Young Diplomats

Recent protests around the world have captivated media attention. But they all have one thing in common. They are a response against global austerity, corruption, and a revolt against the establishment. From Iraq to Lebanon to Chile to Ecuador to France to Iran, more and more protests are calling for an end to authoritarian regimes, an end to austerity measures, and an end to the conservative/neo-liberal dominated world order that has been the dominant force of Western politics since 1979. 

 

But why are we seeing these protests? Well, one reason is social media. As social media becomes widespread, old methods of dissident suppression no longer work. This has spread to new information and a fundamental global re-awakening of the structure of the modern globalist society, particular as the global gap between rich and poor, have and have-not, increases. 

 

Even so, the general trend has been a global movement. We today are living in a movement politics era, from issues to climate change to income inequality to sex trafficking to human rights, it is only a matter of time before large-scale protests against the ruling governments occur. 

 

These protests, however, do beg another question that no one is talking about. With the rise of globalization and automation, and the age of the internet connecting more people than ever before, effectively ending traditional borders, one has to wonder, are we seeing the beginnings of the post-capitalist era and enter a true form of global Marxism? 

 

Well, in order to achieve that state of mind one would have to enter a global-wide abolishment of property and of borders and a total-abolishment of government, but in order to do that a global government and global consolidation of property would have to take place first. That is unlikely to happen, especially when a large part of the global movement against austerity also calls for greater individual property ownership when it comes to things like data (United States) and land ownership (South Africa). One can also view the call to end global wealth inequality as a call to end property consolidation. After all, wealth is a form of property, and therefore, the distribution of wealth is another form of distribution of property. 

 

But, a new world order is coming, but this world order will not be dominated by one country, but instead, by a global movement. Where in the past we had the Pax Romana, Pax Mongolica, Pax Britannica, and Pax Americana, in the future we will have the Pax Socialisma. 

 

This also may fundamentally mean the end to superpowers. Gone may mean the days where general events of world affairs were dictated by political and military actions of a few nations over the entire world. Instead, we will have actions decided by ruling ideologies, such as Social Democratic superpower. 

 

Ultimately though, no one knows what the future will hold for the future.

Introduction 

Many authors seem to believe that quiet diplomacy helped to win the cold war, by gently maneuvering behind the scenes. Hence, I argue; if diplomats were able to bring the Soviet Union and the United States back from the brink of nuclear conflict towards détente, and eventually peace. Why can’t they do it with Iran? Or perhaps there’s no chance for quiet diplomacy to serve the common good in our modern times?

The death of “quiet diplomacy” 

In the few hours after an American drone strike in Iraq killed Iran’s most important military leader, Gen. Qassim Suleimani, a question has dominated discussions in the US, the Middle East, Europe, on social media and the rest of the world. Could this lead to war between the United States and Iran? Sometimes we need to step back and look at the bigger picture in order to get the right answer, of course, the Greater Middle East region has remained for years trembling from the struggle of regional and global influence between major powers. However, the current developments have led to dramatic changes in the strategies and mechanisms of those superpowers seeking for influence in the region, while some countries are used to direct engagement in military confrontations of war on terror, other western countries took a different approach on their foreign policies. The so called “silent diplomacy” countries preferred to deepen their cultural presence, develop their soft communication with countries of the MENA region, while expanding their diplomatic efforts to search for political solutions to the region’s chronic crises and provide support to many Arab governments and other legitimate political institutions in countries such as Iran, Libya, Yemen and Iraq in order to be able to open a new political paths and eventually establish a post-war era on terror and reconstruction strategies.

In a related paradox, some may argue that killing of Suleimani makes the world safer, but I think that direct confrontation between Washington and Tehran remains probable in the foreseeable future, as long as diplomacy was working with Iran until president Trump abandoned it. I totally agree with John Kerry when he said that president Trump puts the US on a path toward conflict and turmoil with Iran. He concluded that ”We have too often forgotten that the United States should never go to war on a lark, for a lie or a mistake. We have also seen the divisions over Vietnam and Iraq tear at the fabric of life in our country. Yet now, young Americans are again worrying that they might have to die because their political leaders did not exhaust or even explore, but rather abandoned the possibilities of diplomacy. Our diplomacy should not be defined by bluster, threats and brinkmanship, tweets or temper tantrums, but by a vision for peace and security addressing multiple interests of the region.’’ Kerry said.   

This is not a wistful argument but a plea!

This is not a wistful article but a plea, we must end the obsession with creating new “types” of diplomacy as quiet diplomacy has an important role in addressing the root causes of any conflicts; countries like India, Japan, China, Scandinavia, Sweden, Denmark, Hungary and perhaps Singapore are the most countries that follow quiet diplomacy strategy in our modern time by means that differ according to the orientations of each country and the nature of their political system in it. Those countries place greater importance on soft cultural and economic presence in order to embrace and support diplomatic initiatives.  

In taking the long-term view; I also agree with Knut Vollebaek, who believes that quiet diplomacy is needed in modern times. In his address to the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly’s Winter Session 2012; he stressed that in an environment where the political attention spans are short and where superficial changes too often pass for real, “I believe it is of fundamental importance that we do not allow ourselves to forget that the root causes still need to be addressed. And it is here that I see a valuable role for the quiet, old-school diplomacy of my Institution.” Vollebaek emphasized.

We are left to ponder another paradox, even thought we view U.S. as a top ally in many countries around the globe, and in the MENA region particularly– but others view it as a threat today. Jeffrey A. Engel, an American history scholar and director of the Center for Presidential History at Southern Methodist University, argued that Trump should try quiet diplomacy as Bush 41 did. He explained that Trump is unlikely to adopt Bush’s style, but would do well to adopt the key to his diplomatic success: the ability to keep quiet. The world changed on Bush’s watch. Freedom blew through Eastern Europe, South Africa and even China — until Tiananmen Square. An American-led coalition liberated Kuwait from Iraq. Most important of all, the Cold War’s end upended the international order in place since 1945. Wars typically follow such tectonic changes.

