By Peter Knoope. According to a rough estimate coming from UN circles, there are around hundred thousand individuals in prisons around the world for terrorism related offences. Many of these people will be released from their prison cell at one stage in time. Some sooner some later. Many of them will somehow come back to society. In terrorism, like any other serious crime, there is a reasonable chance that these people are welcomed back in their original violent environment. With more credibility because of the time they did. In which case the prison environment may have helped to increase societal security for some years, but not more, and sometimes even less that. Recruitment by these people,inside the prison environment, may have taken place. Other prisoners may have been open to the violent message of terrorists. For obvious reasons the prison population can be more susceptible to recruitment than youngsters outside the prison. It is therefore of the utmost importance to work with prisoners and work on rehabilitation and re-integration programs. This happens on a small scale in a number of European countries. But the bigger numbers of terrorist offenders are in prison in a small number of countries outside the EU. Based on experiences in a few countries with courageous governments, that have taken the lead in this domain, the world has gained enough knowledge and know how to describe the best practices in relation to prison rehabilitation. This is laid down in a document named the “Rome Memorandum on best practices of rehabilitation and re-integration”. This document serves as the starting point to increase knowledge and relevant programs in a number of states that wish to prevent people from going back to violence and extremism. Now these programs need to do everything possible to debunk the terrorist interpretation of reality, in many cases the Al Quaida narrative.  Rule number one is that if one wants to talk and lead someone out of the terrorist environment, one needs to have a proper understanding of the reasons why they feel attracted to It. What brings a young man to feel at home in an extremist and violent environment? Is it the comradeship? The heroism? Is it anger and frustration? Is it lack of alternatives and future perspective? Is it a lack of critical thinking and the attractiveness of “black versus white” worldviews? The answers to these questions is hidden in specifics. We know from the personal history of a number of terrorists that a negative personal experience in a young mans life can do the trick, societal exclusion and collective deprivation is a condition, the welcoming new environment helps and the perspective of “something to live and die for” is certainly a factor that adds to the attraction. But it is different in Mali, and not the same there as it is in Pakistan or Indonesia. Let alone in Gouda or Antwerp. So the country specific analyses of drivers of violence is important as a baseline for policy development. And what is more, it is important to prevent that young boy, leaving the prison on a cold windy morning, to run back to the warm welcoming environment of the comrades in the struggle against a perceived enemy. We will need to understand how sentiments of alienation and humiliation can be exploited to the extent that young man turn violent and see no other way out than kill. Kill and terrorise as a message to the world expressing anger and frustration, hopelessness and nihilism. To stop this it requires a profound and environment specific analyses of dimensions and dynamics. An estimated hundred thousand prisoners for terrorism related offences may leave our prisons in the coming years. Unless we understand how and why they got there, we will not be able to address the realistic risk of them rejoining the former violent circles that are comfortably welcoming them. If we want to get them out, we firstly need to understand how and why they got in!

