By Tanya Mehra, ASSER Institute. From 2 – 6 September 2013, the T.M.C. Asser Instituut together with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) will organise the Fourth Annual Summer Programme on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction in a Changing World. There is an increasing demand for professionals in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation of WMDs. The challenges posed to international security by nuclear, chemical and biological weapons are as urgent today as during the Cold War. In the first decade of the 21st Century there is a growing concern for terrorist attacks with WMDs and countries in the Middle East and other turbulent regions continue to develop WMD programmes. In August 2010, the T.M.C Asser Instituut and the OPCW launched the first Summer Programme on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation of WMDs.  In its first three years, the Summer Programme has already established itself as a popular and highly regarded educational resource for advanced graduate students and young to mid-level professional with interests in WMD diplomacy and treaty implementation. One of the aims of the programme is to offer an integrated approach to weapons of mass destruction. The programme will address the non-proliferation and disarmament efforts taken respectively with chemical, nuclear and biological weapons; the more crosscutting aspects will be discussed in high-level panels. The all-encompassing programme seeks to strike a balance between the legal, scientific, diplomatic and military issues relating to the broad spectrum of WMD in our contemporary world. It links the disarmament and non-proliferation efforts and at the same time distinguishes the challenges each individual category of WMDs currently faces. The programme is supported by all the leading treaty-based organizations in the field of WMDs, which makes this programme quite unique. The following institutions contribute to the programme: •    Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) •    Biological Weapons Convention – Implementation Support Unit (BWC-ISU) •    International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) •    United Nations Office of Disarmament Affairs (UNODA) Fellows Program This year’s speakers include, amongst others:  Olli Heinonen, Senior Fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs/Harvard University, Jean du Preez, Chief of External Relations and International Cooperation/CTBTO, Dr. Paul F. Walker, International Program Director of the Environmental Security and Sustainability Program/Green Cross International, Mr. Piet de Klerk, Sherpa of the 2014 Nuclear Security Summit, and H.E. Mr Ahmet Üzümcü, Director-General of the OPCW. This year the Summer Programme will include the following topics:  the future of the OPCW beyond the Third Review Conference, the 2014 Nuclear Security Summit, the UN mission to investigate alleged uses of chemical weapons in Syria, current challenges of the Biological Weapons Conventions, and many others. To complement the classroom content of the Summer Programme, one day will be devoted to field trips to see how WMD treaties are applied in practice:  to the OPCW’s inspection equipment store and laboratory followed by a visit to an inspectable chemical industry plant site; to a nuclear research reactor in Delft, and to TNO, a Dutch defence research organisation, for a live sampling-and-analysis exercise in the context of an investigation of alleged uses of WMD. The field visits will offer participants direct experience in CBRN preparedness and in the way international treaties on WMDs are implemented at the national level. The Summer Programme will provide unique insight into the legal framework of each sub-category of weapons, sound understanding of the distinct characteristics of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and a solid grounding in WMD treaty implementation. “Being passionate about this topic for almost 10 years and having recently graduated, it was a unique opportunity to extend my knowledge on WMD issues, meet great people and discuss with international experts. According to me the programme was absolutely well organized and reached all my expectations and even more. Without any doubts, what I have learned and the contacts that I have made will decidedly determine my future professional life which will be, I hope, in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation of WMD.” Participant in the 2012 Summer Programme on ‘Disarmament and Non-Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction in a Changing World’, S.F., Belgium For more information please contact: Tanya Mehra, Education Manager T.M.C. Asser Instituut educationtraining@@asser.nl

