There is currently an active discussion among UN delegations in New York concerning the way in which the appointment of the next UN Secretary-General will be done in 2016.
The discussions are likely to heat up as many Heads of Government will be coming to New York in late September for a special Summit to adopt the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals. Iran as chair of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) is likely to play a leadership role in the selection process both in the formal and informal negotiations.
Currently, formal discussions are taking place in the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Revitalization of the General Assembly. There is a wide-spread demand that the General Assembly have a greater role in the selection of the Secretary-General. In the past, the negotiations took place in the Security Council, mostly among the five permanent members. Then the General Assembly was only asked to “bless” the selection made within the Security Council. Unease with this usual process comes not so much from the choices made as from the lack of inclusiveness of the process itself. There is an increasing demand that all Member States know who are the candidates, their qualifications, and their vision for leading the UN. This perhaps could be done through a series of presentations and question-and-answer sessions such as those carried out in the European Parliament for the selection of the Commissioners of the European Union. Currently, there is an ad hoc Accountability, Coherence, Transparency (ACT) group of 27 governments meeting in New York which are considering different possibilities such as having a term-limit for the Secretary-General. A non-renewable term of 7 years has been proposed, giving greater scope to implement a vision without pressure from re-election considerations.
But more than just more inclusive selection procedures are involved in the discussions. At this time of trying to set broad sustainable development goals that would set policies for governments and non-governmental organizations many are asking what should be the role for the United Nations in dealing with the changing scene of world politics? What qualities should the Secretary-General and the leadership team around him possess? The Secretary-General, by the UN Charter but especially by history, is accorded a central role. We need a realistic vision of the responsibilities, the potential and the limitations of the UN Secretariat, and the broader leadership of world-level institutions − the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the major Specialized Agencies such as the ILO, FAO, WHO, and UNESCO as well as programs within the UN such as the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the UN Development Programme, and the World Food Programme.
The UN, the financial institutions, and the Specialized Agencies leadership must work together as a team. However, this broad leadership team must also symbolize the diversity of cultures and geographic areas of the world. Increasingly, there is also a need for gender balance, and some women must be visible at the highest level. The team must also symbolize independence, integrity and impartiality.
The United Nations was created, as the League of Nations before it, in the shadow of the destruction of world-wide wars. It was the start of the Second World War that was on the mind of those planning the UN Charter in 1944-1945: a conflict which began with a German aggression across recognized state frontiers of Czechoslovakia and Poland with a formal declaration of war by most of the states involved.
Today, the majority of wars are fought within states, not between them. The United Nations faces the fundamental problem that the UN has no explicit mandate for internal armed conflicts beyond a vague “threat to peace” justification for action within a member state. The UN is a state-based organization with an emphasis on disputes among states and “nonintervention in domestic affairs” because those drafting the UN Charter were not thinking of the promotion of human rights at the national level, nor even of socio-cultural development which, of course, are interventions into domestic affairs.
Preventing intra-state conflicts cannot be done by the UN alone. Prevention and conflict resolution once violence breaks out requires a multi-track approach, harnessing the abilities of a wide range of actors: the UN, regional state organizations, individual states and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Today, many armed conflicts are not fought between competing state formations with clear command structures. State frontiers recognized by the UN are being challenged in pursuit of ethnic aspirations, local and provincial autonomy. Armed conflicts as we see in the Syria-Iraq-ISIS-Kurds conflicts are complex affairs between disparate militia groups with no over-all leadership. In addition, foreign states are involved, sometimes directly or involved through less visible security forces.
The old channels of state-controlled diplomacy with recognized officials are no longer operative in these new settings as we see in the difficulties of knowing who represents what in possible negotiations in the Syria-Iraq conflicts. Peace in such a conflict which is both trans-frontier and internal requires the participation of the internal combatants, external exile political groups, and the representatives of governments with an interest in the outcome.
The UN Secretary-General should be a person who can deal creatively with this changing nature of conflict. She or he must have the political skills to urge governments to give the UN the personnel and financial backing it so badly needs. In addition, the Secretary-General needs the active support of NGOs who have the skills and contacts to develop new approaches to tackling conflicts. Non-governmental organizations are increasingly the real agents of progress in such areas as ecologically-sound development, human rights, relief and health. Harnessing all stakeholders to solve problems is the way forward to mobilize talent and resources.
