Diplomacy - Science topic

The worship of the state is the worship of force. There is no more dangerous menace to civilization than a government of incompetent, corrupt, or vile men. The worst evils which mankind ever had to endure were inflicted by bad governments. The state can be and has often been in the course of history the main source of mischief and disaster. The market system is the basis of our civilization.

Its only alternative is the Führer principle.

Lv Mises

China has mastered the art of African needs and how to go about it, including adopting cultural diplomacy. Today, Chinese language is prioritized among African educated population, the Chinese government is also offering scholarship programs to Africans, while at the same time offering exchange programs at a good rate, though still behind Europe according to my opinion. With Tiktok influence, we are bound to see more fear among Africans of high level of racism in China diminishes, which then may translate to soft spot among African youths when it comes to China.

Nonetheless, Africans' pool of needs are wanting, meaning they is deficiency in their priority of the kind of relation they want with China. They keep it "mixed plate" - vitamins there, carbohydrates there, protein there....However, in the end, trade and infrastructural relations has upper hand.

Addressing Iran's space diplomacy requires a nuanced approach that takes into account the complex geopolitical dynamics at play. Here are some key considerations and strategies that can be employed:

1. Diplomatic Engagement: Engage in direct diplomatic channels with Iranian officials to discuss and address concerns related to Iran's space activities. This could include bilateral talks, multilateral forums, or utilizing diplomatic intermediaries to facilitate dialogue.

2. Non-Proliferation Efforts: Strengthen non-proliferation efforts to ensure that Iran's space program remains focused on peaceful purposes and in compliance with international obligations. Encourage Iran to adhere to existing treaties and agreements, such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

3. Verification and Transparency: Promote mechanisms for increased transparency and verification of Iran's space activities. Encourage Iran to grant access to international inspectors or independent organizations to monitor and verify the nature of its space program.

4. Confidence-Building Measures: Propose confidence-building measures to build trust and reduce tensions. This could involve cooperative space projects, information sharing, or joint research initiatives that promote peaceful space exploration and collaboration.

5. Regional Cooperation: Encourage regional cooperation in space-related initiatives. Engaging Iran in regional space organizations or forums could help foster greater understanding and cooperation, while providing opportunities for dialogue and collaboration.

6. Sanctions and Incentives: Leverage economic sanctions or incentives as tools to encourage Iran's compliance with international norms and obligations regarding its space program. These measures should be used judiciously and in coordination with international partners to avoid unintended consequences.

7. Arms Control Dialogue: Explore the possibility of incorporating space-related arms control dialogue as part of broader discussions on arms control and regional security. This could help address concerns related to potential dual-use technologies and contribute to stability in the region.

8. Engagement with International Partners: Work closely with international partners, such as the United Nations, European Union, or other regional actors, to coordinate efforts and present a unified approach towards Iran's space diplomacy. Collective action and a united front can have a stronger impact on shaping Iran's behavior.

9. Balancing National Interests: Maintain a balance between addressing concerns related to Iran's space activities and respecting Iran's right to peaceful exploration and scientific advancement. This requires careful consideration of national interests, regional dynamics, and the broader context of international space cooperation.

10. Multidimensional Approach: Recognize that addressing Iran's space diplomacy requires a multidimensional approach that combines diplomatic, economic, technical, and legal measures. It is essential to remain flexible, adaptable, and open to dialogue while upholding international norms and principles.

As international higher education, research and innovation faces a more competitive, nationalistic, turbulent world, we should embrace the potential of using knowledge diplomacy – based on reciprocity and mutual benefits – to help resolve national, regional and global challenges and strengthen relations between and among countries...

transportation and integrated planning must form inclusive componets of the consideration when considering the for and against space diplomacy.

Take a look at the Indus Water Treaty, negotiated and signed in 1960, with the help of the World Bank. It has withstood the vicissitudes of India-Pakistan wars, and periods of acute political tension, over the past 6 decades.

Sure, Pakistan is currently not happy with some Indian actions planned under the terms of that treaty. India also has its plaints. BUT the Treaty endures.

MORAL: Sometimes, even potential adversary states find a kind of equilibrium in such a treaty. It is never perfect. But it becomes a working formula that endures. Can it be replicated?

I don't have an answer to that final Q.

