Diplomacy & Crisis News

From a distance, it looks deceptively like summer camping season in this country’s capital. Men play cards and drink beer by their colorful tents across the street from Parliament. A larger, younger crowd encamped in front of the government building listens to lively music.

Ne jamais soumettre au vote un sujet important si l'on n'est pas à l'avance certain du résultat : le Parlement européen semble avoir fait sienne cette règle d'or des démocraties libérales en décidant à brûle-pourpoint, mardi 9 juin, d'ajourner un scrutin consacré au grand marché transatlantique. / (...) / États-Unis (affaires extérieures), Europe, Démocratie, Libéralisme - La valise diplomatique

The Mediterranean region is undergoing a “nutrition transition” away from its traditional diet, long revered as a model for healthy living and sustainable food systems and known for preserving the environment and empowering local producers, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has warned.

Around 20 to 30 per cent of children in low income countries complete their schooling and enter the labour market by the age of 15, according to a new International Labour Organization (ILO) report prepared for World Day against Child Labour which is marked worldwide tomorrow.

Jeb Bush speaking at CPAC 2015 in Washington, DC. Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore

Years ago, a few friends and I were walking down the streets of Sorrento, Italy, during some off-time on a class trip abroad. Few paid any attention to the teenage tourists — at least until one man stopped, did a double take and asked, “Are you from the United States?”

“Yes,” one of us said. “Massachusetts.”

“One question. Did you vote for George W. Bush?”

“We can’t vote yet, but we don’t support him either.”

We were all around 13- or 14-years-old, so voting was out of the question. He was pleased. We walked on.

Twelve years later, Jeb Bush has found himself grappling with a similar question on a trip Europe. That is, will Jeb follow in the footsteps of his father or his brother?

That’s a question that resonates stateside as well, but in Europe the need to choose either the 41st or the 43rd president as a source of inspiration is a bit more pressing. Thanks to his support for German reunification, George H.W. Bush remains popular in Western Europe; meanwhile, his son, George W., is likely the least popular American president in Europe since the end of World War II. One poll from 2006 found that a staggering 77 percent of Europeans disapproved of George W.’s foreign policy during his first and second terms.

Jeb’s strategy for avoiding being bogged down by his brother’s own failures appears to be shifting the conversation from his family’s political history to that of an old-but-new common enemy: Russia.

Upon his arrival to Germany on Tuesday, Jeb spoke before the Christian Democratic Union’s economic council in Berlin. He emphasized the need for strong transatlantic ties, took potshots at the Obama administration’s Russia policy, and called for a more aggressive response from the West against Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

“Giving the sense that we’re reacting in a tepid fashion only enables the bad behavior of Putin,” Jeb told an audience of a thousand or so.

“We should never [respond] in a way that pushes Russia away for a generation of time. Then ultimately, Russia needs to be a European nation and that everything we do ought to be to isolate its corrupt leadership from its people, for starters.”

That message of aggression may appeal to leaders in the next two stops on Jeb’s European adventure — Poland and Estonia — but it’s not necessarily wooing German leaders. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has had to wrangle sanctions skeptics like Cyprus, Greece and Italy, would undoubtedly appreciate some recognition of her efforts. Were tougher sanctions against Russia to be implemented — which G7 leaders showed support for this week — she’d have to do more of the same.

Yet, as Leonid Bershidsky, a Bloomberg View columnist, noted, “[Jeb’s] compliment to Merkel for her toughness on sanctions against Russia sounded like faint praise, once he warned against ‘tepid’ reaction to President Vladimir Putin’s ‘bad behavior.'” She’s too entwined with the U.S.’ Russia policy for Jeb’s “tepid” line to work.

The question of arming the Ukraine is also a contentious one. Jeb, like most of the Republican hopefuls, supports the idea. The administration’s “tepid” response presumably alludes to Obama’s unwillingness to embrace the idea. That said, Obama hasn’t ruled the possibility out either. Merkel, meanwhile, has made her views quite clear: Sending arms to Ukraine would not solve the crisis.

If Jeb’s European charm offensive rests on winning over German leaders with an aggressive anti-Putin agenda, he’s out of luck. Not all hope may be lost, though — at least someone admitted he’s better than his brother.

This post also appeared at The Eastern Project.

Testimony to Helsinki Commission Hearing, U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe.