                            Many people view online learning as a second choice, suitable only when face-to-face training is not possible. However, many ministries of foreign affairs are making strategic and intelligent use of online learning for diplomatic training: Canada, USA, the UK, and Mexico are among the larger ones, but the number also includes smaller states like Guyana, and Trinidad and Tobago. For some training needs, online learning may be the best option, offering real advantages. Overcomes geographical challenges: Online learning allows diplomats geographically dispersed at missions all over the world, and in different time zones, to engage in learning, and to do so together with colleagues in different locations. In addition, diplomatic training academies normally have a limited resident faculty; senior officials and other experts can facilitate teaching and training activities via online learning regardless of their location, making better use of available expertise. Optimises available time: The increasing pace of diplomatic work means reduced time for training, and makes it necessary to combine work and learning. Online learning supports this kind of flexibility, allowing diplomats to study whenever and wherever is most convenient for them, without taking time off work. Capitalises on best learning methodologies: Online learning offers flexibility in selecting the most effective methodology for the type of learning objective. Technical matters, for example, can be covered through drill-type exercises (supported by multimedia). At the other end of the scale, where the learning objectives include analysis and application of knowledge (for example, learning how to plan and create a public diplomacy strategy), discussion, interactive and collaborative learning, and simulations support those objectives. Optimises use of resources: Online learning can be cost-effective. Bringing together staff members spread around the world for classroom training can be very expensive, both in terms of travel costs, and the loss of productivity due to time off work. Electronic learning materials can also be quickly shared with learners all around the world (few or many), and easily updated to reflect latest developments. Benefits the environment: By reducing the need for learners located in different places to travel in order to learn together, online learning reduces CO2 output. Views from diplomats At DiploFoundation (a training organisation which has offered online courses on diplomacy for the last 15 years) we recently interviewed alumni members about their experiences studying online, asking what were the key benefits for them. Here are a few excerpts: Ms Setaita Tupua Kalou from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of Fiji enrolled in the online Master in Contemporary Diplomacy offered by Diplo and the University of Malta to meet her needs in terms of distance and flexible learning, content, availability to international students, and affordability. The online programme exceeded her expectations: I did not expect the coverage of some issues to have so much depth. The substantive course content at DiploFoundation was demystified on a number of levels by the lecturers so it was relatively easier for students to understand, yet at the same time, it pushed our traditional boundaries to expand our body of knowledge beyond our comfort zones. Read the full interview. Mr Kevon Swift, business analyst at the Ministry of Science and Technology of Trinidad and Tobago, choose the new Internet Governance specialization within Diplo’s online Master in Contemporary Diplomacy. This option offered the ideal frame for what I would consider to be my disparate pieces of knowledge about the Internet. The wide variety of courses to choose from for the online learning sessions meant that I could tailor the programme to advance my Internet studies while honing my diplomatic skills to match. We asked Kevon if he missed the face-to-face interaction of a traditional classroom-based programme. He responded: The online learning sessions are tremendously interactive, so much so that the one-hour chat sessions seem to be too short at times. While the flexibility offered by the programme was one of the deciding factors for Kevon in choosing to join, he says: The most valuable aspect of the programme has been the sharing and networking opportunities, both at the workshop and during online sessions. Participants come from all around the world and with such a wide variety of backgrounds and experiences that the learning process becomes certainly enriched at the end of the day. Read the full interview. — DiploFoundation is a non-profit organisation based in Malta and Switzerland. Diplo works with a number of ministries of foreign affairs, providing online training to supplement their in-house training programmes. Diplo also offers a Master in Contemporary Diplomacy in collaboration with the University of Malta. For more information about DiploFoundation please see www.diplomacy.edu or write to diplo@diplomacy.edu.