Best wishes,

Kishan S Rana

There was an interesting meeting: An international conference debating the current state of “Science Diplomacy: between Scientific Collaboration and Realpolitik“.

The concept, object, index and measurement method of international competition should be clearly defined. Secondly, the variable factors of international competition can play a role in diplomacy, and in what changes.

Dear Michael,

Bhutan is a very interesting country. It's gorgeous and lush. But is it really a land of happiness? Because it is seen that the people are poor. Say what?

Best regards

Ramazan Bicer

Thank you, Aparna. I appreciate.

Although many analysts will say that remarkable progress has been made in emancipation and the inclusion of women in all spheres of society (international politics, academia) is sufficient to look at the reality that says quite the opposite: there is much left geographical areas where the woman is in a subordinate position, endangered, and even exposed to completely inhumane treatment. The problem is that no society nurtures traditional and patriarchal values ​​that diminish the woman's equal position, so the woman remains forever trapped in the family, private sphere, designated for household chores and child care. A woman is seen as a "service provider" of husband and children and as the primary caregiver. A logical question arises: who can and by what means to help a woman turn the situation in society to her advantage? As part of this complex problem, we can consider the activities of individuals, non - governmental sector, actions of neo-feminist movements, civic activities and initiatives, and state strategies and laws. The focus is on: creating space for the application of respect for human women 's rights and the emancipation of women in society.

Energy security of European countries and the influence of geopolitical economic factors on energy dependence.

I would like to read research about Healthy diplomacy and organizations responded to covid 19 virus? Especially since its crucial role playing as global security issues today( new years ), different strategies to prevent, corporate and reconciliate policy options between organizations and political actors. I think very interesting.

I agree with Dr Aneesh Kumar K V

Dear colleague Dr Manal Hadi Kanaan , allow me to thank you for your brilliant intervention. I would like to share with you the reflection of Jean Joinville Vacher 92020) on this notion "Scientific diplomacy: a potential strategy of a globalized science, is based on three main approaches - (i) A very largely globalized science and a growing internationalization of research training which remains unequal; (ii) A collaborative and decisive science allied to diplomacy in the face of the challenges of global issues; (iii) Science as a vector of peace and solidarity "(Vacher, 2020).

John Oliver Explains Why Boris Johnson Is Not the Same as Donald Trump https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/07/john-oliver-last-week-tonight-boris-johnson-donald-trump

UN Charter combines all three approaches-peacekeeping, peacemaking, and peace building- into the UN's structure, other organizations like the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the High Commissioner on National Minorities (HCNM), and/or different non-governmental organizations

(NGOs) focus on preventive approaches for dispute settlement because

of cost as well as risk effectiveness.(Sezai Özçelik, 2006: p107) .

Good morning, your question motivates me a lot and that's why I answer immediately. In my opinion, the only way for local governments to promote the SDGs through cooperation is to achieve responsible autonomy in relation to the central government. It is imperative that local governments can negotiate directly with international or national organizations the cooperation they can receive. For that they need responsible autonomy, this can be achieved by establishing a responsible relationship between centralization and decentralization of the functions of central governments. Obviously, this depends a lot on the economic regime of each country, although this seems to be a logic that works well for all international relations. Local governments also need experts who are capable of adequately managing this cooperation, especially when it occurs through technologies that can have a significant impact on communities. It is necessary to know if there is sufficient capacity in the locality to assimilate this transfer of technology. In short, there are many aspects that influence this process.

Diplomacy is an area of specialty in International Relations that focuses on the study of tactical inter-governmental relationships aimed to advance national interests without being confrontational between/among nations. Those who are graduates of the discipline and carry out its functions on behalf of their country are called diplomats.

1. Diplomacy is the vessel for peaceful cooperation, dialogue, negotiation, cohesion and harmony between/among nations.

2. Diplomacy is the governmental channels for economic/trade, social, cultural, political and technological knowledge anchored on mutual relationships between/among nations.

3. Diplomacy is a veritable means for conflict resolution, peace-building in crisis situations between/among nations.

4. Diplomacy facilitates information, communication and knowledge exchange/sharing between/among nations.

World diplomacy is so complicated to be predicted.