Engel concluded by redefining one of the key terms of his argument that Bush read history differently, he had already achieved the American presence he valued most. ”His diplomatic success epitomized the very internationalism Trump despises, favoring different roles and goals for the nation at a moment when few perceive the world going Washington’s way. Having never berated or belittled his counterparts, having defused rather than catalyzed tensions, and having kept the details of his negotiations private until complete, Bush did more than just talk. He had the confidence to keep behind the scenes and away from the spotlight. The art of the deal, his record shows, is best done quietly.’’ Engel emphasized

Quite diplomacy not confrontation

Most important, by killing Suleimani, the Trump Administration has risked a large-scale confrontation, more unpredictable conflict, which could flare in many places around the globe and in many ways; the United States is likely to face a dilemma. It can continue to stay in the Middle East with relatively limited force deployments in Qatar, Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan and thus be vulnerable to Iranian attacks, as Tehran often works through terrorist groups, militias and other proxies to advance its interests abroad. I believe now is the right time to give quit diplomacy a chance, if president Trump really desires a foreign policy legacy as grand as Reagan  who charted a new course of dual-track diplomacy with Kremlin leaders, now is the time to think big and change course as dramatically as Reagan did.

If we look closely at the changing diplomatic landscape, I think that the role of quiet diplomacy in the Greater Middle East is increasing significantly, and it will witness a greater expansion in the coming years, it can establish a new relationship in the future between western countries and the MENA region based on principles that differ from the old vision that prevailed over the past two centuries, which was based on a unilateral colonial principle.

We have seen countries that intervene militarily directly in war on terrorism are forced to side with local or regional political parties or groups at the expense of other groups, which make them vulnerable to criticism and weaken their position after the end of their military confrontations. Moreover, it also makes the peoples of the region take a negative attitude towards such countries. Countries like India, China, Japan, Norway, Denmark and Sweden seem to be more accepted by the region’s citizens, as a result of their refusal to military interventions in the region and the adoption of soft diplomacy, which strengthens the power of their future existence and contributes to the growing role in all levels; politically, economically and culturally.

Constructive engagement as an effective conflict resolution strategy

It is well known that quit diplomacy countries are seeking to find political settlements in conflict areas to create the right atmosphere for moving from conflict furnace to the path of global collaboration and peace, by addressing the causes of each threats they face, particularly illegal migration, refugee flows and cross-border terrorism. The critical global issues of the Middle East region have gained special attention from three Scandinavian countries (Norway, Sweden and Denmark), remarkably during the past few years, which was embodied in indicative indicators such as the establishment of dialogue and cooperation institutes, allocation of programs for the Danish-Arab partnership, and opening of centers for Middle East studies inside a Swedish university, hosting a new round of dialogues for parties to the Yemeni conflict, directing financial allocations to support future Libyan local elections, and supporting non-governmental organizations that aim to assist conflict-affected populations such as the internally displaced refugees through the provision of local integration or resettlement, in addition to increasing financial incentives for refugees who leave the country and return to their home countries.

Many countries of quit diplomacy seek to develop their cultural rapprochement through dialogue institutes and partnership programs that seek to build partnership relations in the field of democracy and economic development. Dialogue institutes and cultural centers of these countries work to support cultural rapprochement and proximity to the peoples of each region. Hence, countries that adopt quit diplomacy strategy have wide acceptance in our modern world, and their image has been entrenched in the literature of international relations as they are peaceful democratic countries that adopt neutrality policy and avoid engaging in conflicts in different regions of the world. And that’s why we see today there are lines of communication open to Tehran via Oman, Japan or through the Swiss embassy – which perhaps, it is the only formal conduit for communications between Tehran and Washington today.

American Political Scientist and the author of The Clash of Civilization and The Remaking of world Order Professor Samuel P. Huntington hypothesized that ‘in the post-cold war world, the major conflicts would be no more among the nation-states, but among the cultures/civilizations’. According to his thesis, the geography of modern world is appeared in eight cultural entities which are Western, Orthodox, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, African, Latin American, Sinic, and Japanese. He argued that the primary axis of conflict in future would be along these cultural lines. Taking in view the current development at the eve of 2020, the assassination of Iranian major general Qasim Soulemani has led to rethink the thesis of the clash of civilizations. If the tensions between US and Iran are converted into a full-fledged war, this war would not be merely fought between the two, but would be appeared as a cultural war that would be fought between two civilizations: Islamic and Western. The rise of a bloc between Iran, Turkey, Malaysia, Qatar and Pakistan has united the Islamic Civilization that can be a major force of conflicts in this decade. It is realism that the interest of every state varies from others but the forces like culture and civilization brings them all on a one page. However, if the war erupts between US and Iran, it would truly be a global conflict. The sour relations between US and Iran are not newer; it has a history of almost 40 years. But the diplomatic relations torn apart when President Trump, unilaterally, withdrawn from the so-called JCPOA also known as the Iran Nuclear Deal signed between Iran and the major global powers. However, due to Iran mutual understanding with China, Russia and EU countries, it remained loyal to the deal. But soon after an illegal assassination of Iranian general by violating the sovereignty of Bhagdad, Iran has also appeared to be no more committed with nuclear deal. According to some nuclear research agencies, Iran is just a few considerable distance away from having uranium enriched weapons. And yes, it is obvious that nuclear weapons are threat to the world peace more than its work of deterrence. In a retaliation of drone strike that killed Iranian general, Iran launched 12 ballistic missiles on US military bases in Iraq that resulted in no any US troop’s causalities, but 176 innocent lives. So, it reflects Iran is not so much secure to have nuclear weapons at the moment as it has affiliation with major military organizations in the region. At the end, the peace of the world is in the hands of radical leaders, they the people who can get them out of power. US and Iran must look forward towards table to deescalate the crisis in order to avoid a civilization warfare.

 The President Rohani said his country is now enriching uranium at a higher level than before the nuclear deal restricted that activity — an assertion that is likely to anger both the Trump administration and the administration’s critics.

That’s because highly enriched uranium can be used to make a nuclear bomb.

Trump has said repeatedly that he will not allow Iran to develop nuclear weapon on his watch, so the White House is likely to see Rouhani’s statement as a clear provocation.