The UN system is operating in a world of much greater complexity today than when the UN was founded. In order to tackle the range of urgent problems now demanding concentrated attention, the leadership team needs to inspire broad confidence and a willingness to serve the world interest on the part of many. There is a need to improve the level of Secretariat personnel nominated by national governments and to improve the level of UN staff on-the-job trainings. This is particularly true of the UN humanitarian emergency operations. There is also a need to improve co-operation with NGOs and academic institutions.
Top quality UN personnel leadership is essential to address the quality of the UN civil service. Restoring the quality and morale of the UN civil service must start with a change in the attitude of member state governments. Thus to be effective, the UN, its programmes and Specialized Agencies need leadership which can promote world interests without undue influence of individual states. The challenges ahead for the emerging world society require strong and devoted leadership in which the Non-Aligned Movement can play a positive role.
You can’t ask Trump not to use Twitter
Oleg Shakirov, expert of the Center for strategic research and Russian International Affairs Council expert, tells PICREADI about digital diplomacy and how social media affects international relations.
Military Diplomacy as a Hybrid Instrument of National Power
Today’s complex security environment requires the United States to use all of its instruments of power to maintain its status in the world, as well as to protect its own interests and the interests of its allies. Traditionally, the instruments of power are separated into Diplomacy, Intelligence, Military, Economic, Financial, Information, and Law Enforcement, abbreviated as DIMEFIL in nearly every United States military Professional Military Education (PME) school. In almost all cases, the Military is considered the strongest of those instruments of power while Diplomacy is too often give short shrift. However, the continued use of Military Diplomacy offers a hybrid instrument of power to help connect with allies across regions while advancing the interests of the United States. This article will look at military diplomacy as a potential hybrid instrument of national power and how the Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq (OSC-I), under the U.S. Embassy Baghdad and U.S. Central Command utilized military diplomacy to reconnect Iraq with its neighbors in the Middle East.
The current United States National Security Strategy (December 2017) lays out the importance of continuing to engage with our partners and potential allies. It states, “Diplomacy catalyzes the political, economic, and societal connections that create America’s enduring alignments and that build positive networks of relationships with partners.” The Diplomacy and Statecraft section goes on to identify three different types of diplomacy: Competitive Diplomacy, Tools of Economic Diplomacy and Information Statecraft.
Similarly, the Military instrument of national power is mentioned throughout the 2017 National Security Strategy. From protecting the American people to defeating Jihadist terrorists, the military instrument of power is weaved throughout the document. However, there is a gap within the 2017 National Security Strategy. The article attempts to draws a cleaner line between the use of the United States military and its diplomatic efforts. The use of military diplomacy is an important tool not addressed in the National Security Strategy and one that can help bridge this gap.
What is military diplomacy
There is not a standard definition of military diplomacy. Erik Pajtinka defines military diplomacy as,
“A set of activities carried out mainly by the representatives of the defense department, as well as other state institutions, aimed at pursuing the forcing policy interests of the state in the field of security and defense policy, and whose actions are based on the use of negations and other diplomatic interests.” He goes on to define military diplomacy as “a specific field of diplomacy which focused primarily on the pursuit of foreign policy interests of the state in the field of security and defense policy.”
Amy Ebitz, in her paper from the Brookings Institute titled, “The Use of Military Diplomacy in Great Power Competition: Lessons Learned from the Marshall Plan,” states Military diplomacy can also be referred to as “defense diplomacy,” soft power,” “military public diplomacy,” and “strategic communication. Her terms of either defense diplomacy or military public diplomacy align well with the above definition of military diplomacy. However, use of soft power and strategic communications do not. Soft Power, as originally coined by Joseph Nye, refers to, “the ability of a country to persuade others to do what it wants without force or coercion.” This often is accomplished by projecting soft power through companies, foundations, universities, churches, and other institutions of civil society. I would argue soft power falls more in the information instrument of national power and not within the military instrument.
Strategic communications is defined in the International Journal of Strategic Communications as,
“The purposeful use of communication by an organization to fulfill its mission. Six relevant disciplines are involved in the development, implementation, and assessment of communications by organizations: management, marketing, public relations, technical communications, political communication and information/social marketing campaigns.”
Using this definition as a base, military diplomacy does not fit well into these categories of strategic communications.
For the purpose of this paper, Erik Pajtinka’s definition, “A set of activities carried out mainly by the representatives of the defense department, as well as other state institutions, aimed at pursuing the forcing policy interests of the state in the field of security and defense policy, and whose actions are based on the use of negotiations and other diplomatic interests,” will be used to guide this article.
