Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

Nyulas Szabolcs - Honvédelem.hu, 2015.01.09.
Címkék: biztonságpolitika, nemzetbiztonság, terrorizmus
Soós Eszter Petronella és Türke András István, a Francia Politika Blog és az Europa Varietas Intézet közreműködésével

Hibát hibára halmoztak a francia belügyi szervek, ezért is sikerülhetett a terroristáknak egy célzott támadással kivégezni a Charlie Hebdo szerkesztőségét. Az al-Kaida halállistáján más – dán és svéd − újságírók is szerepelnek, és nőtt a fenyegetettség Londonban, valamint Berlinben is – mondta a honvedelem.hu-nak dr. Türke András István, az Europa Varietas Intézet biztonságpolitikai szakértője.
„Franciaországban az iszlám a második legfontosabb vallás, 2010-es adatok szerint 4,7 millió muszlim él az országban, legjelentősebb az arányuk Lille és Marseille agglomerációjában, ahol a lakosság 50, illetve 25 százaléka muzulmán” – mondta a szakértő. „A nem iszlám lakosság alapvetően toleráns, de a szeptember 11-i merényletek és az al-Kaida franciaországi megjelenése megtették a hatásukat: egy 2012-es felmérés szerint 17 százalék tartja pozitívnak jelenlétüket, 40 százalék indifferens, 43 százalék pedig kifejezetten veszélyesnek gondolja jelenlétüket” – tette hozzá.

A lap elleni támadásnak a francia belpolitika terén nem voltak előjelei, az Hollande-kormány szocialistaként toleránsabbnak számít, mint a keményvonalas Sarkozy-adminisztráció. Ráadásul Hollande elnök jó kapcsolatot ápol a franciaországi iszlám elismert kulturális vezetőivel, értelmiségiekkel, jogászokkal, orvosokkal, akik egyébként elítélik az ISIS (az Iszlám Állam angol rövidítése) öldökléseit, és felajánlották segítségüket, támogatásukat az elnöknek.

A külkapcsolatok területén évek óta gyülekeztek a baljós jelek: Franciaország hagyományosan arabbarát országnak számított, amióta de Gaulle tábornok az olajkérdés miatt felülvizsgálta az Izraelhez fűződő viszonyt. Ez a politika egészen Chirac elnökig kitartott, Sarkozy alatt viszont fordulat következett be. Az ország több konfliktusba is beavatkozott Afrikában (Líbia, Mali, Közép-Afrikai Köztársaság). „A katonai akciók miatt az al-Kaida mellett más terrorszervezeteket is magára haragított Franciaország, bár az előbb említett jelenti és jelentette a legnagyobb veszélyt” – mondta Türke András.

A szakember hangsúlyozta: a francia belügyi szervek komolyan hibáztak a Charlie Hebdo megtámadása kapcsán, hiszen a merénylők ismertek voltak előttük, szerepeltek az adatbázisaikban. Az a tény is ismert volt, hogy az országban tevékenykedő (nem csak muszlim) bűnözők komoly fegyverekkel rendelkeznek, míg a rendőri egységek híján vannak az ilyen felszerelésnek. Az újság környékén lassan hónapok, évek óta készültség van, ezért is érthetetlen, hogy miért csak „egyszerű” rendőrök védték a szerkesztőséget, ráadásul a védelem szintjét 2014 augusztusában csökkentették. A Charlie Hebdo védelmére sokkal jobban felszerelt RAID egységeket – vagy FAMAS-szal felszerelt katonai járőröket – kellett volna alkalmazni. Ráadásul hónapok óta lehetett tudni, hogy a fenyegetés mértéke az ISIS célzott toborzóakcióival megnőtt. „Másrészt a merénylet az átszervezett hírszerző szervek, valamint a rendőrség közötti együttműködés teljes csődjének is tekinthető” – mutatott rá...

A teljes cikket elolvashatja a Honvédelem.hu-n

Soós Eszter Petronella és Türke András István, a Francia Politika Blog és az Europa Varietas Intézet közreműködésével
Origo.hu, 2015.01.09.

Nem lehet kizárni, hogy a már most is a legnépszerűbbnek számító radikális Nemzeti Front további erősödése várható Franciaországban, de a kormány sikeres válságkezelése, és a jelenlegi politikai elit összezárása gátat szabhat ennek – mondták el az Origónak Franciaország szakértők a párizsi terrortámadás várható hatásairól. Franciaországban 2017-ben tartanak legközelebb elnök-és parlamenti választást, a 2014-es európai parlamenti voksolást a Nemzeti Front nyerte.
Az iszlámon gyakran élcelődő párizsi szatirikus lap elleni szerdai támadás szinte biztosan erősíti majd a bevándorlásellenes mozgalmakat Európa-szerte, és mélyítheti a vallási és etnikai identitás társadalombeli helyéről szóló „kulturális háborút” – írta értékelésében a Reuters brit hírügynökség.

Hasonlóan vélekedett az AP amerikai hírügynökség is, amely azt írta: a támadás újabb támogatókat hozhat az Európa "iszlamizációjával" riogató mozgalmaknak, amelyek Dániától kezdve Németországon át Hollandiáig egyre nagyobb teret nyernek.

Le Pen népszavazást akar a halálbüntetésről
Marine Le Pen, a francia Nemzeti Front vezetője, a halálbüntetés visszaállítása mellett foglalt állást abban az esetben, ha megnyeri a 2017-es elnökválasztást. „Személyes meggyőződésem, hogy a halálbüntetésnek szerepelnie kell a jogi arzenálunkban.” „Mindig azt mondtam, én a francia állampolgároknak megadnám a lehetőséget, hogy elmondják a véleményüket egy népszavazás keretein belül” – tette hozzá.

A bejelentéssel kapcsolatban Soós Eszter Petronella politológus, Franciaoszág-szakértő az Origónak elmondta, 2012 végén a megkérdezettek 45 százaléka támogatta a halálbüntetést Franciaországban, és a tendencia a korábbi évekkel összevetve növekvő volt. A szakember a kezdeményezéssel kapcsolatban arra is rávilágított, hogy az alkotmány tiltja a halálbüntetést, így azt módosítani kéne, de erre csak a képviselőház és a szenátus háromötödös többségének az egyező szavazatára lenne szükség...

A teljes cikket az Origón olvashatja.

