Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen On the occasion of the centenary of her death, I am truly honoured to be allowed to speak today about the baroness of peace Bertha von Suttner. More particularly about the time she spent in The Hague on the occasion of the peace conferences. You are perhaps aware of the fact that Bertha von Suttner kept a diary about her experiences during the First Peace Conference in The Hague in 1899. This diary – intended for publication from the start – gives a detailed account of all her activities, the places she visited, the people she talked to, of her worries and afflictions. [i] No diary of her was issued about the conference of 1907, but the relevant contributions of Bertha to the public debate in 1907 can be found in the so-called “Courrier de la Conférence”. Issued on an almost daily basis, this paper, edited by British journalist William Stead, exclusively dealt with the events in and surrounding the peace conference. In this speech I do not wish to primarily talk about Bertha von Suttner’s fame as an apostle of peace but about the political environment of her work and on how she experienced it. I therefore cannot escape the image that Bertha von Suttner had to work in a difficult climate, that in many countries there were major military sympathies versus a limited number of fighters for international peace. Nor can I bypass the observation that the peace efforts never resulted in curbing armament, at least not at the time. However, an international arbitration tribunal was established, and it still is as relevant as ever. The peace conferences of The Hague were definitely trail-blazing in that respect Ladies and Gentlemen On 21 June 1899, while the Peace Conference has been underway for 5 weeks, Bertha von Suttner writes that she is quite disappointed about the press in Germany. The press ridicules the peace initiatives, which bothers her. The Berliner Post published an article about the British proposal to establish a Court of Arbitration. She is annoyed by this article because it doubts the sincerity of the United Kingdom’s will for peace. This German newspaper says that England “behind a mask of peacefulness and humanity wishes to establish a Court in The Hague, … enabling England to interfere in all issues in a way which could be detrimental to its main rivals on the continent and which could set them up against each other.” In her diary Bertha von Suttner continues “So this is the level of political cowardice, generally thought to be political wisdom. It does not matter that the intention of which the nation is accused is logically unfounded, and practically impossible to carry out (because England is only one of the 20 powers): it is a matter of course to come up with angry insinuations if someone else seems to be willing to do good…” Also elsewhere the worries and disappointment of Bertha von Suttner about the gap between the conference in The Hague and the involvement of the press are evident. She expressed her regret for instance to a friend, an editor, that the Berliner Tageblatt published nothing about the Peace Conference. “The meeting was closed to the press, which embittered many journalists”, was the reply. But in the German press the conference was mainly mocked: “all that wicked nonsense will not fail to incur the rightful wrath of all clear-headed men who feel German”, according to a German newspaper. And the grumbling was not just limited to Germany, in Paris and London, too, critical, disparaging and spiteful articles were published, as Bertha observed. The Austrian press mainly published political cartoons of ‘Friedens-Bertha’ much to her amusement. This was contrasting sharply with American newspapers which reported very favourably and constructively about the peace efforts in The Hague. “Public interest is nowhere else so keen as in this country” said the American delegate Frederick Holls to her. According to him (Holls) excluding the journalists had been a big mistake”, but unfortunately not everyone shared that opinion. So in the public opinion of the major European powers the Peace Conference of 1899 was not very well thought of. Governments were still too busy to view war as an instrument of national politics, and the newspapers of that time thought likewise. The Peace Conference failed to make an impact on the curbing of armament, and the press applauded the failed attempts to reach agreement in that respect. The relatively cheerful start of the First World War – “diese frische und fröhliche Krieg“ as we learned in school – was one of the most blatant expressions of that general militaristic attitude at that moment. For a proper understanding, and as a personal aside: in 1914 the Peace Palace had opened its doors, and the international arbitration mechanism had been up and running for over ten years. Apart from Serbia nobody in the year 1914 had asked to submit the cause of the war to The Hague.