Ing. Salih CAVKIC
orbus editor in chief
University Malaysia Perlis
Perpetual Self conflict: Self
awareness as a key to our ethical drive, personal mastery, and perception of
The Continuum of Psychotic Organisational Typologies
There is no such person as an entrepreneur, just a person who acts
Groupthink may still be a hazard to your organization - Murray Hunter
Generational Attitudes and Behaviour - Murray Hunter
The environment as a multi-dimensional system: Taking off your rose
- Murray Hunter
Imagination may be more important than knowledge: The eight types of
imagination we use - Murray Hunter
Do we have a creative intelligence? - Murray Hunter
Not all opportunities are the same: A look at the four types of
entrepreneurial opportunity -
Years to Trade Economic Independence for Political Sovereignty -
Defense of Cross-Fertilization: Europe and Its Identity
Contradictions - Aleš Debeljak
DEBELJAK - ABECEDA DJETINJSTVA
- INTERVJU; PROSVJEDI, POEZIJA, DRŽAVA
Rattana Lao holds a doctorate in Comparative and International
Education from Teachers College, Columbia University and is
currently teaching in Bangkok.
Fógra tábhachtach Nuacht
On history and humility: What students need to know ?
Lao holds a doctorate in Comparative and International Education
from Teachers College, Columbia University and is currently teaching
BANGKOK – Not so long ago, some Thai university students used
Hitler image as the poster child for superhero and just recently,
the Thai state used Nazi symbol in their propaganda for education.
This short documentary intends to promote the 12 values of
education. These values include respect seniority, desire for
knowledge and understand democracy.
Democracy and Hitler?
To make things worse, the director of the film gave public interview
seeing nothing wrong with it.
Kulp Kaljaruek, the director, said to Khaosod, one of the Thai
newspapers that “ I didn't think it would be an issue. As for
Hitler's portrait, I have seen so many people using it on T-Shirts
everywhere. It's even considered a fashion. It doesn't mean I agree
with it, but I didn't expect it to be an issue at all."
The Ambassador of Israel to Thailand, His Excellency Simon Roded,
issued a public statement on the 10th
of December 2014. It read:
“I was surprised that throughout the screening
process this movie must have gone through to be approved for public
broadcast, none of the smart, well educated people checking it had
identified it as being problematic and offensive.”
In an interview with Thailand's renown historian, professor Thanet
Aphornsuwan, the problem that has happened reflects an endemic
problem in Thailand.
“The nature and practice (are) ...Thai-centric and
royal-nationalist. Such world-view allows for little diverse and
challenging representation of other's realities and identities. It
does not provide nor encourage deep understanding and empathy
towards others' sensibilities and values.”
This is not a straightforward account of low quality education or
the lack thereof. It highlights fundamental issue in terms of hidden
and overt curriculum in Thailand, which promotes simplification of
facts without critically understand or engage with multiple versions
Furthermore, three points should be made of this incident.
Firstly, this is NOT, let me stress, a byproduct of an anti-semantic
attitude. To be “anti” something, one needs to hate or to belittle
it. Thai people, generally, have very little idea what Jewish is,
let alone being hateful to it.
Secondly, the ignorant of one group of people should not be used to
condemn Thai people in its entity. Academics, media and many in
Thailand feel shameful of this and regret what has been done,
despite the fact most of us have nothing to do with it.
Thai students do not deserve an international condemnation for what
they have no parts in it, rather their ignorance is the byproduct of
longstanding cultural centeredness.
Thirdly, more space and more opportunities are needed for the young
in Thailand to learn, to respect and to understand others. It's not
as simple as a revamp of Thai curriculum, surely that needs to be
done, but there needs to be a systematic approach to understand
education from multiple perspectives, to integrate intercultural
learning as a part of the whole and to teach it in a way that
encourages thinking and learning. A rote learning of one size fits
all, of adults know best and of childen know nothing is not only
outdated but backward to the development of the minds, let alone of
a sustainable nation.
When asked about the way forward, Prof. Aphornsuvan added:
“The kind of education we need is one that is more open and less
attached to the state and government practices. On state ideology,
the promotion and practice of people's democracy which is grounded
on the principle of equality and liberty must be truly adhered to.
Equality gives each people the sense of care and respect for one's
In short: “History lessons should teach humility not arrogance.”
First published by
January 24, 2015.
GLOBAL MARKETS OF MISERY
– Szuhai Ilona
Is our The global humanitarian system in
transition? If so, what are the key issues b – Before the 2016 World
"Today's needs are at unprecedented levels and without more support there simply
is no way to respond to the humanitarian situations we're seeing in region after
region and in conflict after conflict."
António Guterres, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees
The international community is preparing for the World
Humanitarian Summit. The United Nations will host the event in Istanbul, in
2016. Before the meeting, regional consultations are held in several parts of
the world. Expectations are high since the historical moment of changing the
twenty-five-year-old humanitarian system is approaching. Growing conflicts
demand growing funds for humanitarian action. The change in the trends of
conflicts demands more effective humanitarian solutions. 2014 was a dramatic
year in the number of people affected by conflict and of being forced to flee.
Unprecedentedly, more than 100 million people became dependent on humanitarian
aid for their survival. This rise is reflected in the inter-agency strategic
response and regional response plans as global financial requirements to cover
humanitarian needs rose to the highest amount ever requested in a single year.
The study forecasts how the EU can continue the donor activities in the future.
Keywords: World Humanitarian Summit, humanitarian crises, armed
conflicts, the EU, donor activities.