Foreign Policy and Domestic Politics: Indian attendance at Commonwealth Heads of Govt. Meeting (CHOGM) By Paramjit Sahai[*], former Ambassador of India; University of Malta. Indian foreign policy, which earlier had enjoyed national consensus, is coming increasingly under pressure of domestic politics.  It is apparently so, given the fact that the Indian government is run by a coalition of parties; some are a part of the government, while others are giving support from outside. It is not India alone but other countries, with a coalition government that are facing a similar problem. Recently, the British government had to cancel its announced migration policy on bonds for student visas, as the Prime Minister Cameron did not get support from Nick Clegg, leader of its coalition partner – Liberal Party. Even countries with Presidential system, like USA, have to face the brunt of domestic politics. Indian foreign policy was recently subjected to a grueling test of domestic politics, on the eve of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) 2013, which opened on November 15, 2013 at Colombo, Sri Lanka.  The initial pressure was from the two main regional parties, DMK and AIDMK; later all the regional parties embraced this agenda.  This led to the passing of a unanimous resolution at the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly imploring Prime Minister (PM) not to attend the CHOGM 2013, as a gesture of support to the Tamil sentiments in support of the minority community in Sri Lanka, which had been subjected to human rights violation. Arguments for and against Prime Minister’s participation at CHOGM were advanced.  There was a running debate in the media, based on developments and information, provided by the interested parties on a daily basis. The two main contentious points were that CHOGM was a multilateral forum and the agenda was more than the Human Rights issue in Sri Lanka.  Would non-attendance set a wrong precedent?  The second was a tactical issue, whether engagement would be a better option or not, as participation could help in conveying a collective message from the Group and thereby enhancing its value and strength.  The media was not a reflection of Indian viewpoint only, howsoever, diverse it may be.  Sri Lankan strategic viewpoint and its official opinion were equally provided with prominent space in the print media. Prime Minister was faced with a Hamletian dilemma, ‘To attend or not to attend’.  This dithering on the part of the government resulted in it being subjected to intense pressure.  The debate was further muddled when senior Cabinet Ministers from the government started openly voicing their concerns over Prime Minister’s attendance.  Information was also leaked that the Cabinet was itself divided over the issue. The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), the Ministry of External Affairs and the National Security Advisor pushed for PM’s attendance, while the others, on account of regional connection were not in favour of participation.  It was a cache 22 situation, whether foreign policy interests should be allowed to prevail or regional interests, based on ethno-sub-nationalism be allowed to carry the day.  The verbal duel was carried against the backdrop of impending state elections in November-December and General Election in early 2014.  The Congress needs the support of regional parties, as it is not likely to get absolute majority. The Tamil political leadership further tightened the screws on the central government.  The State Legislative Assembly passed another resolution, adopting a stringent and tougher posture, escalating the stakes by asking the Government to boycott the CHOGM 2013.  It was a tough call to answer.  Spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs was made to spell out the criteria that would be adopted to take a decision, which would include national interest, international obligations and foreign policy priorities.  Various options were explored and one important one included PM attending the Summit, while simultaneously paying a visit to Jaffna, as a gesture of support to the newly elected regional government in the North Region, led by Tamilians.  At the end of the day, die was cast against PM’s attendance as ‘domestic politics’ triumphed over the foreign policy interests, as reportedly decided by the Congress leadership under Sonia Gandhi. The Government, however, did not go full hog with Tamil aspirations and India was represented at CHOGM at the level of External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid.  This did not fully satisfy Tamil leadership, which continued to voice its concerns. Sri Lankan Government had to put a brave face, in not openly criticizing India’s non-attendance at PM’s level.  In the past also, India had missed attendance at CHOGM at that level. In his formal communication to President Rajapaksa, Prime Minister reportedly did not spell out reasons for his non-attendance. This left each party to make out their own prognosis for public consumption, although the reasons were apparent.  Sri Lankans kept their reaction at low key, even though they would not have been happy at these developments. In India, non-attendance of CHOGM by Prime Minister was viewed in negative light, as forsaking its national strategic interests at the altar of domestic politics. Practically, all the editorials adversely commented upon this development.  It was seen as ‘Surrender on CHOGM’ (The Hindu), as attendance including a visit to Jaffna would have been ‘a powerful reaffirmation of New Delhi’s stakes and interests in the region’.  Another viewed it as ‘a signal of foreign policy paralysis’ and India ‘risking all its strategic capital in Colombo’ (The Times of India). Still another editorial saw in this as ‘Delhi’s abdication’, caving in ‘to narrow considerations’, as India ‘diminished itself’ and undermined itself in ‘this important multilateral forum’ (The Indian Express).  It is, however, debatable as to how important is Commonwealth at the present juncture.   