By Lieutenant Colonel Dr. Heino Matzken, M.Sc.  Ph.D. Translated from the German version by: Baron Henri Estramant At the age 89, King Abdullah ibn Abdulaziz Al Saud is older than deposed Arab leaders such as Saleh, Gaddafi, Mubarak or Ben Ali. So far the “Arab Spring” has only claimed non-royal leaders; in stark contrast to the political stability enjoyed by the oil-rich monarchies such as Saudi Arabia. This kingdom is ruled since its foundation in 1932 by King Abdulaziz ibn Abdulrahman (Ibn Saud) of the House of Saud (Al Saud) with a rather complicated order of succession. More than 40 sons and about 2,000 potential heirs The country is literally ruled by the clan of Saud. Since the death in 1953 of the state-founder King Abdulaziz ibn Abdulrahman his sons have ascended the Saudi throne according to private arrangements made by them alone. With 22 wives (at different periods of his life), Ibn Saud begot about 40 sons and hence potential heirs for the kingdom does not follow the principle of primogeniture. About 15 of his children are still alive. Because Islam permits up to four wives at any given time to a man, the children’s ages differentiate widely. Adding grand-children and great-grand-children makes about 2,000 technically eligible successors within the wider Al Saud which accounts for about 15,000 members. One year before his demise in 1952 Ibn Saud dictated a complicated line of succession excluding Al Saud members from aside his line, and leaving the throne to the “sons of his body”. Therefore he has since been succeeded by his sons Saud (1953-63), Faisal (1964-75), Khalid (1975-82), Fahd (1982-2005) and current Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, Abdullah (2005-). The incumbent monarch has de facto ruled Saudi Arabia since 1995 after his brother King Fahd suffered a stroke. In a matter of a couple of years two “crown princes” have passed away. In October 2011, the former Minister of Defence and Crown Prince Sultan. The nominated heir and Minister of Interior since 1975 Crown Prince Nayef passed away already in June 2012 from leukemia. The incumbent heir is since Crown Prince Salman (born 1935). King Abdullah had already appointed Prince Salman as Minister of Defence, a position normally given to the heir apparent. Crown Prince Salman is deemed to be loyal to Washington; something in fact quite common since the historic get-together of US President Roosevelt and Ibn Saud aboard of the USS Quincy in 1945. The late Crown Prince Nayef as well as the incumbent Salman belong to the “Sudairi 7”, that is, the sons of Ibn Saud with his favourite spouse Hassa Al Sudairi. This internal dynastic branch has held a lot of power which King Abdullah having a Syrian-born mother cannot enjoy. Albeit the monarch appoints the Crown Prince, King Abdullah created in 2006 a 33-members strong “Allegiance Council” to ensure the stability and transparency of a future heir after the children of Ibn Saud have been exhausted, or have declined the throne. The idea behind it is for The Ruler to present candidates in such a forum. Surely a good idea, however, this procedure is yet to be put into practice. The population has no say in the matter. Yet the time for a grandson to ascend the throne is nearing as the youngest still living son of Ibn Saud is over 70 years old, most of them are also somewhat ill. Notably a palace coup went unnoticed in most of the Western media when in February 2014, King Abdullah appointed his half-brother Prince Muqrin ibn Abdulaziz Al Saud to be the second Deputy Prime Minister and “Deputy Crown Prince”. A rank created exclusively for him. The appointment officially makes the 70 years old Prince Muqrin second in line to the throne. He is a close adviser to the King, and does not belong to the “Sudairi 7”. However many analysts expect true certainty is to arrive in Saudi Arabia through a generation change, a rejuvenation on and around the throne. Pinning thus hope on the grand-children of Ibn Saud. Some are already well-position. For instance, the new Minister of Interior, Prince Mohammed bin Nayef (born 1959), who took over the latter ministry from his late father Crown Prince Nayef in 2012. Prominently stationed is likewise the commander of the National Guard, and son of the incumbent monarch, Prince Mutaib bin Abdullah. The appointment of Prince Muqrin as second Deputy Prime Minister thus seems more a tactic of King Abdullah to gain more time for his generation. Only with a new generation at the helm new impulses could be felt in the oil kingdom. King Abdullah has been determined to push forward progressive yet shy reforms such as the first local elections held in 2005 along with the start of his reign. For women it is still not socially acceptable to drive, nevertheless, the monarch has encouraged female education and universities. His justice reform included the creation of courts of appeal, a novelty in the kingdom. The latter furthermore allows for more legal security, and the ability of foreign firms to fight judgments from Riyadh. Moreover the move buttressed up Saudi Arabia’s bid to join the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Until then the legal system was solely based upon the interpretation of the Qu’ran and the Hadith, Shariah law, which nevertheless remains the main source of jurisprudence. The country does not possess a criminal code nor a constitution, which gives a monopoly on the jurisprudence to the Wahhabi religious scholars. King Abdullah has also permitted male and female researchers to work side by side at universities. Regardless on who inherits the throne from the generation of Ibn Saud’s grandchildren, it is likely that the alliance with the USA shall remain imperative. Nonetheless it should be exciting to observe to which extent the Al Saud retains its alliance with the Wahhabi religious élite. Also to which extent the young population of Saudi Arabia will be allowed to partake in the governing of their country. Reality is that for the moment neither the “Arabellion” nor the Shi’ia minority in the Northern part of the kingdom menace the country’s immediate stability.  