But Trump also pulled the US out of the 2015 nuclear deal, which many experts believe was the most effective way to prevent Iran from achieving a bomb. Critics of that decision, and of the Trump administration’s broader “maximum pressure” strategy toward Iran, are thus likely to see Rouhani’s announcement as further evidence of the wrongheadedness of that approach.

Both are right, to some degree. Rouhani’s statement is certainly provocative. But it’s also a direct consequence of the US pulling out of the nuclear agreement — as Rouhani himself made clear.

“In response to the US’ withdrawal from its obligations, we decided to reduce our commitments step by step,” Rouhani said in his address at a meeting with the Islamic Republic’s Central Bank on Thursday.

It’s important to note that Rouhani’s statement doesn’t mean Iran is moving to build a nuclear weapon. It’s still roughly a year away from obtaining a bomb if it decided to start building one, and its enrichment thresholds are still far below what is required to make a successful device. What’s more, the Iranian regime has never actually come out and said it wants to build a nuclear weapon.

There’s also another reason to remain calm: Rouhani could be, and likely is, overhyping the situation. “Iran is currently operating only a fraction of the centrifuges it had pre-JCPOA,” says Henry Rome, an Iran expert at the Eurasia Group international consulting firm, using the initials for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the formal name of the nuclear deal. “Iran is prone to exaggeration about its nuclear capabilities when it talks to domestic audiences.”

Elana DeLozier, a nuclear weapons expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy think tank, tweeted Thursday afternoon that Iran would almost need to quadruple its production in just a month’s time.

The only way to know if Rouhani is telling the truth is after a report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the world’s nuclear watchdog, on Iran’s nuclear compliance comes out next month.

Why would Rohani send such a message ?

The 2015 nuclear agreement between Iran and the US, European powers, and China put tight restrictions on Tehran’s nuclear efforts in exchange for sanctions relief. The Obama administration’s goal was to block Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon diplomatically, instead of by force, and it effectively persuaded Iran with financial incentives to do so. 

But Trump withdrew America from the deal in May 2018, reimposed burdensome financial penalties on Iran, and pushed European countries to cease their business with the country. That led Iran to lash out by force — such as bombing oil tankers in international waters — and by provocatively restarting its nuclear work.

On Tuesday, France, Germany, and the UK — the three Western European powers in the agreement — formally complained that Iran was no longer abiding by its end of the bargain. “We have therefore been left with no choice, given Iran’s actions, but to register today our concerns that Iran is not meeting its commitments under the JCPoA,” read their joint statement. Should they over time choose to withdraw from the deal, too, then it dies.

Rouhani’s message, experts say, could be interpreted as a signal to those European nations: stay in the deal and we’ll abide by the limits, or else.

Rome, however, believes Rouhani’s was intended mostly for a domestic audience. “The JCPOA didn’t hold us back” is what the Iranian president was conveying, he told me, which would make it look like Iran didn’t suffer any nuclear setbacks. That, however, remains to be seen.

The most important person to hear what Rouhani said may in the end be Trump. If he feels Iran is inching closer to a bomb, he may choose to place more economic sanctions on Iran or, less likely, authorize a military strike. Which makes Rouhani’s statement, and Iran’s decision to further enrich uranium, quite the gamble: It could pressure other nations to back down, or otherwise escalate already roiling tensions.

Source

This article was first published on another website. Here’s the link towards this website : https://www.vox.com/world/2020/1/16/21069361/iran-nuclear-uranium-enrichment-rouhani-trump

Introduction

Russia has promised greater support for parents as the country continues to struggle with a low birth rate.e

“We have to help young people, those who want a family life and are dreaming about children,” President Vladimir Putin said in an annual address to lawmakers.

Countries need to have a birth rate of at least 2.1 children per woman to sustain the population, but the average figure in Europe is about 1.59.

According to the UN, two-thirds of countries in Europe have introduced measures to increase fertility rates, from baby bonuses and tax incentives to paid parental leave, with varying degrees of success.

What did Putin promise ? 

President Putin says that Russia’s birth rate is currently at 1.48 women per children. While this is a significant increase from 1999, when the figure fell to 1.16, Mr Putin hopes to raise the level to 1.7.

Under the proposals, first-time mothers would be eligible to receive maternity benefits previously paid only to women with two or more children.

Welfare benefits would also be paid for children aged three to seven in low-income families, and free school meals would be provided for the first four years of school.

Last year, Mr Putin promised tax breaks for bigger families.

A one-off “maternity capital” payment, currently worth £5,800 ($7,600; €6,800), was introduced for families with two or more children in 2007 under a 10-year programme.

Demography expert Prof Evgeny Yakovlev told BBC Russian that the move had temporarily increased the number of families with two children but added that financial uncertainty subsequently led to another fall in the birth rate.

The situation in Italy 

Like Russia, the Italian government has tried its own financial incentives to encourage couples to have more children.

But an €800 payment per couple per birth, launched in 2015, does not appear to have led to significant changes: Italy still has one of the lowest fertility rates in the EU, with 1.3 children per woman.

Anne Gauthier, professor of comparative family studies at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, told the BBC that such cash policies “usually have very little impact on the fertility rate”.

She says that while they may lead to a small increase in birth rates in the short term, with some people choosing to have children earlier, “it doesn’t translate at the end of the day to a higher fertility rate. They have been used in a lot of countries and we see the same pattern”.

In the case of Italy, the failure of the incentive may be related to the fact that one-off payments fail to address underlying issues such as social attitudes – an important factor in a country with less than 50% of women in work – or large levels of emigration.

The audacious policy of France

Although its birth rate has fallen in recent years, France still has one of the highest fertility rates in the EU with 1.92 births per women, according to World Bank figures from 2017.

A report published by France’s national institute for demographic studies, Ined, describes the country as a “demographic exception” to the lower birth rate across much of Europe.

Prof Gauthier says that reasons for France’s success in this area could be the range of social policies on offer.

Some countries, she notes, have introduced new benefits that do not balance out the negative impact of other policies, such as tax rates, on families. But “for decades, France has has a Ministry of Families that’s responsible for this package”, she says.