I think that each language represents a vision of the world and a specific way to express it. Nevertheless, experiments can be done. Spanish to express life can be adapted to English, which is bent to accept all influences. French is a jealous exclusive language and most French ain't that good at languages and claim French should be the international language. Catalan had been going through an horrible "normalization" that cut off the innate poetry of the language, to show how modern they are and, at Catalan school, they don't teach you Catalan authors (because none is respecting the stupid unlinguistic laws) but supermarket lists (supermarkets respect the stupid "Normalization"). I love Italian, understand almost everything and feel bent to it, like a natural thing that correspond to my way of being but I don't speak it in order to preserve my Spanish. I can also read Greek and Russian (I know cyrillic alphabet) and understand them basically by etymology (f.e. plants vocabulary). It's been a long time I've been interested in ideograms, but I never found time enough to seriously study Chinese. But maybe, because of my historical research, I'll have to study Arab, which is a language I feel bent to. I worked with some friend, that did the literate translation from Arab to French. My job was to find the poetic aspect and find out how it influence the meaning. I think nowadays Arab language isn't very well known, even if it's diversely spoken in many countries because poetry definitively escapes to capitalism.

As for me the Chinese aim is not only economic, but also politic: their objective is the growth of influence, the development of client ties with weaker countries and the confirmation of its role as the future

major world superpower.

The latest Digital Diplomacy Review, available at http://digital.diplomacy.live/ddr17/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork, provides regional, country, and organizational rankings

Dear Professor H.G. Callaway

Thanks for your very clear reply. I for the studies i have been making for some years about China and N. Korea relations (up and down) i can assure that there will never exist a reunification of north and south. However trade and controlled transit between both I believe that can exist in bilateral agreement from NK and SK.

About “"Chinese model" of economic development” i would be glad if you have a look in my article https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325763227_Chine_new_Geopolitics-One_Belt-One_Road



I think I approached it the wrong way. I am now looking for similar dependent variables within the three cases, in order to determine independent variables. If I find a common variable, I can use the MDSD. If not, I can switch to MSSD.

My argument is that culinary diplomacy on citizen-to-citizen level could be a useful tool for 'peace-building from below' within conflicting communities , by creating cross-cultural understanding with the aim of improving interactions and cooperation through a shared goal (cuisine, cooking together, commensality).

For those interested in an update on China (the mentioned article is dating back from 2004), see the report published by Merics in 2017: http://www.merics.org/index.php/en/papers-on-china/chinas-emergence-global-security-actor-1

Concerning the question on international politics, it is an endless discussion...

You still have geopoliticians and analysts basing their insight on the sole ground of geographical and/or historical background (1st wave of geopoliticians, the classical ones), looking at states only within the lens of hegemon and counter-hegemons creating alternatives or countering the hegemon while the end objective remains to replace the current hegemon. In order to reach their goals, states take either the form of a sea power (Mahan) or land power (Mackinder)... and the frequent conception that borders are only a temporary halt (typically an idea taken from Haushofer).

On top of that, we have the current international order developed by the US for 50 years and currently challenged (see the articles of Anne-Cécile Robert, L’ordre international piétiné par ses garants, in Le Monde diplomatique of Feb 2018 or the article Present at the Erosion - International Order on the Brink published in the Munich Security Report of 2018). Nevertheless, it doesn't look like a nasty business and Joshua Stowell has for example well described that it is not because the system is challenged that we would expect a seism (see https://globalsecurityreview.com/west-really-retreat-probably-not/).

For the moment, media attention is clearly focused on the Asian tiger, DPRK or a new Cold War... The world is clearly summarised as a zero-sum game (President Trump's apparent view)...

But it is clearly to easy, international relations are nowadays deeply influenced by globalisation, private companies can have a deep impact even on an hegemon (e.g. delocalising jobs)... whithout taking into account transnational organised crime, climate change, health security or migrations... without forgetting the simple access to potable water.

To answer the question what can we do as scholars and researchers to change this seemingly "nasty and dangerous business"?, my humble comment would be:

- explain to our elites the various trends at stake,

- provide them with foresight, because they are clearly centered on short-term objectives (they nowadays want actionable information, beeing under constant pressure so "we need to show we are doing sthg") and we clearly need to look beyond in order to tackle emerging threats and/or challenges...