L. Boltanksi, Mysteries and Conspiracies, Polity Press, Cambridge, 2014

Voir les autres notes de lecture dans la Lettre de l'IRSEM n°3-2015
Désormais traduit en anglais (Énigmes et complots : Une enquête à propos d'enquêtes, pour sa version française), ce travail du sociologue Luc Boltanksi, ancien élève de Pierre Bourdieu, s’attaque aux notions de mystère, de complot, d’énigme, d’enquête, et à travers elles, à celle de réalité, telle qu’elle peut transparaître des romans fantastiques, policiers ou d’espionnage, et qui est dans tous les cas construite. Pourquoi cette sociologie du roman de fiction, et pourquoi en traiter dans la Lettre d’un institut d’études stratégiques ? L. Boltanksi, en plus de l’approche critique que l’on connaît, prompte à déceler les conservatismes derrière la littérature populaire, tire des leçons de cette littérature pour le statut de l'Etat. Que nous dit, par exemple, la littérature d’espionnage sur notre Léviathan ? Qu’il est toujoursen état de guerre, toujours menacé, toujours fragile, et que la population n’en est jamais (ne doit pas en être) consciente. Que l’appareil d'Etat compte lui aussi ses ennemis intérieurs ou ses traîtres, ses faux-semblants, ses arcanes cachées. L’analyse sociologique du roman d’espionnage ou de fiction n’est pas nouvelle (le politiste Erik Neveu en avait fait sa thèse, disséquant notamment avec bonheur les « sens cachés » des SAS de Gérard de Villiers). Mais un agenda de recherche s’ouvre à nous, en ces temps où la théorie du complot fait recette. La littérature de fiction ou de « mystère », pour reprendre la catégorie anglo-saxonne, entretient-elle cette propension à croire au complot ? Est-elle plutôt – est-ce d’ailleurs incompatible ? – de nature à renforcer le consensus libéral (le libéralisme… ou la paranoïa, pour reprendre l’une des sections de l’ouvrage) ? Quels messages les personnages campés dans cette littérature véhiculent-ils ? Il faudrait, par exemple, élargir l’analyse amorcée brillamment ici par Boltanksi, à l’industrie littéraire américaine actuelle, avec ses auteurs à succès (Baldacci, Child, Cumming, Silva, Littell, Patterson…), dont les anti-héros reviennent incompris et psychologiquement blessés d’Afghanistan ou d’Irak pour retrouver l’exploit malgré eux, en dépit d’autres labyrinthes administratifs (Zero Day, de D. Baldacci).

G. Devin (dir.), 10 concepts sociologiques en relations internationales, CNRS Editions, Biblis, 2015
Les grands auteurs de sociologie, s’ils ont généralement écrit à des époques ou sur des contextes qui ne leur permettaient pas de traiter explicitement des problématiques qui marquent désormais la société mondiale, demeurent néanmoins riches d’enseignements pour l’analyse de cette dernière. C’est le pari audacieux de cet ouvrage, que de relire dans une perspective internationaliste les Goffman, Bourdieu, Elias, Boudon ou Simmel, naturellement Weber et Durlkheim, mais également Mauss, Giddens ou Hirschman. La scène de Goffman, avec ses codes et ses subtilités, se compare-t-elle à la scène internationale, elle aussi codifiée, ritualisée, autour de protocoles pour le moins symboliques ? (G. Devin). La théorie d’Anthony Giddens sur la structuration (F. Petiteville), le « champ » tel que défini et opérationnalisé par Bourdieu (F. Mérand), l’interdépendance éliasienne (F. Delmotte), les trois types de domination wébériens (rationnel-légal, traditionnel, charismatique, analysés par Th. Lindemann), la réciprocité chez Mauss (F. Ramel) ou l’intégration pour Durkheim (B. badie), permettent-ils de mieux aborder la stratégie poutinienne (convoquant à la fois virilité charismatique et tradition impériale), les mécanismes internationaux de coopération, de domination, de conflit, ou encore les processus décisionnels de certaines politiques étrangères ? C’est là tout un agenda de recherche qui s’ouvre, déjà défriché en réalité depuis plusieurs années en France par plusieurs des auteurs réunis ici, et dont les cadres commencent à se fixer solidement, comme une invitation à poursuivre ce « hors-piste » souvent porteur, et générateur d’éclairages surprenants.