A világ készül a Nemzetközi Humanitárius Világtalálkozóra. Az ENSZ 2016-ban, Isztambulban rendezi meg az eseményt. A csúcstalálkozót
megelőzően regionális konzultációkat tartanak a világ számos pontján. Nagy a
várakozás, hiszen a huszonöt éves humanitárius rendszer megváltoztatásának
történelmi pillanata egyre közeledik. A növekvő számú konfliktus a humanitárius
tevékenység növekvő pénzügyi támogatását követeli. A konfliktusok trendjének
változása hatékonyabb humanitárius megoldásokat követel. 2014 drámai évnek
számított a konfliktusok által érintett és menekülésre kényszerült emberek
számának szempontjából. Példa nélküli, hogy több mint 100 millió ember túlélése
vált a humanitárius segélyek függvényévé. Ez a növekedés tükröződik az
intézményközi stratégiai és regionális segélytervekben is, ahogyan a
humanitárius szükségletek fedezését célzó éves nemzetközi pénzügyi igények az
eddigi legmagasabb összeget érték el. A tanulmány előrevetíti, hogy az EU hogyan
tudja folytatni a donortevékenységet a jövőben.
Kulcsszavak: Nemzetközi Humanitárius Világtalálkozó, humanitárius
válságok, fegyveres konfliktusok, EU, donortevékenység.
The world is preparing for the World Humanitarian Summit. The United Nations
will host the event in Istanbul, in 2016. Before the meeting, regional
consultations are held in several parts of the world hit by humanitarian crises.
Expectations are high. The study forecasts how the EU can financially contribute
to donor activities in the future taking into account the fact that there are
too many humanitarian crises.
Recognising that the humanitarian landscape has changed tremendously over the
past few decades, the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon initiated the World
Humanitarian Summit (WHS) as a three-year initiative which will set the scene
for a wide-ranging international discussion on how to adapt the humanitarian
system to the new reality so that it serves the people in need more effectively.
The WHS has a two-fold objective:
1) secure commitment to a strategic agenda which makes humanitarian action fit
for the challenges of 2016 and beyond;
2) develop ber partnerships and seek innovative solutions to
persistent and new challenges so that the agreed strategic agenda is implemented
after the Summit.
As Jemilah Mahmood − Head the WHS Secretariat at
the UN Headquarters in New York – stated, “Now more than ever, we need to
recognise the sheer magnitude of the problems we face in the humanitarian and
developmental sectors, and focus our collective resources on solving them.” The
WHS is an opportunity for governments, the UN and intergovernmental agencies,
regional organisations, non-profits and civil society actors, the private sector,
academia as well as people affected by crises to come together, take stock of
humanitarian action, discuss the changing landscape, share knowledge and best
practices, and chart a forward looking agenda.
Before the Summit, through a two-year consultation process, the
aim is to build a more inclusive and diverse humanitarian system by bringing all
key stakeholders together to share best practices and find innovative ways to
make humanitarian action more effective. The process is being managed by the UN
Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). The European
Commission's Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection Department (ECHO) is taking
an active role in contributing to the discussion throughout the entire WHS
The following agenda for consultations have been established:
West and Central Africa − Côte d’Ivoire, 19-20 June
North and South-East Asia − Japan, 23-24 July 2014;
Eastern and Southern Africa – South Africa, 27-29
Europe and Others − Hungary, 3-4 February 2015;
Middle East and North Africa − Jordan, 3-5 March
Latin America and the Caribbean − Guatemala, 5-7 May
Pacific Region − New Zealand, June 2015;
South and Central Asia − 3rd Quarter 2015;
Global Consultation − Switzerland, October 2015.
Consultations will engage a broad range of partners, including people from
affected territories, humanitarian actors, technical experts and the public
through the WHS web platform. The key findings from both the regional and online
consultations will be included in the final report of the Secretary-General that
will set the summit agenda and influence the future of global humanitarian
Change is needed in the international
humanitarian system as almost 25 years after UN General Assembly resolution
46/182 created the present humanitarian system – around the ERC, the IASC and a
set of established core and guiding principles – the landscape of humanitarian
action has changed considerably. Inter-related global trends, such as climate
variability, demographic change, financial and energy sector pressures or
changing geo-political factors have led to increased demand for humanitarian
action. This focuses around three types of humanitarian realities: armed
conflicts, disasters caused by natural hazards, and ‘chronic crises’ where
people cyclically dip above and below acute levels of vulnerability. Each
scenario has its own characteristics and challenges.
In response to the challenges, humanitarian
actors have sought to improve their services and maximize their impact on people
in need. In particular, the 2005 Humanitarian Reform and more recently the IASC
Transformative Agenda developed new approaches to working more accountably,
predictably and effectively, and discussions to update international
humanitarian legislation take place each year in the General Assembly. But
there has been no collective exercise to take
stock of the achievements and changes that have occurred since the
current system was formed. Nor has a structured dialogue taken place between the
four major constituencies that contribute to humanitarian action today: Member
States (including affected countries, donors and emerging and interested
partners); the global network of humanitarian organizations and experts;
associated partners, (including private sector, religious charities, etc.); and,
affected people themselves – as first responders, communities and civil society
organizations, to think through how to address the current challenges. While the
fundamental principles enshrined in General Assembly Resolution 46/182 will
continue to guide our work, we need to explore how to create a more global,
effective, and inclusive humanitarian system.
The Summit hopes to engage states in
commitments to a new range of global humanitarian policies and financing. The
main aim of the Summit is to: “set an agenda to make humanitarian action fit for
the challenges of the future, by broadening and deepening partnerships for those
in need.” The Concept Note that is guiding consultations running up to 2016 has
put innovation right at the centre of its work, and is focusing on four main
themes: humanitarian effectiveness; reducing
vulnerability and managing risk; transformation through innovation, and serving
the needs of people in conflict.