- if given the opportunity, explain to the media & our population international politics is much more than a zero-sum game (if it was the case, then why have we seen the creation of the EEC, even if the European Union as a project is nowadays clearly challenged?),

You are most welcome. Good luck with this important project.

I would recommend Mearsheimer's offensive realism (Tragedy of Great Power politics) or Jack Snyder's neo-classical realism (Myths of Empire). Both provide a solid explanation for why states might lean heavily on more aggressive foreign policies. You might also consider looking at some of Barry Posen's work on military doctrine and why some states opt for Offensive doctrines.

Hi,

The topic you have chosen is quite interesting and yes of late we have seen an increase in the Japanese participation, especially when we look at developing economies like India. One way in which I can relate to your question is the fact that India being a former colony of Britain still maintains the old practice in many domains, the most prominent being railways, law and education.

Going by my current project on High Speed Rail Corridor, what I infer is the rich technology experience that Japan has developed and nurtured over the years and this is what drives Japan forward. In a competitive global environment, inter cultural differences do not have an impact on the economic prospects that the country is to offer. Because the relation is carried on a very professional line and in such circumstances, it is unlikely that the intercultural differences would act as a deterrent against the strategic partnership. I hope I have been able to answer your question

Dear Joren, what happened. Did you solve all your doubts?, please let me know.

Best regards

Thank you for sharing your ideas.

Moni-Lady, this is an interesting research direction. This is because, there are many nations including mine (Nigeria) which are victims of bad public image.  Very often, I wonder what parameters put in place to qualify a nation's image to the outside world. sometime, the media information/news we  solely rely upon to qualify such classifications do not truly, in the light of fair reporting, present all sides of a story. When such a scale is developed, it will help people like me to understand the dynamics involved in judging a country's image. It is just unfortunate that I do not readily have material to suggest to you now. But as time goes, i may come across one, suggest to you. I wish you success in this study and expect greater out come Lulia. Cheers.

Indirect source: Venona papers and related materials:

If you happened to read in Polish, you might also try to read a book I discussed some time ago:

Thank you very much. May I cite your name as well, stating that this information was passed on to me through social network by your goodself? Thanks again for this.

Hi, have you looked into Damion, Thomas L. Globetrotting: African American Athletes and Cold War Politics, 2012? It might be useful. Also, you could contact Simon Rofe from SOAS, London, since he's been working lately on Sport Diplomacy (his 'Prologue: Diplomacy and Sport.' Diplomacy and Statecraft  and 'Sport and Diplomacy: A Global Diplomacy Framework.' Diplomacy and Statecraft  are both forthcoming in 2016). You can check on his publications and contacts at https://www.soas.ac.uk/staff/staff74153.php. Best, Carla

Khadijah, while I was not focusing on Nigeria alone, but Africa as a whole, this article I wrote for Financial Nigeria magazine may provide you with some insights. In it I argue about the need for Africa to develop "soft power" as a tool to project its image and enhance business development: http://www.financialnigeria.com/developing-a-soft-power-strategy-in-africa-blog-38.html. I'm also attaching a PDF version of the actual article from the magazine. I hope it helps. Cheers

Hello Marcin, you may check the royal family in Spain:

I am not completely sure if that will answer your question, but it is true that they are quite active in diplomacy and business agreements.

Also, Juan Carlos I (the current king's father) was quite involve on such tasks. You have an example here: http://thediplomatinspain.com/en/el-rey-viaja-arabia-saudi-para-apuntalar-el-ave-medina-la-meca/

I hope that helps.

Regards,

Javier.

19 maggio 2015

L'odierna cultura politica è totalmente da rifondare e bisogna adottare un punto di vista alla Machiavelli e alla Marx che faccia piazza pulita della ideologia democratica. Lo scopo di quest'opera di integrale tabula rasa è l'implementazione di politiche che autenticamente e concretamente allarghino gli spazi di libertà sia per gli individui che per i gruppi in cui questi si associano. Per chi sia interessato a queste tematiche, che sono il nucleo della domanda "Does governance, as observed, have a shape, a trajectory?", invito ad impostare sul Web una ricerca avente come termine la locuzione 'Repubblicanesimo Geopolitico'. Massimo Morigi

Dr. Mathias Maass at Yonsei University in South Korea is an expert on the international relations of small states. His work might offer some answers to your very interesting question. 