Charles-Philippe David, Au sein de la Maison Blanche. De Truman à Obama, la formulation (imprévisible) de la politique étrangère des Etats-Unis, Presses de Sciences Po, Paris, 2015
Décidément prolixe sur le sujet (voir plus loin la revue de son ouvrage La politique étrangère des Etats-Unis), Charles-Philippe David nous offre la troisième édition de son ouvrage de référence sur la politique étrangère de Washington. Avec presque 1.200 pages dont 40 pages de bibliographie, plus des annexes fournies, ce travail vise à conserver son rang de « bible » en la matière. On voit mal, à vrai dire, ce qui pourrait manquer ici à l’étudiant ou au chercheur désireux de faire le tour de la question, depuis les approches théoriques jusqu’à l’analyse décisionnelle. Le déroulé chronologique qui suit (à partir du chapitre 4, qui commence avec truman), demeure très analytique, qualifiant chaque fois le style présidentiel qui aura marqué la période : « institutionnalisée » sous Truman, la politique étrangère américaine fut « présidentialisée » sous Kennedy et Johnson, « impériale » sous nixon, « assagie » sous Ford, « compétitive » sous Carter, « désorganisée » sous Reagan, « réhabilitée » sous George H. Bush, « réorientée » sous Clinton (le diagnostic est plus sévère dans l’autre ouvrage référencé plus loin), « inféodée » sous George W. Bush, elle est enfin « calculatrice » sous Obama, qui a voulu faire triompher la Realpolitik mais n’a réussi qu’à la mettre à l’épreuve. Chaque présidence est en outre « testée » à la lumière d’une étude de cas choisie : l’Indochine, le Vietnam, l’invasion du Cambodge, la crise du Mayaguez, la chute du Shah, l’affaire Iran-Contra, l'Irak, la Bosnie, l'Irak à nouveau, enfin l’Afghanistan. Il peut paraître paradoxal, sur cette période, d’accorder autant d’importance à l’Asie et si peu à l’URSS, mais les exemples choisis se veulent illustratifs d’un fonctionnement interne, plus que d’un état du système international.
Charles-Philippe David, et avec lui toute une école québécoise – par ailleurs non monolithique – portent avec talent le flambeau de l’analyse francophone de la politique étrangère des Etats-Unis, en compagnie naturellement de plusieurs chercheurs français. Il faut rendre hommage à cet effort, à l’ampleur de cette production à son utilité surtout, à l’heure où le décryptage de la stratégie américaine et de son évolution demeure l’une des clefs de voûte de l’analyse des relations internationales. Dans la plupart de ses travaux, Charles-Philippe David a à cœur de dépasser l’écume du moment pour rappeler les racines, les courants de pensée, les pesanteurs historiques, idéologiques, culturels, bureaucratiques, qui agissent sur cette projection américaine dans le monde. Il est bon de l’écouter.

Institut François Mitterrand, Ministère de la défense, François Mitterrand. La France et sa défense. Paroles publiques d’un président – 1981-1995, Nouveau Monde, Paris, 2015. Textes édités sous la direction de Georges Saunier et Philippe Vial, Préface de Jean-Yves Le Drian et Hubert Védrine.
Ce recueil des principaux textes, discours et interviews de François Mitterrand sur la thématique de la défense s’imposera comme outil de référence. En deux septennats (dont quatre ans de cohabitation), François Mitterrand a conduit un nombre important d’opérations militaires, dont beaucoup en Afrique, mais également au Moyen-Orient. Il a réaffirmé le principe de dissuasion nucléaire, qu’il a même incarné avec majesté (« la dissuasion c’est le président de la République. C’est moi »). Il a dû adapter l’outil de défense à un monde post-bipolaire que personne n’avait vu arriver si vite, et dont les défis furent nombreux dès sa présidence (guerre du Golfe de 1991, éclatement de la Yougoslavie, conflit ethniques en afrique, comme au Rwanda…). Du fait de son équation personnelle (un président de gauche qui avait réconcilié son parti avec l’instrument militaire, et devait démontrer qu’il était bien un chef des armées), du fait du contexte systémique international (d’abord les dernières tensions de la guerre froide, puis un nouveau monde, une nouvelle Europe, qui ne permettaient aucune faiblesse), du fait enfin du contexte politico-normatif (la fermeté de Reagan et Thatcher chez nos alliés), Mitterrand fut interventionniste, prit des initiatives militaires fortes (comme au Tchad contre la Libye, avec les opérations Manta puis Epervier), accomplit des gestes politiques importants (une visite à Sarajevo, ou encore le double sauvetage d’Arafat au Liban en 1982 et 1983). Il connut aussi, déjà, les difficultés d’interventions ô combien risquées, dans des contextes inextricables de guerre à la fois civiles et internationalisées, et qui au bout du compte exposent singulièrement celui qui  les entreprend à l’heure d’un monde médiatisé. Les opérations rwandaises, aujourd’hui, font toujours débat.
Le travail accompli ici permet de relire dans le texte ce tournant de l’histoire, avec les mots du chef de l’exécutif français de l’époque. Les photos insérées, les repères chronologiques et bibliographiques ajoutés en annexe, rendent l’ensemble plus utile encore. On ne peut qu’appeler de nos vœux la systématisation de ce type d’entreprise pour les présidences passées. Si Jacques Chirac a son propre recueil de textes de politique étrangère (Mon combat pour la paix, 2007), son bilan académique (La politique étrangère de Jacques Chirac, dirigé par M. Vaïsse et Ch. Lequesne, 2013), et quelques études de défense qui firent date (B. Irondelle, La réforme des armées en France : Sociologie de la décision, 2011) l’analyse de la période Mitterrand tirera grand profit de ce travail d’historiens. Une période clef à redécouvrir d’urgence par les politistes, dont le livre de référence, en réalité, reste celui d’un acteur : Les mondes de François Mitterrand (1996), par Hubert Védrine.

