KOSOVO SECURITY FORCE ROLE

Today, some 5,000 troops from the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR), provided by 31 countries (23 NATO and eight KFOR partners) continue to contribute towards maintaining a safe and secure environment and freedom of movement for all citizens, irrespective of their ethnic origin.

Following the unilateral declaration of independence on 17 February 2008, the Alliance reaffirmed that KFOR shall remain in Kosovo on the basis of UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1244, unless the United Nations Security Council decides otherwise. In June 2008, NATO agreed to take on new tasks in Kosovo. These new tasks included the standing down of the Kosovo Protection Corps and the creation of the Kosovo Security Force (KSF) as an all-crisis voluntary, professional, multi-ethnic, lightly armed force with a mandate encompassing crisis response, assistance to civil authorities in responding to natural and other disasters and emergencies, explosive ordinance disposal and civil protection. These tasks, together with KFOR’s overall mandate, have not been affected by the ruling of the International Court of Justice on 22 July 2010: the advisory opinion of the Court on the legality of Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence is that it did not violate international law, nor UNSCR 1244.

Throughout Kosovo, and bearing in mind its operational mandate, KFOR is cooperating with and assisting the UN, the EU and other international actors, as appropriate, to support the development of a stable, democratic, multi-ethnic and peaceful Kosovo.  In April 2013, Belgrade and Pristina reached an Agreement on Normalisation, which will help to improve relations between both parties while giving new momentum to the Euro-Atlantic integration of the Western Balkans. NATO and, in particular, KFOR will stand ready to support the implementation of this latest agreement to the best of their ability within their current mandate.

 

Syrian refugee are incresing day by day

One million Syrians have fled their homeland, the head of the United Nations refugee agency today said, warning that in the absence of a political solution, humanitarian workers need additional funds to help the refugees and support the countries hosting them. ”With a million people in flight, millions more displaced internally, and thousands of people continuing to cross the border every day.

Syria is spiralling towards full-scale disaster,” the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, António Guterres, said in a press release.“We are doing everything we can to help, but the international humanitarian response capacity is dangerously stretched. This tragedy has to be stopped. ”The number of refugees increased dramatically since the start of the year, with more than 400,000 people fleeing Syria to neighbouring countries – Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq and Egypt, and increasingly to North Africa and Europe, according to figures reported by the UN refugee agency (UNHCR).“This number translates into one million people who are dependent on the generosity of host countries, the response of humanitarian agencies and the financial support of governments and individuals,” said Mr. Guterres, who will be travelling to the region later this week to visit UNHCR operations in Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon.

In Lebanon, the population has increased by as much as 10 per cent. Jordan’s energy, water, health and education services are being strained to the limit. Turkey has spent over $600 million setting up 17 refugee camps, with more under construction. Iraq, already stressed by a population of one million internally displaced persons (IDPs), received over 100,000 Syrian refugees in the past year.

Communications and Society

In August 2012 Aspen Institute hold  a Forum on Communications and Society (FOCAS to discuss the movement towards open and innovative governance and develop tangible proposals and recommendations to increase transparency, promote smarter governance and enhance democracy. Participants included media and technology experts, government officials, academics, and leading NGO directors. Notably joining the conversation was President of the Republic of Estonia Toomas Hendrik Ilves, White House Digital Strategist Macon Phillips, Ushahidi Executive Director Juliana Rotich and a number of up-and-coming technology innovators with expertise in designing platforms and applications for open governance systems.

American democracy is premised on informed citizens engaging in self-governance. Yet  today many citizens are disenchanted with their governments at all levels and are uninterested in participating. At the same time, citizens’ use of mobile and digital technologies is creating a significant communication gap between governments and the governed. And governments find themselves strapped for cash and unable to respond to these tensions in constructive ways. 

On a more encouraging note, however, there is now a burgeoning “open governance” movement to use information and communications technologies to foster accountability, transparency and trust, to open up traditionally closed systems, and to transform governance. Collaborative technologies such as social media are now enabling two-way information channels between citizens and governments, helping to solve problems at the local, state and national levels. Digital technologies also have the potential to reduce costs to governments and citizens, and to create enormous opportunities for more transparent, participatory and responsive governments.

Some national governments are already embracing the open governance movement. Estonia, for example, is a leader. The nation has transitioned beyond 20th century bureaucratic rules and redesigned its government service systems online. Estonia boasts an electronic identification system for its population and an e-healthcare system where citizens own their own data. The nation operates a digital healthcare prescription system, 25 percent of the population voted online in the last elections, and its education system is anchored online. 

Challenges of U.S. Administration

With the confirmation by the Congress of John Kerry as Secretary of State of the new Obama Administration, it was put in place an important piece in the puzzle of the government team, and this help to stir the waters not always clear of U.S. foreign policy when there are growing international tensions, uncertainties about the confirmation of Chuck Hagel to the Department of Defense. In addition, it is needed  the redefinition of the overall priorities of the Country, to face the renewed tensions with China and the uncertainty about how to handle a relationship more clearly problematic, the file still open, on nuclear and options involved in the outcome of the upcoming Iranian presidential elections, the resurgence of hostilities in Syria and the risk of a widening of the crisis after the Israeli military action of 30 January, the potentially destabilizing of the situation in Egypt and the French intervention in Mali ... These are just some of the issues - in substantial continuity with what has been the experience of its predecessor - the new Secretary will be confronted in the coming weeks. The major  issue is, rather,  "how" Kerry wants to tackle the various agenda items. Also on this floor, a substantial continuity with the line of action of Hillary Clinton seems almost obvious.

The U.S. Administration is, today, faced with a dilemma. To focus the attention to internal affairs as it was said in  the inaugural address on January 21, it  does not mean (obviously) the abandonment of an international dimension, for the United States, that is a necessity. This dimension must, however, find a balance with the constraints imposed by an increasingly evident understretch. At the same time, the second Obama Administration is called upon to deal - at least until the next  mid-term elections - with the tensions arising from the polarization between the Republican majority in the House of Representatives and the Democratic Senate, with the need for the President to negotiate each time the consent of  theCongress, apparently not willing to make concessions, even on sensitive issues as the sum of the measures taken to early January to avoid the dreaded "fiscal abyss" (fiscal cliff). In the difficult search for a squaring of the circle, John Kerry is finally called to take into account the higher margins of action that generally benefits from a President second mandate. In fact President is no longer beset by the specter of re-election and often, on the contrary, he is  searching the opportunity  to link his name to some significant results, in both domestic and international level.