Ironically speaking, what was an option planned by India was executed by the British Prime Minister Cameron, as it is likely that he picked up this idea in India.  Otherwise also, ideas freely travel in this age of globalisation. Cameron thus became the first foreign dignitary to set ‘foot in Jaffna after a gap of over five decades.  He stated, ‘I want to shine a light on chilling events there first hand’.  His message struck a positive chord with the Tamilians, who became beholden to his empathy towards them. He also did not shy away from sending a strong message on human rights issue, prescribing the March 2014 deadline for the setting up of an independent investigation agency. This obviously was rejected out of hand by President Rajapaksa. While Cameron scored on both the above fronts, it was a case of lost opportunity for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.  It was, therefore, not surprising to see Salman Khurshid publicly lamenting this missed opportunity.  This would have been an excellent occasion to flag Indian presence, where it is involved in infrastructural development projects, including construction of 50,000 low cost houses in the Northern Region.  An editorial in the Indian press noted that Cameron ‘has stolen the spotlight from the Commonwealth by visiting Jaffna’ (The Tribune).  Another editorial noted that PM’s absence at the Summit had ‘brought no political or diplomatic advantage’ (The Hindu).     History will tell us, whether India made the right or wrong choice.  Withdrawal from international scene and not taking the matters upfront has only weakened India’s profile in the international arena.  How can India be expected to play a major role, as a world leader, which it wants to emerge, if it shies away in making a mark in its own backyard and the region?  It is here that India has to shine first. India’s strategic interests are likely to suffer and others are likely to fish in the troubled waters.  It also went against the grain of India’s foreign policy as recently espoused by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh at the Heads of Missions’ Conference on November 4, where he stressed that sub-continent’s shared destiny required greater regional cooperation and connectivity.  How can India connect with the world, if it allows its foreign policy to be shackled by its regional compulsions based on domestic politics?  It has to rise above these narrow interests as it reimages a strong India.  It has to use both, hard and soft power options, to emerge as a benign power in the region and take its responsibilities as a world leader.  Engagement is the only way out, as India has seen that disengagement with Pakistan was not a way out, as a search for a window for engagement continues.   India has to calibrate its foreign policy in such a way that it represents its national interests, while it takes on board regional concerns and perceptions. There cannot be two opinions that there has to be one Indian foreign policy, and not Punjab, Tamil Nadu or West Bengal foreign policy.                 

By Barend ter Haar, Clingendael Institute of International Relations, former Netherlands ambassador to UNESCO. Think again about water. That is in short the main outcome of the conference on Water Security and Peace that was organised by the Water Diplomacy Consortium* on 14 and 15 November 2013. After attending the conference some security specialists might doubt whether an armed attack is the largest threat against their country. Engineers might reconsider whether technical solutions will suffice to solve all water problems.  Legal experts might be better aware of the limits of a top-down approach, while local stakeholders may have become convinced of the need of a global approach. The meeting of a large number of experts in many different fields and from many different countries helped to clarify a number of key points or at least to bring our confusion to a higher level. Everybody needs clean water, every day of his life, but hundreds of millions of people are still not assured of that. And clean water is becoming scarcer, inter alia because of its growing use for agriculture, cattle breeding, industry and energy production. All this is relatively simple and straightforward. And so is the answer: we need to change the way we manage water. Regrettably, implementing sound water management is not a simple matter at all. Water is such a fundamental part of our culture, of the way we feed ourselves, we produce energy, we wash ourselves and we govern ourselves, that there is no master key to address water in all its aspects at once. What is needed is a bunch of keys or, in the buzzwords of the conference, a multisector and multilevel approach. Multisector means that it is insufficient to deal with water in isolation. Sound water management requires looking also at how we produce food, deal with climate change, and so on. Multilevel means that we have to address water issues simultaneously at local, national, regional and global levels. Assuring the availability of clean water at the local level is the ultimate goal. That means educating and empowering local people as much as possible. But a fair distribution of the available water requires also measures at a national level and at an international level, because rivers and underground aquifers often cross borders. Global cooperation is needed to facilitate and promote action at the local, national and regional level, e.g. by setting global minimum rules for the management of water. Most if not all participants of the conference seemed to agree about the following:

• Water management cannot be split in separate jobs for engineers, lawyers, diplomats, etc. All stakeholders have to work together and  should therefore make an effort to ensure that they are understood by other types of specialists.
• More and better information on the state of water should be collected and be made widely available, to prevent misperceptions and to promote a common understanding of the real challenges.