There are three main parts of Pajtinka’s definition of military diplomacy. First, “The activities are carried out mainly by the representatives of the defense department.” This is a critical difference between traditional diplomacy. Rather than traditional diplomats in the lead, different representatives from the Department of Defense are leading these efforts.
Next, the activities are, “Aimed at pursuing the foreign policy interests of the state in the field of security and defense policy.” As with most actions at the strategic level, the activities of military diplomacy must focus on the foreign policy interests of the government. However, a key difference is these foreign policy interests are in the fields of security and defense policy. The focus on these two traditionally military related fields helps clarify where traditional diplomacy ends and military diplomacy begins.
Finally, those implementing military diplomacy conduct their activities, “Based on the use of negotiations and other diplomatic interests.” Unlike other traditional military activities to work with partner nations, military diplomacy leads through negotiations and other diplomatic interests before entering back into traditional military endeavors. This will be explained further in the example of the Office of Security Cooperation-Baghdad’s efforts.
The Department of Defense has a variety of tools available to promote military diplomacy. First and foremost are the Combatant Commanders themselves. These four-star General Officers are responsible for specified geographic regions across the globe. Within each combatant command, the leadership interacts with numerous countries across their footprint. For example, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) has an area of responsibility of more than 4 million square miles, populated by more than 550 million people from 22 ethnic groups speaking over 18 languages. Equally important, CENTCOM partners with 20 nations from Kazakhstan to Egypt. Each United States combatant command has similar footprints, getting to interact with nearly every nation on the globe in some capacity.
The Commander of a combatant command interacts with all of the nations within their footprint. When visiting one of the countries in their area of operations, they coordinate with both the U.S. Ambassador responsible for the country team and the security cooperation office within the host nation. The result is a high ranking military diplomat, synchronized with the leading Department of State person in country, and bringing a massive capability to work with partner nation security forces.
Combatant commands have a large tool kit from which to pull from to help move U.S. interests forward. This includes all branches of the military (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines) as well as the ability to serve as a coordinator between nations who may not have the friendliest of histories. Each branch of the service under the combatant commands carries with it leadership, units and expertise within their respective regions. The result is a massive amount of capability to conduct military diplomacy.
Military diplomacy in Iraq 2017-2018
As Iraq achieved success against Islamic State (IS) forces in 2017, there was a palpable shift from the use of military power to military diplomacy. After decades of isolation brought by previous Iraqi actions, United Nations sanctions and violence following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Government of Iraq only had one neighbor to turn to for help within the region: Iran. Sharing a major border of nearly 875 miles, these two countries have always been and will always be neighbors. As a result, there is a massive amount of legal and illegal trade crossing their borders. Additionally, the commonality of the Shia religion in both countries connects them on another level. The two have been, and will be tied together due to their proximity and shared backgrounds.
However, Iraq needed other partners in their region besides Iraq. As a result, the Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq(OSC-I), located within the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, focused on using military diplomacy to help Iraq break out of its isolation. Traditionally, Security Cooperation offices focus on the sale of U.S. military equipment to a host nation. OSC-I works for both for the U.S. Chief of Mission in Iraq, and for U.S. CENTCOM. This placed it in a perfect position to facilitate military diplomacy.
In mid-2017, OSC-I had two main lines of effort. The first was traditional security assistance: the sale of equipment and parts to the Iraqi government. The second, defense institution building, focused on security sector reform and the building of the necessary institutions to sustain their security forces. Eventually, the priority of effort shifted to the important work of ensuring the sustainability of defense institutions. However, as the ISIS fight within Iraq concluded, senior leadership within both Department of State and Defense realized Iraq needed local partners to break out of its isolation. As a result, OSC-I developed a third line of effort: Regional Engagements (see Figure 1).
The regional engagement effort became a classic case of implementing military diplomacy to help a partner nation, Iraq. Knowing Iraq was isolated with only Iran as a local partner, the use of military diplomacy became a critical component of reconnecting Iraq with their other neighbors more friendly to the United States. The goal was to reconnect Iraq with its neighbors through military-to-military engagements to encourage a confident, independent Iraq and reduce Iraq’s isolation. As a result, military diplomacy became a major effort between the United States and Iraq.
OSC-I, working with the Department of State and CENTCOM, reached out to surrounding neighbors and their militaries to increase military-to-military cooperation. This was the first step of military diplomacy. The initial plan was to engage at the Chief of Defense level between neighbors. With direct access to the Iraqi Chief of Defense, OSC-I was perfectly positioned to use military diplomacy.
