By Dr. Luis Ritto, former EU Ambassador to the Holy See and the Order of Malta and Former EU Permanent Representative to the United Nations Organisations. Emeritus Professor at the International School of Protocol & Diplomacy and expert on diplomacy, diplomatic protocol and world affairs. “There is only one religion, though there are a hundred versions of it” – George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950). “By the study of different religions we find that in essence they are one” – Swami Vivekananda (Indian Hindu Monk, 1863-1902). Continuing our series about diplomatic matters, today I am going to write about religion and how it influences diplomacy and relations between nations. Religion has helped since the beginning of times to shape the culture and civilisation of the world and therefore it cannot be ignored in our globalised multi-faith and multi-cultural world, especially when countries design their foreign policies and diplomatic strategies. And internally, religion needs to be used in a growing way by states to promote peace and tolerance within countries and between people of different religious beliefs. For a long time, especially in our Western societies, which are secular and temporal, thinkers thought that religion would either disappear or become progressively attenuated with the progress of science and the expansion of human rights and other humanist policies. Therefore, religion was not taken as seriously as it should have been and was not a priority in terms of international relations. Reality has proved them wrong! Not only religion remains strongly vibrant and socially salient in our Western societies, but also it is strongly growing in several other parts of the world, as the different United Nations (UN) reports have shown. Reports that show too that more than 85% of the world’s population claim to belong to a religion or to a faith group (1). When the “Twin Towers” in New York were attacked and destroyed on 11 September 2001, the Western nations awoke to the importance of religion and to the need to understand religious practices worldwide and to give religion a priority in their relations with third countries. Later, when the “Arab Spring” started in December 2010 in the North African countries, taking many Western countries by surprise, more calls were made to governments to include religion in their foreign policies strategies and programmes. This has led, for example, the Unites States government to include religion in its foreign diplomatic actions. Not only US diplomats have been receiving training on this subject in recent times, but also under the current Secretary of State John Kerry, an “Office of Faith-Based Community Initiatives” was established in August 2013, which is charged with giving guidance to the State Department in integrating religious variables into the overall American diplomatic effort. Besides, the idea is also to use religious values to bridge differences between countries and to counter religious extremism in conflict-prone regions of the world. Gradually, Foreign Ministries of other Western countries are following suit with the aim to open dialogue with religious leaders in conflicted areas of the world, calling for increased diplomatic and religious cooperation to support mutual peace and respect of basic human rights within and among religions. Religious diplomacy is therefore important, it is, in fact, a vital necessity, on which in large measure, the future of humanity depends. Religious leaders are often held as trusted people by their communities, therefore they can be the right voices to be used in the call for tolerance and reconciliation and to promote mutual respect and religious freedom. As Dr. Bawa Jain, the Secretary General of the World Council of Religious Leaders recently said (July 2014), “Religious diplomacy is the missing dimension of statecraft; there is an urgent need to engage religious leaders in diplomacy, especially when religion is perceived to be the problem” (2). Therefore, it is clear that it is commonly acknowledged today that faith-based diplomacy can be a useful tool of foreign policy for nations (as it is unquestionably a soft power instrument). In addition, the current regionalisation of politics and the growing politicisation of religion in the world mean that increasingly religion plays a role in diplomacy both as an opportunity for engagement and as a motivation inspiring actors. From a diplomatic perspective therefore, addressing the issues of justice, religious freedom, human rights and tolerance for all has become critical for the work of diplomats. Before we go further on this matter, there is the need at this point for us to open a parenthesis, in order to talk more in detail about religion and how important it is in terms of the number of faithful (or adherents). It is not easy to define religion. In reality, academics never agreed on a definition of religion and, what is worst, do not agree on the different definitions of it that exist! For a long time, religion was defined as a belief in God or in a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine and to have control of human destiny. However, in Asia religion does not generally assume the existence of Gods and rather base their teachings on moral codes, which govern the conduct of human affairs. This is the case of Confucianism and Buddhism, for example. For this reason, the definition of religion has been broadened by the World Council of Religions to include “the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices” (3). We particularly like this definition because it is more inclusive and does not leave out any communities of faith and their followers. In addition, religion