• A shared vision on global water management should be developed.
• New coalitions are needed, between different levels of government, between governments and private business, between private business and NGOs, etc.
• Leadership is needed.

*The Water Diplomacy Consortium consists of five partners that together cover the different aspects of water diplomacy: the Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael, the Hague Institute for Global Justice, the UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, UPEACE Centre The Hague and the Water Governance Centre.

By Dr. Huub Ruël, Windesheim University of Applied Sciences – Zwolle.  The use of technology and social media have impacted diplomacy, with all its pros and cons. Online channels can facilitate commercial diplomacy services as well, and can be used to serve businesses in their internationalization endeavors. This is called electronic commercial diplomacy (e-CD) or digital diplomacy. E-CD can enhance the access to and delivery of activities for international business. We conducted a study on the commercial diplomacy service quality of embassy websites. The embassy websites of the countries that rank the highest on e-government were assumed to have the best developed electronic commercial diplomacy services (compared to others). The website of the embassy in a country’s most intensive trading partner was chosen as the unit of analysis. The ten countries included in our study were: The Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Denmark, the United States, France, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Singapore, and Canada [Korea was not included as its website in China (its most important trading partner) could only be accessed in Korean or Chinese. Therefore, Canada (no. 11 on the e-government ranking 2012) was included instead.  The overall conclusion of our study was that e-CD is still in its infancy, even among the countries that rank highest on e-government. None of the countries included in this study clearly exceeded the level of ‘presenting’, that is, the presentation of information on an embassy website, but without the option to respond (‘interaction’ level) to that information, for example by signing up to an activity. The UK scored highest on e-CD (1.9 on a 5-point scale, 1 means low, 5 means high), Canada came in second, the Netherlands third, the United States fourth, and Sweden fifth. Finally, the commercial diplomacy services provided best via embassy websites were information on trade fairs, on how to establish a business in a host country, market information, export regulations, and import regulations. However, the level of advancedness of these services hardly scores more than 2 on a 5-point scale (1 means low, 5 means high). The relationship ICT, internet, social media and commercial diplomacy is an open territory in terms of research and definitely needs more follow-up.

By Alexander W. Beelaerts van Blokland, Justice in the Court of Appeal and honorary Special Advisor International Affairs of the Municipality of The Hague  For most people outside the diplomatic world diplomacy is something they do not know much about. They see expensive cars with chauffeurs and a CD-registration in the streets of The Hague, they see the ambassadors only with a glass of wine in their hands on photo’s in some newspapers and wonder what kind of work they do. That’s why it was a very good thing that the national Dutch quality newspaper NRC Handelsblad had a four page article on ‘Diplomatenstad Den Haag’ on Saturday November 16^th. The Ambassadors of Kosovo and Spain, the Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Mayor of The Hague, as well as I myself (The Hague’s ‘city ambassador’, the paper wrote) were interviewed for it. I think that the readers of  NRC Handelsblad do now have a much better idea about the important work of diplomacy.   The ambassador of Kosovo H.E. Vjosa Dobruna had been chosen because she had to present her credentials to the King on October 16^th, in the period that the journalist wrote his article. Other new ambassadors who we welcomed were on October 9^th H.E.’s Ms. Liisa Talonpoika (Finland), Mr. Ahmad Mufleh (Jordan) and Ms. Maymouna Diop Sy (Senegal), on October 16^th Mr. Taher Ahmed Farahat (Egypt) and Mr. Roman Kirn (Slovenia), on October 30^th Mr. Ibrahim Sorie (Sierra Leone), Mr. Petar Vico (Serbia) and Mr. Wilson Masilingi (Tanzania) and on November 6^th Mr. Emilian Brenici (Moldova) and Mr. Adani Illo (Niger).   Hopefully they and other ambassadors will learn about the history of our country –in the presence of the King- on Saturday November 30^th on the beach of Scheveningen, because basically with the Landing of The Prince 200 years before, the Kingdom started (in 1815).   a.beelaerts@planet.nl