Editorial de la Lettre de l'IRSEM n°3 - 2015
 
Que doit faire une puissance militaire face à une situation extérieure grave, lorsqu’elle est l’un des seuls acteurs à être en mesure pouvoir intervenir, mais lorsqu’on connaît par avance les incertitudes et les risques lourds d’une telle intervention ? Cette interrogation devenue centrale dans le système international, s’impose particulièrement aux acteurs de la taille de la France, ni suffisamment omnipotents pour que leur entrée en scène soit automatique, ni suffisamment secondaires pour que leur absence soit neutre.
Ce dilemme conduit à choisir entre la marginalisation et l’engrenage, pour reprendre une analyse développée dans d’autres contextes - en l’occurrence sur la politique étrangère russe des années 1990 - par la chercheuse danoise Mette Skak (From Empire to Anarchy: Postcommunist Foreign Policy and International Relations, 1996).
Marginalisation, si la puissance en question renonce à assumer ses responsabilités face à l’urgence, quand bien même celle-ci ne met pas en cause sa sécurité nationale. Sa crédibilité, son volontarisme politique, parfois son rang (a fortiori s’il s’agit d’un membre permanent du Conseil de sécurité), pourront alors être remis en cause.
Mais engrenage, si cette même puissance choisit de descendre dans l’arène, tant les situations de conflit actuelles sont marquées par le risque de fuite en avant, avec leurs dynamiques à la fois civiles et internationalisées (des acteurs extérieurs y interviennent), leurs dimensions ethniques ou microsociales si subtiles et mouvantes que personne ne peut prétendre en saisir tous les rouages, leurs déroulements d’autant plus délicats qu’ils s’exposent aux yeux d’un village global surmédiatisé en temps réel.
Quelques remarques ici, sur ce dilemme qui dans ses grandes lignes ne fait que reprendre une question classique (« y aller ou pas ? »), mais dont les mutations récentes ne doivent pas être sous-estimées.
1- L’enjeu de ce dilemme porte sur la crédibilité, sur la réputation d’une puissance, au moins autant que sur sa sécurité. Le discours public tendant à réduire l’enjeu d’une intervention militaire à la crainte (réelle) de pertes humaines et de les assumer vis-à-vis de l’opinion publique interne, ne doit pas faire perdre de vue que l’autre grand enjeu de l'intervention est symbolique. En cette époque de storytelling où s’affrontent des grands « récits » les Etats se mettent en scène et justifient leur action extérieure par une mission noble à remplir. Illustration de la marginalisation : on sait ce qu’a coûté symboliquement l’affaire des « lignes rouges » syriennes à la présidence Obama. Illustration de l’engrenage : on connaît les critiques adressées aux alliés sur les conséquences de leur intervention en Libye en 2011. Dans l’immédiat après Guerre froide, l’Amérique de George H. Bush avait opté délibérément pour le risque d’engrenage plutôt que pour le risque de marginalisation, en réagissant massivement à l’invasion du Koweït, qui ne devait pas rester sans réponse de Washington à l’heure d’une recomposition des équilibres mondiaux. Mais il avait fallu pour y parvenir tant de moyens, tant d’alliés, si peu d’adversaires (aucun véto à l’ONU) et tant de retenue (ne pas aller jusqu’au changement de régime), que l’exemple reste presque un cas d’école.
2- Depuis les années 1990, la France a généralement opté pour un risque mesuré d’engrenage, plutôt que de courir le risque de la marginalisation. Sous François Mitterrand, elle a connu les pièges terribles de ce dilemme au rwanda : seule puissance à pouvoir/vouloir agir sur le terrain, elle allait se retrouver sous les feux de la polémique (damned if you do, damned if you don’t, dirait-on en anglais). Sous Jacques Chirac, elle afficha un volontarisme délibéré en 1995 en Bosnie, plus modéré au Kosovo en 1999 (Paris participe activement, mais veille à une définition mesurée des objectifs de bombardement, notamment sur Belgrade), et prudent au Liban en 2006 (la France participe à la FINUL II, mais pas autant que ses liens historiques avec le pays du cèdre pouvaient le laisser imaginer). Exception : c’est au nom de la dénonciation de l’engrenage à venir que Paris s’oppose à la guerre américaine en irak en 2002-2003. Mais avec une posture forte, qui allait contrer le risque de marginalisation. En intervenant en Libye en 2011 sous Nicolas Sarkozy, en intervenant au Mali, en Centrafrique et en Irak, en militant pour une intervention en Syrie (2013) sous François Hollande, la France fait encore le pari que ne rien faire serait la pire des solutions, et que son rang international exige l’initiative, au risque du terrain.
3- Ce dilemme ne touche pas que les grandes puissances occidentales, même s’il se manifeste différemment ailleurs, dans des contextes où la gestion de l’opinion interne, celle de l’image externe, ou l’insertion du pays dans les circuits internationaux, obéissent à d’autres règles. aujourd’hui obsédée par ce qu’elle perçoit comme une marginalisation à stopper impérativement, la Russie prend ouvertement le risque de l’engrenage (Géorgie, Ukraine…). En dépit des dangers évidents de son implication dans la guerre civile syrienne, l’Iran préfère également courir le risque de l’engrenage, plutôt que de renoncer à son statut de puissance chi’ite et à son jeu régional. Quelle seront, demain, les postures des grands émergents (Chine, Inde, peut-être Turquie…) face à ce dilemme ?
4- Enfin, sur le plan des théories académiques, le dilemme marginalisation – engrenage invite à repenser l’approche réalistedes relations internationales. Car si la Realpolitik, faite de calcul cynique des intérêts, n’a pas disparu, elle inclut aujourd’hui beaucoup plus que le traditionnel rapport de force, la puissance mesurable, et les intérêts matériels. On l’a dit plus haut, la réputation, la crédibilité, l’image, sont des ressources à préserver. L’intégration ou l’influence d’acteurs non étatiques (associatifs, communautaires, économiques…) dans la formulation de la politique extérieure est avérée, au moins dans les démocraties occidentales. La prise en compte des normes, des considérations éthiques, du débat public international (intensifié par les nouveaux médias), est un fait. Dans ce contexte, la nécessité de maintenir son rang (éviter la marginalisation) tout en réduisant le risque de déconvenues ou de dérapages (engrenage), réconcilie l’approche par les intérêts et l’approche par les valeurs. L’affaire est d’autant plus délicate que les choix de l’action extérieure sont faits par des acteurs étatiques qui privilégient la lutte contre la marginalisation, mais qui opèrent sous le regard et les commentaires d’autres acteurs (dans la société civile), qui privilégient la lutte contre l’engrenage. Une sorte de « réalisme de l’approche globale » ou réalisme normatif se fait donc jour, qui eut constitué un bel oxymore il y a encore quelques années, mais ménage désormais l’impératif de rang politique comme l’impératif de réputation sociale.
Le dilemme est donc loin d’être résolu, mais constitue un défi majeur de l’action internationale actuelle, et ses spécificités doivent être étudiées minutieusement.
Frédéric Charillon – directeur de l’IRSEM

