By Maarten Katsman, Editor Atlantisch Perspectief (journal of the Netherlands Atlantic Association) After Russia annexed Crimea, several parts of Ukraine remain disputed by separatist groups, who are probably actively supported by Russia. Some observers argue Russia has a valid reason to act in Ukraine specifically, or the wider Eastern European region in general. They say NATO ‘surrounded’ Russia militarily with its enlargement after the Cold War ended.[i] Following this argument, future Ukrainian and Georgian membership of the alliance would severely enhance this Russian sense of insecurity. Moscow made it clear it would not tolerate deeper bonds between the West and countries in Russia’s (former?) sphere of influence. Hence the war against Georgia in 2008 and the recent seizure of Crimea and other violent actions in Eastern Ukraine. Russia may ‘feel’ surrounded or even threatened by NATO (NATO enlargement is the ‘main external military danger’ in Russia’s official defence doctrine), it does not mean Moscow has permission to infringe upon the rights of sovereign states. Regarding President Putin, who never fails to display his macho image, be it bare-chested on horseback or hunting dangerous animals, it certainly seems strange he acts aggressively based on some ‘feelings’ of insecurity. Let’s be clear: NATO is a political-military alliance of like-minded sovereign states, that share values and interests and base their decisions on consensus. The allies are willing to consult each other about security issues, and to help or defend each other if necessary. New member states can join, when they meet certain criteria, by their own choice and of course when the existing members agree. Historically, Russia has legitimate concerns about its security interests along its borders (although it is certainly not ‘surrounded’ by NATO: Russia shares only a tiny portion of its borders with NATO members). In the end, however, NATO enlargement was and is based on agreements between a sovereign state and an alliance of sovereign states. Third parties have to accept and respect such decisions. It is a pity the events in Ukraine forced NATO, the EU, and Russia back to ‘old’ methods of power politics. Maybe the West naively thought this type of conduct in international relations was over. Putin might be better at this kind of game than Western leaders and he probably achieves some tactical wins. In the long run, however, his reactionary actions will hurt Russia. As Tomas Ries (Swedish National Defence College) stated at a recent seminar of the Netherlands Atlantic Association and the Clingendael Institute: “Putin has tactical cunning, but he is a strategic disaster”. Both the West and Russia would benefit from a constructive partnership that addresses the real, common problems both sides have to face, rather than being distracted by outdated and old-fashioned rivalry.

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… ————————————————————————————————————— “How ‘international’ is International Press Center Nieuwspoort in The Hague?” This question has puzzled me for some time now and if it puzzles you as well, then we are not the only ones. Many people in fact have and still are wondering what this well-known place at Lange Poten 10 is actually doing to justify the ‘international’ in its official name. One would expect a string of international events being organized in Nieuwspoort, if only because of the many and very diverse members within the diplomatic and international communities here in The Hague. After all, it is the city of international peace and justice, right? Some years ago, as an active member of the National Press Club in Washington D.C., I used to stop by Nieuwspoort during my visits to the Netherlands and The Hague. Already then, I was struck by the unusual openness and friendliness of the many patrons. What I thought was also interesting was the laid-back manner in which they mingled, irrespective of whether they came from politics, government, the media or public affairs. Refreshing. I joined them as a member. If you don’t know Nieuwspoort that well, it might be useful information that Nieuwspoort has a public component, i.e. different rooms where also outside parties can organize meetings, debates, presentations, workshops and press-conferences. Another part of Nieuwspoort is more private and consists of a restaurant and bar area where members can bring guests. As special contributor to Diplomat Magazine, I recently kept an eye out for events that might be so international that they should be included as announcements in DM. Unfortunately, I didn’t see many until last week, when on June 19^th there were two events that caught my eye. And yes, sure enough, they were running simultaneously. The CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis presented its forecast on how the Dutch would be able to handle the adverse effects of the current economic crisis. Under the title “Uncertain supply/Fragile demands p Roads to Recovery” they presented their findings in a book which was written in English. Yet the meeting itself and the discussions were conducted in Dutch. At the same time, Edelman presented in another room their 2014 Trust Barometer which showed the largest ever gap between trust in business and government since they began this