A franciák csak most ocsúdnak a szörnyű támadásból. Ha az első sokk véget ér, rengeteg kérdésre kell majd válaszokat keresni és találni. Még nem tudjuk felmérni, hogy ami ma történt, mekkora jelentőségű és merre viszi a francia (és európai) politikát, de az biztos, hogy a Charlie Hebdo-merénylet nagy hatással lesz mind a társadalomra, mind pedig a következő hetek és hónapok politikai eseményire. Soós Eszter Petronella Közös elemzése dr. Türke András Istvánnal, biztonságpolitikai szakértővel, az Europa Varietas Intézet igazgatójával a Francia Politika Blogon.

A tények

2015. január 7-én délelőtt, 11:30 körül két fegyveres behatolt a Charlie Hebdo nevű baloldali, szatirikus hetilap szerkesztőségébe és – célzottan, tudatosan – megölt 12 embert, köztük a lap közismert illusztrátorait, igazgatóját, illetve két rendőrt. A fegyveresek valószínűleg tudták, hogy mikor és hogyan kell támadniuk, mivel az áldozatokat arcról felismerték, illetve pontosan abban a pillanatban érkeztek, amikor a szerkesztőség a szokásos heti értekezletét tartotta. A mintegy öt percig tartó támadás után a fegyveresek elmenekültek a helyszínről. A rendőrség azonosította az elkövetőket és jelenleg is keresi őket.

A helyszínre érkező François Hollande köztársasági elnök terrortámadásnak nevezte a gyilkosságokat, amit megerősít a szemtanúk azon beszámolója, mely szerint a támadók “Allah Ahkbar!”, illetve “Megbosszultuk a prófétát!” felkiáltásokkal léptek fel, és az al-Kaida nevű ismert terrorszervezetet is emlegették.

A francia kormány szerdán 14 órakor válságmegbeszélést tartott az illetékes miniszterek részvételével, illetve a legmagasabb, további támadást valószínűsítő szintre emelte a Vigipirate antiterrorista terv szint-besorolását. A köztársasági elnök azonnali konzultációkat kezdett a francia politikai élet szereplőivel, ideértve a volt köztársasági elnököket, a pártelnököket, illetve azon politikai erők vezetőit, amelyek nem rendelkeznek nemzetgyűlési képviselőcsoporttal (gondolva itt különösen a Marine Le Pen vezette Nemzeti Frontra). A csütörtöki napra az elnök továbbá nemzeti gyásznapot rendelt el, amire 2001. szeptember 11. óta nem került sor Franciaországban....

Folytatása a Francia Politika Blogon olvasható, az anyagot folyamatosan frissítjük.

Az alábbi írás szigorúan a szerző magánvéleményét tükrözi és nem tekinthető az Europa Varietas Intézet hivatalos véleményének.
Megjelent a Kitekintő.hu-n

Mert a Charlie Hebdo szerkesztői – bár kiváló grafikusok - gyakran olyan színvonalat képviselnek, amivel nem tudok közösséget vállalni.

A mészárlást természetesen minden jólelkű ember elítéli, jómagam is, mint ahogy a sajtó szabadsága is elsődleges fontosságú érték, amit meg kell védeni és ami mellett ki kell állni. Állást foglalni azonban a lap tevékenysége és hatása kapcsán nagyon nehéz kérdés. Nincs bajom a szatírával, se a politikaival se a kulturális-vallásival, még akkor sem ha "malac" (v.ö. Boccaccio), de csak akkor, ha tényleg ütős, és megvan benne a szatíra sine qua non-ja, a humor. A Charlie Hebdo számos karikatúrájában az öncélú blaszfémia mellett ezt nem nagyon lehet felfedezni.

A magam részéről nem értek egyet azzal a tipizálással, amit most ránk próbálnak kényszeríteni a politikusok és véleményvezérek, hogy egyfelől a Charlie Hebdo, azaz a "mi", a "jók" a demokraták, a művelt Nyugat és "ők", a "rosszak" a barbár-fanatikus, terrorista (=iszlám) oldal, és én most csak e kettő közül választhatok. Ha lehet még harmadik véleményt képviselni akkor azt választanám.

A szatírikus lap karikatúrái a vallásokból csinálnak öncélú, kicsit sem vicces blaszfémiát. Persze, ehhez joguk van, joguk kell hogy legyen, de a magam részéről nem tudom sajnálni azokat, akik eleve céltáblát akasztva a nyakukba provokálják a sorsot és megteszik azt a szívességet a radikális iszlamistáknak, hogy "igazolják" azok tanait a fiatal és fogékony francia (vagy bármilyen más) muszlim fiatalság körében.

A tét óriási. Ugyanis a teljes politikai és társadalmi kiállás a provokatív lap elleni támadással szemben felveti a kérdést, hogy akkor most ezáltal teljesen egyetértünk az ilyen Charlie Hebdo lapokban képviselt "eszmeiséggel" is? Az egyébként indifferens, szekuralizálódott muszlimok Párizsban, Londonban és másutt meg csak pislognak, hogy lám-lám akkor mégis a radikálisoknak van igaza a "Nagy Sátán" kapcsán? Mégis a lefejezős dzsihádistákank kell hinni, akik szerint a Nyugat visel háborút ellenünk, ahol az egész társadalom iszlám ellenes? Mindenkinek szíve-joga, hogy hova áll. Ne feledjük, 2001. szeptember 11-e egyik következménye az lett, hogy a muszlim vallásúakat potenciális terroristaként kezdték el kezelni a hatóságok. Ahelyett, hogy mérsékelt iszlámmal karöltve együtt vette volna fel a harcot a Nyugat a szélsőségek ellen.

Mindezek miatt sokkal, de sokkal cizelláltabban kéne ezt a kérdést a politikusoknak és az értelmiségnek kezelnie. Zajlik a civilizációk (vagy inkább a kultúrák) harca és az a tét, hogy a mérsékelt iszlámot meg tudjuk-e tartani szövetségesnek vagy az - kényszerűségből - a szélsőségesek térfelére sodródik.

És éppen azt nem vesszük észre, hogy pont ez a vallási fanatikusok célja : Hogy mi sorakozzunk fel a blaszfémek mellet mind, legyen végre egy jól látható egyenlőségjel köztünk - a mérsékeltek - és a "vallásgyalázók" ("iszlám-gyalázók") között. Mi – mármint az "én vagyok Charlie" hősei – pedig lényegében az ő elképzelésük szerint "táncolunk", az ő kalkulált reakcióik szerint lépünk és ezzel pont mi leszünk azok, akik megerősítjük a támogatottságukat.