Lecture by Professor Jan Pronk on Preventing Conflict Escalation In UPEACE The Hague’s Lecture Series “Peace building in Progress”, Professor Jan Pronk, Chair in the Theory and Practice of International Development at the International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University Rotterdam, gave a lecture on: Preventing Conflict Escalation. Hearts & Minds. Boots & Brains The lecture was held on 27 May 2014, at the Academy Building of the Peace Palace in The Hague. It was attended by some 50 people, young and old, from various backgrounds. Based on his long experience in international development Prof. Pronk raised the question to which extent peace operations could be improved in the field: Can we learn from experience and formulate some general guidelines, based on the insights gained in development policy and conflict management? A summary of the guidelines offered by Prof. Pronk for improvement of peace operations in the field:

1. There are no general guidelines, uniformly applicable in all situations. Just as with development policy or adjustment policy there is no fit for all, such policies should be tailor made.
2. Peace building is a bottom up endeavour, just like development, with people and by people themselves. Peace building and peacekeeping ought to be mutually integrated and take place at the same time.
3. Give the highest priority to multilateral prevention of escalation of conflicts within countries. Strengthen the capacity of the UN system to this end, build up a strong knowledge base regarding individual countries, far in advance of a possible peace intervention.
4. When it has been decided to launch a peacekeeping operation, this should be done on the basis of the principle of the Responsibility to Protect “R2P”. The acceptance of R2P in 2005 as a norm justifying international intervention in situations of mass atrocity, genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing was a major step forward.
5. The so called DDD approach for international peace operations should imply more than carrying out diplomatic, defence and development activities at the same time. They should also serve the same purpose: ensuring human rights, together with human security and human development.
6. Once a peacekeeping operation has started the utmost should be done in order not to harm peace building, for instance if carried out as a narrow exercise, a military intervention only, or when it results in many civilian casualties, rape or sexual misconduct, causing loss of credibility.
7. Peace operations should use boots on the ground. Using a direct approach, person to person: listening to people, talking with them, seeing them in the eye, understanding body language, exchanging information and sharing insights.
8. A unified approach by all components of a peace operation in conjunction with each other is essential. This implies that all agencies, units and organizations declare having the same objective and obey the same boundary conditions set by those who carry the ultimate political responsibility for launching the operation.
9. It is crucial that peacekeepers and development workers understand that they are guests, not new occupants of the house. They come and go, the locals stay. It is their country, their history, their culture, their future.
10. Peace-making, peacekeeping and peace building require talking and negotiations. It is not up to peacekeepers from abroad to decide who should be invited to sit at the negotiation table, and who not. Foreign powers acting as mediators should exercise restraint.
11. Peacekeeping based on R2P should leave space for relief workers, taking care of food and nutrition, health care and medication, and water and shelter.
12. Lasting peace requires justice, and justice requires ending impunity. In most cases peace-making requires talking, and      talks require the cooperation of people in power. Atrocities should stop  and the perpetrators should be held accountable. However, bringing them to court before concluding the talks will not bring peace close by.