François Clémenceau, rédacteur en chef du service « International » du JDD décrypte cette semaine la situation en Ukraine.

Il s’appuie pour cela sur l’article de Thomas Gomart, « Russie : de la “grande stratégie” à la  “guerre limitée” », paru dans le numéro 2/2015 de Politique étrangère.

L’Ukraine, la grande oubliée par lejdd

 

S’abonner à Politique étrangère.

(Own report) - The German Defense Minister announced new multi-billion Euro armament projects, aimed at Germany's and the EU's greater independence from the USA. Ursula von der Leyen announced yesterday that the Bundeswehr would purchase the Medium Extended Air Defense System "MEADS" to replace the "Patriot" air defense system. Whereas the "Patriot" system had to be imported entirely from the United States, a consortium with significant German participation will manufacture MEADS. It is estimated to cost about four billion Euros, with another four billion having been already invested. With MEADS, Germany would achieve more "autonomy in security policy," according to a CSU party military policy specialist. The German Navy will also receive four MKS 180 multi-role warships worth around four billion Euros, better suited for waging distant wars more effectively and over more extended periods. Other armament projects, such as a German-French battle tank, serve the consolidation of the EU's arms industries or - as with the "Euro-drone" - are aimed at achieving more independence from the US arms industry. The A 400M Airbus airlifter crash in early May is seen by observers in the context of these efforts to achieve autonomy.

Claudia Paz y Paz, former attorney general of Guatemala (Photo Credit: HRW Film Festival)

Among the 17 award-winning films in this year’s Human Rights Watch Film Festival, which is held in New York from June 11 to 21, is “Burden of Peace.” This brilliant documentary powerfully chronicles the day-to-day work of Claudia Paz y Paz, the first female attorney general of Guatemala, a country ravaged for years by a brutal civil war. That war, which took place between 1960 and 1996 but witnessed some of the worst violence in 1980–83, saw nearly 200,000 people, mostly indigenous Mayans, systematically massacred.

