By Barend ter Haar. Good diplomacy serves the interests of a country, but bad diplomacy helps a country to destroy itself. Take for example the year 1914 when bad diplomacy led to the first World War. Among the many reasons why diplomacy failed, two should be mentioned here: Governments avoided a realistic look at the price of modern warfare and were unwilling or unable to look beyond their narrow (perceived) national interests. The result is well known: the fall of the Russian, German and Austrian empires and the beginning of the European Civil War that lasted at least until 1945, if not 1989. Is diplomacy doing any better nowadays? Are governments now looking reality in the eye? Are they now looking beyond their short term national interests? And why is it that governments conduct policies that are self-destructive? These are very difficult, but also very important questions. Too important, one could argue, to leave it to diplomats and foreign policy specialists to answer. But who can help? Diplomats might follow the good example of the development experts at the World Bank. In its most recent World Development Report Mind, Society and Behavior the World Bank invoked the help of many disciplines, such as neuroscience, psychology, and anthropology, to answer the question why the results of development aid are so often disappointing. Diplomats should do the same. A discipline that might be of much use is biology. Since Darwin wrote The Descent of Man, a lot has been learned about human nature. What is important to realize is that the way we act and react is not only influenced by what we have learned from other people (our culture), but also by hundreds of thousands years of evolution (our genetic predisposition). Genetic adaptation is a very slow process, certainly in comparison with the enormous speed human civilization developed since the late stone age. Our current genetic predisposition therefore dates from before that time, when our forefathers still had to gather and hunt their food in the wild. However, some of the genetic adaptations that worked very well at that time have now become dysfunctional. Take for instance our innate impulse to eat sweets and nuts when they are placed in front of us, whether we are hungry or not. Our far ancestors were right to eat whenever they had the chance, but for modern man this impulse is dysfunctional. If we want to remain healthy, we have to withstand this temptation. In principle we can do that, but nevertheless obesity has become a very serious public health problem. Another problematic genetic trait is our inclination to make a sharp distinction between our “own” group and “other” groups. We are genetically predisposed to consider the “others” as potential enemies and not to care very much about their lives. Hundred thousand years ago that was probably useful, but under current circumstances this inclination has become dysfunctional. The sociobiologist Edward Wilson said it quite eloquently in The Social Conquest of Earth: “We have created a Star Wars civilization, with Stone Age emotions, medieval institutions, and godlike technology. (..) We are terribly confused by the mere fact of our existence, and a danger to ourselves and to the rest of life.” Now what to do? We cannot change our nature, but we can be aware of our genetic handicaps. Studies on the evolutionary origins of war and ethnic conflict are therefore not only of academic interest, but deserve the attention of pragmatic diplomats. A closer look at the results of biological research with regard to our hereditary handicaps will help us to realize that policies that feel good because they were effective 100 000 years ago might now be self destructive. A better understanding of our genetic predispositions can therefore help us to prevent avoidable disasters.

By Jhr. mr. Alexander W. Beelaerts van Blokland LL.M., Justice (Judge) in the Court of Appeal and honorary Special Advisor International Affairs of the City of The Hague.   Since 2005 the city of The Hague –International City of Peace and Justice- supports every two years an international organization that is active for peace and / or justice. In that year UNICEF was chosen as the first one to support, because in that year UNICEF The Netherlands existed fifty years. After UNICEF came the Red Cross, Warchild, AMREF Flying Doctors and Save the Children. Since January 1st, 2015, the municipality of The Hague has chosen again for UNICEF in the year of 60 years UNICEF The Netherlands. UNICEF is an UN organization like The Hague is an UN city. As probably everyone will know, UNICEF is one of the biggest organizations for the rights of children in the world. UNICEF helps children in no less than 190 countries all over the world, with better education, vaccinations, clean drinking water, emergency help, etcetera. Not only the city of The Hague itself helps UNICEF during the whole year of 2015 , but also inhabitants, schools, businesses and other organizations in The Hague do so. Big local events in The Hague like the City – Pier – City run, the Entrepreneurs Gala and the Just Peace weekend in september will be in favour of UNICEF. The money that will be collected will be used for children in Indonesia, which is a former colony of The Netherlands (until 1945/1949). UNICEF is very much concerned about the situation in that country with its enormous violance against children. For example: one out of six girls is given in marriage before the age of eighteen against their will. Of course UNICEF and The Hague would be very grateful to the 30.000 to 40.000 expats living in and around The Hague, if they would be able and willing to support UNICEF in one way or the other. By themselves and / or by the expat organizations they belong to. During 2015 there are a lot of possibilities in The Hague to do so.   a.beelaerts@planet.nl    