The country has extensive social policies, which provide subsidised child care for younger children and a generous benefits system “especially for larger families”, according to the European Commission.

Families with two or more children receive benefits of at least €131.55 per month and means-tested grants are available, including a payment of €944.51 given at the birth of each child for eligible families.

The policy of Sweden

Similar successes are seen in Scandinavian countries, with an average of 1.9 children per woman in Sweden according to the World Bank’s 2017 figures.

The European Commission says that female and maternal employment rates in the country “are among the highest in the EU, and child poverty is among the lowest”, while parents are given a monthly allowance of up to 1,573 krona (£128; $167), which increases when the child reaches 11 and then 15.

Generous family and social benefits may play a role in their success. Swedish parents are also entitled to 480 days of paid parental leave to share between them, with men claiming about 30% of all leave.

Childcare is also subsidised and working hours are lower in Sweden than in many other countries. In 2018, the average Swede worked 1,474 hours, about 500 hours fewer than the average Russian.

But Prof Gauthier does note that even Scandinavia has begun to see a fall in its fertility rates, showing that the real key to higher birth rates remains unclear.

“With Scandinavia we thought they had got it right… until about last year when their fertility rate started to decline,” she said.

Sources

Here’s the original link towards the website where the article was first published: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51118616

Introduction 

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said Turkey would not refrain from “teaching a lesson” to Libyan renegade general Khalifa Haftar if his forces continue attacks against the internationally recognised government in Tripoli.

Erdogan’s remarks came on Tuesday when Turkey and Russia failed to convince Haftar to sign a binding truce to halt his nine-month campaign to try to conquer Libya‘s capital.

The initiative was the latest attempt to stabilise the North African country beset by turmoil since the toppling of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011.

Fayez al-Sarraj, who heads the Tripoli-based government that is recognised by the United Nations, signed the truce proposal after indirect talks in Moscow on Monday. However, Haftar left the Russian capital on Tuesday without signing.

The Russian defence ministry was quoted by Interfax news agency as saying Haftar had been positive about the ceasefire deal and was taking two days to consider it.

But Erdogan said Haftar had “run away”.

Turkish forces 

Earlier this month, Turkey’s parliament voted to allow a troop deployment to help the Tripoli government to fend off Haftar, who is backed by the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Jordan and Russian mercenaries.

“If the putschist Haftar’s attacks against the people and legitimate government of Libya continue, we will never refrain from teaching him the lesson he deserves,” Erdogan said in a speech to his AK Party legislators in parliament.

“It is our duty to protect our kin in Libya,” he said.

Erdogan said Turkey had deep historical and social ties with the North African country and that Haftar would have taken over the entire nation if Ankara had not intervened.

Turkey will join Germany, the UK and Russia at a summit on Libya in Berlin on Sunday, he said.

Erdogan said the issue would now be discussed at talks in Berlin attended by European, North African and Middle Eastern countries, as well as the UN, EU, Africa Union and Arab League.

“The putschist Haftar did not sign the ceasefire. He first said yes, but later, unfortunately, he left Moscow, he fled Moscow,” Erdogan said. “Despite this, we find the talks in Moscow were positive as they showed the true face of the putschist Haftar to the international community.”

Haftar’s office and his forces have not officially confirmed the commander rejected the truce proposal, but a website linked to the forces said he would not sign.

Haftar and al-Sarraj did not meet in Moscow directly, talking instead via Turkish and Russian mediators.

Previous talks 

The pair last met in Abu Dhabi in February 2019 before talks broke down over a power-sharing deal and Haftar moved his troops on Tripoli in April, after expanding his control beyond the east and south.

In June, Serraj told Reuters News Agency he would never sit down with Haftar again.

Conflict in Libya has wrecked the economy, disrupted oil production and triggered flows of migration to Europe that have now largely been stemmed.

Haftar’s troops have not been able to breach Tripoli’s defences but have in recent weeks made some small advances with help from Russian mercenaries, residents say.

That has pushed Turkey, which has business interests in the country, to deploy soldiers to Libya to help the Tripoli government.

Source

This article was originally published on another website. Here’s the link : https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/01/erdogan-refrain-teaching-lesson-haftar-200114172918040.html

Since the UN came into existence in 1945, the organization has proved to be an extremely effective tool to prevent peace and the raise of new conflicts around the world. Among the UN most significant achievements it is worth remembering its involvement in the Korean War (1950-1953) and the Persian Gulf War (1991), where it authorized the international coalitions that fought in both. Additionally, the UN served as a hub for mediation during the Arab-Israeli conflict, whose intervention lead to numerous peace accords and kept the tension localized in the Middle East. During the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, the UN was used as a platform by the United States to challenge the Soviet Union’s placements of nuclear missiles in Cuba. Overall, the UN military forces provided by member states have carried out more than 35 peacekeeping missions which enhanced the level of security and mitigate conflicts. For this exceptional commitment, the UN Peace-Keeping Forces received the Nobel Prize for Peace in 1988. But the UN also demonstrated to be an essential pillar to foster a deeper understanding of human rights and promoting improvements linked to the health of people, such as in the case of the creation of the UNICEF, the aid provided to refugees and the support given to end the apartheid in South Africa.

Without this kind of mediation from the UN, these tensions would have otherwise resulted in endangering the population in an escalating threat for the entire world. Despite these successes, the UN has also been subjected to some criticism, for instance after the Somali civil war, the Rwandan genocide and the Rohingya Crisis in Myanmar. Taking this into account, the UN recognizes that, in order to better acting in accordance with the founding principles, it is essential to find more ways to expand its action worldwide. For this reason, the organization has officially launched a new initiative called ‘UN 75’, the biggest ever global conversation on the role of international cooperation in building the future everyone is hoping to have.
Announced by UN Secretary General António Guterres, the project aims to gather the voices of various people from different backgrounds who will share their ideas and visions for shaping a more inclusive and safe world by 2045. Created to mark the UN seventy-fifth anniversary that will occur in 2020, ‘UN 75’ represents an outstanding chance to connect the worldwide population inside a network that allows the participants to imagine future scenarios based on their past experiences and current perspectives. In this way, the whole society is considered, and even groups that are often unheard in global affairs such as people with disabilities or refugees can exchange opinions that are useful to source solutions for collective actions.