Ez a cél?

Türke András István Ph.D
Europa Varietas Intézet
www.europavarietas.org

PS: És ha már választani kell : "Nem vagyok Charlie, "francia" vagyok!

Éditorial de Pascal Lorot paru dans le n°40 (décembre 2014) de la Lettre d’information de l’Intelligence Economique des Ministères économiques et financiers IE Bercy

Retrouver ici l’article complet :

Objectif Afrique, maintenant !

 

 

var hupso_services_t=new Array("Twitter","Facebook","Google Plus","Linkedin");var hupso_background_t="#EAF4FF";var hupso_border_t="#66CCFF";var hupso_toolbar_size_t="medium";var hupso_image_folder_url = "";var hupso_title_t=""Objectif Afrique, maintenant ! ", Pascal Lorot, La Lettre de l'IE Bercy (décembre 2014)";

À l’occasion du cinquième dîner du Club Choiseul 100 – qui s’est tenu le 10 décembre 2014 au Cercle de l’Union interalliée, l’Institut Choiseul a reçu Cédric Villani, mathématicien, lauréat de la médaille Fields (2010).

Retrouver ci dessous la vidéo (1.56 min) de cette soirée exceptionnelle ainsi que l’interview de Cédric Villani.

 

 

var hupso_services_t=new Array("Twitter","Facebook","Google Plus","Linkedin");var hupso_background_t="#EAF4FF";var hupso_border_t="#66CCFF";var hupso_toolbar_size_t="medium";var hupso_image_folder_url = "";var hupso_title_t="Dîner du Club Choiseul 100";

The need to find a suitable alternative to our present carbon-based production pattern is currently the subject of international discussion, not least because economic growth usually goes hand in hand with increased resource consumption. As part of such an alternative, all economic decisions would have to take into account environmental concerns and the value of natural assets. The discussion is mainly focused on different concepts of green growth, now a buzzword. The hope is that we can find a solution to our world's most pressing issues, one that enables us to achieve economic growth while conserving ecosystems, preventing environmental degradation and contributing to the aims of climate stability and poverty reduction.
In addition to the important debate on the different ways of achieving this, it is also essential to discuss how we can effectively map the achievement of green growth. A number of international organisations have proposed sets of indicators for measuring green growth, and initiatives such as the Green Growth Knowledge Platform (GGKP) have been set up to pool existing knowledge, identify gaps in knowledge and provide a platform for discussion.
In this context, finding a standardised way of measuring green growth is far less trivial than it may appear at first glance, as there are at least two sources of heterogeneity that need to be taken into account: the different concepts of green growth that exist and the specific conditions of each country that require different priorities to be set. Differing income levels mean that countries will have varying degrees of scope for action and will set different policy priorities. Furthermore, there are often fundamental structural differences between economies, with implications for environmental impact and the use of natural resources. There must also be a certain degree of political stability for green growth strategies to be planned and implemented properly. Finally, it is necessary when measuring green growth to (be able to) distinguish between cyclical and structural changes in the economy.
This results in several sets of indicators for measuring green growth. However, the goal should not necessarily be to develop one sole set of universally valid indicators.
If we are to clearly delimit the concept of green growth to prevent its arbitrary use, then we need firstly to come up with a comprehensive way of defining it and secondly find overarching key indicators for measuring it that reflect central categories. At the same time, the different baseline conditions in developing countries, emerging economies and industrialised nations mean that green growth strategies must be adapted to individual situations. Accordingly, sets of indicators for measuring green growth need not only to allow a certain degree of flexibility, but also to be capable of reflecting this diversity.

Reducing gender gaps in education, employment and political decision making, among other dimensions, has long been an important development objective. This is confirmed by the international consensus reached over Millennium Development Goal 3 (MDG 3): “Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women”. Ensuring equal access to education, in particular, is a central component of this effort, as reflected in the goal’s target, which is to eliminate gender disparities in education by 2015.
Are countries that have adopted democratic political institutions more successful at reducing the gender gap in education? And can higher levels of political representation of women contribute to achieving this objective?
Democracy advances the cause of women’s education in the absolute, although there is no conclusive evidence on whether it improves women’s situation relative to men’s. When it comes to political representation, the evidence is clear: larger numbers of women in politics and elected office improve overall educational outcomes and reduce the gender gap in education.
What lessons can be learnt regarding the linkages between democratic institutions, women’s political representation and the gender gap in education?

- The fact that democracies have a better track record than autocratic regimes when it comes to education and development provides additional justification for development cooperation policies that support gradual political opening in autocracies as well as the stabilisation and consolidation of democracy in countries that have chosen to go down this path. Moreover, it suggests that the adoption of specific democratic institutions, such as allowing women to run for office, can make a difference, even in countries that are not formally democratic.

- Multiple policy objectives could be reached with one policy tool: women’s political representation. Progress in this dimension improves not only girls’ education but also health and political participation, among other outcomes.

- Policy-makers and international donors should exercise caution in adopting and supporting the implementation of quick fixes to increase women’s political representation, such as gender quotas. In countries with high levels of gender inequality, such as India, quotas alone are likely to have limited effects. Instead, these should be integrated into a larger set of interventions aimed at diminishing gender gaps in employment, assets and decision making.

Overall, these arguments speak directly to the current debate on the post-2015 agenda. The ratio of girls to boys in education and the proportion of seats held by women in national parliament are two indicators for MDG 3. As these topics are also likely to be central in the post-2015 agenda, it is important to consider the studies showing that making progress in the second indicator advances the first one. This, in fact, can help when analysing the feasibility of these objectives and in the planning of the resources required to achieve them. Moreover, these findings point to the importance of including governance in the global develop¬ment agenda.

Recent intellectual history has made considerable strides in acknowledging certain forms of institutionalized discrimination as well as the unjustifiable privilege of certain cultures over others. Our epistemology, however, has in general continued as if its schools—predominantly empiricism and rationalism—are preoccupied with the nature of knowledge  per se , rather than the  nature  of knowledge as conceptualized within a specific society or cultural tradition.

Consequently, epistemology has been slow to see its own limitations as well as in acquiring a kind of basic understanding of our shared cognitive architecture.  The outcome of improved understanding in this regard would go far beyond academia. It would serve as a more profitable and equitable foundation for international relations. Two crucial features of this new edifice will be humility and an appreciation for underestimated commonality.