www.upeace.nl | www.upeace.org  

European Commission adopts ‘Partnership Agreement’ with The Netherlands on using EU Structural and Investment Funds for growth and jobs in 2014-2020

The European Commission has adopted a “Partnership Agreement” with The Netherlands setting down the strategy for the optimal use of European Structural and Investment Funds throughout the country. Today’s agreement paves the way for investing €1.4 billion in total Cohesion Policy funding over 2014-2020 (current prices, including European Territorial Cooperation funding and the allocation for the Youth Employment Initiative). The Netherlands also receives €607 million for rural development and €102 million for fisheries and the maritime sector. The EU investments will help tackle unemployment and boost competitiveness and economic growth through support to innovation, training and education in cities, town and rural areas. They will also promote entrepreneurship, fight social exclusion and help to develop an environmentally friendly and a resource-efficient economy. The European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) are: •   The European Regional Development Fund

• The European Social Fund
• The Cohesion Fund

•   The European Maritime and Fisheries Fund •   The European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development Commenting on the adoption, Commissioner for Regional Policy, Johannes Hahn said: “Today we have adopted a vital, strategic investment plan that sets The Netherlands on the path to jobs and growth for the next 10 years. This Partnership Agreement reflects the European Commission and The Netherlands’ joint determination to make the most efficient use of EU funding –Our investments must be strategic, according to the new Cohesion Policy- focusing on the real economy, on sustainable growth and investing in people. But quality not speed is the paramount aim and in the coming months we are fully dedicated to negotiating the best possible outcome for investments from the European Structural and Investment Funds in 2014-2020. Commitment is needed on all  sides to ensure good quality programmes are put in place.” On The Netherlands, Commissioner Hahn added: “This investment strategy builds on the important contribution The Netherlands is already making to help the EU meet its goals of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. The Netherlands now has a firm base in this Partnership Agreement that covers all Structural and Investment Funds and gives strategic direction to future programmes that will serve as a lever for further developing the innovative potential of Dutch SME’s and help pave the way for a shift to a low-carbon economy, hence contributing to The Netherlands’ overall competitiveness. The ESI Funds are helping Dutch regions and cities to face these challenges.” Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, László Andor said: “I wish to congratulate the Netherlands with the adoption of its Partnership Agreement. To further boost its employment rate, the Netherlands needs to tap into its unused labour potential. This means helping the most vulnerable groups such as the disabled and migrants, as well as young people and women, to integrate into the labour market. Therefore, I am particularly pleased that, after constructive negotiations, the Dutch authorities have decided to devote 71 % of the European Social Fund in 2014-2020, in other words €361 million out of a total of € 507 million, to this objective. Retraining, work-to-work pathways and individual coaching will be the most prominent tools. €101 million, or 20 % of the ESF, will support enterprises and employees with the aim of creating a working environment that enables older workers to stay active for longer.” Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, Dacian Cioloş said: “The newly adopted Dutch Partnership Agreement represents a real step forward, as it successfully addresses rural areas’ specific needs and indicates how to achieve the objectives set. I am delighted to see that improving sustainability, strengthening competitiveness and enhancing innovation are at the core of The Netherland’s strategy for the development of the agricultural sector and rural areas. I welcome the fact that Dutch authorities have put emphasis on simplification and the development of innovation also targeted on energy, climate, environment and sustainability when preparing their 2014-2020 rural development programme. This will ensure that necessary means are concentrated on priorities and should make the implementation of the programme more effective.” Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Maria Damanaki said: “The European Maritime and Fisheries Fund is about investing in the economic activities that will create jobs in local communities. The Commission very much welcomes that the Netherlands chose to focus on innovation: the country is one of Europe’s leaders when it comes to innovation in ocean energy, deep sea mining, blue biotech and coastal protection. The Netherlands are also promoting innovative fishing techniques to make fishing more environmentally friendly. These sectors can unlock the sort of growth and jobs which Europe needs. And “Brussels” will not prescribe how every single cent should be spent:  those who know their craft, industry, and regions best should decide where and how the funding should be spent for a sustainable future.” All Member States have now presented their Partnership Agreements to the Commission. The adoption of these agreements will follow after a process of consultation. More information: MEMO on Partnership Agreements and Operational Programmes: Cohesion Policy and The Netherlands – European Commission-The Netherlands Partnership Agreement and Summary  