First and foremost, this effort was coordinated through and approved by both the U.S. Ambassador and the CENTCOM Commander. The coordination between the two leads for both the diplomacy and military instruments of national power already had a solid relationship OSC-I was able to benefit from.
Getting the process started was not as easy as a phone call. The military diplomacy process began by coordinating invitations through the Department of State and the Iraqi’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Additionally, CENTCOM was able to leverage its “power to convene” through its Commander at the time, General Joseph Votel. He and his staff served as the coordination link between the U.S. Embassy, OSC-I and the Iraqi Chief of Defense. Once coordinated, formal invitations were sent from the Iraqi Ministry of Foreign Affairs to their corresponding Ministries of Foreign Affairs in both Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Once the invitations were received, and confirmed by the Security Cooperation offices in both Jordan and Saudi Arabia, CENTCOM contacted both Chiefs of Defense to emphasize the importance of the upcoming meeting, and added the CENTCOM Commander would serve as the host.
The first result of this military diplomacy effort was a tri-lateral engagement in July 2017. The Chiefs of Defense of both Jordan and Saudi Arabia met with the Iraqi Chief of Defense in Baghdad. This initial meeting set the groundwork for future bi-lateral meetings between the Chiefs of Defense, and their respective staffs to improve communications and coordination between the neighboring countries. For OSC-I, this successful tri-lateral engagement demonstrated the power of military diplomacy when properly coordinated and supported by both Department of State and Department of Defense.
Another meeting rapidly followed, this time a bi-lateral between the Iraqi and Jordanian Chiefs of Defense. Discussion focused on the reopening of the Treybil border crossing between Iraq and Jordan. Closed during the Iraq War in 2003, the Treybil Highway served as a main trading route between Baghdad and Amman. A similar process occurred: coordination between embassies, the security cooperation offices and CENTCOM. Invitations were coordinated through the U.S. Embassy then the Iraqi Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The invitation went to the Jordanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and once the Security Cooperation office confirmed receipt, CENTCOM connected with the Jordanian Ministry of Defense to offer their support for the conference. A meeting soon followed. As a result of this meeting between the Jordanian and Iraqi Chiefs of Defense, staff working groups were established. Their work resulted in the Treybil border crossing reopened in August 2017, serving as a main trade route between the two nations and taking a major step towards normalizing relations.
Next, the Saudi Arabian and Iraqi Chiefs of Defense met in a bi-lateral engagement hosted by CENTCOM and coordinated by the Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq. The result of this military diplomacy effort was the reopening of the Arar border crossing for the first time in 27 years. This key border crossing was closed in 1990 after the countries cut ties following Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. The reopening assisted Iraqi religious pilgrims headed to Mecca during the Haj season. The governor of Anbar province, Sohaib al-Rawi said, “This is a great start for further future cooperation between Iraq and Saudi Arabia.” Again, coordination occurred between both U.S. embassies in Iraq and Saudi Arabia, between the Security Cooperation offices overseen by CENTCOM made this important military diplomacy success story a reality.
After the September 2017 Kurdish referendum, tensions between Iraq and Turkey were extremely high. Turkey moved additional forces to the Iraqi border in response to the Kurdish vote for independence. Conflicts flared up between Iraqi troops and Kurdish fighters. The need for military diplomacy was needed more than ever.
Again, through military diplomacy, a tri-lateral discussion between the Iraq, Turkey and the United States was set up. Senior leaders in attendance included European Commander, General Curtis Scaparrotti, Turkish Chief of Defense General Hulusi Akar, Iraqi Chief of Defense, General Othman al-Ghanimi and U.S. Central Command Commander General Joseph Votel. The meeting occurred in Ankara, Turkey on December 14, 2017. This was again coordinated across both U.S. embassies, and in this case, two Combatant Commands to make this example of military diplomacy occur.
The result of this meeting was the reopening of communications between the Turkish and Iraqi Chiefs of Defense. This was both extremely important and timely as Iraqi and Turkish troops faced off against one another on their border. The two Chiefs of Defense, shepherded by their U.S. combatant command counterparts, were able to meet face-to-face and reestablish a civil dialogue. The result was an increase in positive communications between the two military Chiefs and a reduction in tensions between the two neighboring militaries.
With a taste of success, the Iraqi Chief of Defense then asked through the Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq to meet with his Kuwaiti counterpart, a meeting that had not happened between the two countries since the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Again, coordination between the Iraq and Kuwait embassies started the process. Invitations followed and the meeting was set up.