According to Humanitarian Coalition, humanitarian crisis is an event or series
of events which represents a critical threat to the health, safety, security or
wellbeing of a community or other large group of people, usually over a wide
area. Armed conflicts, epidemics, famine, natural disasters and other major
emergencies may all involve or lead to a humanitarian crisis that extends beyond
the mandate or capacity of any single agency. Humanitarian crises can be grouped
under the following headings: Natural Disasters (earthquakes, floods, storms and
volcanic eruptions). Man-made Disasters (conflicts, plane and train crashes,
fires and industrial accidents). Complex Emergencies (when the effects of a
series of events or factors prevent a community from accessing their basic needs,
such as water, food, shelter, security or health care). Complex emergencies are
typically characterized by: extensive violence and loss of life; displacements
of populations; widespread damage to societies and economies; the need for
large-scale, multi-faceted humanitarian assistance; the hindrance or prevention
of humanitarian assistance by political and military constraints; significant
security risks for humanitarian relief workers in some areas.
The causes for a crisis are always
context-specific and each crisis is different. Humanitarian crises usually
require a multi-sectoral response. Complex emergencies pose many challenges to
humanitarian actors, including access to vulnerable populations, human rights
abuses and the possible presence of armed actors.
Do we live in a safe or dangerous world?
Humanitarian crises in the world today − Syria,
Iraq, Central African Republic, South Sudan and now Gaza − all demand immediate
and massive humanitarian response. The crises are not only large-scale,
affecting millions, but the conflicts also are complex, each with unique
political realities and on-the-ground difficulties. They are not alone among
crises competing for our attention. They are simply the biggest, pushing off the
front pages other crises where human needs remain urgent: Darfur, Central
America, Pakistan, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Somalia.
The question is obvious: Do we live in a safe or dangerous world?
During 2012 − the most recent year for which there
are data − the number of conflicts being waged around the world dropped sharply,
from 37 to 32. High-intensity conflicts have declined by more than half since
the end of the Cold War, while terrorism, genocide and homicide numbers are also
down. And this is not simply a recent phenomenon. According to a major 2011
study by Harvard University’s Steven Pinker, violence of all kinds has been
declining for thousands of years. Indeed Pinker claims that, “we may be living
in the most peaceful era in our species’ existence.”
Over the last decade, claims that the number and
deadliness of armed conflict has declined since the end of the Cold War − while
not uncontested − have become increasingly accepted. The most telling finding is
that the number of high-intensity state-based conflicts − those that kill a
thousand or more people a year − has declined by more than half since 1989.
Conflicts between states − especially
high-intensity conflicts − have become very rare since 1989. There has
been less than one interstate conflict per year on average since 2000, down from
almost three during the 1980s.
Since the end of the 1990s there has been a growing – and increasingly heated –
debate over recent and longer term trends in violence around the world.
Proponents of what has become known as the “declinist thesis” argue that
violence has declined; others accept the basic “declinist” thesis but challenge
the explanations that seek to account for it.
But while large-scale organized political violence has declined over the past
quarter of a century, some analysts argue that organized – and often
transnational – criminal violence has increased. In fact, death rates in some
countries exceed those in the deadliest wars currently being waged around the
The rise of transnational organized crime is part
of what has sometimes been described as “the dark side of globalization.” But
the increase in global trade, investment, and other forms of transnational
economic integration has also been associated with increased levels of human
development, wealth and global freedom.
Globally, the number of conflicts had been stabilising at a relatively high
level. However, because today’s conflicts are mostly low in intensity, global
battle-death tolls have remained relatively low – despite a slight increase from
2010 to 2011.
High-intensity conflicts have fluctuated at a
relatively low level for most of the 2000s. The six high-intensity conflicts
active in 2011 were located in Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, and
Yemen. Some of these conflicts have been active, and among the most deadly, for
many years. Only one of the high-intensity conflicts mentioned above – that in
Libya – was directly related to the Arab Spring. The wars in Afghanistan,
Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen were associated with ongoing international and
local campaigns against Islamist group while the violence in Sudan was mostly
related to the events surrounding South Sudan independence, and, to a lesser
extent, to continuing problems in the Darfur region.
Most state-based conflicts today are intrastate
conflicts, which are fought between the government of a state and one or more
non-state armed group over control of government power or a specific territory.
Many of the high-intensity conflicts in 2011 – such as the conflicts in
Afghanistan, Somalia, and Yemen – were civil wars in which troops from other
states participated in the conflict in support of one or more of the warring
parties. On the other hand, in recent years, the Middle East and North Africa –
the second-most-deadly region in 2011 – saw reported battle deaths triple, going
from under 2,000 in 2010 to almost 6,000 in 2011. Part of the reason for this
increase can be attributed to the events related directly and indirectly to the
The number of
conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa increased by two in 2011 with
conflict onsets in Libya and Syria that were both related to the Arab Spring.
Battle deaths in this region also increased in 2011. In addition to the Arab
Spring conflicts in Libya and Syria, the increase was a result of the escalation
of ongoing conflicts in Yemen, Iran, and Turkey.
Researchers studying the Long Peace of the post-World War II
period have identified growing international economic interdependence – manifest
in the dramatic increase in international trade and foreign direct investment –
as one important disincentive for interstate war in this period.
Conflicts between states, as well as those between states and
rebel groups, tend to dominate war-related news headlines. Most people’s
understanding of the incidence of armed violence around the world comes from the
media. But media reporting – not surprisingly – focuses on bad news. Violence
makes headlines – its absence does not.
For the past two years world attention has focused on the escalating violence
between Bashar al-Assad’s regime and armed opposition groups in Syria.
Too many humanitarian crises challenge the sources and capacity
EU Commissioner for International Cooperation, Humanitarian Aid and Crisis
Response, warns that there is “no light at the end of this tunnel: we must get
used to a ‘new normal,’ where we face multiple challenges with finite resources.”
We need to accept the reality of not having enough money to respond.
