quality of our performance and ensuring our effectiveness.
These are not merely feel-good words or lofty goals. I have made quality performance a top priority in everything we do at my Office. We must strive to consistently generate results and achieve efficiency-gains where possible. We have already started to see the fruits of such efforts in practice.
Our work is not done in isolation. States Parties have the primary responsibility to investigate and prosecute Rome Statute crimes. It is thus our hope that such policies not only contribute to strengthening our own processes, but can also be of assistance to national authorities in their efforts to root out atrocity crimes.
Only when all actors within the Rome Statute system work closely together and in full harmony, can we achieve the common goal of ending impunity for the most serious crimes of international concern.
ICC Prosecutor, Ms. Fatou Bensouda.Mrs. Fatou Bensouda, Prosecutor of the International Criminal CourtMrs. Fatou Bensouda is the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), having assumed office in 2012. In 2011, she was elected by consensus by the Assembly of States Parties to serve in this capacity. Mrs Bensouda was nominated and supported as the sole African candidate for election to the post by the African Union. Between 1987 and 2000, Mrs. Bensouda was successively Senior State Counsel, Principal State Counsel, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, Solicitor General and Legal Secretary of the Republic, and Attorney General and Minister of Justice, in which capacity she served as Chief Legal Advisor to the President and Cabinet of The Republic of The Gambia. Her international career as a non-government civil servant formally began at the UN International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, where she worked as a Legal Adviser and Trial Attorney before rising to the position of Senior Legal Advisor and Head of the Legal Advisory Unit (2002 to 2004), after which she joined the ICC as the Court’s first Deputy Prosecutor. Mrs. Bensouda has served as delegate of The Gambia to, inter alia, the meetings of the Preparatory Commission for the ICC.She is the recipient of numerous awards, including the distinguished ICJ International Jurists Award (2009), presented by the then President of India P. D. Patil; the 2011 World Peace Through Law Award presented by the Whitney Harris World Law Institute, the American Society of International Law’s Honorary Membership Award (2014), and the XXXV Peace Prize by the United Nations Association of Spain (2015). In addition to receiving several honorary doctorates, Mrs. Bensouda has been listed by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world (2012); by the New African magazine as one of the “Most Influential Africans;” by Foreign Policy as one of the “Leading Global Thinkers” (2013), and by Jeune Afrique as one of 50 African women who, by their actions and initiatives in their respective roles, advance the African continent (2014 & 2015).Photography by Photoline.
As it heads towards its next Summit in Warsaw in July 2016, the question will be just how many soldiers and how much hardware NATO will need to station durably in Eastern Europe to deter Russia as well as reassure its own member nations. Enough to prevent war – or to successfully fight one – but not so much that Vladimir Putin concludes that Russia is now locked into a long-term confrontation with the West; nor so much that the Alliance has no forces left for crisis management or the next generation of military interventions elsewhere.
Getting this balance right between a capacity for military escalation on the one hand and political de-escalation on the other will be the crucial task for NATO ambassadors and their military colleagues in the months ahead. T
his said, the spring in its step that the Alliance is getting from returning to its classical mission of collective defence should not make us think that NATO is now condemned to be successful, or that security is once again automatic. It is also, if not the worst of times for NATO, certainly one of the most demanding and challenging in its entire history, and this for a number of reasons.
First is that defence budgets do not necessary follow new threats. Governments will try to avoid cutting their military forces further but the costs of re-settling hundreds of thousands of refugees and bailing out the weak Eurozone economies, will make it difficult for many Allies to respect their NATO commitment to spend 2% of their GDP on defence. Currently only five out of 28 Allies do this.
The modern demands of security with the focus on terrorism, border controls and intelligence services, also means that the classical military no longer has the monopoly on security funds that it once enjoyed.
Many governments will take a gamble that they can re-establish effective deterrence relatively on the cheap through more military activity and joint multinational units rather than new capabilities and additional soldiers. This will make risk assessment a very important topic on the NATO agenda.
Secondly, what if Russia does not pose a direct military threat to NATO, given NATO’s overall superiority in budgets and capabilities, but tries instead to exploit the Achilles Heel of hybrid warfare? This involves intelligence operations, infiltrating special forces, economic pressures and propaganda campaigns to intimidate an adversary and undermine his will to resist.
We saw this with the “little green men” in Crimea and the way in which Russia rapidly took over key facilities and the entire communications system of the local Ukrainian government and armed forces.
Although it is beyond question that NATO countries are less vulnerable than Ukraine to hybrid warfare, it will still be a challenge for the Allies to identify the early warning indicators of this type of covert campaign and to sort out who is the best responder: the nation, the EU with its economic instruments or NATO with its military forces? How does NATO help its member states to identify their vulnerabilities and improve their resilience against hybrid warfare? The third issue concerns the South where the threats stemming from the breakdown of governments and sometimes entire societies in North Africa and the Middle East are arguably as severe as those posed by Russia – and certainly not something that any diplomat can negotiate his way out of in the foreseeable future.