By Dr. Davor Jancic, Senior Researcher in EU Law, T.M.C. Asser Institute The Hague, Faculty of Law, University of Amsterdam.   The world has become too globalised, too interdependent and too interconnected for diplomacy to be left to executive actors alone. For better or worse, Westphalian sovereignty belongs to a bygone era. Many decisions and policies with a decisive impact on the lives of both individuals and states as socio-political and economic communities are nowadays made outside the framework of those states. A vast multitude of international or supranational organisations–whose scope is global (e.g. the UN, WTO), regional (e.g. the EU, Council of Europe, Mercosur, African Union) or crossregional (e.g. NATO, OSCE)–set the parameters, or even directly govern, important segments of domestic regulatory affairs. Since this rapid development of global governance is a corollary of governmental action, parliaments are effectively denied the possibility to legislate on transnational policies and exercise democratic control over their creation. To compensate for this, parliamentary diplomacy has flourished in the past several decades. This phenomenon testifies to the evolving nature of representative democracy in the 21^st century. Parliamentary diplomacy encompasses foreign affairs activities of individual parliamentarians (e.g. Speakers, chairpersons), groups of parliamentarians (e.g. committees, delegations, intergroups, friendship groups), bilateral interparliamentary forums (e.g. Transatlantic Legislators’ Dialogue), or international parliamentary institutions. The latter is the most advanced form of parliamentary diplomacy and ranges from parliamentary organs of international organisations (e.g. Parliamentary Assemblies of the OSCE and the Council of Europe), those that are only loosely linked to an international organisation (e.g. NATO Parliamentary Assembly), to those that are not associated to an international organisation whatsoever (e.g. Interparliamentary Union, Latin American Parliament). The world leader in parliamentary diplomacy is the European Parliament. It possesses a rather developed internal structure for conducting autonomous international affairs not only via its committees (e.g. AFET, DEVE, INTA, LIBE), delegations and intergroups, but also via assemblies it has created with international and regional parliamentary partners (e.g. Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly, Euronest Parliamentary Assembly). All of these institutional manifestations of parliamentary diplomacy exercise soft power, because they as a rule possess no legally binding powers. However, their impact is realized through functions that complement those carried out internally within the legal orders in which these parliaments are established. These functions of parliamentary diplomacy are aimed at debating global challenges (e.g. terrorism and climate change), conflict resolution (e.g. advocacy in the Libyan and Syrian crises), discussing bilateral or multilateral international agreements, assessing the implications of extraterritorial legislation, approximating regulatory approaches to prevent legal disputes and political frictions, protesting diplomatic misconduct (e.g. US NSA online surveillance over the EU), strengthening domestic scrutiny and accountability mechanisms, nurturing the exchange of information and best practices, capacity building (e.g. democracy support, election observation missions, exchange of parliamentary know-how), and, generally, improving diplomatic relations between states and regions. These activities are carried out through dialogue fostered during countless visits and meetings that parliamentarians organise around the globe. Yet this does not mean that parliamentarians must become political globetrotters, traveling the world in search of peace and cooperation. In legal terms, the soft power of parliamentary diplomacy can become hard if it is firmly embedded in internal constitutional orders, where binding legal powers are available. Parliamentary diplomacy is therefore also a cognitive category. Parliamentarians should incorporate the outcomes of their diplomacy in domestic affairs by taking a broad perspective in conducting their daily business. Though elected locally, parliamentarians must think globally. This is important not only to shield domestic interests from unwanted external influence, but also to avoid backlash that is likely to occur due to the high level of interlacement between polities if action is taken in complete disregard of the interests of ‘others’. These two sides of the same coin are pertinent. Acting as diplomats, elected representatives can attend to these exigencies of contemporary policy making. Combining the soft power of parliamentary diplomacy in external affairs with the hard power in internal affairs is a recipe for reconceptualising representative democracy. To borrow the terminology of Harvard’s Joseph Nye, parliaments need to exercise smart power in the fast-paced global, digital age of today. They are advised to adapt to the changing nature of global governance if they are to preserve the good functions they perform in shaping their societies. Failing to do so could harm the interests of their constituents in the long term and parliamentary diplomacy is one of the ways of addressing this.          