With so many crises, the tendency is to focus on the latest and the “biggest”
crises. A “crisis of the month” mentality has been replaced by “crisis of the
week.” Numbers matter, so understandably our focus is drawn to large-scale
crises. When hundreds of thousands of refugees flee a country, we respond. When
smaller numbers are displaced by, say, a storm on a Pacific Island – even when
proportionally a greater percentage of the population is affected − we tend to
overlook it. A few years ago the International Federation of the Red Cross and
Red Crescent Societies reported that 90 percent of all natural disasters have
fewer than 50 casualties; numbers not sufficient to mobilize an international
response but no less devastating to those affected. Too many crises have
consequences. In 2012 the worry was how the international community would come
up with the resources to meet humanitarian needs in Syria, estimated at $1
billion a year. Today, the appeal for Syria is over $6 billion with less than 25
percent funded by mid-year. Syria is far from the only crisis for which urgent
appeals for funding are made. South Sudan, Central African Republic and Gaza are
all desperate situations that need a robust international response.
Too many crises also increase the demand for experienced staff.
Humanitarian agencies find it daunting to maintain adequate stand-by capacity to
respond to a wave of major disasters. Stand-by rosters are stretched. An
overwhelming number of crises make it almost impossible for the international
community to respond well − or even adequately − to the existing humanitarian
disasters, much less to prepare for future ones. Humanitarian crises are
influenced by political problems; the inability of our international political
system to resolve these crises is stunning. The Responsibility to Protect
populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic
cleansing has emerged as an important global principle since its adoption by the
UN World Summit in 2005. The fact that there are too many humanitarian crises
today is the result of a failure in global governance. Change is needed in the
international humanitarian system and perhaps the World Humanitarian Summit in
Istanbul in 2016 will provide an opportunity for fresh − and even radical −
thinking about the way the system responds.
The Brookings Institution assessed the global
response to humanitarian crises. Throughout 2013, international humanitarian
actors have faced major challenges responding to conflicts and natural disasters
across the globe. Tens of thousands of people died in Syria and millions were
displaced while international actors struggled to get access to desperate
people. While escalating violence in such diverse countries as South Sudan, Iraq,
Yemen and the Central African Republic may have received less media attention
than Syria, these situations also posed particular challenges to the
international community. At the end of 2013, the international community was
mobilizing a major relief effort to respond to Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines,
a storm that affected more than 14 million people and displaced over 5 million.
Beyond the headlines, there were dozens of long-standing conflicts and smaller
disasters that impacted the lives of millions of people and overwhelmed the
capacity of local responders to meet the security, food and health needs of
victims. The slow and sometimes inadequate response to these emergencies raise
challenging questions about the capacity of the humanitarian aid system to meet
the needs of people most affected by these and other disasters.
Speaking at the Dubai International Humanitarian Aid & Development Conference &
Exhibition, Ross Mountain pointed out that in vulnerable countries food prices,
urbanization, migration, the impact of climate change and population growth are
all increasing. But as the challenges grow, the resources available in OECD
countries − the traditional donors − to respond to humanitarian crises are
shrinking. Nevertheless at OECD level budgetary constraints has not yet resulted
in dramatic drop in humanitarian aid spending.
Given the increased scale of needs and vulnerability, a shift in
attitude and working practices is needed to integrate anticipation, disaster
risk reduction, preparedness and resilience into programmes. Many governments
and many organizations still operate on a model that focuses on short-term
crises, rather than looking at the longer term trends and their humanitarian
implications. If we do not take a more participatory preventive approach, we
will be responsible for countless avoidable suffering in the decades to come.
Governments are increasingly linking humanitarian assistance to political,
military or anti-terrorism objectives. Think Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, Sudan,
Somalia and the occupied Palestinian territory. In other cases, like Syria,
governments and/or armed groups have increasingly denied access to humanitarian
organizations. There has been an explosion of NGOs in recent years; but also a
change in the donor landscape. The economic downturn in the West has meant a
growing role for donors and organizations from the Arab and Muslim worlds, for
example. This means two things. First, the international community needs to
better, and “more respectfully”, engage these new players. The tendency on the
part of many of us in the international community is to come thinking that money
is to be given so that we, the experts, go back and do the work. The talk should
be more about strategic partnerships and not about money. Forging smart and
strategic partnership is one way for the international humanitarian community to
better respond to today's growing humanitarian challenges.
International humanitarian funds
International humanitarian action − aiding and protecting people
in armed conflicts and disasters − has expanded dramatically in the last twenty
years to become a major global field. In 2012, official humanitarian aid
totalled $17.9 billion dollars and reached 73 million people. Some 75 percent of
these funds came from OECD governments, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. This makes
states by far the largest contributors to humanitarian aid. The remaining 25
percent came from private funds. Around $3.3bn (18.75 percent) came directly
from the donations of individual citizens, and $1.1bn (6.25 percent) from
private foundations. The three largest state funders are the USA, EU and
According to the OECD’s report
published in April 2014 total development aid (which is a more comprehensive
measure than humanitarian aid) rose by 6.1 percent in real terms in 2013 to
reach the highest level ever recorded, despite continued pressure on budgets in
OECD countries since the global economic crisis. Donors provided a total of USD
134.8 billion in net official development assistance (ODA), marking a rebound
after two years of falling volumes, as a number of governments stepped up their
spending on foreign aid. An annual survey of donor spending plans by the OECD
Development Assistance Committee (DAC) indicated that aid levels could increase
again in 2014 and stabilise thereafter. However, a trend of a falling share of
aid going to the neediest sub-Saharan African countries looks likely to continue.
In all, 17 of the DAC’s 28 member countries increased their ODA
in 2013, while 11 reported a decrease. Net ODA from DAC
countries stood at 0.3 percent of gross national income (GNI.) Five countries
met a longstanding UN target for an ODA/GNI ratio of 0.7 percent. The United
Kingdom increased its ODA by 27.8 percent to hit the 0.7 percent target for the
first time. The United Arab Emirates posted the highest ODA/GNI ratio, 1.25
percent, after providing exceptional support to Egypt. Aid to developing
countries grew steadily from 1997 to a first peak in 2010. It fell in 2011 and
2012 as many governments took austerity measures and trimmed aid budgets. The
rebound in aid budgets in 2013 meant that even excluding the five countries that
joined the DAC in 2013 (Czech Republic, Iceland, Poland, Slovak Republic and
Slovenia), 2013 DAC ODA was still at an all-time high.