study in 2001. Even though these are but a few examples, they show that Nieuwspoort could develop into an interesting place where national information could be given an international context (upload) and international news could be analyzed for its national impact (download). As a member of Nieuwspoort, I’ve organized a number of International Pub (or Fun) Quizzes that were open to non-members and initiated the ‘International Coorenweyn Society/Foundation Counterpoint’ in an effort to add to the international flavor of Nieuwspoort. And it worked. During the last few Pub Quizzes, conducted of course in English – or, to be more accurate, Irish English –, we had sellout crowds, a great time and – surprise, surprise – the winners turned out to be international teams from UNICTY, OPCW and the Poteen Stills. So what’s next? This summer, Nieuwspoort will be completely changed, renovated and upgraded. Not only will I continue to keep my eye out for events at Nieuwspoort that are of interest to the international readership of Diplomat Magazine, but I propose that after the ‘new’ Nieuwspoort reopens after the summer, we will organize a major event for members of the Diplomatic Community there so you can take a look at the new-style Nieuwspoort. In fact, why don’t we organize an international Pub Quiz with well-known quizmaster “(Question) Mark O’Loughlin” and bring teams from the different Embassies and international organizations together with the members of Nieuwspoort? So, what’s next? Should we organize international events at Nieuwspoort ourselves? Should we organize a Fun/Pub Quiz solely on ‘international affairs’? Do you have other ideas for an international event on a special topic or theme? When we decide to organize an international quiz, should we have mixed teams of ‘internationals’ and ‘locals’? You tell me. It’s time we put some more ‘international’ in “International Press Centre Nieuwspoort!        

The storm clouds have gathered – this was the feeling, as the first major political rumbles of thunder echoed around Juba in early December of 2013. Few doubted that the internal exchanges within the ruling party, Sudan Peoples’ Liberation Movement (SPLM), were serious. The subsequent fighting that broke out among the Presidential Guard, in South Sudan’s capital Juba, and rapidly escalated across into Jonglei State, exposing the major, known fractures within the national Sudan Peoples’ Liberation Army (SPLA), and the rapidly ensuing polarization that pitted the key communities in South Sudan against each other on a level unprecedented since the second civil war indicated that none of this came out of the blue. The contours of these major fault lines were known to all South Sudanese and any international observer interested enough to read or ask questions. The fall-out of this violence over nearly 4 months are catastrophic – an estimated tens of thousands dead, over 1 million internally displaced, over 250,000 refugees, a fractured army, a shaky cessation of hostilities that is hardly holding, a political dialogue nurtured by the Inter-Governmental Agency for Development (IGAD) that few South Sudanese have confidence in and a failed development project. Three state capitals have been razed to the ground and the future of the world’s newest country is as insecure as it has ever been, even during its interim phase after the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) signed in 2005. Recent observers, disaster journalists, fresh-faced diplomats and eager humanitarians have expounded fluently on the crisis, waxing lyrical on the political fall-out and the latest clashes as well as the gossip around the talks in Ethiopia. But the international community’s knowledge of the underlying causes of the conflicts in South Sudan, despite years of consecutive analysis, apparently fell short of predicting all this as one senior international official after another exclaimed surprise over the crisis – perhaps exposing over-confidence in their political leverage, recognition of their personal failures and ultimately need for professional self-preservation. Now, the headlines seem to predict the trajectory of yet another failed state: committees investigating human rights abuses, demands for accountability, threat of sanctions, the call for justice, humanitarian appeals, accusations of international interference, trials against coup plotters… The war of words between yet another entrenched African government and donors… Was independence a mistake, do the many birth attendants regret having being invited to bring it into the light of day, knowing that the parents were so frail and close to divorce? Certainly, the humanitarian crisis will dominate the headlines again and for many months to come, as millions are food insecure and vulnerable, while the international community ruminates on its next steps, nursing bruised egoes and pulling out a more combative line to attempt to check what it sees as a potentially authoritarian state. But perhaps this indicates a much more worrying set of issues too, besides those accompanying seemingly failed post-conflict states and one we are much less comfortable in talking about. Bilateral engagements have tangled humanitarian and development programmes with wider economic and security interests, overemphasizing “stabilisation” of a new state through investment in security only to find that a fractured army and police with weak command and control, discipline and cohesion have used these investments to turn on themselves or strong-arm those opposing it, putting into question civilian oversight. A number of diplomats have privately admitted that this was a risky endeavor, but scaling down of similar programmes elsewhere around the globe offered an easy transfer of approaches and resources to South Sudan. A more careful calibration should have been made given South Sudan’s predictable trajectory, focusing more on dialogue around nation building and bringing cohesion to the many communities and political groupings. External priorities have clearly been imposed for more than a few years onto a country and people struggling to draw themselves out of over half a century of violent conflicts (including two civil wars that stretched between 1955 and 1972 and again 1983 and 2005) – only as recently as last year has the international community agreed that its priorities needed to be aligned more closely to the South Sudanese priorities through the New Deal (an extraordinary confession), but meantime there has been bickering and competition over the choicest, most accessible places with little forethought to the implications of more emphasis in some areas over traditionally isolated, insecure and hence marginalized communities, thus entrenching conflict rather than preventing it. Countering the cycles of violence that go back far beyond the crisis by investing in these marginalized areas is essential. The over-tendency on quick fix projects with poor analysis of the context and conflict dynamics in South Sudan for many a decade has been well documented, steering from the complex and very real issues to those easiest to address in short, donor-dictated timeframes. In a nation with 63 ethnic groupings and over 40 base languages, with 70% illiteracy, massive poverty and over 60% classified as youth, the challenges have barely been addressed. Ignoring or simplifying the history, culture and social dynamics to suit external needs is ensuring that few if any of the investments will stand the test of time, and as long as these are furthermore based on limited information that is poorly researched and fuelled by the in-country ‘international gossip mill’ that excludes grassroots voices or uses only a limited, well- versed and often unrepresentative group of South Sudanese, the future of humanitarian action and development remains in question. This latest outbreak of violence and the response to it indicates the unrealistic expectations laid on South Sudan in terms of what, among the many approaches, has taken root and impacted work ethic and social norms and behaviour. Given the short-term focus, lack of patience and inability to stay the course by many in the international community, as well as a frequent mismatch of technical staff (all- too-often young, brash, impatient, lacking in compassion or too technical), the development framework is at risk of producing further failures. Cutting and pasting from projects in Kosovo or Afghanistan, while broadly relevant, needs contextualization and since one size does not fit all, more advice needs to be taken from South Sudanese staff and more responsibility given them. With little or no experience of and appetite for dialogue, reconciliation and peace building work, the international community with few notable exceptions1 has utterly failed (despite clear and consistent high level advice to the UN, diplomatic corps and NGO community) to shore up a functional, solid, wider conflict prevention strategy in support of existing and crucial national and local bodies. Initiatives such as the Committee for National Healing, Peace and Reconciliation (established in April 2013 but only receiving minimal international support in December 2013 – the month of the crisis), the National Reconciliation Platform (which has been the subject of negative international opinion despite showing its independence) and the All-Jonglei process and conference (January – May 2012 which received minimal international support and maximum cynicism) are prime examples, but the absence of either a strategy or financial support by the international community speaks louder than words. With little or no experience of and appetite for dialogue, reconciliation and peace building work, the international community with few notable exceptions1 has utterly failed (despite clear and consistent high level advice to the UN, diplomatic corps and NGO community) to shore up a functional, solid, wider conflict prevention strategy in support of existing and crucial national and local bodies. Initiatives such as the Committee for National Healing, Peace and Reconciliation (established in April 2013 but only receiving minimal international support in December 2013 – the month of the crisis), the National Reconciliation Platform (which has been the subject of negative international opinion despite showing its independence) and the All-Jonglei process and conference (January – May 2012 which received minimal international support and maximum cynicism) are prime examples, but the absence of either a strategy or financial support by the international community speaks louder than words.   The adage “prevention rather than cure” has, as yet, not infused the work of the UN or the NGOs in South Sudan, and a new, reflective strategy is needed with political and financial investments behind it. The international community has reeled back from an ever-growing crisis, failing to ascertain