is divided into a number of faith groups and traditions. According to a study published in 2012 by the “Pew Research Center of Washington”, there is not one religion but several organised religions in the world which comply with the definitions given above, the main ones being the following (by number of members): Christianity (2.2 billion members or around 32% of the world’s population); Islam (1.6 billion followers or  23% of the world’s population); Hinduism (1 billion members or 15% of the world’s population); Buddhism (nearly 500 million adherents or 7% of the world’s population); and 14 million Jews (or 0.2% of the world’s population). In addition, more than 400 million people (6% of the world’s population) practice various folk or traditional religions, including African traditional religions, Chinese folk religions, Native American religions and Australian aboriginal religions. And an estimated 58 million people—slightly less than 1% of the global population— belong to other religions, including Jainism, Sikhism, Shintoism, Taoism, Baha’i faith, Tenrikyo, Wicca and Zoroastrianism, to mention a few. The geographical distribution of religious groups varies considerably. Several religious groups are heavily concentrated in the Asia-Pacific region: this includes the great majority of Hindus and Buddhists (more than 95% of the total) and the adherents of folk and tradition religions (like, for example, the Chinese folk religion). To be mentioned also, that the Asia-Pacific region is home to most of the world’s Muslims (62% of the total). About 20% of Muslim people live in the Middle East and North Africa and nearly 16% reside in Sub-Saharan Africa. In what concerns Christians, they are evenly dispersed: 26% live in Europe, 24% live in Latin America and the Caribbean, 24% reside in Sub-Saharan Africa and 26% live in other parts of the world (Asia and the North American continent) (4). With so many diverse religious groups, how can countries and their diplomatic agents promote dialogue and understanding between nations and societies with different religious systems and values? It is certainly not easy, it is indeed a sensitive and difficult matter, involving many variable factors, but at a time of growing sectarian violence and extremism, religious tolerance and dialogue needs to be a priority for countries worldwide, otherwise the world faces the prospect of a clash, of a clash of civilisations, as some have call it! Some academics, like for example Professor A. Akinade of the University of Georgetown (USA), even call it “the dialogue of life”, due to its importance for the future of mankind. The difficulty with this matter comes from the fact that not all religions share the same set of beliefs, but in one form or another, as we have seen by the statistics above, religion is found in all known human societies. On this issue, what can be said is that all religions teach high moral values and promote justice, peace and respect for human dignity; besides, all religions have the five human values, which are truth, right conduct, love, peace and non-violence at their core: and these are exactly the values which sustain the very soul of family, society, nations and the world and can therefore be put to use to build a fruitful dialogue. Dialogue is particularly encouraged with the so-called “Religions of the Book” or “Abrahamic Religions” (Christianity, Islam and Judaism). Islam, for example, has long encouraged dialogue as a mean to reach truth. Muslims have often emphasised that the Quran says that God has created the world into nations and tribes so that humankind can know one another. Similarly, Christianity and Judaism have precepts about human love and peace as well as the acceptance and tolerance of others. The Catholic Church, for instance, has a Council for Interreligious Dialogue, which encourages its faithful “through dialogue and collaboration with the members of other religions to recognise, safeguard and promote spiritual and moral goods, as well as the socio-cultural values they embody” (5). Other Christian denominations claim that all religions are equally true or that one religion can be true for some and another for others. For them, the power of love and truth can help resolve human conflict through the promotion of mutual respect and tolerance. In this sense, the pragmatic need for better understanding and cooperation among adherents in the world’s two largest communities of faith— Christianity and Islam— is particularly acute. Together Christians and Muslims comprise almost half the world’s population, so the way in which they relate is bound to have profound consequences for both religions and for the world as a whole. “Civilised people solve their problems through dialogue” – Ferhullah Gülen, a Turkish Muslim scholar and advocate of religious dialogue. Dialogue is a means of building the openness, understanding and trust needed for people of different cultural and religious backgrounds to live and cooperate with each other, despite their differences. Besides, dialogue can help to clarify issues, to create greater understanding and remove prejudices; the aim is certainly not to reach a common belief, but rather to clarify what each faith community believes, to appreciate each other’s values and to have a better understanding of differences. This mindset is not inconsistent with diplomatic precepts and perspectives. Dialogue is also important because religion in the past has been a source of conflict and war and nobody wants to see a war of religions taking place in the world of today. In fact, religion can be either a force for peace and reconciliation or a wedge that can divide. Religion through the ages has both unified and