Column by Eelco H. Dykstra, MD, for Diplomat Magazine

Introduction

Eelco Dykstra writes a monthly column called “A smile and a thought…” The columns put a playful spotlight on the interface between the Dutch and the International Community it hosts. Yes, his musings may appear at times to be mildly provocative at first sight but they are first and foremost playful – with a little irony thrown in here and there… You be the judge!

His columns are intended to give you ‘a smile and a thought’. A smile because perhaps you hadn’t quite looked at something that way and a thought because the column may leave you wondering…

Please Note: This column is not very playful and if there is a smile at all, it is very much a ‘wry’ smile since the topic is the shooting down of flight MH17/KL1403…

————————————————————————————————————————— A QUESTION WELL WORTH ASKING…. On the day of writing this, the Dutch and other nations flew the first remains of MH17/KL1403 victims to the Netherlands for the grim task of identification. Everyone, including the media, is focused on the pain, the mourning and the emotional outcry. As an emergency physician and experienced crisis manager, I have witnessed numerous times and in many ways the grief and emotional hardship caused by the sudden loss of loved ones, particularly when this loss of life was deemed avoidable and young children are involved. In the coming days and weeks, as the acute hardship and the public pain will lose some of its current intensity, additional questions will be raised while others might remain unasked. It would not be the first time that in the aftermath of heart-breaking disasters critical questions are being downplayed or avoided. Right from the start I found it interesting that everyone is referring to flight MH 17, even though the flight took off from Schiphol also as KL 1403. Which also explains why there were so many Dutch nationals on board. Some of these critical questions ought to be posed therefore not only to the Malaysian authorities responsible for safety but in particular to the Dutch authorities. Why was the flight path of MH 17/KL1403 allowed to go over the eastern part of the Ukraine? The Netherlands are to lead an independent and international investigation into the cause of the downing of MH17/KL1403, yet most of the Dutch safety experts are already calling for imposing strict economic and legal sanctions or even military measures against those believed to be responsible for this tragedy, i.e. Russian separatists and Russia. I’d like to invite the Netherlands to also critically review their own approach to safety issues and critically look at the performance of their own ‘National Coordinator for Terrorism and Safety’ (http://english.nctv.nl/). Why did they allow the flight path of MH 17/KL1403 to go over the eastern part of the Ukraine? Clearly, allowing this flight path was a mistake which made the ensuing loss of lives avoidable. Remember that it was not for lack of imagination or information; it was quite obvious that an armed conflict had spun out of control and included surface-to-air missiles capable of hitting commercial airliners. Reason enough for authorities and airlines from other countries to re-route their flight away from the area. In other countries we might already have witnessed the realization that another flight-path would have prevented this tragedy in the first place. So instead of focusing only on those who shot the plain down, public anger and professional criticism could – and perhaps should –  also be directed to (staff within) the Dutch ‘National Coordinator for Counter-Terrorism and Safety’ or Dutch officials responsible for Aviation Security. Not so in the Netherlands. No discussion. Nobody resigned. Nobody got dismissed. The question why the separatists had something to shoot at in the first place, seems not to be part of the general discussion – and may not become part of the formal inquiry, even though I argue that it should. Instead, as we have seen before, also in the Netherlands, there is an alarming habit of public authorities, immediately after shocking events, to publicly proclaim: “This could not have predicted and this could not have been prevented…”[1] So it becomes easy: the blame falls on others, there is no need for critical self-reflection. Why did they allow the flight path of MH 17/KL1403 to go over the eastern part of the Ukraine? Time for the Dutch and Malaysian authorities and experts to critically review their own performance too – and not only focus their anger and emotions on the separatists and Russia. In closing, beyond the understandable and emotional heart-break of the international disaster with MH16/KL1403, allow me a more general observation. I’ve always wondered why we as humans seem to always wait until something happens and then, only then, respond. Would being a little bit more pro-active not make a lot more sense – and, in this case, would have saved us from the considerable – and avoidable – loss of life on board flight MH17/KL1403? What do you think?