The largest donors by volume were the United States, the United Kingdom,
Germany, Japan and France. Denmark, Luxembourg, Norway and Sweden
continued to exceed the 0.7 percent ODA/GNI target and the UK met it for the
first time. The Netherlands fell below 0.7 percent for the first time since
1974. Net ODA rose in 17 countries, with the largest increases recorded in
Iceland, Italy, Japan, Norway and the UK. It fell in 11 countries, with the
biggest decreases in Canada, France and Portugal. The G7 countries provided 70
percent of total net DAC ODA in 2013, and the DAC-EU countries 52 percent. The
US remained the largest donor by volume with net ODA flows of USD 31.5 billion,
an increase of 1.3 percent in real terms from 2012. US ODA as a share of
GNI was 0.19 percent. Most of the increase was due to humanitarian aid and
support for fighting HIV/AIDS. By contrast US net bilateral aid to LDCs
fell by 11.7 percent in real terms to USD 8.4 billion due in particular to
reduced disbursements to Afghanistan. Net ODA disbursements to sub-Saharan
Africa fell by 2.9 percent to USD 8.7 billion.
Nevertheless this survey also suggests a continuation of the worrying trend of
declines in programmed aid to LDCs and low-income countries, in particular in
Africa. CPA to LDCs and LICs is set to decrease by 5 percent, reflecting reduced
access to grant resources on which these countries are highly dependent. Some
Asian countries may see increases, however, so that by 2017 overall allocations
to Asia are expected to equal those towards Africa. This will need special
attention in the future
It is well-known that the European Union is the world's leading provider of
humanitarian aid. This aid, which takes the form of financing, provision of
goods or services, or technical assistance, helps prepare for and deal with the
crises such as natural disasters, disasters caused by human activity, or
structural crises, outside the Union. The Union's action comprises three
instruments: emergency aid, food aid, and aid for refugees and displaced persons.
ECHO coordinates this action and cooperates closely with partners who implement
aid on the ground, in particular the United Nations and non-governmental
organisations. EU Humanitarian aid policy is based on the principles of humanity,
neutrality, impartiality and independence. EU Humanitarian aid must be
coordinated with other policies so that it can be adapted to each situation and
can contribute to long-term development goals. The EU contributes to developing
collective global capacity to respond to crises. It commits to promoting reforms
in the international humanitarian system, led by the United Nations, and in
cooperation with other humanitarian actors and donors.
EU Humanitarian aid is financed from the ’Global Europe’ heading of the EU
budget. This heading covers all external action by the EU such as development
assistance or humanitarian aid with the exception of the European Development
Fund (EDF) which provides aid for development cooperation with African,
Caribbean and Pacific countries, as well as overseas countries and territories.
As it is not funded from the EU budget but from direct contributions from EU
Member States, the EDF does not fall under the MFF (the EU’s seven year
International humanitarian funds generally are channelled through
UN agencies (like the UN World Food Programme, UNICEF and UNHCR), the Red Cross
and Red Crescent movement, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
Humanitarian NGOs can be well known names like Oxfam, Medicines Sans Frontieres
(MSF), the International Rescue Committee (IRC), CARE and Caritas, or they can
increasingly be national and local NGOs that are growing fast in countries
confronted by protracted conflict, chronic hunger or persistent natural
disasters. Altogether, it is estimated that there are about 4,400 NGOs engaged
in some form of humanitarian aid and around 274,000 humanitarian workers in the
The expansion of humanitarian aid and protection under UN guidance means that
the international humanitarian system is becoming a nascent form of global
welfare for people suffering from war, chronic food insecurity and natural
disasters. Humanitarian aid is now an internationally organized safety net for
many millions of people living in extreme situations as terrorized civilians,
displaced people and refugees, or the victims of natural disasters like floods
and earthquakes. The humanitarian system has expanded in a relatively improvised
fashion, and contains hundreds of different and competing moving parts. Its many
agencies may share the same strategic humanitarian goals but they each have
their own organizational interests that compete for funds, profile and
The EU has begun to invest in these terms with its two
initiatives: SHARE for the Horn of Africa worth Euro 270m in 2012/13 and AGIR
for West Africa worth Euro 503m in 2012/13.21 The British Government’s
Department for International Development (DFID) has also launched BRACED, a fund
for NGOs to support people’s resilience to extreme climate change in sub-Saharan
Africa and South Asia. This fund is targeting 5 million people and seeking
applications from NGO-led consortia.
This resilience strategy needs help if it is to inspire genuine innovations in
processes, products and paradigms for building resilience. Without such
innovations, these new funds, and those that follow, will be a lost opportunity
in which NGOs simply bundle up old project types in new resilience wrappers.
Currently, the global community faces many challenges such as
climate change, rapid population growth, urbanization, and water shortages. At
the same time, there have global economic shifts, new actors engaged in
humanitarian action, and tremendous improvements in technology. Given these
challenges and opportunities, we need to improve how we respond to disasters and
In the last ten years, the funding requirements of inter-agency
appeals have increased by 600 percent from $3 billion in 2004 to $17.9 billion
in 2014. However, inter-agency appeal funding received in 2013 $8.3 billion. In
the same amount of time, the number of people targeted for assistance has more
than doubled. The crisis in Syria is one of the worst on record given the sheer
size of damage in the country and the effect on the region. The Syria Response
Plan was 209 times bigger than the average appeal. More than 150 agencies and
aid groups are working with local partners and national authorities to provide
relief to the Syrian people in the region. In 2013, African countries like DRC,
Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, these countries had previously received
approximately 60 percent of appeal funding, though Syria response plans received
38 percent $3.1 billion.