divided civilisations, in some cases bringing significant human casualty (in the case of division) and in other cases creating interesting and important cultures (in the case of the latter). In homogeneous societies, religion has served to bridge culture together. In all cases, religion has been a dominant force in the advancement of the human race. Together with the development of agriculture, religion is viewed as possibly the main factor that started civilisation as we know it today. But, it has not stopped it from fuelling bloody conflicts in the past as the Crusades serve as an example or as the conflicts between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland and the conflict between Hebrews and Muslims show! And instead of diminishing, religious conflicts are on the rise worldwide, as it is the case in the following countries: Burma (Myanmar), Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Mali, Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen. Pew Research tells us that the number of countries with religious-related violence has doubled over the past ten years. There is no doubt therefore that something needs to be done in order to stop such conflicts from spreading further. Government leaders and diplomats need to stand up and speak out against violence and intimidation carried out in the name of religion. Sociologists divide society into the ones that are rooted in traditional and religious values and the ones that are focused on secular values. If a society is rooted in religious values, it is normally focused more on spiritual things such as love, truth, goodness and righteousness. If the society’s cultural values are focused on secular values, then it is more focused on material things and individual rights (mainly within the context of democratic and pluralistic societies, where there is a separation of church and state and where there is gender equality and people are equal before the law). Religious freedom, which is enshrined in the UN Charter of Human Rights, is said to promote stability and freedom. In certain religions, especially in Islam and Christianity, fundamentalism has emerged as a response to modernity that promotes more conservative, less flexible and more exclusive readings of the faith. And which in turn has lead to important economic disparities between countries and people. This trend is having important effects on international relations as it impacts on the internal stability of nations and in their relationships with one another. This matter is therefore not easy because it goes beyond religion to include also political, economic and social problems, as the uprisings of the recent past in North Africa and the Middle East have shown. In those regions, there is hardly any democracy and, what is worst, poverty is widespread, countries are under-developed with people having not seen over the past 100 years any substantial improvement in their social and economic conditions, in spite of the fact that many countries are endowed with important mineral resources (oil and gas in particular). The frustration of the population of those regions arises therefore from the failure to see their native lands meet the requirements of modernity of the West in terms of politics, arts and sciences. This frustration or grievances, as President Barack Obama called them in a recent speech at the United Nations in New York (6), need also to be taken into account in the future dialogue with the leaders and people of non-Western countries. Irving Babbitt, a humanist and Harvard academic says in the introduction of his book “Democracy and Leadership” that economic problems generally run into political problems, political problems in turn run into philosophical problems and the philosophical problems themselves run almost indissolubly into religious problems (7). In fact, much of what is at stake with the problems of religion in the world of today melts down to two concepts of society and civilisation that are opposed. In Europe and in a long process which started in the 16^th century, the continent went through the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation and then the Enlightenment in a series of movements which brought with them the modernisation of the West and its acceptance of values like freedom, individual rights, gender equality and democracy. The realms of faith and politics were separated and religions become a matter of personal belief, not a political system. This spirit of modernism changed the face of the world we live in. It has led to the development of science and technology and to enormous economic and social progress. In the field of law, the Reformation and Enlightenment made the West gain important victories: indeed, it is due to these movements that we owe such principles as equality before the law and the separation of powers (legislative, executive and judicial), the abolition of torture and the humanisation of penal law. Also, the modern Constitutional state was born during this period, which binds the power of rulers to the law and protects citizens from government despotism. Turning to other parts of the world and to Muslim countries in particular (which are the ones going currently through times of important turmoil) what we see is that they did not went through the same religious process as the Europeans and in reality we notice that Islam to this day opposes to modernise itself and to accept Western values like religious freedom, secular democratic governments, individual rights, and the separation of faith from the state. In fact, they have failed to maintain the dynamism of Islam and its civilisational values (which were of great importance during several centuries after the