  ICCT Summer Programme: Targeted Killings and the Use of Drones as a Counter-Terrorism Measure.   By Mr. Mark Singleton, Director International Centre for Counter-Terrorism – The Hague (ICCT) In January 2015, an American drone strike killed to two al Qaeda hostages, American citizen Mr. Warren Weinstein and Italian Mr. Giovanni Lo Porto. This caused the Obama administration to disclose more information about the killings, showing that the responsible senior official authorised the attack without knowing who exactly was in the targeted compound and surrounding areas. This made clear once more that there is a risk in the use of drones caused by the gap between the intelligence and technology used and the reality on the ground. The killings raised questions about the effectiveness and legality of the use of drones and targeted killings in countering terrorism. These questions and issues will be addressed during the Summer Programme on Countering Terrorism in different sessions. The effectiveness of this counter-terrorism tool will be discussed, along with how it fits into different (international) legal frameworks and what the position of EU Member States is on the use of drones. These sessions will be provided by Dr. Eric Pouw (Netherlands Defense Academy) and Ms. Jessica Dorsey (Asser Instituut) who both have done extensive research on the topic. From 24 – 28 August 2015, the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism – The Hague (ICCT) and the T.M.C. Asser Instituut are organising the Fifth Advanced Summer Programme on “Countering Terrorism: Legal Challenges and Dilemmas”. The objective of this unique Summer Programme is to explore the theoretical and more practical questions of the legality of many counter-terrorism strategies and measures. Two study visits to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon and Eurojust are included in the course. The programme is tailored towards policy-makers from the international, national and local level working on CT issues, as well as other CT professionals working at think-and-do tanks, international organisations, universities and the criminal justice sector, who want to expand their knowledge of the underlying legal tenets and dilemmas in CT. It should be noted that a legal background for this course is desirable but not required. A draft agenda for the programme is available on ICCT’s website, along with further information on the registration and other logistics. For further questions, please contact educationtraining@asser.nl.    

  By Petra van der Ham, Managing Director UPEACE The Hague.   The University for Peace (UPEACE) has been founded in 1980 by the General Assembly of the United Nations in order to give substance to its peace and security objectives. UPEACE fosters strong ties with various components of the UN-system, among which the UN Secretariat. The mission of UPEACE is to provide an international institute for graduate peace education for humanity. The headquarters of UPEACE are situated in Costa Rica, with its own campus and various facilities for students, employees and visitors. At this international and multicultural academic institution for peace and peace related issues, applied research and education go hand in hand. At UPEACE, experts are brought together with students from all over the world, in order to educate a new generation of peace negotiators and peace builders. They are being trained to bring peace to a global level, to manage conflicts and to uphold human rights. Mobilizing worldwide support, awareness and education of the (world) population play an important role. Over the past years UPEACE has relied on a mix of resident and visiting faculty members to teach its face-to-face courses, among whom Jan Pronk, former Dutch Minister for Development Cooperation, and Bert Koenders, Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs.     Throughout its almost 35 years of existence, UPEACE has developed a range of Master- and capacity building programmes in the field of peacebuilding and conflict resolution, and has provided courses and trainings for students as well as for professionals and practitioners from across the world. Currently UPEACE offers three Master programmes, each with various specialisations: 1) “Environment and Development”, 2) “Peace and Conflict Studies”, and 3) “International Law and Human Rights”. Each year approximately 150 Master students from some 60 different countries spend a year at the UPEACE campus; another 150 students study at the affiliated centres. UPEACE The Hague UPEACE has centres in Addis Ababa, Belgrade, Manila and, since 2012, in The Hague. The Hague: “International City of Peace and Justice”, hosts numerous institutes in the field of (international) law, but still relatively few in the specific fields of peace issues and peace education. The Centre in The Hague, called UPEACE The Hague, has a small office in the Academy Building of the Peace Palace. UPEACE The Hague focuses on education and research in the field of peace issues, in close cooperation with renowned academic and policy-oriented institutes in The Hague region. It provides, for instance, educational services (“peace education”) to The Hague University of Applied Sciences, organizes conferences, workshops and lectures, and performs peace research. An important characteristic is the emphasis on interaction between theory and practice, with a strong policy-oriented character. This combination makes its educational supply attractive to students, academics and professionals alike, building on the existing knowledge and expertise of the worldwide network of the University for Peace in Costa Rica. For the time being UPEACE The Hague focuses on two programmes: “Peace and Conflict Studies”, and “Water and Peace”. Recently preparations have begun for a new programme on “Business and Peace”.   If you wish to receive a copy of the Annual Report 2014 please send an e-mail to info@upeace.nl. For further information on UPEACE and UPEACE The Hague see: www.upeace.org and www.upeace.nl.        