According to OCHA, crises are longer and more expensive. The
crises in the Central African Republic, Iraq, South Sudan and Syria will remain
top humanitarian priorities next year. The sharp rise in the number of people
affected by conflict and of forced to flee and became dependent on humanitarian
aid for their survival is expected to continue. The Global appeal for 2015 is
$16.4 billion to help 57 million people in 22 countries. The UN and its
humanitarian partners have launched an appeal for US$16.4 billion to help at
least 57.5 million people affected by crises in 22 countries in 2015. As UN
Humanitarian Chief Valerie Amos explained, “Over 80 percent of those we intend
to help are in countries mired in conflict where brutality and violence have had
a devastating impact on their lives…But the rising scale of need is outpacing
our capacity to respond."
As far as the EU’s preparedness is concerned one cannot be overly optimistic. In
November 2013, after the European Parliament voted through the Multiannual
Financial Framework which determines the European Union’s (EU) common budget and
priorities over the next seven-year period, the so-called CONCORD Report was
published. The 2014-2020 period is the first budgetary framework negotiated
under the Lisbon Treaty, giving additional power to the European Parliament. The
Parliament’s vote marks the beginning of the final stages of the process leading
to the ratification of the EU budget for the seven years. The CONCORD report,
‘EU Budget 2014-2020: Fit for the Fight against Global Poverty?’ recognises that
the MFF is not just a financial tool but a key tool in strengthening the EU’s
place as a global development actor. The 2014-2020 period will cover both the
2015 deadline for the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals and the
EU’s target to spend 0.7 percent of collective GNI on development aid, making it
a crucial budget for the EU’s relations with developing countries. And yet the
budget available for external action comes up short of what is needed to fulfil
the many priorities and global challenges. But in 2014 the situation has
dramatically deteriorated when the European Union's humanitarian aid and
development aid programmes were compromised by EU debts, and budget cuts
forecast for 2015. Since 2011, the European budget has been amassing
unpaid bills, which continue to rise in value. The budget by the end of 2014 was
26 billion euro in arrears, €23 billion of which are owed to the cohesion policy.
This impacts the whole spectrum of European politics.
Unpaid bills in the budget category of "Global Europe", which includes
development aid and humanitarian aid, have reached 1 billion euro. The lack of
funds has also forced the EU to roll back some humanitarian aid programmes. Some
projects in the Sahel region of Africa, the Horn of Africa and Haiti have been
postponed," the budget Commissioner announced.
The lack of
funding will also affect other humanitarian aid programmes. The impact of the
EU’s current constraints on humanitarian aid is already being felt by the
beneficiary countries. For example, aid to Iraqi refugees in Jordan has been
reduced. NGOs are signalling that food security operations in Somalia and
Ethiopia are being delayed and that their priority level is being reduced," she
added. The strain on the 2014 budget is in danger of becoming even worse in
2015, as member states have proposed significant cuts to the European Commission
budget. These cuts would leave the EU unable to pay its currently outstanding
bills and those that would arise in the course of the 2015 budget. The cut of
2.1 billion euros, equivalent to 1.5 percent of the total approved expenditure
for 2015, will affect a broad range of European projects, but spending on
development aid and humanitarian aid will probably be the hardest hit by these
proposed cuts. The total budget of the section "Global Europe" could be reduced
by 10 percent, representing €384 million. The budget of EuropeAid, dedicated
specifically to development aid, may lose 192 million euros; 12 percent of its
Globally the next two and a half
years offers social entrepreneurs a real opportunity to team up with affected
populations and humanitarian agencies to engage in humanitarian innovation. The
new products, processes, positions and paradigms that emerge can then be
presented in the UN consultation process and get traction through the Summit.
First published by
Bibliography and sources
AID POLICY: Humanitarianism in a changing world.
(Accessed: 28 September 2014)
Attila Marján: Europe’s Destiny − The Old Lady and the Bull. Johns Hopkins
University Press, 2010. 393pp. ISBN 978-0-8018-9547-0
Budget 2014-2020: Fit for the Fight against Global Poverty?’
Dr Hugo Slim: Innovation in Humanitarian Action.
(Accessed: 22 November 2014)
Dubai International Humanitarian Aid & Development Conference & Exhibition,
which ran from 1-3 April 2012.
(Accessed: 28 August 2014)
Elisabeth Ferris: Too many humanitarian crises not enough global resources.
(Accessed: 11 August 2014)
(Accessed: 11 January 2015)
Human Security Report Project, Human Security Report 2013: The Decline in Global
Violence: Evidence, Explanation, and Contestation, (Vancouver: Human Security
Press, 2013). 127pp. ISSN 1557 914X ISBN 978-0-9917111-1-6. (Accessed: 22
Humanitarian Crises in 2013: Assessing the Global Response
(Accessed: 28 August 2014)
WHS 2016 Concept Note, Draft September 2013. 6pp.
(Accessed: 22 September 2014)
World Humanitarian Data and Trends 2014 – highlights. 2pp.
www.unocha.org/data-and-trends-2014. (Accessed: 22 September 2014)
(Accessed: 14 December 2014)
http://humanitariancoalition.ca/. (Accessed: 14 December 2014)
(Accessed: 11 January 2015)
(Accessed: 22 November 2014)
(Accessed: 14 December 2014)
http://www.worldhumanitariansummit.org/whs_about. (Accessed: 14 December
 Attila Marján, Head of EU Department at the National University of
Public Service, Budapest
 Ilona Szuhai, Assistant Lecturer and Doctoral Student at the
National University of Public Service, Budapest
 WHS 2016 Concept Note, Draft September 2013. p. 1.