By Roy Lie A Tjam Scores of international organisations have their headquarters in The Hague, a city which has long been an international symbol of  peace and justice. The city’s commitment to these values is more than a symbol, however, it is a mission.  With this in mind, The Hague now hosts a home-grown international institute which was founded in 2011 by the city’s mayor and a team of academic and policy-focused institutions. This organisation is The Hague Institute for Global Justice. The objective of The Hague Institute is to address major global justice issues and, by means of projects, to provide effective solutions with the aim of achieving lasting peace.   The Institute uniquely focuses on the issues at the intersection of peace, security and justice, guided by the principle that security and development cannot be attained without respect for international law and global justice. The President of The Hague Institute for Global Justice Dr Abiodun Williams has been the President of The Hague Institute for Global Justice since January 2013. In his welcome address, Mayor Jozias van Aartsen, chair of the Institute’s board, referred to Dr Williams as a man with great experience, both in the field of international law and at the headquarters of the United Nations, and added that Dr Williams will be an inspiring leader for the young institute. Madeleine Albright, former US Secretary of State and chair of the Institute’s advisory council stated: ‘I have known Dr Williams for more than 25 years as a valued colleague and a friend. I am delighted at this new appointment. He is the ideal choice for this position and will be a tremendous asset to The Hague Institute for Global Justice. Dr Williams is brilliant, talented and an inspiring leader.’ Dr Abiodun Williams is an assiduous conflict prevention expert, having previously served as a peacekeeper in the role of Special Assistant to various Special Representatives of the Secretary-General in Macedonia, Haiti and Bosnia-Herzegovina.  As the Senior Vice President of the Center for Conflict Management at the United States Institute for Peace, he also oversaw that organization’s work in major conflict zones such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq.. On his appointment, Dr Williams said: ‘It is an honour to lead The Hague Institute for Global Justice which has great potential to become an internationally acclaimed think-tank, and a vital force in the challenging but essential task of promoting global peace and justice. I look forward to working with the staff, the Board and the Advisory Council to fulfil the Institute’s promise.’ Dr Williams’ tenure as Director of Strategic Planning in the Executive Office of the UN Secretaries-General, Kofi Annan and Ban Ki-Moon, is a particular highlight of his career. Dr Williams considers the UN to be an indispensable instrument and forum to deal properly with permutations and challenges across the world. One country which provides a tangible example of what the UN is capable of achieving in this arena is Macedonia.  As a result of the timely deployment of a UN preventive mission in the mid-1990s – in which Dr Williams served – the risk of conflict in Macedonia was forestalled, even as the country’s neighbours were blighted by violence. Dr Abiodun Williams, the man Dr Williams, as well as being a peacemaker and educator, loves art, is a smartly-dressed and agreeable man; a global citizen. Peacemaker – his mission to Macedonia was an important one and inspired his belief in the efficacy of preventive action. Global citizen – uses his world knowledge to inform efforts to avert conflicts.   His internationalism has its roots in his secondary education at the Lester B. Pearson College of the Pacific, one of 13 United World Colleges. Educator – he was a team teacher in foreign policy with Madeleine Albright at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service in the United States. He  often delivers speeches including, recently, at the International Institute of Social Studies in The Hague, the University of Leiden and at the Haagse Hogeschool. Preventing conflicts is Dr Williams’s passion and his inspiring publication, The Brilliant Art of Peace, comes highly recommended. Dr Williams holds an M.A. (Hons) from Edinburgh University and an M.A.L.D. and Ph.D. in International Relations from The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, as well as the Dr Jean Mayer Global Citizenship Award from Tufts University.