As attorney general from 2010 to 2014, Paz y Paz fought to bring justice to the victims of the genocide, as well as to prosecute members of deadly criminal gangs aligned with Mexican drug cartels.

However, her campaign to end impunity for corrupt police officers, prosecutors and politicians was cut short by seven months, ended by the county’s powerful business and political elite whose personal interests were threatened. Her landmark conviction of former dictator Efraín Rios Montt – the first ever conviction for genocide in a national court – was quickly overturned. Fearing violent reprisals, Paz y Paz was forced to leave the country.

Paul Nash of the Foreign Policy Association spoke with director Joey Boink about “Burden of Peace,” the challenges of he faced while filming in one of the world’s more dangerous countries, and human rights in Guatemala.

Q: Why did you feel it was important to make this film?

Joey Boink

Joey Boink: When I began working on “Burden of Peace,” Guatemala was in the midst of a security crisis. I had lived in Guatemala before and noticed how the culture of violence affected every Guatemalan. Ninety-seven percent of the murder cases went unsolved, while the country’s homicide rate was among the three highest in the world. People did not expect the state to address corruption and other crimes.

That changed after Claudia Paz y Paz was appointed to lead the prosecutor’s office. She was very outspoken on the need to change the justice system. Not only was she the first female to lead the office but also the first person with a background in human rights advocacy. Her mission to promote justice in Guatemala inspired me, together with my colleague Sander Wirken, to start working on this film.

Q: From day one, Paz y Paz gave you and your crew access to her work as attorney general. How did that collaboration come about?

Joey Boink: When Sander and I got to meet with Paz y Paz, we talked about our plans for the film and our own experiences in the country. We had both lived and worked in Guatemala since 2006, Sander as co-founder of an NGO dedicated to education and I as a filmmaker. During that time we learned how the violence and corruption affected the whole society. For example, bus drivers and people with small businesses were routinely extorted by local gangs and forced to pay them for “protection.” Those who didn’t pay were killed. Their families didn’t lay charges – they were simply too afraid and had no trust in the prosecution process.

We told Paz y Paz that with this film we wanted to discover how on earth it is possible to fight corruption and impunity in a country like this – one of the most dangerous places in the world. She agreed to allow us to follow her with a camera and gave us access to all levels of the prosecutor’s office.

Q: In the film Paz y Paz refers to you jokingly as “Big Brother.” Did she give you access to demonstrate her commitment to transparency?

Joey Boink: In her inauguration speech, Paz y Paz told journalists that the prosecutor’s office would have nothing to hide under her leadership and that her doors would always be open. I think she saw the camera as a means of bringing extra transparency. We were given exclusive access to her day-to-day activities as attorney general. The only condition she imposed was that we would stop the camera if she was meeting with people who didn’t want to be filmed.

After some time, we were able to get closer to her private life and film her with her family at home. I think we had an advantage in gaining this level of access because we are foreigners and were working there on a long-term basis. As foreigners, there was less risk we could be extorted by gangs to hand over copies of our footage. And as documentary filmmakers, we had a deeper human interest in this story, which required us to film behind the scenes rather than only the press conferences for journalists.

Q: Do you think films like this can help to stop the cycle of violence and curb human rights abuses, especially in a small developing country like Guatemala, which experiences more than 20 murders a day?

Joey Boink: A film itself cannot bring an end to such a cycle of violence, but it is my hope that Claudia’s story will inspire a few young people in countries like Guatemala to understand that the cycle can be changed and that you do not need to negotiate justice to achieve justice.

Our screenings in Europe and the United States have helped to generate awareness of conditions in Guatemala. Many people previously had no idea of the human rights crisis in the country, let alone the work of Claudia Paz y Paz.

The Dutch foreign minister was present at the film’s world premiere at the Movies That Matter Festival in The Hague. He recently visited Guatemala and warned against corruption, and he met with Paz y Paz in Mexico. I’m proud that the film has helped a little to put Guatemala on the political agenda and that people around the world are learning about Paz y Paz. If something were to happen to her, she will not be alone.

Q: One gets the sense from watching the film that many Guatemalans have become numbed to violence. Was that generally your experience?

Joey Boink: It is very normal for people to walk the streets in Guatemala with a gun in their pocket. Cars are searched for fruit trafficking, but not for weapons trafficking. When we went out to follow the homicide team of the Guatemala City Prosecutor’s Office, we didn’t have to wait more than fifteen minutes before a case came up. At the end of the 24-hour shift, the team had worked seven homicide scenes – and they called that “a quiet day.”

We used to play soccer with Guatemalan friends every week. One day, one of the boys didn’t show up. He had been run over by a bus and died. After this tragedy, the bus driver just drove on. Our friends said it was useless to go to the police because they wouldn’t do anything.

