By Songül Arslan, economist and international relations specialist. For decades the Netherlands derived a certain kind of political stability from “pillarization”.  These pillars were formed around the different cleavages of Dutch society, such as religion and political ideology. One of the characteristics of these pillars was the fact that they were very well-organized, not only in a political way but also in a social way. These pillars also had their own social networks, banks, sports clubs and newspapers. The political figures of the different pillars were the representatives of their pillarized part of society and ‘fought’ out their differences in the political arena. People from different pillars hardly ever mingled, the social interaction between them was restricted to a minimum and there was no talk of integration yet. Another characteristic was the ‘social control’ within these pillars. During the period of pillarization times were different and simpler, or so it seemed. Some opinion makers refer to those times as more stable. Whether that is true or not, it does seem as if the current political system in the Netherlands is not as stable as it used to be. For instance, all past four governments Balkenende collapsed prematurely. The current cabinet is called Rutte II which was formed after the cabinet Rutte I also fell within 2 years which means that in the past 13 years not a single cabinet fulfilled its full term. Rutte I was formed around a minority cabinet. A minority cabinet in general fuels the expectancy of instability. A minority cabinet is the situation where the governing political party or parties don’t have the majority of the seats. In the case of Rutte I it was the VVD (Party for Freedom and Democracy) and CDA (Christian Democrats) who governed but didn’t have the majority of the seats. A minority cabinet is not unique in the Netherlands but is still quite rare. The reason for a minority cabinet in the Netherlands was that the Christian Democrats and the PVV (Party for Freedom) mostly differed regarding the topic of Islam, although there were a few other issues that needed to be ironed out as well. The current cabinet with the governing parties of the VVD and the PvdA (The Dutch Labour Party) have their own challenges and complexities. For example, they might even be placed at different points regarding ideology and labour issues which in times of a recession is a hot issue. However, Islam is still something of a cleavage in the Dutch political spectrum. The alleged lack of integration of Muslims remains a political issue, especially now with young Muslims joining the Jihad of ISIS. Not so long ago, some voiced the opinion that pillarization would have served the integration of Muslims well and therefore stability in society. Although that is an interesting thought to explore, times were indeed different back then. It would be nearly impossible to introduce pillarization again where people lived around and according to the various pillars and where ‘social control’ was omnipresent. People have become more individualized. They don’t need a pillar to organize themselves around, they form their own networks that are not limited to the same religion, class or ideology. Also, society at large and the world have changed. Best practices and solutions from the past are what they are: solutions from the past. Current politics should not only look for ideas in pillarization but past that and beyond that. Pillarization is something to consider and to derive inspiration from but not be seen as more than a remnant of what used to work in different times. To look for stability in the Dutch political system is to look into history, think of the present and see a future in line with the overall changes in society.  

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… ———————————————————————————————–—————————- “What If…” Imagine there would be an outbreak of Ebola in the Netherlands. What would you think? What would you do? Who would you call? Infectious diseases are normal. As long as we can remember, we have had them. Each year we get one or more attacks of runny noses and coughing, i.e. the common cold and, who knows, perhaps even a bout of flu. The good news about these kinds of infections is that after each cold we become resistant against that particular virus. The bad news is that so many new versions will develop that suffering the symptoms of ‘a cold’ is a lifelong fate. Accept it. Other infectious diseases are not so harmless. And to some extent, we humans are to blame. No, I’m not talking about antibiotics that are so over-prescribed that we now face the serious problem of microbes that have become resistant to all known medications but about our own behavior. And I’m also not talking about (not) washing your hands and other hygiene, that ought to be a given. What I am talking about is the inability to foresee and forecast where and when certain events and effects will take place – and to take appropriate measures before they happen. Ebola, like most infectious diseases, is not new. We know about it since 1976. So how come we act surprised about the emergence and extent of the current Ebola outbreak in West Africa? What does surprise me is the almost nonchalant way national governments are flying their possibly infected rescue workers back and forth to their home countries for treatment in their own ‘advanced facilities’. Already in 1977 the WHO recommended that “the patient must be isolated to prevent secondary infections by direct or airborne spread of the virus”. And what do we do in 2014? We fly thousands of military personnel into the affected countries to set up clinics (USA) and we fly rescue personnel with suspected infections out of the country to receive treatment at home (Netherlands, Spain, USA, etc.). Aside from these flagrant transgressions of the ‘isolation’ principle, another question beckons: if the current international response effort is aimed at saving as many lives as possible, shouldn’t these ‘advanced facilities’ be moved to victims in the affected countries instead of the other way around? Back to the “What If…?” scenario. So we face an outbreak of the Ebola virus in the Netherlands. The Dutch contribution to the international effort is coordinated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Buitenlandse Zaken). The Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports (VWS: Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport) obviously deals with the WHO and the medical treatment aspects of Ebola. The Ministry of Security and Justice (VenJ) aspires to coordinate everything, for instance through their website www.crisis.nl and its network of ‘Safety Regions’, or ‘Veiligheidsregio’s. ’ But where are the international helpdesks and websites that can assist non-Dutch speaking parts of the population? Where will members of the Diplomatic Community, foreign expats, non-Dutch speaking inhabitants, international students and visitors turn to for assistance and advice? They will probably contact their Embassy. You. What would you think? What would you do? Who would you call? What would you advise? Important questions, so think ahead. Think “What If…”  