The classical positions of both the empiricist and the rationalist schools remain well-entrenched. Empiricism continues to praise sensory experience and the data gathered from such experience. The purists of the rationalist school, for their part, emphasize the role of reason in all knowledge acquisition, as they remind us of the frequent fallibility of our sensory apparatus. This dichotomy has served as the subject matter for long-standing philosophical controversies. Happily, there are now tools to bridge this conceptual chasm. Neuro-Rational Physicalism (NRP) provides a basis for understanding how sensory experience, emotionality, and rational inference are much more intimately related than has previously been appreciated. The relevance of these epistemological debates is not only scholarly but also political. A better understanding of the foundation of knowledge is critical to affirming the role of our limitations and consequently in demonstrating that all “truths” must be respected.

 

The Best Aspects of Two Traditions

Neuro-Rational Physicalism  and empiricism share the view that sensory data is a source of knowledge. Using contemporary neuroscientific research, however, NRP argues for a much more pervasive role for inference. This is because individual perceptions are colored by the sensory apparatus through which they are perceived, and this apparatus, in turn, is significantly formed by unique spatio-temporal and cultural influences.

NRP also diverges from those rationalists who claim that there is innate knowledge. Instead NRP advocates for  “a predisposed tabula rasa”   which implies that the human mind is minimally equipped with egoistic survival instincts. We are born without innate notions of good or bad, moral or immoral, yet what we do possess is a survival instinct coded in our genetics, which motivates us to act toward our survival at all (or most) times. As we are spatially and temporally situated beings, all knowledge gained is subject to the influence of the mechanisms of knowledge acquisition, and the character of these mechanisms is dynamic and influenced by circumstances .

As Jonathan Haidt has argued at length, even apparently direct sensory input and emotional experience has a  cognitive dimension ; knowledge is partially “given” by the world but also simultaneously worked upon by the mind of the individual to whom it is given. Because of this, what counts as knowledge by acquaintance will vary with the life narratives and resultant dispositions of each individual.

Members of the  ancient Stoical school  were thus closer to the truth than they realized in claiming the emotions to be judgments: whatever the case may be with regard to our capacity to control our emotions, neuroscientific research now demonstrates the inferential role in emotional experience. The ancients did not have the advantages of modern brain imaging and other contemporary tools for research, which led them at times to oversimplify consciousness and our mental processes.

It is now known that emotional “decisions” occur and inform behaviour prior to rational awareness of these decisions. Ground-breaking neuroscience experiments and research have proven in recent years that emotions are in fact dominant in our decision-making process. In this regard, modern neuroscience has been able to reverse postulations of philosophers from previous eras, including the idea that the human mind is incorporeal, distinct from the human body, as Descartes had famously argued. Quite the contrary,  neuroscientists like Antonio Damasio  have proven that some decisions are often picked by the brain after being marked as more “emotionally salient” than others. Through his experiments, carried out on people who missed the part of the brain where emotions were generated, he observed not only that they could not feel emotions, but also that they could not make decisions. Damage to the prefrontal cortex was detrimental to decision-making abilities due to the lack of the emotional machinery.

A dominant trend in philosophy and psychology since its earliest days has been to underestimate the ubiquitous nature of our  emotions , their inferential structure, and their functional efficacy. NRP addresses these oversights by giving a fundamental role to the sensory experience emphasized by empiricists, while arguing that this experience itself involves the process of inference focused upon by the rationalists. NRP further creates the conceptual space for emotions to play the powerful role they can be seen to take in neuroscientific research.

 

The Place of Presupposition

As explained above, inference is critical in how we acquire and manipulate knowledge. This premise gives significant weight to the sources from where our inferences are drawn. The conclusions we make are informed by certain presuppositions, which makes knowledge indeterminate since it is tightly dependent on the nature of those initial presuppositions. This is reminiscent of a relativist stance, yet this is not necessarily the case.

Our world is a world of fact, but our knowledge, which is unavoidably situated within particulars, always strikes a glancing blow at these facts. Put differently, while there are objective facts concerning the physical world, there is no non-perspectival knowledge of these facts. This carries the crucial implication that knowledge has a strong likelihood of being incomplete or containing inaccuracies.

As  Gettier  has famously shown, one can have a justified belief that the believer nonetheless seems only to have been right about through a kind of luck. The rhetorical question he raised was whether having the right conclusion—though inferred from a mistaken premise—should count as knowledge. The question of whether true opinion is sufficient for knowledge can be traced back to Plato. While debate goes on over so-called Gettier problems, the important upshot for NRP is the critical role played by premises in the acquisition of knowledge.

Because the sources of our inferences are always grounded in our respective particular conditions, the premises from which we operate should be thought of as eccentric to a certain degree, and hence subject to distortions that result in our knowledge being incomplete. Our knowledge is indeterminate, both temporally and spatially, and to a certain degree culturally constrained. It is a daunting task to prove our truths beyond any doubt – at least with the scientific methodologies we have to date; rather, some of our knowledge can be more accurately described as “possible truths subject to proof”.

 

Physicalism and Knowledge in the World

Comprehending that the ways we acquire knowledge are culturally mediated would be a profound step in softening rigid  categories of “otherness”  present in our globalized world. The recognition that the situated nature of one’s own knowledge renders it incomplete creates conceptual space for accepting the validity of  knowledge formed in different cultural settings  and removes the temptation for ranking systems of thought hierarchically. This recognition is as important as it is difficult to promote, especially as numerous policy-makers or ideologues are keen to perpetuate ideas of otherness, garnering political capital or power from such divisions.

As an educational agenda, this legitimization of varying forms of cultural thought and the humility entailed by seeing one’s own knowledge as provisional rather than absolute could go a great distances towards cross-cultural understanding. Neuro-Rational Physicalism provides a deep justification for this process. The physical nature of mental events—traceable through brain chemistry imaging—implies that repeated experiences and emotional inputs become entrenched to the extent that the individual will become unwilling to disrupt them. This understanding has two weighty consequences.  First, the stimuli that make up our sensory experience and the ideas to which we are exposed are enormously influential in determining our comprehension and behavior patterns. Second, the entrenched chemical processes make us reluctant to question the premises we take on board and from which we do our reasoning. Therefore, in spite of the provisional,  best-available-explanation nature  of our knowledge, we are often tempted to take our premises to be objectively true.