establishment of the first Islam State in 622: during the so-called Islamic Golden Age). Consequently, for many Muslim leaders and scholars, their countries must have a Sharia-based legal system, Islam is a political system opposed to democracy, and they view Islam ideologically (as Islamism) and believe that it is a totalitarian value-system. Worst, they consider the West (which does not share these ideas) as their enemy, as a heretic or apostate region. In other words, the Muslim world, although near Europe, views itself as a civilisation distinct and separate from the West. This cannot be ignored in the dialogue with Muslim countries as they read differently the meaning and lessons of history. “There will be no peace among nations without peace among religions. There will be no peace among religions without dialogue among religions” – Dr. Hans Küng, Professor of Ecumenical Theology and President of the Foundation for a Global Ethic World. In the summer of 1993 Samuel P. Huntington, an American academic and political scientist, published in the “Journal of Foreign Affairs” of the US a paper called “The Clash of Civilizations” (which was later published in a book) in which he developed the theory that the future sources of conflict will be mainly based on people’s cultural and religious identities. For him, the fundamental source of conflict will not be primarily ideological and economic, but cultural and religious. And he ends: “The clash of civilisations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilisations will be the battle lines of the future” (8). The world, and the West in particular, was therefore warned 21 years ago to what was in the making and to the rising problems between the West and the people of other civilisations, based on different religious concepts and values. It is for that reason difficult to understand why Western nations took nearly two decades to put in place a true (religious) diplomatic policy to deal with those problems. The reasons are nevertheless various. After 1989, the countries of the West saw the end of the Cold War as the end of history and the universal victory of liberal democracy throughout the world. For them it was the end of a period of diverging ideologies and they were convinced consequently that the rest of the world would from them onwards gradually adopt their values, consistent with the idea of progress in history. The prevailing views were that the ideals defining the West were universal and, notwithstanding the differences among cultures, the world was headed towards globalisation and a system based on capitalism and freedom. The leaders of the West turned inward to their national affairs and paid no attention to the return of Russia as a global power, to the rise of China and India as emerging powers, to the disintegration of Yugoslavia based on ethnic and religious identities and to the serious economic and social problems of Arab countries (which has lead to the rise of sectarian violence in them as we know it today). The result is that the West, with the US at its head, is now paying dearly for these failings! Although late in relation to what it should have been the case, inter-faith dialogue and diplomacy must become a priority and work rapidly towards a better future of mankind. Diplomats must reflect on the two distinct civilisational orders that the world has. The issue of religion and its relation to democracy must be the central theme of this work. Conflicts, fuelled by religion, need to be constructively addressed. Together with other instruments of international power, religious diplomacy must show in priority (for example) the compatibility of Islam with democracy namely by assisting Arab and other Muslim countries face the challenge of finding democracy while preserving their traditional faith; and they must help the West to preserve democracy by rediscovering faith. Of all the major religions of the world, Islam is the one which never went through a process of reform and modernisation. It is therefore of no surprise to nobody the struggles that Islam is currently facing. Islam is trying to find its place in the modern liberal world of today! And clashes and tensions, especially if they are not violent, can be creative and bring improvements. Naturally, there will always be differences between people on this world, let it be religion, culture, politics, sports or language, but if we all have to live on the same soil of this earth of ours, breath the same air and live under the same sun, we all need to show tolerance and conciliation to one another. We live in a world with a great number and diversity of religions, many of which have important similarities and even accept the same God. A world where no violence in the name of divinity should consequently take place. Therefore, a central objective of religious diplomacy should be not to promote one religion as being the true faith while the others are false, but its common goal should be to create a peaceful and prosperous civilisation based on respect, religious freedom and mutual understanding. This involves learning about and respecting diversity by appreciating the uniqueness of others. It is also of no surprise to nobody that the people who live in democratic and developed nations rarely encounter hard power. One of the objectives of civilisation is precisely to transform hard power into soft power by changing anarchy into order, force into law and power into legitimate authority. These are the goals for which democracy and political order are established. They are also the goals of diplomacy; and diplomacy should therefore be given the opportunity using its soft power tools to promote dialogue and understanding among the different world religions. Otherwise, there will be no peace in the world, as many before me have said! Footnotes: (1). World Statistics Pocketbook (UN Data, N.Y., 2014 Edition). (2). Retrieved from Public Diplomacy & Diplomatic Academy (www.dub121.mail.live.com). (3). In: www.dictionary.reference.com/religion. (4). The Global Religious Landscape (Pew Research Center, Washington, 2012). (5). Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue (in: www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg). (6). Speech of President Barack Obama in New York on 24 September 2014 (retrieved from: www.obama-address-un). (7). I. Babbitt, “Democracy and Leadership” (Liberty Classics Reprint, Indianapolis, USA, 1979). (8). Samuel P. Huntington, “The Clash of Civilizations” (Simon & Schuster, N.Y., 1996). Bibliography (Other Sources): Joseph Nye, “Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics” (Public Affairs, New York, 2004). C. Hill, “The Changing Politics of Foreign Policy” (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 2003). H. Bull, “The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics” (Macmillan, London, 1977). R. Cohen, “International Politics: The Rules of the Game” (Longman, London and New York, 1981). John L. Esposito, “The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality?” (Oxford University Press, 1992). Carl Gershman, “Religion and Democracy: Beyond the Clash of Civilizations” (University of Chicago Divinity School, 2011). Ishak M. Ghatas, “Engaging with Muslims in Europe: Engaging through Dialogue” (Brussels, 2014). J. Andrew Kirk, “Civilisation in Conflict: Islam, the West and Christian Faith” (Regnum Books International, UK, 2011). Bernard Lewis, “What went Wrong? The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East” (Oxford University Press, 2002). Bernard Lewis, “The Roots of Muslim Rage” (The Atlantic Monthly, September 1990). F. Fukuyama, “The End of History and the Last Man” (The Free Press, New York, 1992). M. Bennabi, “Islam: In History and Society” (Berita Publishing, Kuala Lumpur, 1991). V. S. Naipaul, “”Among the Believers: An Islamic Journey” (Andre Deutsch, London, 1981).    

By Peter Knoope, Associate fellow ICCT – The Hague. Traditionally one of the most powerful tools of terrorist organisations is the instrument of fear. Terrorism frightens us. It is meant to do that. Terrorists want to frighten their potential victims. Its powerful because terrorism impacts beyond its immediate action in terms of time, geographic space and direct victims. An act of terrorism in New York effects people far beyond the US and much longer than only the weeks after the 11^th of September. Something happens here and now, but we will be frightened of it happening again long after and also in faraway places. That is how terrorist acts change the way we live and look at the world. It deliberately seeks to do that. In more general terms terrorist acts are a form of communication. Terrorist acts, at least also, sent a political message. Terrorists can use violence because they feel unheard, not listened to. It can in that sense be considered a loud message of those who feel politically excluded. Terrorism can be instrumental in communicating a specific political agenda. An act of violence seems to scream: listen to me I’ve something to tell you. It can bring a forgotten or excluded political position or group to the agenda. It can advocate that position and be considered an act of frustration and an instrument of the powerless that oppose the monopoly of the state to use violence. It can even be considered the ultimate instrument of those who feel excluded or suppressed to be heard. All those elements are found in old school terrorism like separatists movements of the nineties in the last century. It holds for those who fought colonial powers in the last half of the 20^th century. It was found in the case of the Molucans in the seventies in the Netherlands, the ANC in South Africa, the IRA, the case of the ETA, and even the RAF in Germany. The question is, is IS representing a form of terrorism deviating from the old school elements? What, in the light of the above can we make of IS? Is what they do really new? How does IS exploit fear as a change agent and what is the message? The leadership of IS has a well-developed communication strategy. It makes calculated choices. It is frightening the West. Purposely and targeted. It is approaching and addressing the local population in (parts of) Iraq and Syria with an underlying idea and plan. It is exploiting media in a calculated and advanced way. It controls the external communication of its support base. It has a targeted recruitment strategy. They developed a well-controlled and strategic message. It is seeking to change the way we live and look at the world. The message they have for the world seems to be “We are relevant”; “You will have to deal with us”. This message is meant not just for the so-called western world, but even more importantly for the audience in the Muslim Majority States. IS pictures itself as the representatives of that same Muslim world with a distinct political agenda and, in that sense, the organisation presents itself as “ahead of the curve”. Their methods are such that it cannot but frighten, and leave a strong impression onto the world. They have purposely managed to be the talk of the town. And IS has a message for those who would under normal conditions do a reality check on their claims and acts: journalists and aid workers. The message to them is “stay away”. This is our territory and space. And last but not least there is a very strong message for the potential supporters “If you agree with us you are welcome”.  