Eelco H. Dykstra, M.D. 

International Emergency Management:

Member, National Council for the Environment and Infrastructure, www.rli.nl

Dykstra International Emergency Management (DIEM), The Hague, www.diem.nu

Director EMEA, International Katrina Project Inc.(IKP), Washington, D.C., www.ikp-europe.eu

Professor (visiting) of International Emergency Management, The George Washington University, Washington DC (2005-2010) and University of Kuopio, Finland (2001-2004)

                     

By Johanna Ospina Garnica, UPEACE Centre The Hague Summary of the lecture presented by Professor András Szöllösi-Nagy, Rector of UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, on 3 July 2014 (see for more information on UPEACE Centre The Hague and the lecture series “Peace Building in Progress”: www.upeace.nl). In his lecture about “Water: A source of conflict or a potential peace builder?” Prof. Szöllösi-Nagy raised the question whether water is a potential source of conflict or conversely a source for transboundary cooperation. To find an answer, he proposed to analyse the overall setting, looking at both technical and political issues. Water on the international agenda In the first part of the lecture, Prof. Szöllösi-Nagy emphasized the significant progress made in the intergovernmental sector up to now. In 1977, water was put high on the international agenda due to the UN Water Conference held in Mar del Plata, Argentina. In the 1990´s the issue of water was back at the international level when in 1997, as an annus mirabilis, several initiatives took place. These initiatives include the First World Water Forum in Marrakech, Morocco, the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) 5-year review of Agenda 21 Chapter 17, the UN Convention on the Non-Navigational Use and the launch of the World Water Vision Project. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) also included water issues, with MDG7 “ensure environmental sustainability” targeting to reduce the proportion of the world’s population without access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation by 2015 by half. The current situation The effort to increase the amount of people with access to safe drinking water (from the MDGs) is still on track, despite some exceptions such as the case of sub-Saharan Africa. However, the aim to have access to basic sanitation has not achieved any significant progress and its situation is getting worse. Is a water crisis looming and are the times of easy water over? To answer this question, it is necessary to understand that there are many global change drivers affecting water and its availability: population growth, movement and age structures; geo-political changes and realignments; trade and subsidies; technological changes; climate change. Among these population growth is the most determinant. During the last decades the world population has been growing exponentially. The situation has worsened due to an exponential increase in deforestation, CO₂ emissions, damming of rivers, water use, etc. Prof. Szöllösi-Nagy found that the crisis is increasing, but the world is not running out of water yet. This indicates to us that the water crisis is mainly a governance crisis, and thus we still can do something about it. Hence the world should continue working on WASH (water, sanitation and hygiene). Nonetheless, this is not an easy task to do; there are additional challenges that need to be addressed, especially as the increase in temperatures, the global climate change, is a fact. Currently, there are more floods and droughts and all effects of climate change will continue manifesting itself in water. In fact, 90% of all casualties in natural disasters are water-related disasters; thereby floods, droughts, and similar are trans-border issues. Water: A source of conflict or peace This accelerating hydrological cycle and the increase of natural disasters are a potential source of conflict. This situation makes it necessary to increase human adaptation and resilience. Possible ways to adapt include: increasing storage (water, food and energy), hydropower, increase groundwater use, increase inland navigation, inter-basin water transfer, conservation and good governance. All of these ways of adapting, except the last two mentioned, are potential sources of conflict. Politically the most difficult aspects are transboundary problems. Natural flows are cut by political boundaries, creating potential problems between upstream and downstream countries. Currently, 145 countries include territory within transboundary basins, and 21 countries lie entirely within a transboundary basin. An analysis of the situation in places with transboundary basins (such as of the Nile River basin, the Jordan River basin) shows that water is not necessarily a principal cause of conflict. The opposite, the need for water seems to be so deeply engrained in humanity that it induces cooperation rather than conflict. Thus, water connects and is a powerful instrument for peace. Requirements for the future Cooperation in water governance requires institutions and legal instruments. For instance, the highest number of transboundary agreements has been made in Africa. Also the UN Convention on the Non-Navigational Use (1997) is another example of progress made in the International Law. Another key to water governance is capacity development. Whereas technological developments have helped to solve problems related to water management, water flows can be accurately simulated with computer models, and satellites can detect almost everything, making it possible to see water reserves, monitoring capacity is still limited to primarily Northern America, Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. There is therefore a need to recognise countries’ shared responsibilities to help increasing water monitoring capacity elsewhere. Conclusion Prof. Szöllösi-Nagy concluded that there is still enough water to prevent water conflicts. However, to manage it will require the political will to do it, the capacity to do it right, and the resources to do it right now. But, still there is an important aspect that is missing and does not have enough debate so far: the understanding that the key to sustainability is to generate awareness about water in the minds of people. This is possible through education, especially schools and other higher levels. For this, UNESCO-IHE is providing the knowledge and training for the current and future generation of water experts from different countries.