By Baron Henri Estramant. The global trade of kava should be worth at least € 70-75 million for the South Pacific countries of Tonga, Samoa, Fiji, Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea and the Federated States of Micronesia (Pohnpei), however, the much needed revenue for the Pacific Ocean region has declined dramatically since Germany and other EU countries withdrew their market license to all kava-containing pills or pharmaceuticals. In the South Pacific vox populi it is simply referred to as a de facto “ban”. Nevertheless a true EU-wide ban is not in place as the spokesperson for the EU’s Health Directorate General Frédéric Vincent clarified, rather restrictions apply in some EU member states. Likewise the global the trade has been badly damaged in the USA since the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as well as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published a report admonishing about the potential perils of kava consumption for the liver. Notwithstanding the negotiations led by the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS), as well as “bilaterally” with the individual kava-growing states begin to bear fruits. Indeed, Vanuatu’s Ambassador to the EU, Roy Mickey Joy. Piper methysticum under its scientific name or simply kava is an herb endemic to the South Pacific Ocean region. It is commonly used to prepare traditional beverages known for its relaxation effects. Kava is also widely used in rites of passage, political, religious or ceremonial rituals dating back to at least the 10th century. But aside the cultural importance of kava in the South Pacific the international trade thereof is badly needed for countries with very few indigenous resources in large scale to export. Trading kava to EU countries as well as to the USA and Canada is “vital” according to Vanuatu’s Ambassador Roy Mickey Joy. For “the economies of the South Pacific the trade is vital in European markets because Europeans are seeking alternative natural or rather herbal remedies for reducing anxiety, sleeplessness, pain, and depression” . But even on the other side of the Atlantic, a consumer advisory dated March 25, 2002 of the US American FDA further warns “of the potential risk of severe liver injury associated with the use of kava-containing dietary supplements”. The FDA position remains unchanged mainly because producers manufacturing kava-containing pharmaceuticals “cannot quantify the popularity of kava use by consumers” . The FDA has not called for an outright ban on kava based pharmaceuticals/products as it exists in Canada yet it believes it is mission to inform consumers about the alleged “liver-related risks associated with the consumption of it. Kava-containing products have been associated with liver-related injuries – including hepatitis, cirrhosis, and liver failure — in over 25 reports of adverse events in other countries”. The presence of kava in a supplement should be identified on the product label in the “Supplement Facts” box. Having the latter into account, the “FDA has seen somewhat of a resurgence of products containing kava on the market. After FDA released the consumer advisory in 2002, there seemed to have been a decline in the availability of products due to lack of product liability insurance” according to Media Officer Christopher C. Kelly from the FDA. The ban in Canada was a result of the “ban” (in fact restrictions) in some EU countries rather than own scientific research. The license for kava-containing was withdrawn for pharmaceuticals in France, Switzerland, the UK or The Netherlands without home-made research after the German Bundesinstitut für Arzneimittel und Medizinprodukte (BfArM) did so first. Exporters from the South Pacific continue to fight the “EU ban” on pharmaceutical products based on kava. They consider it to be a violation of the international trade agreements with the WTO. Back in 2005, Fiji even presented a formal complaint to the WTO buttressed up by Tonga. According to figures provided by Fiji “only three cases have emerged out of 450 million pills dispensed worldwide between 1990 and 2000”. In the South Pacific kava has been consumed quotidian without any adverse health effects on the population for centuries. As a matter of fact, it guarantees social cohesion and harmony because it is consumed au lieu of alcohol. “By 10pm Pacific Islanders sleep soundly after an evening of kava consumption. Crime is almost non-existent”. All in all about 3.500 kava farmers/exporters in the entire South Pacific are dependent on exports to EU countries, the USA, Australia and New Zealand. Trade with South America or Asia is negligible largely due to the own culture for indigenous herbal products in those markets according to Ambassador Roy Mickey Joy. Alternative markets in China and New Caledonia have not proved to be as profitable. Even the UK with excellent ties to most South Pacific countries has seen it fit to prohibit medicines manufactured with kava since 2002. Yet the ban