By Peter Knoope. “Quarter-makers” is the word that the Dutch use for those military people that left for Mali recently. They live up to their name. They prepare the quarters for the contingent of Dutch soldiers that will be part of MINUSMA. Making Mali a safer place is their mission. Creating conditions for stability and for development is their contribution. After the Afghanistan and Iraq wars however, we all wonder if this will be the case. We hope to succeed, we fear to fail. With this in mind Parliament discussed the issue and sought experts’ input to ask the right questions and ascertain the strengths and weaknesses of the mission. I was one of these experts. Now we know there are no easy answers and predicting the future is impossible, so I told them about competing propositions. I talked about the youngster in Kirdal in Northern Mali who gets to choose: On the one hand, a life filled with excitement, fast and big money, part of the gang, cool with the bandits that cross the Sahara smuggling drugs and cigarettes. Or the other life filled with comradeship and a new identity, heroic and with a political mission, something to live and die for with the boys in AQIM or MUJAO. Or else the alternative proposition of the government, with no future prospects, noeducation, no government services but with the traditional social ties that relate to historic values. What the young boy, idle and faced with these options will choose, depends on the attractiveness of the proposition. The goal of MINUSMA therefore is to increase the attractiveness of the governments proposition. And it needs to move fast to guarantee that the other options in the marketplace become irrelevant and unattractive. Because we know that once you are in, be it the criminal gang or the political movement, getting out is not easy- desertion unacceptable. I also talked about security and what that really means. Increasing stability requires security. But security is often looked at from the perspective of the State. States organize and guarantee state security. And rightly so. It means securing the states’ institutions and those that work for the State. But where the State is considered corrupt, or absent or worse, where State representatives are abusive or looking after their own interests, rather than the interest of the public and the people, State security becomes “their security” rather than “our security”. The human security perspective is a fundamentally different concept in many cases. Human security starts where the peoples security is taken care of. That requires an understanding of what real people really need in terms of their security. The question: “how do we find out?” is relevant. As the concerns of the people are important as a starting point, it is equally important to identify what people really mean when they refer to their security. That may seem more complex than it really is. Recently, we had the perfect example locally. The people in Northern provinces where our national wealth is hidden in our rich soil got really worried about their security and the risks they run through the exploitation of our national resources. The earth quakes. Houses break. Security shaken. But on the other hand our national cake is at stake. The national economic, and state security clashes with peoples security. Tensions build up to the extent that some of the protesters in Groningen claimed that they did no longer exclude the use of violence… The situation in Mali and in Groningen differ; in many respects. But the clashes of human security interests and state security interests are “look-alikes”. A thorough understanding of the clashes between security interests in an environment where the State is either regarded as inadequate, corrupted or absent is very basic. Therefore, I would like to advise our quarter-makers to start looking into these issues. Talk to the civil society organisations that do not exclude the use of violence. Understand their motives and their grievances. Understand their anger and frustrations, just like in Groningen. Weigh the national and state security concerns, that soldiers naturally represent, carefully with the human security concerns. Only then will there be an answer to the questions that linger in the minds of our Parliamentarians ever since Afghanistan and Iraq. We can succeed and we will not fail if we care to listen and understand the challenging alternative propositions that lay on shoulders of the youngsters in Kirdal and if we care to listen to human security concerns of the people. My hope lies with the quarter-makers.