 Dr Hugo Slim: Innovation in Humanitarian Action, p. 15.
 Elisabeth Ferris: Too many humanitarian crises not enough global
 Human Security Report Project, Human Security Report 2013: The
Decline in Global Violence: Evidence, Explanation, and Contestation,
(Vancouver: Human Security Press, 2013). p. 119.
 Ibid., p. 49.
 Ibid., p. 24.
 Ibid., p. 15.
 Ibid., p. 49.
 See more on this in: Attila Marján: Europe’s Destiny − The Old Lady
and the Bull. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010.
 Human Security Report Project, Human Security Report 2013, cit. op.
 Ibid., p. 86.
 Ibid., p. 87.
 Ibid., p. 94.
 Ibid., p. 33.
 Ibid., p. 34.
 Ibid., p. 95.
 Now, European Commission Vice-President.
 Elisabeth Ferris: Too many humanitarian crises not enough global
 Humanitarian Crises in 2013: Assessing the Global Response
 AID POLICY: Humanitarianism in a changing world.
 Slim, op. cit., p. 2.
 Development Assistance Commitee
 Slim, op. cit., p. 2.
 Ibid., p. 3.
 Ibid., p. 22.
 Ibid., p. 9.
 World Humanitarian Data and Trends 2014 – highlights.
 Slim, op. cit., p. 16.
January 24, 2015.
Human rights violations inside EU
What is the Ostrich Protocol?
H.E. Dr. Walter Schwimmer
How the EU member states play ostrich when it comes to
human rights violations inside EU?
H.E. Dr. Walter Schwimmer -
Vice Chair of the Modern
Diplomacy Advisory Board, Former Secretary General of the Council of
Chairman of the International Coordinating Committee of the World
Public Forum – Dialogue of Civilizations
Treaty on the European Union, in its current format also known as
the Lisbon Treaty, as well as the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
claim to establish an area of freedom, security and justice, founded
on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy,
equality, the rule of law and the respect for human rights.
That sounds perfect. After centuries of inhuman treatment of people
very often by their own governments, culminating in the tyrannies of
communism and Nazism in the 20th century, EU citizens should be able
to feel safe from brutal attacks and illegal operations of a violent
state, if not ....If they are not refugees from another EU member
state and they do not try to look for protection because they were
subject in their own state to political persecution, inhuman
treatment or even torture.
The Geneva Convention about status of and asylum for
refugees, persons subject to political persecution, is one of the
great international achievements in the field of human rights. The
European Union as a successful project of peace, freedom and justice
promises in Art.18 of its Charter that "the right to asylum shall be
guaranteed with due respect for the rules of the Geneva Convention.."
But why is this guarantee denied when the asylum seeker comes from
an EU country?
Read more on the next page:
January 19, 2015
FUTURE OF DAVOS IS IN
Francesco Brunello Zanitti,
Southern Asia Research Program’s Director, and one of the Scientific
Directors of the Italian Institute for Advanced Studies in
Geopolitics and Auxiliary Sciences (Istituto di Alti Studi in
Geopolitica e Scienze Ausiliarie – IsAG, Rome). Member of Editorial
Committee of “Geopolitica” (IsAG’s journal) Rome.
Is the new Russian
approach towards China and India, vector for a multipolar world
order? Will the new Davos – gathering between vanity fair and summit
of the mightiest – in future take place in Kyrgyzstan – Central
Asian country surrounded by the most prosperous and promising
The last months of 2014
were marked by a series of significant bilateral agreements and
summits involving Russia, India and China. According to many
international analysts, the research of better relations with the
two Asian giants by Moscow represents another further step towards
global transformation from an unipolar order ruled by United States
to a multipolar one.
A key point in order to
analyze the fundamental reasons of Moscow’s approach towards China
and India is connected to difficulties emerged in the last year with
European Union and United States. Complications in Russia-West
relations are clearly exemplified by the Ukrainian imbroglio.
However, it’s also
necessary to dwell on long-term strategic interests of the countries
involved. Despite the current shaky situation of Eastern Europe and
Middle East, generally speaking Beijing and New Delhi look at Russia
as a reliable partner with whom it’s fundamental continue to
dialogue, cooperate and trade. China-Russia dialogue is growing from
mid-nineties, while Indian strategic relationship with Moscow is
heir of the one established during Cold War with Soviet Union.
Moreover, it should not to be underestimate the fact that Russia,
India and China are already actively cooperating in other
multilateral organizations, such as BRICS forum (Brazil, Russia,
India, China, South Africa), and have the opportunity to develop new
platforms for political, economic and military cooperation, for
example within the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation
(SCO). The strategic triangle Russia-India-China (RIC), taken into
account difficulties of relations especially considering
Indo-Chinese bond characterized at the same time by cooperation and
competition, could therefore be an interesting model of dialogue in
the new multipolar world order.
Read more on the next page:
January 14, 2015
The Paris Killings: Who
Are the Real Heroes of Press Freedom?
Jamil Maidan Flores
Jamil Maidan Flores
Placards are seen placed amongst other tributes to the satirical
magazine Charlie Hebdo on the statues at the Place de la Republique
in Paris on Saturday. (Reuters Photo/Youssef Boudlal)
In the wake of the terrorist assault last week on the
offices of the French magazine “Charlie Hebdo,” in which 12 persons
were killed, many people all over the world were moved to say, in an
outpouring of anger at the perpetrators and sympathy for the
victims, “I am Charlie.”