Joining the dialogue is quite simple and can be done online with campaigns or surveys, offline, in formal or informal ways and in many settings, from parliaments to classrooms, from halls to villages. What the ‘UN 75’ hopes to achieve is to find an answer to matters that are crucial to improve international relations, such as what should be the role of governments, businesses, civil society and individuals. A special emphasis will be placed on the thoughts of youth and marginalized groups to listen to their proposals and concerns. Consequently, the role of ‘UN 75’ will be twofold: being able to inspire a broader civic engagement throughout the various communities of the world and to build a more robust and reliable organization at the same time. In fact, especially in recent years there have been many calls to push the United Nations to reform itself, from the Security Council’s membership to bureaucracy. Moreover, in many countries public trust in institutions is declining rapidly and relations between nations are under strain. In addition to this, global challenges continue to be daunting. Examples include fighting climate change, reducing poverty and discrimination, attain an higher level of democratization and making access to education wider. Under these circumstances, it is not surprising that dialogue is urgent. In this sense, the ‘UN 75’ initiative will function as a global reality check to spark conversations around. In fact, only through encouraging public debate the UN can become more aware of the hopes and fears of people, as well as monitoring possible threats that could compromise a secure and peaceful world.

The results generated by ‘UN 75’ will form a group of data captured by innovative streams. The outcome may inspire new programs, investments, partnerships and campaigns.
Despite recent difficulties, the UN is proving another time to be a key actor to in the international scene, since the main idea behind the project is that no country or community could be able to solve the complex problems of the globe alone. Rather, the world keeps needing an institution such as the UN, which is continuing to engage tirelessly to reach goals such as fostering cooperation between nations and guarantee to every individual a more stable and secure world.

The energy security dilemma facing Europe is likely to worsen as the effects of climate change materialise in the Arctic Circle. The balancing act between securing consistent and reliable supplies of energy while limiting Europe’s Russian gas dependency will only become more difficult as Russian energy exploration in the Arctic expands. Until recently, thick sea ice and narrow maritime corridors have made energy extraction in the Arctic an expensive endeavour. However, rising global temperatures as a result of increasing CO2 emissions have seen ice coverage reduce substantially, exposing the regions vast reserves of oil and natural gas resources.

The Arctic Circle contains an estimated one third of the world’s undiscovered natural gas resources, of which 60% is claimed by Russia as part of its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). As melting sea ice accelerates, Russia is in pole position to benefit from access to the vast amounts of energy reserves, and in the process further solidify its stranglehold on European energy markets.

Russia wields significant power over European energy markets. Close to one third of Europe’s natural gas needs are imported from Russia, with at least 14 European countries importing more than 50% of their gas from Russia, something which has frequently caused headaches for European powers. Russia has repeatedly leveraged Europe’s energy vulnerabilities to further its own strategic interests and apply political and economic pressure on weaker European nations. Disputes between Russia and Ukraine have resulted in disruptions of Russian energy supply into Ukraine, the main transit route for Russian natural gas. Central and Eastern Europe along with the Baltic States are particularly vulnerable to energy supply disruptions from Russia and In 2011, the European Commission accused Russian energy company Gazprom of abusing its role as a monopoly in Eastern European gas markets by hindering cross-border gas flow and setting different prices in each state.

Russian hydrocarbon exports to Europe would increase further with Russian energy extraction in the Arctic, granting it even greater control over the European energy market and exacerbating already fractious EU-Russia energy relations. Exploiting the Arctic’s natural resource potential is seen as one of Russia’s main strategic priorities as it attempts to bolster its economic and social development. Russia has offered billions of dollars’ worth of tax cuts to companies pursuing energy extraction in the region in the hopes of advancing Arctic infrastructure projects.

Europe is well aware of its need to diversify its energy supply. Poland and the Baltic states have begun purchasing shipments of United States liquefied natural gas and constructing LNG terminals in the hopes of reducing dependence on Russian gas exports. However, gas imports from the U.S. are significantly more expensive than pipeline gas from Russia. Most states already have well established cross-border infrastructure pipelines with Russia, something which the U.S. is lacking. Western European energy companies have also partnered with Gazprom to expand the Nord Stream pipeline, allowing gas to be supplied to Europe from Russia via the Baltic Sea, further reducing the appeal of American LNG.

Russia has stated it is committed to expanding its resource base in the Arctic to improve its economic development and offset poor oil and gas production output in Western Siberia. Should it be successful in engaging in sustainable and cost-effective energy exploration in the Arctic as a result of melting sea ice, Russia will begin to play an even greater role in European energy markets. European states must be aware that while Russian energy extraction in the Arctic Circle would lead to greater energy security, it also carries with it significant geopolitical and strategic implications.

Introduction

A painful memory 

It is only the latest dispute between the two Slavic nations over how to remember the war.

Poles remember being invaded by both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union at the start of a conflict that left 6 million dead. Warsaw considers both powers to have been aggressors who unleashed suffering and death.

Russia focuses on the Soviet sacrifices that came after Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, which brought the Soviets into the war on the side of the Allies. Some 27 million Soviet citizens died in the fight to free Europe from Nazi terror.

Putin has been lashing out in recent days against a resolution adopted by the European Parliament that says that the Soviet Union bears responsibility for World War II. Putin has called that “sheer nonsense.”

The war began days after Adolf Hitler and Soviet dictator Josef Stalin agreed to carve up Poland and the Baltic states based on a secret protocol in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact they signed on Aug, 23, 1939.

Putin has been casting the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty as a move the Soviet Union was forced into following nonaggression agreements some other European nations had signed with Hitler.

A Western collusion ?

He cited a 1938 agreement reached by Germany, Britain, France and Italy that allowed Hitler to annex Czechoslovakia as an example of Western leaders’ alleged “collusion” with Hitler.

Putin cited archive documents that he claimed show the Polish ambassador to Berlin praising Hitler’s plans to rid Europe of Jews.