Understanding the biases embedded in our ‘truths’, and the neurochemical foundations of our long-held beliefs has political and transcultural implications. Transcultural differences may exist, but those who believe they hold an “ultimate truth” are not only mistaken but also dangerous to peaceful coexistence. The long held animosities between the West and the Islamic world, the  persisting ‘national humiliation’ narratives embedded in Chinese strategic culture and perpetuated through national curricula are two resounding yet not isolated examples of how knowledge and prejudice are furthered at times with little critical reflexivity.

This epistemological project of deconstructing the foundations of knowledge and, subsequently, its limitations, needs to permeate the public space. The best way to achieve it is to start off precisely in those places where forms of knowledge are cultivated: schools, and to a lesser extent, the media and the entertainment industry. Revisited curricula and historical narratives which help promote a vision of our limited knowledge and of the plurality of truths is a promising start for greater transcultural understanding and a more functional and thus sustainable, peaceful and progressive global order.

 

 

>> Back to Staff Publications

Eine schwere Tür öffnet sich. Helle Blitzlichter flackern auf. Ein konfuses Durcheinander von Fragen bricht aus. Allein mit guter Präparation bewahrt man nun Ruhe. Um solche und ähnlich schwierige Situationen erfolgreich zu meistern, erhielten die Stipendiaten vom 12. bis 14. Dezember 2014 in Wildbad Kreuth Einblicke in die Presse- und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit.

L’Institut Choiseul et KPMG présentent la 3ème édition du Choiseul Energy Index, étude annuelle et indépendante qui mesure et analyse la compétitivité et la performance des politiques énergétiques de 146 États à travers un classement global, mais également selon la qualité de leur mix énergétique, leurs situations en termes d’accès et de disponibilité de l’électricité, et la compatibilité de leurs politiques énergétiques avec les problématiques d’environnement.

Télécharger le communiqué de presse

Télécharger l’infographie

Télécharger l’étude complète (26 pages)

Download the English version

var hupso_services_t=new Array("Twitter","Facebook","Google Plus","Linkedin");var hupso_background_t="#EAF4FF";var hupso_border_t="#66CCFF";var hupso_toolbar_size_t="medium";var hupso_image_folder_url = "";var hupso_title_t="Choiseul Energy Index 2015";

We frequently hear the terms “Cyber 9/11” and “Digital Pearl Harbor,” but we rarely discuss what they actually mean or how to handle the consequences and to manage this kind of crisis situation. The Cyber 9/12 Project explores how the international community should respond the day after a major cyber attack.

By closing the gap between tomorrow’s policy makers and technical operators, the Cyber 9/12 Student Challenge is a policy-centered student competition requiring a multi-sector and interdisciplinary approach. Whereas most cyber competitions focus on technical capabilities, the Cyber 9/12 Student Challenge forces competitors to answer critical questions concerning cooperation between military and diplomatic actors, public and private actors, and the need to calibrate responses to the international community.

Der sogenannte „Islamische Staat“ (IS) – im Kern eine arabisch-sunnitische Bewegung, die mittlerweile ein Gebiet von der Größe Portugals kontrolliert – hat in den vergangenen Monaten die Medien beherrscht wie kein anderes Thema. Am 9. Dezember 2014 diskutierte eine Runde von Experten zu den Hintergründen der Entstehung.

Weltweit stehen westliche Geber in der Demokratieförderung vor einem Dilemma. Demokratie ist zwar ein wichtiges politisches Ziel, aber sie fürchten, dass der Weg dorthin ein ebenso wertvolles Ziel – politische Stabilität – unterminieren und in den Empfängerstaaten vermehrt Gewalt auslösen könnte. Wir gehen hier der Frage nach, ob es für diese Befürchtungen empirische Belege gibt, und wie Geber bei potenziellen Zielkonflikten zwischen Demokratisierung und Stabilität abwägen können.
Jüngste Forschungsarbeiten des Deutschen Instituts für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) zeigen, dass es für die Sorge, Demokratisierung könne destabilisierend wirken, tatsächlich gewisse empirische Belege gibt (Leininger et al. 2012; Ziaja 2013). Diese Befürchtungen sollten allerdings nicht vom größeren Problem ablenken, „auf halber Strecke stehen zu bleiben“. Hybride Regime mit autoritären Merkmalen, die sich hinter einer Fassade formal-demokratischer Institutionen verstecken, stellen auf lange Sicht ein größeres Sicherheitsrisiko dar als Versuche, in hybriden Regimen Demokratie zu fördern.
Demokratieförderung ist also wünschenswert, aber häufig ein Risiko. Laut einer neuen Studie des DIE, die 47 afrikanische Staaten einbezieht, führt Demokratieförderung zwar kurzfristig zu mehr Demonstrationen und Ausschreitungen, nicht aber zu Bürgerkriegen. Somit deutet stärkere Mobilisierung der Bevölkerung eher auf die Wirksamkeit von Hilfe hin, als dass sie  ein Grund zur Besorgnis wäre.
Damit Demokratieförderung langfristig wirken und die Forderungen der Bevölkerung kanalisieren kann, muss sie lokalen Akteuren beim Aufbau von bedarfsgerechten Institutionen helfen. Häufig ließen sich Eliten aus Angst vor möglichen destabilisierenden Folgen von Bürgerbeteiligung zur Beschneidung des Wettbewerbs in jungen Demokratien verleiten. Dies ist keine gute Idee: Elitäre Transitionen führen laut unserer Forschung zu weniger nachhaltigen politischen Konstellationen als offener Wettbewerb.
Externe Förderung gelingt am besten, wenn Geber mar¬ginalisierte Gruppen darin unterstützen, sich am Institutionenaufbau zu beteiligen. Das wird am besten durch gleichzeitiges Engagement vieler Geber erreicht. Diversität auf der Geberseite erhöht die Chancen, eine kontextgemäße institutionelle Struktur zu finden, anstatt dem Partnerland eine solche überzustülpen.
Daraus ergibt sich, dass es für die Notwendigkeit eines Sequenzierungsansatzes in der Demokratieförderung  -  d. h. erst Stabilität, dann Demokratie – kaum empirische Belege gibt. Die meisten Länder haben bereits vor über zwei Jahrzehnten (formal) den Weg zur Demokratie einge¬schlagen. Ein gradualistischer Ansatz mit gleichzeitigem Aufbau von staatlichen Institutionen und der Förderung breiter Beteiligung ist darum der vielversprechendere Weg.
Unsere Empfehlungen lauten daher in Kürze:
‒    Demokratie sofort fördern und nicht zugunsten reiner Stabilisierungsmaßnahmen hintanstellen.
‒    Die Demokratieförderung  diversifizieren.
‒    Endogene, inklusive politische Entwicklung fördern.
‒    Beim Aufbau politischer Institutionen durch den Einsatz von Konditionalität auf Konfliktlösungsmechanismen bestehen.
‒    Zielkonflikte in Phasen demokratischer Transition abwägen.