These are just some examples of how crime and violence has become a regular part of daily life in Guatemala.

Q: One reason for the violence is impunity – the impunity enjoyed both by those who committed crimes during the civil war and those in drug gangs today. What do you think it will take to finally end impunity?

Joey Boink: Violence and impunity are regional problems across Central America. Drug gangs that move cocaine from Colombia to the United States operate across borders and continue to grow in power. They have more powerful weapons than the police have and they have the money to bribe politicians, police officers, and people in the judiciary. As long as there is no regional answer to these problems, impunity will reign and Central America will continue to be the world’s homicide capital.

The impunity enjoyed by those who committed crimes during the civil war shows you that the power structures established by the military regimes at the time still hold sway today. But if you look at the current protests against the government in Guatemala – the largest in decades – you see that something is changing. People are done with these structures of impunity and are demanding change. I hope that social efforts and better regional cooperation at institutional and diplomatic levels will bring an end to impunity.

Q: To some, “Burden of Peace” might seem like a record of futility because there is no real closure for the victims. What would you say to such people who interpret it that way?

Joey Boink: I see the result of the genocide trial so far as representing two steps forward and one step backwards. To many survivors who gave testimony in court, it meant a lot to be able to tell their stories in front of a national judge. The trial allowed many Guatemalans to hear what happened to the Maya people in the Ixil area for the first time in their lives. Efraín Rios Montt was sentenced to 80 years for committing genocide and crimes against humanity, but the constitutional court ruled that the prosecutor had made procedural errors and annulled the sentence. To many, that meant steps have been taken towards justice but that there is still a lot to fight for.

It would be too cynical to call the story a record of futility knowing that survivors feel proud to have been able to share their long-hidden experiences, that Rios Montt was sentenced for his crimes in a national court, and that lawyers and prosecutors continue to make efforts after each victory and each loss. There is no real closure for the victims of the armed conflict, but the people of Guatemala have not given up their struggle for justice.

Q: Why is the film titled the “burden” of peace?

Joey Boink: When the Dutch minister of foreign affairs, Bert Koenders, spoke at the film’s world premiere, he explained our title better than I could have done myself. He said: “The impact of civil conflict persists long after peace agreements have been signed. When violence has been the norm for so long, and there has been no law and order, the burden of peace is the long road to justice that begins where conflict ends.” I think the film illustrates this long road to justice.

A second interpretation centers on Claudia’s personal struggle and sacrifice. Claudia’s surname, Paz y Paz, means “Peace and Peace.” It’s as though she was born with the heavy responsibility to fight for peace.

Q: Were you threatened at all during the making of this film, or ever feel your life was in danger?

Joey Boink: I never felt threatened. We got used to a life in which we could not tell everyone exactly what we were doing. Things that were normal in Guatemala seemed strange after we got back to the Netherlands. In Guatemala we couldn’t just hail any cab; we always had to travel with the same driver. We couldn’t talk about delicate topics on the phone because there was a risk it had been tapped. We couldn’t walk the streets at night. We learned when and with whom we could speak and trust in order to avoid possible dangers.

Q: Paz y Paz is very soft-spoken and compassionate, and yet she displays a steely, unflinching adherence to justice and the rule of law. What do you think people can learn from her?

Joey Boink: Over the course of three years we got to spend about a year with Claudia. We spent a lot of that time around her office and traveling with her through the beautiful country. Claudia is a person with an extreme dedication to justice. That strong commitment makes her outspoken and a person who dares to take on challenges and accept the potential risks. However, she is also a very humble person who doesn’t care about social status or social background. The elite attacked her for being dressed as a “hippie” in the prosecutor’s office, but many other people admired her for her transparency and genuine interest in listening to the families of victims. Sometimes it was hard to see the level of pressure under which Claudia had to operate.

If there is one thing I think people can learn from her, it is this: one can be humble and friendly but at the same time strict and clear. She may be soft-spoken and compassionate, but her policy was always clear: justice is not negotiable. If there is a case, there is a case, no matter if the perpetrator is a druglord, a politician, or a businessman.

Q: How does this film differ from other documentaries you’ve made on subjects like education in Guatemala, child labor in India, or the Millennium Development Goals in Latin America?

Joey Boink: This is the first feature-length documentary I’ve directed, and it is also the first feature film of the producer Framewerk. In terms of the time that the team invested in the film, it isn’t comparable to any other project I’ve worked on. It’s also the first festival film I’ve made, which has allowed me to discover a lot about those aspects of the documentary world.

Q: You financed the film partly through crowdfunding. How did that work?

Joey Boink: The producers of Framewerk organized a crowdfunding campaign while Sander and I were still in Gautemala. We needed funding for post-production, from editing to distribution. The campaign was focused on a Dutch audience and conducted through the Dutch platform cinecrowd.nl.