In an angry outburst, Putin denounced the ambassador as a “scum” and “anti-Semitic swine.”

Introduction

Prof. Hasjim Djalal is widely known as Indonesia’s foremost expert on the law of the sea – he also served as Indonesia’s ambassador to Canada and Germany. Prof. Djalal initiated the track 2 Workshop process in the early 1990’s, which succeeded in getting all the South China Sea claimants to discuss their issues. FPCI sent our researcher Calvin Khoe to talk to Prof. Djalal regarding the latest row between Indonesia and China over the North Natuna sea and on the South China Sea Dispute in general.

Q: Pak Hasjim, Jakarta and Beijing are now having a spat over the incursion of Chinese fishing vessels into the North Natuna waters. Is China claiming parts of the Indonesian Natuna waters? Why are these claims, including from ASEAN claimants, so difficult to resolve?

H: From the very beginning, we had already asked everyone else in ASEAN – what actually are you claiming in the South China Sea? We also asked the same thing to China as well, but China doesn’t usually answer that question.

Q: But we know that they claimed the Nine-Dash Line.

H: The Nine-Dash Line is also one of the things that we asked. The Nine-Dash Line has been changed so many times in the past and we asked them, what are you actually claiming with this Nine-Dash Line? Is it a territorial claim in that the sea, the islands, the rocks, the reefs, the fish and everything inside of this line are claimed by the Chinese? So, is the Nine-Dash Line a territorial claim or is it simply a claim of history in the nature that China has, in the past, played a very important part in that Nine-Dash Line claim. There is not a very clear answer from China.

Q: China says her claim has already been there long before the UNCLOS – is that true?

H: Oh yes, in the past. They say that it’s been there in history. What we still don’t know is that are you claiming territorial rights because of that, or are you only claiming some jurisdictions? Or are you claiming some interests only? It’s not very clear,  but throughout the process, it appears that they are claiming this as territorial. But where are the limitations of those claims of “territorial”? The Nine-Dash Line is not very clear on that either because we  have asked them  from time  to time,  how do  you define  the Nine-Dash Line? What are the coordinates of those lines? Are those straight lines, or line yang bengkok bengkok (editor: bending in many parts)? If it is a straight line, how do you connect one point to the other? There is no clear explanation of that.

Q: In your opinion, Pak, we know that China has not been clear and they also do not say much when asked. Why is that? Why do they never talk in detail about the Nine-Dash Line?

H: (Laughs) Sometimes I joke about it, you know. In my personal view, they’re following some kind of Chinese philosophy – the Sun Tzu philosophy. The philosophy says that if you cannot convince your friends of your own views, just confuse them. Because every time someone asks them these questions, the answers are usually not very clear, you know.

Q: So, how do we deal with the Chinese?

H: … I am thinking that since our relations with China have gone on for centuries, we could still develop a good kind of understanding. But again, that is not easy to do. It especially depends on what the governments want on both sides. The government of Indonesia does not know how to confuse China – we don’t have any Sun Tzu doctrine. (Laughs)

Q: Pak Hasjim, out of curiosity, we know that it has been there – the claim and the narrative. Throughout the Chinese administrations, do you see any changes of tones or behavior or do you see that they have remained consistent over the decades?

H: So my view is that slowly it appears that what the Chinese are claiming in the South China Sea are the features, the rocks, the islands, the reefs, and whatever rights they may have under the international law. So they may have the right of the territorial sea, they may have the right on the continental shelf, they may also have the right on economic zones. But the question would be then, how do these small little rocks have territorial rights to become an eligible area of the sea? They are claiming territorial rights of the rocks, and the rocks they claim would have territorial rights according to the Law of the Sea – like the territorial sea, the economic zone, the continental shelf and so forth. What’s worse than the rocks are the reefs underwater – that can be made for reclamation, like Japan did.

Q: Japan also did this? They did reclamation on the reefs and said that it’s their territorial right?

H: Yes, in the Pacific Ocean, but it was not recognized internationally because they are not rocks – it is artificial. It is a very detailed legal issue. So my feeling is what the Chinese are claiming as territorial rights are those islands, rocks, and features within the Nine-Dash Line. So now the question would then be – if assuming they have the rights over those features, what kind of rights do those features have over the sea?

Q: Are the islands, rocks, and features in the sea well defined in UNCLOS?

H: Yes, it is defined in UNCLOS. I say, what is the difference between rocks and islands? Rocks, for instance, cannot have maritime zones; they can only have maritime safety areas. Territorial rights have a limit and have territorial sea, and also the economic zone. There are some conditions of the Law of the Sea, for instance, islands can sustain human habitation and rocks cannot. You cannot live on rocks.

Q: So if it is clearly stated in UNCLOS, why is China’s response still this way?

H: For political reasons. I think they like to have control of the South China Sea, and I also think it is to make it difficult for the United States to move as freely as possible in the South China Sea.

For Indonesia, we are only asking questions. We keep asking questions like, how do you define the Nine-Dash Line? What are the coordinates? How do you connect one line with the other? But they never answer. The answer that China keeps saying to Indonesia is that they don’t claim Natuna, they know Natuna belongs to Indonesia. They are doing it not only on Natuna, but also the islands like the Spratlys, which are not controlled by China. The Spratlys are controlled by Vietnam and Itu Aba is controlled by Taiwan.

Q: What does “control” mean here?

H: Oh yes, they have some administration and some people there. They claim it belongs to them. For instance, in Itu Aba, I have been there, there is a settlement of people there. The Taiwanese in Itu Aba, for instance, are making it very clear that the island is not rocks, but is an island and that that island can sustain human habitation where they showed us the plantations, the coconut trees, the bananas, the water that is not taken from the sea, and so on. In other words, they are trying to make it look like a real island, in which it is an island. But then they are claiming 200 nautical miles territorial sea from that island – into the economic zone. We asked them about this, and they say islands that can claim 200 nautical miles economic zone or 12 nautical miles territorial sea are those that can sustain human habitation and economic life. I asked: can Itu Aba sustain human habitation? They said yes.