Eine sinnvolle Alternative zur derzeitigen kohlenstoffabhängigen Wirtschaftsweise zu finden, wird aktuell international diskutiert, u. a. weil ökonomisches Wachstum in der Regel mit steigendem Ressourcenverbrauch einhergeht. Eine solche Alternative würde auch erfordern, dass Umweltbelange und der Wert von natürlichem Kapital bei sämtlichen ökonomischen Entscheidungen berücksichtigt werden. Die Diskussion bezieht sich vor allem auf Variationen des Konzepts Grünen Wachstums (green growth), das zu einer Art Modewort avanciert ist. Dabei schwingt die Hoffnung mit, eine Lösung für die dringendsten Probleme dieser Welt zu entwickeln: Das Bewahren von Ökosystemen und die Vermeidung von Umweltdegradation sollen ebenso mit ökonomischem Wachstum in Einklang gebracht werden wie die Ziele Klimastabilität und Armutsreduzierung.
Neben der wichtigen Debatte über die verschiedenen Wege zu diesen Zielen ist die Diskussion darüber essenziell, wie das Erreichen von grünem Wachstum sinnvoll abgebildet werden kann. Eine Reihe internationaler Organisationen hat Sets von Indikatoren zur Messung grünen Wachstums vorgeschlagen, und darüber hinaus haben sich Initiativen wie die Green Growth Knowledge Platform (GGKP) gebildet, die das vorhandene Wissen bündeln, Wissenslücken identifizieren und der Diskussion eine Plattform bieten.
Die einheitliche Messung grünen Wachstums ist dabei weit weniger trivial, als es auf den ersten Blick scheinen mag, da es mindestens zwei Quellen von Heterogenität gibt, die berücksichtigt werden müssen: Zum einen existieren mehrere Konzepte zu grünem Wachstum und zum anderen bedingen die individuellen Rahmenbedingungen der Länder, dass Prioritäten unterschiedlich gesetzt werden. So führen die differierenden Einkommensniveaus der Länder zu unterschiedlichen Politikschwerpunkten und Handlungsspielräumen. Des Weiteren unterscheiden sich die Ökonomien oft fundamental in ihrer Wirtschaftsstruktur – mit Implikationen für Umweltauswirkungen und die Nutzung natürlicher Ressourcen. Zudem bedarf es eines gewissen Maßes an politischer Stabilität, um grüne Wachstumsstrategien sinnvoll planen und verfolgen zu können. Und schließlich muss die Messung grünen Wachstums auch zwischen zyklischen und strukturellen wirtschaftlichen Veränderungen unterscheiden (können).
Daraus resultieren mehrere Indikatoren-Sets zur Messung grünen Wachstums. Das Ziel sollte aber nicht zwangsläufig sein, ein alleingültiges Indikatoren-Set zu entwickeln. Um das Konzept Grünes Wachstum klar abzustecken und damit vor dessen beliebiger Verwendung zu schützen, werden erstens eine übergreifende Definition grünen Wachstums benötigt und zweitens, zur Messung, übergeordnete Schlüsselindikatoren, die zentrale Kategorien widerspiegeln. Allerdings erfordern die heterogenen Ausgangsbedingungen in Entwicklungs-, Schwellen- und Industrieländern grüne Wachstumsstrategien, die an die individuellen Situationen angepasst werden können. Demzufolge müssen auch Indikatoren-Sets zur Messung grünen Wachstums nicht nur eine gewisse Flexibilität erlauben, sondern auch in der Lage sein, diese Diversität zu reflektieren.

The Geneva Centre for Security Policy has been bridging knowledge and experience for 20 years and 2015 will mark the 20th anniversary for the Geneva Centre for Security Policy (GCSP).

This article originally appeared in ISN.

Strong statist positions and a fixation on state sovereignty once inhibited progress toward more just and effective models of global governance. However, there can be no denying that globalization has not only led to the unprecedented transformation of our societies, but also the role that states play in the international system. Yet, even as states gradually share more responsibilities with corporations, sub-national entities and international organizations, their structural significance still remains indisputable – particularly when it comes to finding near-term solutions for better modes of global governance. This should result in a more equitable and representative international state system to which global governing structures will remain accountable.

The Existing Structure and Its Limitations 

Traditional paradigms typically reserved almost unequivocal attention to the narrow interests of states, even around issues that were global in nature. This understanding gradually grew obsolete and many of the post-war multilateral institutions were formed to address those challenges which cannot be solved by unilateral state decisions. With its numerous funds and programs, the United Nations is the best known and furthest reaching of these institutions – even though important work is increasingly being undertaken by a variety of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) that are not directly influenced by national interests. Yet, such developments have by no means guaranteed a significant improvement in global governance as it is currently practiced.  UN Resolutions continue to be violated and international laws are regularly breached. To take the most straightforward example, the UN Security Council (UNSC) remains structurally tethered to the interests of its five permanent members. And because these five states retain formidable veto powers, the threat of unilateral decision making remains very much in place.

Accordingly, the veto system in its current form is a major impediment to more effective forms of global governance and is ill-suited for the economic and political realities of our times. Moreover, international failure to reform the system is solidifying global governance around a paradigm that better reflects the power balances of the mid-20thcentury rather than the present day.  Without immediate and profound reform, the credibility of the international community continues to be severely hamstrung. In order to overcome this, the effectiveness and influence of the UNSC can be enhanced in several ways, and states will have to reach a consensus over how it should be amended. Options include shifting to gaining the majority consensus of the five permanent members, extending veto powers to additional states and regional blocs, and abolishing the veto altogether.