I think it discredits Davutoğlu's 'soft power' approach, because his doctrine is too broad to be applicable in any specific case, for instance, in the case of Syria.

P5+1 is often referred to as the E3+3 (or E3/EU+3) by European countries.

I think they can not solve 5+1=3+3=6 !

Children of Men (Alfonso Cuarón, 2006) is one of the best dystopian films ever made, in my humble opinion. It makes a strong statement about recent immigration policy. There are lots of clips on YouTube:

Bolivia doesn't have particularly extensive relations with many countries in Europe, though there are some important partners. The Dutch government funds an institution for multiparty democracy in Bolivia, which has recently become very important there. Historically, German parties have supported a number of foundations, particularly the Konrad Adenauer Foundation (affiliated with the CDU) and the Friedrich Ebert Foundation (affiliated with the SPD). There is extensive bilateral cooperation relationship with several Scandinavian countries (especially Denmark), as well as Switzerland and Spain. However, the Bolivian government of Evo Morales doesn't particularly see much difference between the US and EU (all are capitalist), so relationships are often tepid, even if not hostile. 

The latest new on this important issue:

Final push in historic Iran nuclear talks

Vienna (AFP) July 02, 2014 - The United States and Iran traded barbs on Wednesday as negotiators arrived in Vienna for a marathon final round of nuclear talks aimed at securing a historic deal by a July 20 deadline..

A sixth and final round of talks starts officially on Thursday and could potentially last until July 20 when an interim deal struck in November expires, although in theory this can be extended for six months.

US Secretary of State John Kerry, writing in the Washington Post, said that the negotiations constituted "a choice for Iran's leaders". "They can agree to the steps necessary to assure the world that their country's nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful and not be used to build a weapon", Kerry wrote. Or "they can squander a historic opportunity to end Iran's economic and diplomatic isolation and improve the lives of their people." The P5+1 powers  have proposed a "series of reasonable, verifiable and easily achievable measures that would ensure Iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon and that its program is limited to peaceful purpose," he said.

But Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, writing in French daily Le Monde, said that some among the P5+1 were suffering from "illusions" about Iran's nuclear programme. He said that contrary to fears in the West, Iran -- even if it wanted to -- is "several years, not a few months" away from being able to build an atomic bomb. Iran "will not abandon or give up its technological or scientific advances. In addition it would not be prudent ... to expect us to do otherwise," Zarif said in remarks printed in French. "I appeal for these illusions not to derail a process that could put an end to a pointless crisis," he said.

Iranian nuclear negotiator Majid Takhte Ravanchi went further, telling the ISNA news agency that Iran has set out clear "red lines" in the talks. "The other side knows that these red lines cannot be crossed. If we reach a deal it will be one respecting these red lines. If not there will be no accord," he said. "The outcome depends on the other side. If they have a maximalist position, or if they want to address issues that have nothing to do with the talks, if they are far from reality or if they have illusions, there will be no deal," he said. "We will not accept definitive restrictions" on our nuclear programme, he said.

But Kelsey Davenport, Arms Control Association analyst, was upbeat about prospects for a deal, saying there is "considerable political will" and that an accord is in the interests of both sides. "There is a lot of time left for diplomacy and a good comprehensive nuclear agreement is within reach, despite significant gaps between the two sides on core issues," she told AFP.

Iran nuclear talks enter the decisive, dangerous endgame Thursday with a marathon final round of hardball negotiations potentially going all the way to the July 20 finish line.

The deal being sought by Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany would finally ease fears of Tehran getting nuclear weapons -- and silence talk of war for good.

"In the next three weeks, we have a unique opportunity to make history," Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said in a video message released ahead of the talks. "To forge a comprehensive agreement over Iran's nuclear energy programme and to end an unnecessary crisis that has distracted us from addressing together our common challenges, such as the horrifying events of the past few weeks in Iraq."

After five rounds of talks in Vienna seeking to secure a deal by July 20 -- when an interim deal struck in November expires -- the differences appear considerable, however. The last meeting from June 16-20 saw both sides begin drafting the accord, but haggling over language concerning the thorniest problems was put off until later. The United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany want Iran to reduce drastically in scope its nuclear activities in order to render any Iranian drive to assemble a weapon all but impossible.