Q: Looking at the timeline, the Philippines sued China in the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) and the verdict disqualified the Nine-Dash Line. At that time, we expected it to become a game-changer, but it seems nothing happened. My question to you as a Law of the Sea expert is, after the verdict of the PCA, was it significant to the situation?

H: Well, China does not recognize the result of this arbitration. If you go to court, you should follow the decision of the court. We went to court also, for instance, for the Sipadan and Ligitan case, despite the fact that some of us objected to go there before. But then the government decided to go to court and we followed the decision of the court. We lost the case. And when we lose, then what can we do? It belongs to Malaysia now.

And the same thing with this, we hope China, that when they go to the court, they would agree with the decision. But China said that they did not agree to go to court, so the decision of the court is without China. They said the decision made by the court is on the basis of a claim made by The Philippines, and China was not a party to that  dispute. Since the court has no specific interest in it, thus the court has taken a decision on the basis of law. That is why we thought we should respect the decision of the court.

Q: But can we say the court verdict is the only objective international view on the South China Sea?

 

H: Yes, we are not a party of the court decision, but since this is the International Court of Justice that made this decision, then we sort of at least respect it. Therefore in the South China Sea, the Chinese has become much more, how do you say, difficult to understand. Just like Sun Tzu said – “What I want is what I want”. If you agree with it or not, it does not matter to me.

Q: Pak, moving on to today’s tension between Indonesia and China – in the past few days, we know the tension has escalated until the recent development in which military deterrence has become something orchestrated in that area right now and Indonesia has gone through diplomatic channels and also military deterrence. Since the Chinese have responded already, what is your take on this? Do you think Indonesia’s move is correct for this time?

 

H: Of course, Indonesia looks to China with a different kind of vision. We like to see China politically as a friend and as a partner in development and establishing peace and stability in the region as a whole. But on the other hand, not all countries are looking at it like that. Apparently, China in the past, we feel, are looking similar to us. But now suddenly, they may put up national interest ahead of this kind of cooperative relationship. Their national interest may or may not coincide with the views of partnership.

 

So, I think our relations with China have to be developed in a much more positive way, and we are trying to do that. Like developing more kinds of informal process, because not everything can be solved by formal process. Like the workshop that I did, it was an informal process and we kept talking and trying to find out what the other side is trying to do and what can be done. In the end, they have suggested several ideas also, but then the implementation was not easy either.

Q: What were their suggestions?

 H: Like joint development. If you are in a dispute regarding who owns a certain area, develop a joint development between the parties concerned to work together. We tried to do that but then it got stuck with the parties concerned. Who are the parties? China. And who are the others that claimed the area? Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam. When it comes to the implementation, it’s not very easy. Those parties, are they states or companies or corporations? And development on what? On fish? On trees? On bananas? On the environment? On scientific research? On what? It is not easy to determine.

Q: So what do the Chinese suggest?

 

H: The Chinese kept trying to do together a joint development on scientific research. And in fact, Indonesia had suggested – let us do it, if it is difficult to find the place, Indonesia offered an area for joint development on scientific studies like Anambas islands. It is not claimed by anyone, but we are open to it. Joint biodiversity studies for instance. We have Anambas in the southwest, let us do it next time in the southeast. Then the next time in the northeast, northwest, and then central in the Spratlys. We tried to do that. And basically that idea was accepted. In the west, we have done that. We have produced results and it has been published globally. We discovered new resources, new species, and all sorts. So that was one of the most successful joint efforts, which took place back in the early 2000s.

 

The next one we suggested was in the southeast, the Palawan Islands. The process was informal, and participation was academic, non-political and non-territorial claims. But unfortunately, the Philippines sort of changed the process. So instead of an informal process, the Philippines changed it into a formal process. Consequently, the formal process got stuck. China cannot sit down formally with Taiwan. So, many countries withdrew…. an embarrassing and strange decision made by the Philippines at that time. We tried to do it again in the other parts, in the northeast and northwest, but it hasn’t gone anywhere up until now because of that very negative experience.

 

Now everybody talks about joint development all the time, but specifically, we are still trying to look after years, joint development on what? On scientific development, on resource management, on environmental management? Joint development where? On the islands, on the sea, on the rocks? Who is participating? Is it governments, is it companies, is it academic groups? Is it formal or informal? That kind of discussion keeps going on all the time up until now.

 

Q: How strategic is Natuna for Indonesia and Southeast Asia?

 

H: Natuna is very important for Indonesia because it is in the border area. It is also very important because it is the center of communication between Asia and the Pacific. A lot of security issues are involved and it is important for Asia Pacific as a whole because it is in the center. It is a very important place – a strategic location.

Q: Looking to the latest development, people are saying in the media right now, will the tension affect the bilateral relations between Indonesia and China? What is your take on it?

 

As I said, Indonesia and China’s relationship has been going on for centuries. It has not always been very positive but we learn something from that. It is important for us to develop a mechanism and develop a relationship for the benefit of the countries and the benefit of the region as a whole. That kind of possibility is possible, it has been proven before. That is why I was saying – can we again revive the spirit of Soekarno and Zhou Enlai? Can we revive that spirit? At that time, it was the spirit of anti-colonialism. Now, the spirit is not anti-anybody but the spirit for economic development, for making peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific.

 

Q: Pak, if you could suggest a policy to Pak Jokowi in regards to China – like you said about the spirit, finding common ground, and finding cooperative engagement with China, what would you suggest?

 H: As I said there are so many areas that could be discussed. The strategic area of the Indo-Pacific, especially because the President has been talking about the Indo-Pacific all the time now. China is definitely, in my mind, interested in the development of cooperative relationships in the areas some refer to as the “Indo-Pacific”, although the Chinese have not announced support for the Indo-Pacific as a diplomatic concept. They have a lot of interest in the Indian Ocean, they have a lot of interest in the Pacific Ocean, and they have a lot of interest between the two. That kind of possibility is still there. But from time to time as we see today, they take actions that may diminish the interest of doing so in Indonesia. So I hope that this can be overcome.

Q: Pak, how can the Code of Conduct, that is currently still being negotiated, be significant to the process of the South China Sea?