Success here will require patient conflict resolution and institution and defence capacity building to help legitimate local governments stand on their own feet. Ultimately, interventions on the ground may be needed to eliminate the most radical and extremist elements, like the Islamic State, which unfortunately are also the best equipped, financed and organized and unlikely to submit to pressure from air campaigns alone.
Here the Alliance is not 80% of the solution, as it is in dealing with the military threat posed by Russia in the East and its brain power in forging alliances with local actors and other organizations like the UN and the EU, will be as important, if not more so, than its military brawn. So ultimately, the pressures on NATO have never been more diverse.
Gone are the days when the Alliance could deal with one challenge at a time and have it more or less under control before a new challenges arises. Moreover after 20 years in which NATO member states have had partnerships and cooperation and stabilization missions as the principal DNA of NATO’s raison d’être and daily activities, restoring NATO’s reputation as a major military power to be feared as well as respected will not be straightforward.
It will not be the task that many NATO ambassadors would have looked forward to at the beginning of their mandate or that Alliance-watchers had hoped would be necessary in the new Europe after the Cold War; but it has become, whether we like it or not, the new prerequisite for transatlantic security in the decades ahead. 
As it heads towards its next Summit in Warsaw in July 2016, the question will be just how many soldiers and how much hardware NATO will need to station durably in Eastern Europe to deter Russia as well as reassure its own member nations. Enough to prevent war – or to successfully fight one – but not so much that Vladimir Putin concludes that Russia is now locked into a long-term confrontation with the West; nor so much that the Alliance has no forces left for crisis management or the next generation of military interventions elsewhere.
Getting this balance right between a capacity for military escalation on the one hand and political de-escalation on the other will be the crucial task for NATO ambassadors and their military colleagues in the months ahead. T
his said, the spring in its step that the Alliance is getting from returning to its classical mission of collective defence should not make us think that NATO is now condemned to be successful, or that security is once again automatic. It is also, if not the worst of times for NATO, certainly one of the most demanding and challenging in its entire history, and this for a number of reasons.
First is that defence budgets do not necessary follow new threats. Governments will try to avoid cutting their military forces further but the costs of re-settling hundreds of thousands of refugees and bailing out the weak Eurozone economies, will make it difficult for many Allies to respect their NATO commitment to spend 2% of their GDP on defence. Currently only five out of 28 Allies do this.
The modern demands of security with the focus on terrorism, border controls and intelligence services, also means that the classical military no longer has the monopoly on security funds that it once enjoyed.
Many governments will take a gamble that they can re-establish effective deterrence relatively on the cheap through more military activity and joint multinational units rather than new capabilities and additional soldiers. This will make risk assessment a very important topic on the NATO agenda.
Secondly, what if Russia does not pose a direct military threat to NATO, given NATO’s overall superiority in budgets and capabilities, but tries instead to exploit the Achilles Heel of hybrid warfare? This involves intelligence operations, infiltrating special forces, economic pressures and propaganda campaigns to intimidate an adversary and undermine his will to resist.
We saw this with the “little green men” in Crimea and the way in which Russia rapidly took over key facilities and the entire communications system of the local Ukrainian government and armed forces.
Although it is beyond question that NATO countries are less vulnerable than Ukraine to hybrid warfare, it will still be a challenge for the Allies to identify the early warning indicators of this type of covert campaign and to sort out who is the best responder: the nation, the EU with its economic instruments or NATO with its military forces? How does NATO help its member states to identify their vulnerabilities and improve their resilience against hybrid warfare? The third issue concerns the South where the threats stemming from the breakdown of governments and sometimes entire societies in North Africa and the Middle East are arguably as severe as those posed by Russia – and certainly not something that any diplomat can negotiate his way out of in the foreseeable future.
Success here will require patient conflict resolution and institution and defence capacity building to help legitimate local governments stand on their own feet. Ultimately, interventions on the ground may be needed to eliminate the most radical and extremist elements, like the Islamic State, which unfortunately are also the best equipped, financed and organized and unlikely to submit to pressure from air campaigns alone.
Here the Alliance is not 80% of the solution, as it is in dealing with the military threat posed by Russia in the East and its brain power in forging alliances with local actors and other organizations like the UN and the EU, will be as important, if not more so, than its military brawn. So ultimately, the pressures on NATO have never been more diverse.
Gone are the days when the Alliance could deal with one challenge at a time and have it more or less under control before a new challenges arises. Moreover after 20 years in which NATO member states have had partnerships and cooperation and stabilization missions as the principal DNA of NATO’s raison d’être and daily activities, restoring NATO’s reputation as a major military power to be feared as well as respected will not be straightforward.
It will not be the task that many NATO ambassadors would have looked forward to at the beginning of their mandate or that Alliance-watchers had hoped would be necessary in the new Europe after the Cold War; but it has become, whether we like it or not, the new prerequisite for transatlantic security in the decades ahead. 