By Barend ter Haar Thirty years ago, four different institutes in the field of international relations merged to form a new institute: Clingendael. The scope of Clingendael, both a think-tank and a diplomatic academy, working both for the Dutch and the international market, has remained very broad ever since. Clingendael ’s diplomatic academy provides training for incoming Dutch diplomats, the so-called ‘Klasje’, and for diplomats from all over the world, including the Middle East, North Africa, South-Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, China, Iraq and Pakistan. The Clingendael Academy maintains special cooperation and partnership agreements with Indonesia and South Africa, spanning multiple generations of diplomats. The Academy furthermore provides training for officers of other ministries, personnel of the armed forces and employees of NGO’s and the private sector. Most of Clingendael ’s research fellows also work both for a Dutch and for an international audience.  On the national scene, Clingendael publishes the Strategic Monitor and actively stimulates a well-informed debate about Dutch foreign policy, by organising debates, providing comments to the Dutch media and by publishing brief comments. Special emphasis is given to the national debate about the EU, inter alia by means of the website: www.euforum.nl. On the European and international scene, the focus of Clingendael ´s research is mainly directed at energy, security, Europe, diplomacy, Asia and global governance. The results of this research can be found on www.clingendael.nl. The special interest of Clingendael in diplomacy and international negotiations is illustrated by its central role in publishing The Hague Journal of Diplomacy and in the Processes of International Negotiation (PIN) network. Among the subjects on Clingendael ‘s current agenda are the coming Nuclear Security Summit, the future of diplomacy and the reorganisation of the Dutch armed forces. Special mention deserve the Clingendael International Energy Programme (CIEP), a separate entity which conducts research on the international energy markets, and the Conflict Research Unit (CRU) that assists with its research the engagement of governments and NGO’s in fragile and conflict situations. The Institute furthermore publishes the only Dutch language magazine on international relations, the Internationale Spectator and houses the secretariat of the Dutch Association for International Affairs (NGIZ). Clingendael receives a subsidy from the Netherlands government, but it is academically independent. Located in an attractive park, between a Japanese garden and a classic Dutch garden, it is the ideal location for conferences and training sessions.

By Richard T. Griffiths (Associate Editor Diplomat Magazine and Professor International  Studies, LeidenUniversity). In 1990 the American political economist Joseph Nye coined the term ‘soft power’ to describe the ability of a state to attain its goals through diplomacy and persuasion rather than coercion or bribery. The European political scientists have enthusiastically embraced this concept to analyse European foreign policy and the European Union, itself, has persistently employed the concept  to describe and legitimise its approach to the rest of  the World. For the European Union (as an institution and as a collection of separate states) the operationalization of this concept has rested on several supports and we will deal with three of them: –          The preference for dialogue and diplomacy over force, –          The ‘ownership’ of a successful integration model which inspires other nations, –          The propagation of a set of values that promoted democracy and that eschews discrimination and the abuse of human rights, Over the past several months, I have spoken in three conferences dedicated to  Europe – one in Macao and in Beijing, from where I am writing this contribution. Looking at Europe, and hearing others speaking of Europe, from a distance of thousands of kilometres lends a different perspective from that gathered from reading the (academic) literature. The decision by the EU to prefer for dialogue over force would indeed be respected in Asia had it been made by choice. However, the experience of the intervention in Libya and non-intervention in Syria has made manifest two things. First, that  the EU is incapable of making a prompt and united response to crises on its doorstep and that when some countries did intervene militarily, as in the case of Libya, they were incapable of doing so without US strategic and logistical support. In fact the critical dependence on the United States calls into question the ability of  the EU to mount an independent military campaign, even if it chose to do so. The integration model, whereby countries gradually together moved through trade integration to economic  and monetary union, while pooling ever more areas of their sovereignty, has lost much of its gloss sincet the EU has lain in the grips of its currency crisis. The failure to take prompt and effective measures to solve the initial crisis and the deep divisions over longer-term policy have undermined the idea that Europeans controlled their own destiny. Meanwhile the persistence of the crisis and failure of economic recovery has led many to question Europe’s  future position in a dynamic world economy. These two factors have undeniably diminished Europe’s standing in Asia and reduced its moral authority. However, the moral high-ground claimed by Europe always looked higher in Europe that it did in Asia. Europeans may have forgiven themselves their imperial  pasts, and many Asians have forgiven them too, but  that does not mean that they have forgotten. It does not play well in Asia that those who preach democracy and human rights to foreign governments had for centuries blatantly infringed them themselves.   Since Europe’s problems are coinciding with the growing self-confidence in the region, the ‘soft power’ model is starting to lose some of its shine.