This would include in particular Iran slashing its capacities to enrich uranium, a process producing nuclear fuel but also at high purities the core of a nuclear weapon. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said last month Iran has to slash the number of centrifuge enrichment machines to several hundred from almost 20,000 at present. But Iran rejects this, saying it even needs to expand the number of centrifuges to fuel a fleet of nuclear power plants -- facilities that it is however years if not decades away from having.

Demands that Iran's programme be "radically curbed" rest on a "gross misrepresentation of the steps, time and dangers of a dash for the bomb", Zarif said. Writing in French daily Le Monde, Zarif said Iran "will not abandon or make a mockery of our technological advances or our scientists."

In theory, the July 20 deadline could be extended by up to six months, and many analysts believe that such a move is already being discussed. But US President Barack Obama, facing midterm elections in November and Republican accusations of weakness, is wary of doing anything that could be construed as simply giving Iran more time to get closer to having the bomb. This is the long-standing accusation of Israel, the Middle East's sole if undeclared nuclear-armed state. But Kelsey Davenport from the Arms Control Association believes that Washington should not shy away from pushing back the deadline if necessary and if Iran is "negotiating in good faith". "The alternative to no deal is far worse for the international community -- a constrained, unlimited Iranian nuclear programme," she told AFP.

 Iran's foreign minister said Wednesday his country and world powers have a "unique opportunity to make history" by agreeing on a nuclear deal, as talks enter a crucial final round. Mohammad Javad Zarif was speaking as the five permanent members of the United Nations, plus Germany, prepare to sit down with Iran in Vienna Thursday in a bid to reach a historic deal by a July 20 deadline. The world powers want Iran to scale down its nuclear activities in order to ease long-held fears that Tehran might develop atomic weapons.

Iran, subject to damaging UN and Western sanctions, insists its nuclear programme is purely peaceful and even wants to expand key parts of it. Zarif said forging a deal would "end an unnecessary crisis that has distracted us from addressing together our common challenges, such as the horrifying events of past few weeks in Iraq." He claimed an agreement could have been reached in 2005 when he had been nuclear negotiator, but that the administration of then US president George W. Bush "torpedoed the deal". They then opted for pressure and sanctions. For eight years." But he said sanctions "didn't bring the Iranian people to kneel in submission. And it will not now nor in the future." "We are trying to reach a deal," he added. "Not a good deal or a bad deal, but a doable and lasting deal."

Without elaborating, Zarif said "we are willing to take concrete measures to guarantee that our nuclear programme will always remain peaceful. "We still have time to put an end to the myth that Iran is seeking to build a bomb."

The Fifa World Cup 2014 tournament will start on today. We hope that all implications will be positive, and all variables will be controlled to enhance positive effects of international sports on diplomatic social and political relations between countries.

Perhaps this information could help in your task.

SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM BRAZIL’S POSITION

(in reply to the invitation by the President of the fifty-third session of the General Assembly, H.E. Mr. Didier Opertti, to comment on the issues raised in Conference Room Paper 2 – CRP.2/Rev.1 – of the Open-ended Working Group on Security Council reform)

1.Whether it is desirable to have an expansion of the Security Council that includes both additional non-permanent and additional permanent members.

Yes. Brazil holds the view that both the permanent and non-permanent membership of the Security Council should be increased, and that there should be new permanent members from both the developing and the industrialized world. A Security Council reform capable of increasing the Council’s membership on the basis of the unanimously shared desire for equitable representation can only come about through the enlargement of both the permanent and non-permanent member categories.

2.Whether it is desirable to have an expansion of the Security Council that includes both additional non-permanent members and the creation of rotating permanent seats (with or without veto).

The Council should be expanded both in the permanent and non-permanent categories. As for the new permanent seats, the allocation of full permanent seats to industrialized countries and rotating permanent seats to developing countries would be totally unacceptable. As emphasized in the Rio Group summit declaration of 24 August 1997, a reform resulting in discriminatory treatment between developing and developed countries cannot be accepted. If a specific region decides to rotate its new permanent seat, this formula would apply only to that region and could not be automatically exported to others. Brazil does not favor rotation of a new permanent seat to be filled by a country from the Latin American and Caribbean region.

3.Whether it is desirable to have an expansion that includes only additional non-permanent members.