Apart from two police officers, who were slain as
they responded to the attack, the victims were cartoonists and
editors marked for death by Muslim extremists because of their
slanderous depiction of the Prophet of Islam in past issues of the
Read more on the next page:
January 12, 2015
Denazification – urgently
needed in Europe
Anis H. Bajrektarevic,
is a claim constantly circulating the EU: ‘multiculturalism is
dead in Europe’. Dead or maybe d(r)ead?... That much comes from
a cluster of European nation-states that love to romanticize their
appearance thought the solid Union, as if they themselves lived a
long, cordial and credible history of multiculturalism. Hence, this
claim is of course false. It is also cynical because it is purposely
misleading. No wonder, as the conglomerate of nation-states/EU has
silently handed over one of its most important debates – that of
European anti-fascistic identity, or otherness – to the
wing-parties, repeatedly followed by the selective and
contra-productive foreign policy actions.
The Paris shooting, terrible beyond comprehension,
will reload and overheat those debates. However, these debates are
ill conceived, resting from the start on completely wrong and
misleading premises. Assassins in the Parisian Satirical Magazine
are Islamofascists. The fact that these individuals are
allegedly of the Arab-Muslim origins does not make them less
fascists, less European, nor does it abolish Europe from the main
responsibility in this case.
Fascism and its evil twin, Nazism are 100% European
ideologies. Neo-Nazism also originates from and lately unchecked
blossoms, primarily in Europe. (Some would say, über-economy
in the center of continent, surrounded from all sides by the
recuperating neo-fascism.) The Old continent tried to amortize its
deepening economic and demographic contraction by a constant
interference on its peripheries, especially meddling on the Balkans,
Black Sea/Caucasus and MENA (Middle East–North Africa). What is now
an epilogue? A severe democratic recession. Whom to blame for
this structural, lasting civilizational retreat that Europe suffers?
Is it accurate or only convenient to blame a bench of useful idiots
for returning home with the combating behavior?
Read more on the next page:
January 8, 2015
Paris Massacre and Islamic Terror
World Security Network reporting from Paris in France, January 7, 2015
Dear Friends of the World
What should we do, after three heavily armed and
professional gunmen killed twelve and wounded seven in the office of the French
satire magazine Chalie Hebdo today as „revenge for the Prophet“?
The silent majority of 1.6 billion Muslims must stand up against the tiny, but
active and dangerous minority of the radicals of maybe five percent openly and
defend the true, peaceful Islam, their Prophet and the Holy Qur’an.
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi did so on New Year’s Day at the
famous Al Azhar University in Cairo, demanding „a religious revolution in
Islam“. „It is inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should
cause the entire Islamic World (umma) to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing
and destruction for the rest oft he world. Impossible!“
Without fear Jordans beautiful and wise Queen
Rania told the Abu Dhabi Media Summit 2014, November 18th:
Read more on the next page:
Dr Hubertus Hoffmann
President and Founder
World Security Netw
January 7, 2015
history and humility: What students need to know? - Rattana Lao
GLOBAL MARKETS OF MISERY - Marján Attila – Szuhai Ilona
Human rights violations inside EU - H.E. Dr. Walter Schwimmer
FUTURE OF DAVOS IS IN KYRGYZSTAN - Francesco Brunello Zanitti
Paris Killings: Who Are the Real Heroes of Press Freedom? - By
Jamil Maidan Flores
Denazification – urgently needed in Europe - Anis H.
Paris Massacre and Islamic Terror
- Dr Hubertus Hoffmann
COLOR REVOLUTIONS: TECHNIQUES IN BREAKING DOWN MODERN POLITICAL
REGIMES - ANDREI MANOILO, OLEG KARPOVICH
2014: Climate Change – Humans Remain the Same - Anis H.
SQUARE DANCE – PART IV - By Michael Akerib
DIPLOMACY - Samantha Brletich
Nuclear Commerce –
essentials - Prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic and Petra Posega
SQUARE DANCE – THIRD PART - By Michael Akerib
Vietnamese Australians’ Community: Realities and Prospect - By Prof.
Dr. Nguyen Anh Tuan
prof. dr. Anis Bajrektarevic
Editor - Geopolitics, History, International Relations (GHIR) Addleton Academic
Publishers - New YorK
Senior Advisory board member, geopolitics of energy Canadian energy research
institute - ceri, Ottawa/Calgary
Advisory Board Chairman Modern Diplomacy & the md Tomorrow's people platform
Head of mission and department head - strategic studies on Asia
Professor and Chairperson Intl. law & global pol. studies
Critical Similarities and Differences in SS of Asia and Europe - Prof.
Anis H. Bajrektarevic
MENA Saga and Lady Gaga - (Same dilemma from the MENA) - Anis H. Bajrektarevic
HE ONGOING PUBLIC DEBT CRISIS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION: IMPACTS ON AND
LESSONS FOR VIETNAM - Dr. Nguyen Anh Tuan, Assos. Prof.
Change and Re Insurance: The Human Security Issue SC-SEA Prof. Anis
Bajrektarevic & Carla Baumer
(Researcher and Lecturer at the Faculty of Social and Politics,
University of Jayabaya)
Is the ‘crisis of secularism’ in Western Europe the result of
Dr. Emanuel L. Paparella
A Modest “Australian”
Proposal to Resolve our Geo-Political Problems
Were the Crusades Justified? A Revisiting - Dr. Emanuel L. Paparella
Alisa Fazleeva earned an MA in International Relations from
the University of East Anglia in Norwich, United Kingdom in 2013. Her
research interests include foreign policy decision-making, realism and
constructivism, and social psychology and constructivism.
is an independent researcher specialized in International Politics and Peace
& Conflict Studies with a regional focus on the Balkans and the Middle East.
Founder of Internacionalista
Săo Paulo, Brazil
Brazil – New Age
The political character of Social Media: How do Greek Internet users perceive
and use social networks?
SWISS UMEF UNIVERSITY
is a master`s
degree student on the University for Criminal justice and
Security in Ljubljana. She obtained her bachelor`s degree in
Political Science- Defense studies.
Samantha Brletich, George Mason University School of Policy,
Government, and Intl. Relations She focuses on Russia and Central
Asia. Ms. Brletich is an employee of the US Department of Defense.