does not apply if the kava-kava products were manufactured in a European Economic Area (EEA)/EU country or are in free circulation there. Yet one should notice that one liver-damaging extract of a sort known as WS 1490 had been processed in Germany by Dr. Willmar Schwabe Pharmaceuticals headquartered in Karlsruhe. “This company refused to give samples of extracts to the scientific community for in-depth chemical analysis. It has been suggested that these events were caused by the poor quality raw material or incorrect kava parts in the manufacture of a few extracts”. Schwabe counteracts that “after the ban of Kava products and the loss of commercial interest Schwabe stopped all activities concerning Kava and thus did not provide samples for investigations”. A German study from 2008 showed that the hepatotoxicity which damages the liver may be caused by contamination with aflatoxins or other mould hepatotoxins rather than by the kava plants themselves. The recommendation therefore is only to export the noblest (purest) kava herbs, greater quality control during production of derived products as well as the consumption of products with care. One should also beware that there are about 100 varieties of kava, and that those which caused the liver-damage might be isolated extracts. Notwithstanding pharmacist Dr. Matthias Schmidt, a kava expert, from “HerbResearch” based in Bavaria bemoans the lack of interest of German health authorities in reintroducing kava to the German market. According to him at scientific kava conferences “German authorities have shined through their absence”. On the other hand EU representatives attended the kava conference which took place in March 2012 in Vanuatu.  Nonetheless no representatives were present at the latest kava conference in Suva on 6 March 2014 The Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat concerns with the proliferation of strict regulations for kava worldwide set up the International Kava Executive Committee, which seeks ways to get the restrictions in some EU countries lifted. They see an immediate –conservative- potential of about €4 million just in kava trade to the EU  if the restrictions are lifted in Germany, the UK, France and Switzerland. One should notice that the market of most EU countries are technically open for kava, yet the contact with countries in the South, North and Centre of Europe is limited economically and diplomatically . Kava pharmaceuticals have been classified as “new entity” in Germany which entails that firstly extremely expensive research must be financed to get the pharmaceuticals approve. “The purpose must be to keep kava-containing medicines out of the free market. It does not seem to matter that the EU position only triggers disapproval outside the EU”. The kava advocates rhetoric is misleading as EU wide restrictions are not in place. Vanuatu alone exports about € 0.32 million worth in kava nowadays as opposed to the € 1.34 million before kava restrictions began to sprawl up. Statistics show the total loss of economic commercial value due to the trade restrictions ranges at least between 150 and 200 million dollars, in the last ten years”. Kava trade to Australia and New Zealand is free though imports for personal use are limited in a similar fashion to alcohol or tobacco in Australia. Australia’s Northern Territory does have a ban to supply or possess kava because it was used as a substitute for alcohol in large quantities by locals. In New Zealand the trade is easier because of the large population of Polynesians living there. The International Kava Council is particularly active in Brussels (EU level), London as well as neighbouring New Zealand and Australia. A viable solution to for the relicensing of kava pharmaceuticals might be to reintroduce the export of raw kava for its further handling in Europe, the USA, Australia and New Zealand through strict guidelines as to ensure the safe products for the consumers.  Some of the recommendations made by the kava producing countries are i) the usage of underground roots and the peeled stump as opposed to leaves, stems and basal stems, ii) give water soluble kava extracts preference over those extracted with chemical solvents, and iii) define and establish standards for a recommended daily dosage of kavalactones . Kava producing countries are likewise negotiating with the FAO to include kava-kava in the list of foodstuff so it can be treated just like any other alimentary product . The Pacific African Caribbean Pacific (PACP) Kava Initiative to resolve outstanding issues on Kava wistfully calls upon the EU to finance with about ca. € 11 million , a “Kava Sustainability Plan” which ought to include the reintroduction of kava-containing pharmaceuticals to the markets of the EU countries with present restrictions on it. The negotiations take place in the framework of an Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with the EU. If the EU is willing to finance such developmental programme remains to be seen.