No. In order to reflect both the new world realities and the increasing role of developing countries in world affairs, the Security Council should be expanded in both categories of members, with adequate participation of developing countries in the permanent and non-permanent categories on a non-discriminatory basis. A reform that eludes the problem of expansion in the permanent member category would not be a reform in the true sense of the word. If our objective had been the creation of a few additional non-permanent seats, we wouldn’t have had to spend years discussing Security Council reform.

4.Whether, in the absence of general agreement on expansion in the permanent category, an increase, for the time being, only in the non-permanent category should be considered.

No. Any proposal for expansion that maintains or aggravates the present north-south imbalance in the permanent member category is incompatible with our stated objectives.

5.Whether to consider also other categories of membership – e.g., seats for more frequently rotating non-permanent members.

No. We repudiate all discrimination in the conception or assignement of new seats. We must not create a third or fourth category of member. This would weaken and depreciate the participation of the developing world in the reform process and in an enlarged Council.

6.Whether the question of the veto is intrinsically linked to the issue of the expansion of the Security Council.

We understand that expansion, reform of working methods and the question of the veto form an integral part of the reform of the Security Council and should be part of the same agreement. Nevertheless, the veto issue should not prevent us from moving ahead on expanding the Council’s composition.

7.What should be the future scope of application of the veto in an enlarged Security Council.

If the new permanent members would all commit themselves not to exercise any possible veto rights – thereby enjoying de jure equality while accepting de facto differentiation – we are convinced that this would have a democratizing effect. Moreover, we are persuaded that under a Council with better representation from the South in the permanent member category the dynamics of polarization which prevailed during the Cold War would not find favourable conditions to thrive.

8.Whether it is desirable for the existing veto power to be curtailed as part of any comprehensive reform package which might obtain general agreement, or independently of such a package.

In our view, a reform package should comprise some curtailment of the veto power. As the Rio Group summit declaration of 24 August 1997 has emphasized, taking into account the need to observe democratic principles and to surmount the historical circumstances which existed in 1945, the ideal is to advance towards the total elimination of the veto. As a first step, its use should be strictly limited to the matters covered in Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. Independently of the agreement reached on initial measures, the time span between the adoption of the reform and the first periodic review could be used to prepare some ground for a more consolidated arrangement which should include recommendations on the veto powers of the P-5 and on those of the new permanent members with a view to bridging the gap between them.

9.To what extent, if any, the right of veto should be given to any additional permanent members.

We believe that there should be no discrimination, in principle, between current and new permanent members. At the same time, we have suggested that new permanent members might consider the option of not exercising their veto rights, without relinquishing them, until a comprehensive agreement on decision-making, involving all permanent members, can be arrived at.

10. What should be the lower/upper numerical limits to expansion (for example, 20-21/23/24/25/26 ), having regard to whether expansion will take place in one or more categories.

It is undeniable that the question of the total size remains of paramount importance. A Council of 20 to 21 members will not ensure sufficient additional representation of the developing world. A few delegations continue to have misgivings about a Council of more than 21 participants, in contrast with the preference of the wide majority for a higher figure, somewhere in the mid-twenties. The Brazilian position is that a Council with more equitable representation will not be possible unless we contemplate a figure in the mid-twenties.

11. How any additional permanent seats should be allocated.

We have always said that in identifying new permanent members we must exercise realism and pragmatism by means of a democratic selection process that leads to universally recognized representation without renouncing regional support. We must ensure that the selection process for identifying new permanent members will be left in the democratic hands of the General Assembly. The regional electoral groups, such as we know them in the UN, should try to facilitate the work of the General Assembly. If one region opts for a special arrangement by consensus, this must be looked at. If it names a country, this must be endorsed by the full GA membership. If it cannot reach agreement, the GA will decide. Brazil has expressed its willingness to accept the responsibilities of permanent membership in the Security Council, if called upon by the international community to do so. In such a case, Brazil would be determined to carry out the role of permanent member as the representative of Latin America and the Caribbean. We want our region to be present in the Security Council on a permanent basis and, through ample coordination and consultation, to have an even stronger collective voice.

12. How any additional non-permanent seats should be allocated.

In our view, all new seats should be allocated through a process whose results have not only legal validity but also political legitimacy, offering a real and effective equality of democratic opportunity of access to those posts.