 By Marília Maciel, DiploFoundation Political disputes usually take place in multiple and simultaneous battlefields. One of them is the semantic universe: the winning narrative about a controversial fact tends to be predominant in public perceptions and in History books. Therefore, it is understandable that actors invest resources on crafting particular expressions or on making them resound in the collective conscience. In Egypt, the deposition of Mohamed Morsi triggered an ongoing debate on how to label it: was it a coup d’état or a revolution?  The importance of this question goes beyond national politics. It affects the international legitimacy of the current government and it also impacts on concrete policies, such as international aid. The White House and other governments did not take a clear stand on the issue, but if a dominant narrative emerges, they might be compelled to do it. Politicians usually focus their attention on traditional media to identify these emerging trends on public discourse. Interestingly, this time some analysts have also  http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/07/07/the_wikipedia_war_over_egypts_coup
called attention to the lively debate taking place in the backstage of Wikipedia about the title of the article “2013 Egyptian coup d’état”. The attention raised to the discussion in Wikipedia is not misplaced. The platform is currently the  HYPERLINK “http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page”
seventh most visited website worldwide. Many professionals use Wikipedia as a first source of information when they begin their researches on a given topic. In addition to that, unlike traditional media articles, which become old and fade from our memories in a few days, Wikipedia articles are easily retrievable and may have a long lasting repercussion, as they are indexed in the most popular encyclopedia of our time. The outcome of the debates in Wikipedia may have a concrete impact on public discussions, but it is still unclear to many how Wikipedia works. Three core policies establish the framework for the platform: verifiability, no original research (NOR) and neutral point of view (NPOV). The first two are deeply related. Wikipedia is not a platform to share innovative ideas or the outcome of original thought. Its articles should be a summary of the known and relevant information about a given topic, supported by verifiable sources such as books, published academic works or media news. The Neutral Point of View policy means that all opinions about a particular topic should be fairly represented. The discussion of rival opinions should contain no sympathy or bias. Some discussants in Wikipedia argued that the use of the word “coup” in the title of the article about recent events in Egypt is neutral and factual because sources, such as The Oxford English Dictionary, describe a “coup d’état” as an “illegal seizure of power from a government” and most legal analysts agree that this description matches the events that unfolded in Egypt. Other members of the Wikipedia community affirmed, that the title of the article violates NPOV because there is no predominant view on the matter. For the past few days, public opinion and media articles seem to be shifting towards the narrative of a coup and governmental  HYPERLINK “http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/19/uk-revokes-arms-export-licenses-egypt”
violence in Egypt has contributed to that. Consequently, Wikipedia editors decided to keep the current title, which mentions a coup d’état, at least for the time being. Wikipedia discussants will have no problem in finding sources to support whatever view they affiliate themselves to. Traditional media channels, for instance, have made their preferences for the word “coup” or “revolution” very clear from the start. Governments, on the other hand, have avoided taking a clear position. They know the potential political and diplomatic pitfalls of trying to pre-assess the legitimacy of a government. Moreover, the geopolitical importance of Egypt cannot be overlooked. For all that, the words used by particular governments or media channels to refer to recent political events in Egypt are important, but they do not necessarily point the way for achieving neutrality in Wikipedia. At least two conclusions can be drawn from this case. The first is that many of the issues that split opinions in society will also be controversial in platforms such as Wikipedia. However, the enforcement of clear policies like NPOV and the existence of constant peer review create incentives to produce balanced Wikipedia articles. This kind of pressure seems to be missing in traditional media. Wikipedia is, therefore, filling a gap and being increasingly regarded as a relevant source of information. The second conclusion is that, in spite of its growing importance and astonishing popularity, this platform has been practically absent in assessments of the public opinion and in strategies for public diplomacy. Paying attention and contributing to Wikipedia could be particularly  HYPERLINK “http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/wikipedia-diplomats-tool-information-and-public-diplomacy”
relevant for diplomats, professionals who use words as key instruments to produce international reality and who always need to look at a picture from all sides. MariliaM@diplomacy.edu