  By Eugene Matos De Lara and Amelia Baxter.   Agricultural liberalization can have nefarious effects on the poorest countries. More powerful states use liberalization processes to gain concessions from weaker states without lowering their own domestic protections. Agricultural trade in some developing countries should be strongly regulated and in turn, diminish neoliberal market trends within these states because of its negative effects on local producers. The negative effects can be dismantled by over viewing its causality by domestic subsidies and the market flooding. The US provides 56% of worldwide food aid with Haiti as its biggest client. However, the US also retracts what it offers with farm subsidies. This initiative is a national legal project that directs the benefits towards US farmers by giving them ownership of a food aid monopoly. The “Food for Peace” program costs US taxpayers 1.5 billion in 2012 alone. The total amount of agricultural subsidies per year averages to 300 billion US. Quality standard control in developed countries tends to be significantly higher than the developing counties, sometimes barring the possibilities for mutual trade. Additionally, subsidies allow American agricultural producers to export and sell in developing states at a competitive or sometimes cheaper price than its equivalent found domestically. These reflect a double standard that hinders a developing country’s full potential. The effects of these policies on Haiti have lead to a market flood of US grown products. In 2011, US exports to Haiti totalled $326 million and drove former President Bill Clinton to state that these neoliberal market actions “may have been good for some farmers in Arkansas, but it has not worked for Haiti, it was a mistake”. The distributional and collateral effect on the poor has witnessed the disappearance of Haitian rice and with it, Haitian food sovereignty. Haiti had self-sustained food security up until the 1980s, supported predominantly by its rice production. Since the 1990s, Miami Rice aid and trade imports have “outpaced” the domestic production. In 2000, US rice imports totalled 219,590 metric tons (t), when domestic production was 130,000t, in contrast to 1985 when local production amounted to 163,296t and US imports were weighed at 7,337t. This empirical evidence demonstrates two things. One is the substantial decrease of agricultural production in Haiti. Two, the drastic decrease of the price of rice and the apparition of an additional 178,957t per year demonstrate that the consumption of rice in Haiti has changed to the extent that it outpaces the Haitian agro-productive force of rice in any year. Consequently, by relying more on American prices and quantity, food sovereignty in Haiti is almost nonexistent. In summary, not all developing countries benefit from agricultural liberalization. “Few developing countries find themselves in a position to compete internationally in liberalized agricultural markets most notably, Brazil, Argentina, China, and those of the former Soviet Union –have demonstrated the competitiveness to take advantage of such market openings. The smallest-scale farmers are likely to benefit the least, as large-scale industrialised producers capture most growth in export markets”. As an alternative, food sovereignty stipulated by Kim Burnett professor at the University of Ottawa, offers a more direct solution than agricultural liberalization in the food crisis by identifying the potential strength of local market and small scale producers socially, economically and on the global macroeconomic scale. Food sovereignty is a right to “healthy and culturally appropriated food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods” ( K.Burnett & S.Murphy, 2014). This idea offers a counter proposal to today’s neo-liberal macroeconomic trend. Food sovereignty has unraveled many initiatives aiming to increase smallholder representation, their market power, awareness of organics, and indigenous cultures in agriculture. In hindsight, it is safe to state that food sovereignty carries the perspective of food producers in most developing states while liberalization does not.