Without meaningful reform, the present veto system will continue to impede timely prevention and/or intervention against large-scale human rights violations and war crimes.  However, evidence has shown that making such changes will occur slowly over an  indeterminate length of time [DA1]  , despite  intense political pressure . The call for reform of the UNSC  was subtly initiated in the ‘90s and hit its stride in the last decade. It has concentrated around the efforts of groups like “Uniting for Consensus”, the G4 or the African Union’s Ezulwini Consensus which consecutively put forward proposals for a more representative UNSC. The process of reform remains to date  “painfully slow”  and a decisive structural change has yet to materialize. Consequently, it might be more realistic to push for changes within the existing system, such as those recently suggested by  France . Earlier this year, Paris urged its fellow permanent Security Council members to refrain from using their veto powers in situations involving mass atrocities. In doing so, France has merely reconfirmed that the status quo might not only be harmful to the UN’s standing and legitimacy, but for humanity as well.

Creating the Right Conditions

A further challenge involves ensuring and enhancing the accountability of existing global governance institutions. Entities such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) continue to implement policies with far-reaching effects, whereas those most adversely affected by them quite often have little means of recourse. As Thomas Pogge has argued,  WTO policies  have systematically reinforced global inequality and thus exacerbated global poverty rather than ameliorating it. Poverty, marginalization, and huge gaps in socio-economic development all raise barriers to good global governance. Financial institutions and mechanisms have an important role to play in addressing these issues, but only greater levels of accountability and increased respect for human rights will overcome them. Quite often even NGOs, while not under the direct control of states, do an inadequate job of representing the most vulnerable members of society and instead take directives from its most favorably positioned members.

These considerations beg for the creation of two principal amendments to the current system. The first involves the creation of a universal citizens’ charter that guarantees human dignity  regardless of ethnic, religious or national affiliations. The second is that states’ internal representational structures will have to be improved so that the fundamental rights of all sections of society are better protected. Because radical economic disparity within a nation compromises the capacity for representation and hence  good internal governance , global governance will also subsequently be debilitated. Accordingly, improved internal governance within states will result in less economic disparity, and be a  sine qua non  for improved global governance and the upholding of human rights.

Setting Minimum Criteria

While attempts to promote human rights beyond the nation-state predate it, the 1948 UN Charter has led the way in formal efforts to recognize and protect them. Yet, it is only in more recent times that crises occurring outside of the spectre of warfare have been recognized as a fundamental challenge to global human rights. However, economic policies that systematically reinforce global disparities and actions that threaten global economic stability (like those leading up to the financial crisis of 2008) have always compromised human dignity and should be constrained by the aforementioned universal citizens’ charter. Cultural arrogance, marginalization and exclusionary practices also add to what is effectively a cluster of problems.

Historically entrenched divisions and transcultural misunderstandings perpetuate problems whose solutions must go beyond the national level. Such challenges to human welfare and dignity throw into stark relief the interconnectedness of all peoples and the remote consequences of local actions, as well as the need for efficient institutional solutions that are able to bypass long-standing power struggles between select nations. At its minimum, good global governance, as implemented by multilateral institutions, must work by a set of criteria that are general enough to allow for distinct cultural interpretations to coexist. A sustainable agenda for global governance must be clearly guided by:

1. Effective multilateralism
2. Effective multilateral institutions
3. Representative multilateral decision-making structures
4. Dialogue
5. Accountability
6. Transparency
7. Burden-sharing
8. Stronger partnerships between multilateral organizations and civil society

Global governance suffers from both ineffectiveness and a crisis of legitimacy. Credible and sustainable global governance requires that institutions cease to work predominantly to the advantage of those groups or nations already in positions of power. It must create the conditions for those in less fortunate positions to have stable and meaningful social lives. Progress has begun on these fronts with the partial integration of multilateral agencies and non-state governing bodies. However, progress continues to occur at a rate far slower than that of globalization and is inadequate to address the emerging global challenges. Placing these criteria at the centre of developing forms of global governance will assure that such institutions and partnerships do not lose sight of their intended purpose.

 

 

>> Back to GCSP Staff Publications

Zoltán Fehér : The New Faces of an Old Art: Creative Diplomacy in the 21st Century
Charles University, Jinonice, room J2080
Prague, 17 h

For centuries, the often uneasy and war-burdened relations between countries were not only conducted on the formal governmental level - in fact they were mostly shaped through backdoor dealings. The gradual democratization of most countries in the world has brought about an opening of diplomacy towards the wider public. With the help of the digital revolution, many governments have engaged in new, experimental forms of diplomacy in recent years. Drawing on his own experience of rising through the ranks of the Hungarian diplomatic corps, Zoltán Fehér will identify and define the pioneering new forms of transatlantic diplomacy ranging from the representations of national cultures through art events to the creative use of the potential of the mass media for cultural diplomacy to the diplomatic use of the "new media" such as social networks and blogging. In his presentation, Fehér hopes to challenge his audience to think outside the box of conventional diplomacy and identify and pursue alternative and new forms of cultural ties – for a new understanding of international relations in the 21st century.

Zoltán Fehér has just stepped down as Hungary's Chargé d'Affaires in Ankara, Turkey. He served as Hungary’s deputy ambassador in Ankara, Turkey since 2011. He previously served at the Embassy of Hungary in Washington D.C. as Chief Creative Officer and Foreign Policy Analyst (2005-2009), and held various positions in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs since 2002. He holds Master’s degrees in Political Theory and American Studies from Eötvös Loránd University (ELTE) and a Law degree from Pázmány Catholic University. In 2001/2002, he studied International Relations at Bard College (New York State) as a Kellner Scholar. He has taught International Relations and European Studies at ELTE, Pázmány Catholic University and King Sigismund College while his scholarly work has also been published. From 2009 to 2011, he served as President of the Young Diplomats Club in Budapest. His work and achievements have been written on in various publications, including the Diplomatic Pouch, The Washington Times, CBS News, The Georgetowner, Népszabadság, Fraternity Magazine, Forbes Magazine and Ankara Scene.

This article  originally appeared  in the Global Policy Journal.

 

Nayef Al-Rodhan argues for a globally inclusive educational program that promotes cultural security and understanding.

There are all kinds of moral truths that see the world from different perspectives, and none of them have to necessarily be more right than the others. This underscores the significance of education: alongside family structure and cultural context, education has the capacity to influence every aspect of how we think about the world. It is crucial in our context of unprecedented globalization to put this powerful tool to use in the interest of tolerance and cultural understanding in ways that foster harmonious co-existence, and cultural synergies. When the fundamental importance of education becomes fully appreciated, it can be revitalized and adapted to encourage open-mindedness, inclusion and cooperation.