I was afraid that the target of €30,000 was too ambitious, but we managed to raise a bit more than that: €33,455. It turned out to be the most successful crowdfunding campaign for a Dutch documentary, and 436 people in total became sponsors. We managed to attract a wide range of people through media attention in Dutch magazines, newspapers, and radio stations. We offered various perks to investors, from online access to the film to tickets to the world premiere or having Framewerk produce a video for a sponsor’s organization. Some people thought it would be an easy source of funding. But it was a lot of work for the whole team to manage the campaign. I would recommend that anyone who wants to launch a similar campaign should not plan on doing anything apart from that campaign before and during the process.

Q: Paz y Paz says the film has not ended because the story is about the country as much as it is about her. Do you have any plans to do more work on the subject? Can you even work safely in that country again?

Joey Boink: I am very motivated to continue making films about human rights issues and human rights defenders. My next film will not be in Guatemala, though. That has nothing to do with safety issues. I want to learn from people in other cultures. I’ll always feel connected with Guatemala, though. I have very close friends there, so I hope to go back from time to time – but I don’t want to visit Guatemala’s homicide scenes ever again.

Q: What do you think American business executives and foreign-policy makers should take away from this film?

Joey Boink: I would encourage American executives to do business in Guatemala, but to be aware of who they are doing business with and who in Guatemala benefits from their business. Guatemala is a beautiful country that is rich in natural resources. However, the country’s wealth is very unequally divided. There is no other country in Latin America with such a large gap between the rich and the poor. The Maya population is often not considered when a mining or hydroelectric project is initiated on their land. They do not profit from the gold or the energy that is extracted in their regions. In fact, they are forced to leave. If they stay, the company’s operations destroy their source of drinking water. Local mayors, governors, and the state make agreements with foreign parties without consulting the people. A huge amount ends in the pockets of those individual stakeholders.

There are cooperativas, local organized farmers who export their goods, which do benefit the communities. I would encourage American executives to do business with such groups.

Our film gives a good sense of Guatemala’s difficult political and judicial landscape. I think foreign-policy makers should take this away from the film: that Guatemala is not a failed state, but rather a state in which many people are fighting for justice.

However, there is a small minority of people in power with such enormous influence that characters like Ríos Montt are able to run for congress years after committing the most heinous crimes imaginable, and that someone like former president Alfonso Portillo, who was in jail just a few months ago in the United States for money laundering, is able to run for president again. Meanwhile, someone like Claudia Paz y Paz, who has made clear progress against impunity in her country (a 12-fold increase in the number of the homicides solved under her leadership), can be framed in the Guatemalan media as a Marxist who is betraying her country and has to pay for her crimes.

If you have the right connections in Guatemala, you can get away with anything. But if you try to fight for equality and justice, you’ll wind up in trouble. On television and in newspapers you’ll be portrayed as someone trying to “destabilize” the community. The words “Human Rights” are framed in a negative context, as a curse. People like Claudia Paz y Paz who fight against corruption and impunity are the underdog. They have the choice not to speak out or to live in fear for their lives. You have to be aware that in Guatemalan politics the unthinkable is possible.

CORRECTION: This article originally stated the Guatemalan civil war took place between 1980 and 1983. It has been amended to reflect that the war took place between 1960 and 1996, although some of the worst violence took place between 1980 and 1983.

The White House nominated Daniel Rubinstein, America’s special envoy for Syria, as ambassador to Tunisia on Monday, putting the thankless job of dealing with the raging civil war in Syria up for grabs.

(Own report) - Wintershall, the giant German gas company, has begun reorienting the focus of its expansion drive westward. This subsidiary of the mega chemical company, BASF, had set high hopes on having direct access to Russia's enormous gas deposits - the largest in the world - which would have brought it to within reach of the summit of the world's natural gas sector. This perspective was obliterated by the escalation of tensions between Moscow and the West. An additional impetus for the necessary search for an alternative is provided by the fact that German gas imports from the Netherlands are on the verge of being shut down. Beginning 2020, The Hague intends to drastically reduce gas production from the country's largest gas field, because draining the deposit would heighten dangers of earthquakes. Wintershall is particularly expanding its activities in Norway and has already begun shale gas production in Argentina, where the world's second largest shale gas deposits are estimated to be found. Wintershall's orientation shift also reduces its interest in business with Russia, while reinforcing its transatlantic interest.

A new U.N. report describes a regime built on torture, domestic spy networks, and mass conscription.

The families of two men mistakenly killed by a U.S. drone want Obama to apologize. But U.S. law doesn't require the U.S. government to do anything to acknowledge it.

The “pincer” tank strategy has returned to the battlefields of eastern Europe.

Another U.S. government site goes down for the count.