where obvious longer-term emphasis can be placed to prevent further, deeper social and political fissuring, aiming its sights at blaming individuals rather than affirming its failure to help address the well- known root causes through conflict-sensitive approaches. Humanitarian aid will be the sticking plaster over South Sudan’s gaping wounds, as the country bleeds before its divided leaders and unattended by a divisive and ineffective international community. Attending to the proverbial plank in the international community’s eye may be the first order of business. “Physician heal yourself!” Archduke Dr Ferdinand Leopold von Habsburg-Lothringen *Ferdinand Leopold von Habsburg-Lothringen, a Swiss citizen, has been living and working in South Sudan for 16 years, as a humanitarian worker during the second civil war, as well as spending 6 years as an advisor to UNDP in Sudan and in Southern Sudan in focusing on Governance, Peace Building and Community Security and Arms Control. Under UNDP, he was later seconded to the Sudan Council of Churches inter-communal mediation efforts in Jonglei in 2011, and supported the work of the Presidential Committee on Peace, Reconciliation and Tolerance in Jonglei. He has also worked with the Ministry of General Education and Instruction and UNICEF supporting to conceptualise their programme on Peacebuilding, Education and Advocacy. In the last two years Ferdinand joined the core team supporting the process of the Road Map to Reconciliation under the then Vice President H.E. Dr. Riek Machar in an advisory capacity. His most recent appointment is as advisor to the Committee for National Healing, Peace and Reconciliation in South Sudan. He is married to a South Sudanese and speaks colloquial South Sudanese Arabic. 1 Norway, Switzerland and Catholic Relief Services    

5th Annual Summer Programme on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction in a Changing World By Tanya Mehra LL.M., Education Development Manager, T.M.C. Asser Instituut. The WMD Summer Programme from 1 to 5 September 2014 in The Hague is designed as a one-stop shop to expand and deepen knowledge of WMD non-proliferation and disarmament. The programme aims to provide a broad understanding of international treaties on weapons of mass destruction for young professionals and advanced graduate students who aspire to careers in disarmament and non-proliferation, as part of the larger process of enhancing stability and security in the world. The recent developments in Syria have dramatically highlighted the importance of WMD disarmament and non-proliferation and will be an important feature of this year’s programme. Just this week the Director of the OPCW announced that a major landmark has been achieved as the last declared stockpile of chemicals has been shipped out of Syria. The mission to identify, remove and destroy the chemical weapons material from Syria has been an unprecedented collective international effort joining the OPCW, the UN and over 30 contributing countries. China, Denmark, Germany, Norway, Russia and the United States have all provided naval vessels and cargo ships for a complex maritime operation to remove the chemical weapons from Syria for destruction outside the country. Italy has provided the port of Gioia Tauro for transhipment of the most dangerous chemical onto a specially out-fitted U.S. ship, the Cape Ray, where they will be destroyed at sea. Other chemical elements will be destroyed at land-based facilities in Finland, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States. Despite these historic efforts, Syria has not yet completed the elimination of its chemical weapons programme. Dr Paul Walker, director of the Environmental Security and Sustainability Program at Green Cross International and one of the speakers in the WMD programme, noted in a statement that chemical weapons production facilities in Syria have not been destroyed as required under Chemical Weapons Convention. We are pleased that two senior OPCW inspectors who have been closely involved in the mission in Syria will take part in a panel. Dr Walker will moderate the discussion of this unprecedented mission and look into the challenges that lie ahead. The Summer Programme will also reflect on the outcomes of the Nuclear Security Summit 2014 held in The Hague and examine implications of the growing convergence of biology and chemistry for the CWC and BWC regimes. To complement the classroom content of the WMD Summer Programme, one full day is devoted to field visits. These include to the OPCW Laboratory and Equipment Store in Rijswijk, to a nuclear research reactor at the Technical University in Delft, and to the TNO research organisation for a live exercise of investigating an alleged use of WMDs. The field visits offer participants direct experience in the way international treaties on WMDs are implemented at the national level. If you are interested to join the WMD Summer Programme, there are still some seats available. Please register here.