[ii] The diary of Bertha about her time in The Hague in 1899 is also very interesting because in the margin of the conference the various hot spots of the world at the time come to life. The occupation of Finland by Russia resulted in criticism on Russia and the Czar, and the same applied to the British military intervention in the Boer Republics Transvaal and Orange Free State in South Africa. These issues were mainly raised during the public debates, organized for instance by William Stead, the British pacifist and journalist, in the well-known Diligentia theatre in The Hague, which were covered by Bertha in detail. During the Peace Conference the British House of Commons decided to free a substantial amount of money for the fight in South Africa, from which he (Stead) openly distanced himself. At the same time the conference in The Hague was deliberating about a standstill of armament expenditure, which was totally at odds with this British decision. The proposal of President Kruger (South Africa) to submit the issue with the United Kingdom – about the rights of the Outlanders, British subjects working in the gold industry in the free Boer Republics – (to submit that issue) to a court of arbitration, was immediately rejected by the British, according to Bertha von Suttner in her diary. She denounced the British attitude by remarking “Sir Alfred Milner, who seems to be totally oblivious of the principles pronounced in The Hague, replies that such a proposal cannot be considered for one moment.“ [iii] It must have been rather strange too to discuss the solution of international disputes in The Hague, and to see at the same time that classic power play was stronger than all the good intentions. After all, the next day the possible freezing of armament expenditure by the conference was referred back to the individual countries, which meant in effect a rejection of the proposal. Bertha writes “Rejected! Referred back to the governments of the big powers for further consideration. But a resolution proposed by Leon Bourgeois and adopted by the Conference has yet saved the principle“. That was a great disappointment for all pacifists, only mitigated by the fact that a positive decision about the international arbitration tribunal had been reached. In her diary, Bertha tells about an interesting and repeated conversation with Henry Dunant, the founder of the Red Cross. In the opinion of Henry Dunant mediation was a far better solution of disputes between countries than arbitration. A very topical debate indeed. Has any prominent person already suggested to submit the issues of the Crimea or those of the islands in the South China Sea to the Court of Arbitration or the International Court of Justice? For issues like this, mediation seems to be a useful instrument, especially if there are no legal pitfalls. If both parties only wish to accept that a deadlock can be broken out of without a party being considered the loser. Bertha von Suttner was aware of the fact that her diary of 1899 did not really create a stir, much to her regret. “The contemporary world is either indifferent or unfriendly in its attitude toward the Hague Conference, she writes in her Memoirs (p. 327). During her time in The Hague Bertha von Suttner did not deliver many public speeches, she spent much more time in the lobby surrounding important delegates, of the press or opinion makers. On 27 June 1899 she was to deliver a major speech in London, but she turned ill all of a sudden and could not go. Her speech was subsequently read out by somebody else. Bertha’s approach in 1899 was that of the salons, something she had learned from a Dutch hostess, where many important participants of the conference frequently gathered.  Due to its tremendous influence her salon in the Kurhaus Hotel in Scheveningen gained widespread fame. On 7 July 1899 – the conference is still ongoing – Bertha leaves The Hague by train. In her diary she writes “that this place, where the first international court of mediation was established, may become the place of pilgrimage for posterity. By now a firm conviction to ponder on the homeward journey”. During the 1907 conference she did make regular public appearances, among others delivering a speech on 20 June about the non-existing but always invoked “droit de la conquête/ the right of conquest.” [iv] In her view conquest was the foundation and leitmotiv of war. All great rulers have always expanded their territories. That is the alleged glory of war. She strongly argued that it would be far better to forget this conquest principle. On 28 June 1907 Bertha elaborated on the role of Theodore Roosevelt, the President of the United States, and the actual initiator of the Second Peace Conference. Only out of politeness he let the Russian Czar deal with the invitations. The name of President Roosevelt did not go down well with all pacifists, because he was actively expanding the American fleet. Bertha said that all countries at that time were increasing their weapon arsenals “in the interest of Peace.” No, Roosevelt had provided the PCA with its first case, and it had been Roosevelt who personally managed to end the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905 by getting both countries to the mediation table. Partly on that basis Roosevelt had won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1906. And in his expectations of the Second Peace Conference he had sided many times and in public with international justice. [v] Especially during the Second Peace Conference Bertha regularly held her famous salons where she or another distinguished guest would address the audience. They were also referred to as the Cercle International. Bertha von Suttner left the conference in 1907 before it was officially concluded, namely on 25 August. She wanted to prepare herself in Vienna and Munich for a conference on power and the organisation of Public Opinion. In her view Public Opinion was the real driving force for the actions of the delegates, and therefore an invisible impediment to change. “The delegates are like the hands on a clock – the mechanism which operates them is invisible” according to Bertha in the Courrier.