Educational Hurdles to Overcome

It is worth pausing to consider the reasons for a lingering lack of emphasis on education. Its general importance has not, of course, been lost on intellectuals through the ages:  Plato made  a (rather infamous) strict educational regime fundamental to his Republic. Bentham and  Mill , despite their differences, both recognized education as the most direct route to realizing the utilitarian goal of maximizing happiness for the greatest number of people.  John Dewey  argued at length that education is crucial to democracy. The notion of a global education that considers globalization, its impacts, its promises and its challenges as its main subject matter—remains seriously underdeveloped; there are two principle issues that should first be confronted. The first is a debilitating form of parochialism in which parties fails to see the value in learning the ways of the “other”. The second issue is a naïve conception of personhood, which fails to appreciate the all-encompassing influence of environment, including education, in the development of a human being.

From a purely theoretical point of view, a position that embodies these two issues is untenable.  As philosophers have remarked  for some time, the lack of external influence simply leaves a void needing to be filled by some sort of pure internal causation, perhaps of the sort Aristotle had in mind when he claimed that a stone that moves is moved by a stick, and in turn the stick is moved by a man. But what moves the man? This is a question often-posed by contemporary thinkers and materialists in particular.

Theories of psychology, and neurochemistry as well as theories of mind and emotions have been especially interested in answering this question. My account of a predisposed  tabula rasa   — a “mind” equipped with a minimal suite of survival instincts demanded by natural selection and otherwise open and liable to be determined by circumstances — harmonizes with contemporary neuroscientific research, and suggests that what motivates a human being is greatly dependent upon his or her experience and exposure. Neuroscience also informs us that  our knowledge  is mediated by neurochemistry and that it is not fixed or objective, but alterable and incomplete, shaped by both our interpretations and our environment. Thus, education plays a central role both in determining our social dispositions as well as in global affairs: it teaches us to uncover the many biases in our respective forms of knowledge, appreciate our own limitations and respect the ‘truths’ of others.

The Content of Education for a Globalized World

The premise that we learn the most about ourselves by learning about others might sound like a platitude but the significance of the idea continues to be underappreciated and the concept remains under-applied. When students first encounters different mythologies not only do they come to understand others more thoroughly, but they also becomes capable of assessing the role that mythology—as well as dogma—has played in their own culture. Such multicultural study simultaneously creates the premises for more tolerant and self-critical attitude, while instilling a greater understanding of the ways that cultures have evolved. However, this outcome does not occur often enough because in order to assimilate mythology in this way, students should also be cautioned against the false but pervasive view of essentialism. A diverse cultural education must also emphasize intra-cultural variety, and the malleability of individual human beings when their cultural and social contexts shift. Such learning is enriching on another level as well: it teaches us that our histories are intertwined,. Furthermore, it shows that our ‘civilizations’ are not as separate as popular discourse would have us believe but rather that they developed through  constant mutual borrowings . Most importantly, transcultural education reveals that human history is a cumulative effort, where no culture can claim monopoly over another but instead is indebted to others for their contributions. We need to move towards an educational paradigm that promotes an ‘ ocean model of civilisation ’: a metaphor for human civilization conceived as a whole, like an ocean into which different rivers flow and add depth.

Perhaps most significantly of all, education must be updated to be more objective and to present information in a fair and balanced manner. As is well-known, education has too often been the venue for indoctrination in which half-truths or outright falsehoods are perpetuated. Familiar cases include the inferiority of the “other” manifested in the language used to characterize intercultural relations. More insidiously, and ubiquitously, facts relating to violent conflict have long been distorted or blatantly suppressed. For example, the Gulf of Tonkin incident involved deliberate deception regarding the presence of North Vietnamese boats and false claims that the NVM later initiated hostilities. While it is now a well-documented case, at the time the situation was less clear. The dissemination of this type of disinformation is widespread and badly skews our understanding of history.

Beyond such deception and mischaracterization with regard to specific episodes in history and international relations, education in its current form is woefully inadequate concerning certain types of information crucial to global coexistence. The general notion that many wars are just, and perhaps that there is even a kind of nobility to many wars, is not sufficiently confronted. Were it more widely taught that the wars of the last 100 years have killed far  more civilians  than combatants—roughly three innocent bystanders for every two soldiers — justifications for war would be far fewer. Furthermore, the statistics of modern warfare show a  far worse ratio  of civilian to combatant deaths, in spite of all the advances in battlefield technology and bluster about “targeted drone strikes”. This is, of course, only one very specific example, but it demonstrates that education is the best means for altering people’s perspectives and in so doing challenge the many unjust features of the status quo.

More generally, education holds the key to greater empowerment of women and marginalized populations, and will be the principle weapon in the fight against global concerns such as poverty, injustice and inequality. Providing individuals with the requisite understanding of their place in our contemporary, globalized world and giving them the autonomy to have greater control over their own lives should figure high on our list of enshrined social and political rights.
Education has the capacity to both foster tolerance and a cooperative mentality essential to the future of humanity, as well as to build psychological barriers between peoples and reinforce divisive dogmas,. It is for this reason that it is of the utmost importance that education programs get the attention they deserve. As the rate of globalization accelerates, the de-emphasis of nationalist agendas and parochialism alongside the emphasis of mutual understanding and appreciation of cultural diversity will be crucial.

Sustainable security for humanity can only be achieved if education is made a priority by states and their societal institutions. These institutions include educational bodies, the media, the entertainment industry and political discourse. These electioneering sound bites are meant to unite and excite the electorate, and are thought of as temporary, but in fact they leave significant, lasting, and harmful negative attitudes in the minds of the electorate on various domestic and global issues.

The way forward

An ideal  educational program  that protects the national identity and heritage of states while being globally inclusive and promoting cultural security and understanding should include the following eight features:

- Empowerment and development of inclusive national narratives
- Global knowledge of cultures and histories
- Cultural respect and understanding
- Communication, exchange and exposure
- Global citizenry through responsible media and political statements
- Global values and equality
- Avoidance of dehumanization of the other and abuse of knowledge
- Other moral truths and views.

Educational practice must be updated to track and promote current and emerging challenges. It is the single most powerful tool for pushing back against an always-looming state of nature, and for promoting a more just, secure, equitable, prosperous and sustainable global order.

 

 

>> Back to GCSP Staff Publications

Providing agile and innovative solutions in executive education in the field of international security policy