If you have nowhere to go, if you have no perspective in life, if you want to be a somebody, come and join us. We at IS offer comradeship and a reason to live and die for. IS seems to claim not only strength and commitment to a cause but also a readiness to die for it, which gives a sense of invincibility. IS has picked up the lessons from the Arab spring revolts and the strength of the use of social media, it is convinced of its support base in many western diaspora communities plus in Muslim Majority States and it is convinced of the potential of a military victory, based on the Afghanistan scenario, so it presents and considers itself the winner. Frightening the West and provoking a military response from the US and UK, is based in, and the result of, this conviction. They have the money, the support base, the enemy, a vision and the ideology to support the vision. They challenge the monopoly of the use of force and claim to represent the powerless. It seems to me that without a doubt IS exploits fear and sends messages, but the sophistication of the exploitation of fear by IS, as a political instrument, is unprecedented. The professionalism of the use of communication by IS is unheard of. IS is more apt and equipped to the new era of modern professional communication and media outreach, than any previous terrorists organisation has ever been before. There seems no escape. Not the elements of fear and messaging, but the way it is exploited to its full, is confrontationally new. Is this new development reflected in the response by the international community? Fact is that the counter terrorism approach to IS employs old school methodology. Suppression and military response is the impulse. Inducing more fear in western societies by allowing a stage and repeating the images of atrocities and violence. Softly treading on the political element of the underlying issues and the motivational factors. But we hopelessly fail in mirroring the sophistication of the messaging. We seem to underestimate and unable to match the professionalism of the communication efforts. So we necessarily rely on the concept of the monopoly of the use of force. We even turn to old school methods of empowering oppositional fractions. It is time that counter terrorism should mean building resilience in society to the fear factor. Societal actors should be empowered to identify underlying grievances. And not just identify the grievances but also address them and effectively deal with them. Soft power and communication should seriously become part of the toolbox of the Counter Terrorism world at large. Not just because fear is part of the instruments of terrorists, not just because terrorism holds a message for an audience, but also because terrorist organisations become more professional and more aware of the state of the art of communication. That should represent the real and fundamental difference in the response mechanisms compared to that in earlier cases of political violence. The potential victims deserve a professionalised counter terrorism effort, one that matches the sophistication of the new agents of fear and intimidation. That change in counter terrorism approach should be the real news.    

By Jhr. Mr. Alexander W. Beelaerts van Blokland, Justice (Judge) in the Court of Appeal and Special Advisor International Affairs of the Municipality of The Hague Since the beginning of the Dutch Republic at the end of the 16th century (the Kingdom is only almost 200 years old), diplomats from other countries  arrived and lived in The Hague. But apart from embassies a lot of other international organizations have been established here in the last 121 years. In 1893, The Hague Conference on Private International Law was the first one, but after the First Peace Conference in 1899 the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) was established in the same year and after the Second Peace Conference in 1907 the Peace Palace was built and a constantly growing number of international organizations started  in and around The Hague, especially after World War II, such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 1946, the European Patent Office (EPO) in 1977,the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yougoslavia (ICTY) in 1993, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapens (OPCW) in 1997, the International Criminal Court (ICC ) in 2002 and many others. Nowadays there are 115 embassies and consulats in The Hague, including new ones since 2010: from Afghanistan, Angola, Armenia, Burundi, Moldavia, Panama, Senegal and Tanzania. And there are also 14 organizations related to an embassy such as trade offices and tourist bureaus. Recently the number of other international organizations –IGO’s, NGO’s and others – in and around The Hague has grown immensly.  In 2005 already 72 international organizations were here, in 2013 not less than 240: there are now 18 IGO/UN-organizations, 25 European, 128 NGO’s and 43 organizations in education and culture, as well as 26 expat service organizations. The importance for The Hague and surroundings in terms of economy (employment and purchasing power) is enormous. Embassies and organizations spent about 2,500 million euros per year. The direct employment in the region is almost 20.000; almost 60 percent of the jobs are performed by international employees who spent  here 676 million euros per year.  But the economic importance is much bigger, because all these international organizations and their employees created many thousands  of jobs for the Dutch in The Hague as well.  Add to all that the purchases of many international visitors and tourists of the International City of Peace and Justice year after year. a.beelaerts@planet.nl