[vi] Later on in 1913 she was invited once again to the Netherlands to contribute to a public debate about women and world peace. The debate on the eve of the opening of the Peace Palace was organized by the Dutch Women’s Suffrage Movement, presided over by Aletta Jacobs, renowned in the Netherlands. She was the first woman with a university degree in the Netherlands. [vii] “What us women wish to achieve through our efforts..” our apostle of peace said, “is freedom, and even more, justice. We, the women of the peace movement have ample reason to envy our sisters of the suffrage movement, because they are much closer to their goal than we pacifists are. In many states of America and also in a few European countries women already have gained the right to vote. We are jealous of that fact, and we are also jealous of the multitude of their members and the power of their organisation. That we, fighters for peace and for women’s suffrage belong together, is best evidenced by the fact that we have not only the same friends but also the same enemies. In our respective movements we can expect to benefit much from those nationalities which are not in a state of traditional militarism. And those happen to be the young nations on the other side of the ocean….” After this speech Bertha was loudly cheered and applauded and she left the hall, according to the newspaper, with a huge bunch of flowers. Earlier on, however, this merging of feminism and pacifism did not seem so logical. When Aletta Jacobs first met Bertha von Suttner in 1898 there was no click at all. “Immer das Wahlrecht” Bertha sighed over Aletta Jacobs’ effort. And Aletta noted in her own book [viii] about the meeting in 1898 “Bertha stated without reserve that I had taken the wrong road. All my efforts should be for peace, women suffrage propaganda could as well be dealt with by others … I argued, however, that Bertha von Suttner’s ideals could only become reality if women had gained full political rights.” In 1907 Bertha had commented as follows. During a discourse for the Cercle International she had already been of the opinion that both movements (feminism and pacifism) were mutually reinforcing. [ix] “The elements of Power and Oppression have to make place for Justice and Freedom“ – according to Bertha – and to that purpose a new type of human being has to be formed. Every male or female characteristic should be part of this new type of human being. But the motto remains “Working for Peace.” You may find it interesting to know that during the celebration of the centennial of the Peace Palace Bertha von Suttner was honoured with a bust situated in the Hall of the Palace. A second statue, of a much younger Bertha, was offered by us to the Municipality of The Hague. [x] The bust in the Peace Palace [xi] was unveiled on 28 August 2013 by Leymah Gbowee, the Liberian 2011 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate. She received the prize for her non-violent struggle for the rights of women.[xii] This bust truly confirms Bertha’s role as the First Lady of the Peace Palace. At the opening of the Palace in 1913 she was the only women to be invited. Now that we talk about First Ladies, it is nice to conclude with a little anecdote of Hillary Clinton at the time when she was Secretary of State of the United States. She visited the Netherlands on the occasion of the top conference on Afghanistan, which was held in The Hague on 31 March 2009 and which soon became known as the “big tent conference” where she organised her salons. Hillary Clinton insisted on staying at the Kurhaus Hotel in Scheveningen, because – she said – she was a great admirer of Bertha von Suttner, who had occupied an apartment in the Kurhaus Hotel during the Peace Conferences. This proves that Bertha’s call still reaches the highest echelons: an honour fully befitting her. When Bertha von Suttner travelled to The Hague in 1899, the first sentence she wrote in her diary was “to the place where Peace will be born.” I don’t think nowadays this phrase would be used anymore, now that the UN is such a decisive factor in the handling of all sorts of conflicts in the world. But partly as a result of the construction of the Peace Palace The Hague has become an international city of justice and peace, not only accommodating the important courts of justice, but also harbouring an active climate of dialogue and contemplation about Peace and Justice. That is a result everybody can be proud of, and all of Bertha’s followers in particular. Thank you for your attention.

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.