The meeting between the Kuwaiti Defense Minister and the Iraqi Chief of Defense occurred on January 23, 2018. U.S. Central Command Commander, General Votel hosted the historic meeting, helping to reopen the lines of communication between these two former enemies. The result was an agreement for both militaries to continue to work together and begin developing longer-term security cooperation arrangements, an important step to normalizing relationships between two former enemies. This and the other examples demonstrate what can be accomplished by military diplomacy when coordinated properly.
Key to these military diplomacy successes was ensuring the Department of State Chief of Mission was tied into all discussions and approved of these efforts. In Iraq, there were weekly video teleconferences between the CENTCOM Commander and the U.S. Ambassador where current issues were discussed. Prior to any visit to Iraq, the CENTCOM Commander coordinated with the Ambassador to better, understand the priorities of the Department of State, and ensure CENTCOM was on the same message as the Chief of Mission.
Combatant Commands also have the ability to host regional ambassador conferences, such as the one hosted in Qatar by CENTCOM on October 19, 2018. The conference included chiefs of defense from the Gulf Cooperation Council for the Arabian States of the Gulf Region Countries: Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia ad United Arab Emirates, as well as Jordan and Egypt. The respective U.S. Ambassadors from each country attended and the U.S. CENTCOM forward headquarters in Qatar was a perfect spot to host the meeting. These conferences are another great example of military diplomacy in action.
Principles of Military Diplomacy
The examples above highlight the capabilities of using military diplomacy to further the interests of a country, in these cases the United States. Based on the previous definition of military diplomacy and the actions of the Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq, this article recommends four principles of Military Diplomacy.
First, the Chief of Mission/U.S. Ambassador/Chief Diplomat is in the lead. Within a host nation, it is the Chief of Mission responsible for all U.S. actions. Coordination through the Embassy is a necessity and must be paramount for any military diplomacy effort to be successful. Efforts at military diplomacy without this coordination at the highest levels will not only result in failure, but also sour the critical relationship between State and Defense elements on the ground.
Second, military diplomacy requires the support of the military. While this may sound like an obvious principle, military diplomacy requires elements of the Department of Defense to be involved, and to have something to offer. As mentioned earlier, Defense elements have a large toolkit to tap into. From traditional security cooperation efforts to hosting military to military engagements, military diplomacy requires the military. Militaries throughout the world have common experiences and shared languages. They are most adept at working with fellow militaries.
Third, any military diplomacy efforts must work through the host nation process. In the case of Iraq, invitations to bring in senior ranking military members from neighboring countries required an invitation from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It was the same for when the Iraqi Chief of Defense was invited to other nations: the inviting nation would send an invitation through its Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Iraqi MFA. These efforts took time, and sometimes resulted in frustration on the American side as invitations were lost, or caught up in bureaucracy. That being said, the U.S. State and military members were able to keep tabs on the status of the invitations and query to the status.
Fourth and finally, set small goals. Sometimes just having the two senior leaders meet is an accomplishment in itself. Many involved in military diplomacy expected rapid results from all the coordination efforts. However, this often is not the case. Goals are not often met in the first or second meeting of these senior leaders. However, as demonstrated above, sometimes just having those two senior military leaders meet results in positive press, increased dialogue and the thawing of long cold relationships.
When properly coordinated with the Chief of Mission, military diplomacy is an effective instrument of national power. The combatant commands have the leadership, the staff, and resources to enforce their “power to convene” utilizing military diplomacy. Bringing key military leadership from different nations together is one of the important components of military diplomacy. This is not limited to the United States. Recent tensions between North Macedonia and Greece were reduced by military diplomacy between the two nations. Most militaries have the capacity, with the support from their diplomatic branches, to successful utilize military diplomacy.
More studies and research needs to look at the advantages and disadvantages of utilizing military diplomacy to help the United States achieve its stated policy goals, especially as we move back into an era of great power competition. The use of military diplomacy as a hybrid instrument of national power for the United States has provided tangible achievements in achieving foreign policy goals in the past. It must continue to do so in the future.
The world is rightly outraged at how Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi was killed, but I was also horrified by where. As the U.S. Consul General in Vladivostok, Russia from 2007-2010 and Nuevo Laredo, Mexico from 2000-2003 I know what a Consulate is supposed to be. It is primarily there to provide for the protection and welfare of fellow citizens in that consular district. Consular protection ranges from advising citizens of potential unrest in the area, to providing an emergency loan if funds run short or a wallet is stolen. We had Americans in prison up and down the Mexican border that we visited every week, providing newspapers and magazines, clean water, and vitamins. Consular officers are often the link between travelers in trouble and their families. So to know that Khashoggi was lured into the Consulate, on the pretext that he was going to receive some sort of service and then brutally murdered within the Consulate walls sends shivers down my spine.