By Steven van Hoogstraten, Carnegie Foundation, General Director. In September 2013, the International Network of Museums for Peace (INMP) and the Carnegie Foundation organized a two days international symposium on peace philanthropy. The aim of this symposium was to highlight contemporary examples of peace philanthropy and to identify the role of modern philanthropists for world issues like health, justice and environmental protection. In so doing the conference paved the way for new projects to be developed. One of these projects is the long standing wish for a Peace Museum in The Hague, a pluriform showcase where academic and cultural visions of peace can collide. But also other and parallel ideas exist that aim at a dialogue in our field of expertise, and at joining the forces that make The Hague an international city of peace and justice. True and constructive dialogue is only possible if there is room for reflection, for new ideas and for well formulated critique. To put it in a different language, when UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon recently called The Hague “the world’s legal capital, the epicenter of justice and accountability”, he confirmed our mandate but at the same time challenged us to live up to this high standard. It is in the pursuit of this standard, that I suggest that we develop some new ground. This would mean that we do not limit our attention to a deepening of the classical and institutional notions of international law but that we widen our scope to include those political and legal themes that are of utmost importance for the development of a just civil society. Now that the first century of the Peace Palace is behind us, time has come for coordinated efforts in The Hague to find the eyes and ears of the philanthropic world, a world eager to invest money in the public arena for good causes. In order to do this credibly, The Hague’s institutions must show the ambition to be at the leading edge of developing new concepts for global justice and finding alternative ways for dispute resolution. Not every difficult issue can be settled by finding the right page of the law book. I refer to disputes within states, disputes about natural resources, about food and water, or cultural issues. As I see it, The Hague should not be limited to be a fine judicial machine composed of international courts and tribunals, a machine which produces positive outcomes in conflicts by using the relevance of international law. The Hague should also be the place where international legal concepts are being critically reviewed, and where the policies behind the legal rules are explored and brought up to date. In this context I am tempted to think of questions like: “What does global justice mean for the response to threats from narcotic drugs, or from corruption? “; ”How can an international justice system be created which is accessible for other entities than states ? “, and ”Is it wise for the legitimacy of the ICC to try to investigate matters in countries who are not on the list of ratifications?”. A network institution like the Hague Academic Coalition (HAC) could hold the umbrella for akind of “Hague Programme on International Justice”, in which all international organizations are partners, in cooperation with the Hague Institute for Global Justice. I have to make clear at this point that developing this type of activities, is not necessarily the first task of my Foundation as we are so tied to the well-being of the Peace Palace and its important institutions. But the Carnegie Foundation could easily take the role of facilitator/convener for the organizations in The Hague which would like to be part of such an endeavor. Even if this has not been the main focus of our activities, it is an aspect that could be developed in the near future. The Hague – as the world’s legal capital – has an apparent need to develop initiatives that promote the cohesion among its institutions and inhabitants, either local or international. A true cohesion, thus both academic and cultural, could be a very sustainable answer to this need. Our common Hague denominator is after all that each and every institution is related to the promotion of international peace and justice, both in its scope of daily work, and in the more idealistic perspective on the longer term. One aspect that definitely might attract the attention of the philanthropists is the focus on social justice by outreach activities to the different target groups within our civil society. As far as the daily practice of the institutions in the Peace Palace is concerned, the existence of a general public audience does not have a great impact. Clearly the emphasis is on governments seeking a solution, according to “peace through law”. But public support is a factor which cannot be denied. This is true for instance where peace treaties are concerned, but also counts for the overall implementation of international justice. For me, it goes without saying that in The Hague we work for a maximum impact of international justice , and take these and other innovative trends into consideration. Fortunately important work on the innovation of justice is being done by the Hague Institute for the internationalization of Law (HiiL). When looking back to the beginning of the development of the Hague as a city of international law, early 1900, the first thing we see is this collaboration between International organizations and philanthropists. It was the philanthropy of steelmaker Andrew Carnegie (1835-1919) that made the creation of the Peace Palace possible in the first place. Carnegie was the classical case of the bell boy who became a millionaire. Born in Scotland, he emigrated to the USA in 1848 where he became over time the most efficient American steel producer. At the age of 60 he sold his business interests to become a philanthropist. In his view the accumulated private wealth of people like himself should serve the public good. Carnegie was passionate about public education and an idealist of international peace. He believed strongly in the then rather novel idea of arbitration as a means to settle international disputes. Today, this philanthropic approach of Carnegie is being kept alive by an international network of Carnegie inspired organizations, part of which is the Carnegie Foundation in the Netherlands. Important organizations are the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, and the 4 UK based Carnegie Institutions in Dumfernline, including the Trust for the Universities of Scotland. One of their ways of rewarding contemporary heroes of private giving is by presenting biannual awards, the so-called Carnegie Medals of Philanthropy. In October 2013, this special medal was handed to Sir Tom Hunter, the Scotsman who started his career with the selling of sports shoes from the back of a van, and once he made his fortune, became a great advocate of “giving back “. By motivating others to join him, he became a catalyst for the changes in contemporary Scotland. Evenly rewarded was her Highness Sheika Moza bin Nasser, Sheika of Qatar, for her immense support for the cause of education, peace and social reform through the Qatar Foundation founded in 1995. Another awardee, the inventor of E bay Pierre Omidyar, held an impressive talk on how empowering the internet has become for the average citizen. In his view, philanthropy should concentrate on investments with a high potential and with some risks, as opposed to safe grants for public causes which would just be spent. Receivers in the past included the great names like Ted Turner, George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, the Gates family and the Rockefeller family. The point of my remarks is that nowadays there still is a lot of private money being destined forpublic causes. The Hague’s institutions should be aware of this, and could present their activitiesin such a way so as to become eligible for funding. In essence, I hope that we can find our placeat the table of international good causes. What we are engaged in here in The Hague, certainly merits the international philanthropists attention and sympathy.