13. Periodic review of the enlarged Security Council, including the scope, purpose and timing of a periodic review.

Reform of the Security Council does not have to be conceived in terms of a long-term plan. The working group has recognized the need for a review clause, after ten or fifteen years, to allow for adjustments in an agreed reform. There are different ways of looking at the review. It might be seen as a mere formality. But it can also be envisaged as a true reevaluation of how the reform has worked, one which will allow for any range of adjustments, whether in the sphere of size and composition, or decision making and working methods. Seen in that light, the review acquires an important balancing role that could facilitate our task. We would be devising a new Security Council for a world in transition, and it would be clear to all that the door remains open for future corrections. Early agreement on a specific number of years after which the reform might be revised – particularly as regards permanent membership – could act as a confidence measure that would promote agreement in other areas.

Thank you Anam.

As well, as a directors should have an extensive knowledge of organizational behavior and internal communication networks.

Greetings from Oaxaca, México.

Thank you Raja, I am considering the question in the context of water diplomacy. Sometimes the terms Track I.5 and Track II are used to describe government public diplomacy and non-state public diplomacy. T1.5 (or sometimes called T2) is government officials in combination with private sector, civil society or academia etc. T2 (sometimes T3) involves no direct government to government interaction. The field is still emerging and so definitions are a bit fuzzy. I am leaving the region open so that contributors may draw upon their varying specializations and experiences.

Differences could touch upon respective challenges; resources available for conflict management/resolution; effectiveness, etc.

Please let me know if this helped clarify.

Many thanks for kindly sharing your view, Eduardo. You are correct that China has changed the term from "peaceful rise" to "peaceful development", which may have helped chang people's perspectives about the emphasis of China's energy diplomacy; but the implications of such diplomacy remain larged the same. I don't think China has ever "aimed" to support dictatorships anywhere today, but its undemocratic domestic system has constrained its way of behaviour. In the meantime, the Chinese government seems to wish to play a greater role in the world stage, and has thus proposed a "harmonious world" ambition under Hu Jintao, and again a concept of the "China Dream" under the current leadership Xi Jinping. It is obvious that China not only has a different political system, but has also got different belief as to how the world should be governed: to allow multi-value system and multi-polar politically. Against this background, whether China can rise peacefully is not just up to what China wants to do domestically, but also depends on how the other major powers react. China's energy diplomacy is only a part of its foreign policy strategy, but has got far greater implications on the country's path of future development. Please feel free to let me know your thinking. With kind regards.

Hello, Ilan! Since so many efforts to gain soft power are carried out through public diplomacy initiatives, one good measure of the soft power achieved would be the results obtained by such initiatives. For instance, the cultural diplomacy outcomes for a country could be grasped in terms of how many people has come to view its films, listen to its music and access its websites, and so on. Educational and scientific diplomacy outcomes, by their turn, could be seen in the increase in foreign students, international cooperation partnerships, or citation of publications from national authors (as can be evidenced by Bibliometrics). How these somewhat immediate impacts are going to affect policies and politics, however, would require a more longitudinal approach. It would require, for example, to see how many of these exchange students have risen to leading positions as scholars, strategists and politicians in their countries of origin and to observe their interpretations concerning the foreign countries in which they studied. As soft power and hard power are frequently intertwined, economic flows (FDI, trade, stocks) can also be analyzed before and after international promotion events (from fairs to seminars to diplomatic missions) organized by governments. The opening of consular offices can likewise represent the growth of the interest in a country’s affairs overseas. Finally, a more superficial (yet equally easier) approach would be to review what has been said of a country in foreign media. Some examples of studies undertaken aiming to assess soft power and public diplomacy efforts can be found in the web. Two important remarks: (i) you may notice I have only referred to countries in these lines. Nonetheless, other kinds of players (nationally-bound and international organizations, movements and individuals) may as well develop and employ their soft powers; (ii) people assessing others' soft power also have their own agendas, so always be mindful of the possible biases in this kind of analyses. Best regards.

This is what H Clinton calls "soft power", enhancing goodwill by humiliating leaders of the world.

"You shall know the truth and truth shall make you mad"--- Aldous Huxley

Wikileaks have democratised diplomacy and power. Now Big-brother may watch you but in a twist of fate, you may also get opprtunities to watch HiM watching you.