Recently, governments have also been stripping citizenship for women who joined ISIS. Terrorists certainly deserve no sympathy or quarter but citizenship is not something that should be taken away for bad behavior. Instead, citizens who commit crimes abroad should be brought home to face the courts and pay for their crimes. Hoda Muthana is the presumptive American citizen who wants to return to the United States and take responsibility for her actions. The British woman who wants to return and has also been stripped of citizenship is Shamima Begum, whose lawyer argued on CNN, “We don’t leave children in war zones.” There may be other factors involved, perhaps they renounced citizenship at some point, but in the cast of Hoad Muthana, if she was in fact as claimed born in the U.S., there would have to be extraordinary circumstances for her not to be an American.
Human rights are often talked about for large classes of people, refugees, migrants, minorities, for example. But human rights are played out everyday at the individual level, often in Consular sections around the world where Consular Officers are trying to do the right thing for their fellow citizens and their governments. It’s not easy. I had an Cuban visa applicant tell me, “If you deny me a visa, I’ll take a raft to Florida, and if I drown you are at fault.” No, I thought, that’s on you. You have to make your own choices. In this case the young Cuban was not a potential political refugee. I turned him down. In another case, I was able to testify on behalf of a Korean-American pastor imprisoned on Sakhalin Island in Russia. He was unfairly imprisoned, in my view, and the Consulate had worked for months to get him out. Finally, authorities said if the Consul General came to his parole hearing, it might make a difference. I went, testified to the good character of the pastor and he was released. One of the guards said, “America. What a country! I can’t imagine my government doing that for me!”
I mentioned that the pastor was Korean-American because he was serving the Korean speaking community on the now Russian island of Sakhalin. But as a Consular Officer I also have to say that there really are no hyphenated Americans abroad. Yes, we served a lot of Cuban-Americans in Havana and Mexican-Americans on the border, but everyone received the same service. If you have a blue American passport, you are in the club.
Diplomatic immunity can also help citizens. North Koreans, Soviet dissidents, and now Julian Assange have all found refuge in foreign embassies and consulates. We were able to keep a witness that drug traffickers wanted to get hold of in our car in Mexico, because the car had diplomatic plates and the drug cartel wasn’t sure it wanted to take on the weight of the American government, not to mention the Vienna Convention, over one witness.
My hope is that no matter what country you are from, when you see your flag flying outside of a Consulate somewhere in the world, you will know that that is home, a place you belong, and a place where you can feel safe.
UNESCO research on AI’s implications on human rights
“Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly becoming the veiled decision-maker of our times. AI has profound implications on human rights ranging...
Conflict and mass displacement increase child labour
A new multi-organizational report finds that conflict and war over the past decade has coincided with an increase in child...
UN Environment, Google, EC partnership effective to depoliticize water crisis in South Asia
This year the theme for World Water Day 2019 is ‘Leaving no one behind’ and goes hand in hand with...
Thinking about energy and water together can help ensure that “no one is left behind”
The theme of this year’s World Water Day is “leave no one behind”, a salient theme for the IEA because...
A Calamitous Week
Something is infinitely wrong in the picture, a juxtaposition of polar opposites: New Zealand, a country of unfailingly courteous and...
Anti-government protests have continued over the weekend in Serbia, Montenegro and Albania. While the protesters in Albania once again clashed...
Hublot Names Breakout Asian Musician Myrne as Friend of Hublot
Known for refining the art of fusion with its timepieces, luxury Swiss watchmaker Hublot kicks off 2019 with a bang,...
Defense3 days ago
India Acquiring Thermonuclear Weapons: Where Is The Global Outcry?
Europe3 days ago
Albanian question in the Balkans
Energy News2 days ago
ADB Supports Private Sector Solar Power Development in Mongolia
Urban Development2 days ago
Smart cities hold the key to sustainable development
Middle East2 days ago
Syrian Coup de Grâce
Central Asia2 days ago
The Track to Prosperity
South Asia3 days ago
China’s Diplomatic Tightrope Amidst Rising Indo-Pak Tensions
Newsdesk3 days ago
New Global Coalition Will Focus on Improving Value of Healthcare