By Bonnie Klap. Dr. Bernard Bot is a career diplomat who served as Minister of Foreign Affairs from 2003 till 2007. His distinguished career includes postings as Ambassador of The Netherlands to Turkey and Brussels, where he was the Permanent Representative of The Netherlands to the European Union. Prior to this, Dr. Bot was Secretary-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in The Hague. Dr. Bot receives us in his elegant office in the center of The Hague and is ready for his first question. What is more important in foreign policy: pursuing the country’s interests or pursuing its values? “I believe these are two issues that are intrinsically linked. On the one hand our interests: our prosperity, economic growth and the security of the citizens. 70% of our income comes from foreign trade, so we are dependent on good and transparent relations with the rest of the world. Moreover we live in a 24-hour economy and a global society and we also want to safeguard our values, but this can best be done by combining interests and values. It is also important for us that these values : the rule of law, democracy and respect for human rights, are part of our foreign policy. Those values guarantee stability, which is in our interest. Human rights have always been a spearhead of our foreign policy. By respecting human rights turmoil and uprisings can be prevented, which otherwise could hamper trade and threaten our security. So it becomes clear that combining interests and values actually and indirectly also promotes our interests. Much is being made of the Dutch dilemma: Merchant or preacher? I would prefer the term ‘enlightened businessmen’. You need to combine these two issues in a changing world. That is the backbone of a healthy society.” Is it important for The Netherlands to participate in foreign missions, such as Mali? “You have to be prepared to put your military boots where your mouth is. We did not take the decision to go to Mali purely out of self-interest.We can not leave the responsibility of promoting stability and democracy and fighting terrorism solely to the US. We live in a global society and we should feel and accept responsibility and translate that responsibility into action. Visibility is another very important issue. We sent support missions to Afghanistan and Iraq. It promoted our image worldwide and at the same time we were inspired to do so by the suffering of the people. As for the Mali mission: it also sends a message to neighboring countries such as Niger or Chad not to attack, as there will always be countries which are willing to step in.” Will there be a coordinated European foreign policy in the near future? No. Not in the near future. At least once a month the Ministers of Foreign Affairs meet in Brussels to coordinate their foreign policy, but there is no obligation to follow this coordinated approach. For example: the UK has special interests in Asia and The Netherlands has interests in Indonesia and Surinam. With all these different interests it becomes very difficult to have a common policy. The second reason why this can not yet work is that the EU member states are all commercial competitors of each other. Outside of Europe we are in fierce competition with each other. Commercial interests are closely linked to foreign policy, as we are inclined to promote our own interests, inside as well as outside the EU. Creating a Banking Union will hopefully also contribute to a better common policy influence, but if you want to implement things too quickly, you create revolt and unrest. In the past ten years integration has gone too fast. If you want it to be successful, you have to do it at a slower pace. An additional worrying element is the fact that many Members of Parliament have no international experience. So, coming back to your question, no, I don’t expect a truly coordinated European foreign policy anytime soon.”