                         
CLEER Presidency lecture series – The Hellenic Presidency of the Council of the European Union By Dr Tamara Takács On 18 September, The Centre for the Law of EU External Relations (CLEER), hosted by the T.M.C Asser Insituut, organised an event on the recent Hellenic Presidency of the Council of the EU from a particular perspective: the role of the Presidency in coordination and leadership in global and regional issues, the assessment of the country’s performance in fulfilling its aspirations and what its actions mean for the European Union’s international relations. H.E. Teresa Angelatou, Ambassador of the Hellenic Republic to the Netherlands addressed the audience, representatives of the diplomatic contingent, academic and students, with a detailed account of the undeniable achievements the Hellenic Presidency made at the helm of the Council in the first half of the year. Amongst such important achievements, she highlighted the adoption of the European Maritime Security Strategy, a tool to promote maritime governance and an agreement of strategic interest for the EU. In addition, she took note of the confirmation of the Euro-Atlantic perspective for the Western Balkans and revitalisation of the Thessaloniki agenda (2003) by the granting of candidate status to Albania and the formal start of accession negotiation with Serbia, and furthering the accession process of Montenegro by the opening of new negotiation chapters. Ambassador Angelatou also spoke of the effective administration of chairing of meetings, setting of agendas and coordinating between the various decision-making actors within the Brussels arena – all challenging tasks of the rotating Presidency. Responding to Ambassador Angelatou’s insightful presentation, Dr Joris Larik, Senior researcher and representative of The Hague Institute for Global Justice at the CLEER governing structures, added an academic’s perspective. Dr Larik spoke about the positive implication of furthering the accession promises in the Western Balkans, and that of the adoption of the European Maritime Security Strategy, mentioning that the latter should not carry the risk of securisation in the Mediterranean region. He took also note of the constructive approach of the Hellenic Presidency to the situation in Eastern Ukraine, highlighting the advantages of not giving in to military reaction. The event was chaired and the discussion moderated by Dr Tamara Takács, Senior researcher in EU law, and Academic programme coordinator of CLEER. This was the sixth event in this lecture series, providing an insight in the major challenges and achievements in representation, negotiation, coordination at the helm of the EU Council. With these events the Centre wishes to create closer cooperation with the diplomatic missions in The Hague. Information regarding forthcoming events may be found on the CLEER website: www.cleer.eu. The author is a Senior researcher in EU law – Academic programme coordinator of CLEER – T.M.C. Asser Instituut. She is founder contributing-writer of Diplomat Magazine