 H: The Code of Conduct is continuing, in fact we have done it before with the Declaration of Conduct in 2002. So the process can go on and it should go on. In my mind, the only problem that I see is, is the Code of Conduct between China and ASEAN or between China and members of the ASEAN countries? Many people are saying this is the Code of Conduct between China and ASEAN – ASEAN as an organization. China said to me, no it is not between China and ASEAN, China has no problem with ASEAN they say. China has a problem with some members of ASEAN. That is why the Declaration of Conduct was signed by those claimant countries. But those are highly technical issues, as long as we can have that Code of Conduct and pursue it, I think we should do it. And I do not think China would make it so difficult for that one.

Q: Are the different perspectives the last remaining challenge?

 H: Yeah, it depends on the Foreign Ministry, I think. When I retired, I was appointed as Roving Ambassador for six years, going around talking to people to find out what can be done. Indonesia has done so with regard to Maritime Boundaries with Malaysia. The President has appointed Eddy Pratomo, Special Envoy of the President, in order to develop and expedite maritime boundary agreements between Indonesia and Malaysia. I have always been thinking but not saying anything, I think the government should also appoint a special ambassador for peacemaking.

Q: Do you mean a peacemaking ambassador directly for the issue of the South China Sea?

 H: No, but that’s one of it. Not only the South China Sea, but there are many other issues that we have. In order to have the Foreign Minister to deal with the issue in a much more concentrated way. Of course she still has all kinds of director-generals and so forth, but to be supported by some kind of an ambassador for peacemaking, I think somehow it will be helpful. But I do not make this suggestion because people will ask who should it be? Then it becomes a political issue. (Laughs)

Q: So the ambassador should circle around the claimant states and try to find some common ground?

 H: Yes, that’s it. I was not an ambassador for peacemaking, but when I retired I became Ambassador-at-Large for six years. At that time, the Foreign Minister asked me to go visit various countries and talk to them about the problem that we had and how to settle it regionally and bilaterally.

Q: Pak, we always say that Indonesia is not part of the claimant states. But considering the tension we have right now, is this the time to say that we are also one of the claimants?

 H: No. We do not have any claim. Our claim is Natuna – not just a claim, but it is already recognized by everyone and we have already established the territorial line. The territorial line has been deposited in the UN and there has been no objection to that from any countries. For that matter, what we are probably missing is how do we establish the boundaries between us and the others, our neighbors? Because one of  the principles of international law that I know is, “Good fences will make good  neighbors. Bad fences will make bad neighbors. No fences will make the neighbors quarrel and fight.”

The South China Sea, the territorial sea has a problem. The exclusive economic zone has no borders, but the continental shelf has borders. We need to continue to develop that. We have been talking with Vietnam on the economic zone after we agreed with Vietnam on continental shelf boundaries. After so many years of discussion, now we are trying to negotiate with Vietnam on economic zone boundaries. We discussed this with Vietnam and one of the reasons why is because Spratly is occupied by Vietnam. So between Spratly and Natuna, we talked about that with Vietnam.

Q: Pak, last two questions, you said before that the Japanese did the same claim like the Chinese did, by making reclamations and saying that they are not violating UNCLOS. Based on that context, do you see any loopholes on the Law of the Sea?

 H: Not in this issue. In other issues, yes there is. We have tried to do that for years. For instance, the exclusive economic zone – under the Law of the Sea – the resources, the management of the environment, and the management of scientific research, belong to the coastal countries. But there is freedom of navigation on the water and in the air above it. That is our quarrel with the Americans because the Americans argue all the time that in the exclusive economic zone they are free to do military exercises. Because they are in the water, they have the freedom of navigation and shipping. So, we should not have any right to regulate the freedom of navigation in the economic zone. That is the American view. In fact, they have quarrels with China all the time on that one.

I think Vietnam, Indonesia, and China have agreed to establish a sort of “code of conduct” in regard to military activities and intelligence-gathering activities in the economic zone, including in its airspace. Because the Convention of the Law of the Sea talks about the freedom of navigation and shipping in the economic zone. America says there is freedom and they are not a party of the UNCLOS. In the negotiations I organized together with other parties in Bali, Shanghai, Tokyo, and Honolulu – in Tokyo, we accepted certain guidelines for military exercises in the economic zone of other countries. In the guidelines, we asked the Japanese to put it to the United Nations, and the US opposed it saying, “No need for any guidelines, freedom of navigation!” That will be a problem.

 

Q: So for that issue, things need to be fixed. But for this issue on South China Sea, are there no loopholes in UNCLOS?

 

H: There is the issue of fisheries. China now is claiming some sort of traditional fishing grounds – they say their fishermen have been fishing there. In the Law of the Sea Convention, and in the negotiation of the South China Sea, we talk a lot about traditional fishing rights. And we respect some of them. For instance, traditional fishing rights of Malaysia around Anambas. But then, there are so many conditions for traditional fishing rights. First, where do the fishermen come from? What kind of fish do they catch? What kind of equipment do they use? What kind of effect does it have on local fishermen? All these things should be discussed. The Chinese never said anything to that.

 

Q: So can we say that the Chinese never go into too much detail on the issue of South China Sea? They say, “Here, this is the Nine-Dash Line” and stop there?

 

H: Are you saying to me again to repeat the Sun Tzu doctrine? (Laughs)

 

Q: Last question, the tension has been there since 2016. The situation was responded by strategically establishing the TNI joint operation Kogabwilhan I in Natuna right now. Moving forward, in all sectors – national security, economy, legal – what would be the strategic policy you suggest?

H: We need to understand basically what are our interests. There are interests of security, interests of territoriality, interests of resources management, of environment management and so forth. We have to formulate our views on those.

 

Q: Are you saying that we are not really clear on our interests on South China Sea?

 

H: Not so much yet. There are many points that are not very clear to us. We will have to work with that, and I think the government should do that. In the end, maybe they  should appoint some kind of special ambassador for this. For example, we have a special ambassador for maritime boundaries, but not so much for the Law of the Sea as a whole, for the implementation of the Law of the Sea. I think we need that.

Q: Thank you Pak Hasjim for talking to FPCI.

 

 

— end of interview —