Diplomacy & Crisis News

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

For someone who has dedicated 23 years to making the European Union more relevant to the lives of ordinary Europeans, the fact that only a small number of Germans have ever heard of Martin Schulz may be surprising.

However, as the race for the German chancellorship is heating up, Schulz’ relative obscurity has allowed him to position himself as a fresh-faced outsider free from the entanglements of the Berlin establishment. So far, the polls seem to agree: the Social Democrats have overtaken Merkel’s conservative Christian Democrats for the first time in seven years. This has the Federal Republic’s left dreaming of a new arrangement in Berlin.

They have good reason to be hopeful, for fresh-faced is not an adjective that could be used to describe Angela Merkel. After 12 years in the Chancellor’s seat, the electorate seems to be looking for a change in the status quo as the SPD is surging to highs not seen since the days of Gerhard Schröder.

Under the leadership of Sigmar Gabriel, the SPD had fallen to lows of around 20%, a level that saw the upstart far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) breathing heavily down their necks. Gabriel’s decision to step aside to make way for Schulz, along with Frank-Walter Steinmeier becoming the next German President, could well be the sign of a new era in German politics, with a resurgent left and a declining conservative center.

Leadership changes have had similar effects on the SPD’s fortunes in the past: the nominations of Peer Steinbrück in 2012 and Steinmeier in 2008 also saw an increase in the party’s popularity of 4% and 3% respectively. In both cases, however, the upsurge was short lived. And while some 56% of Germans surveyed expect the current uptick in the party’s support to be temporary too, there are reasons for the SPD to be more optimistic this time around.

In 2012 and 2008, the party had to contend with an opponent in Angela Merkel who was riding high in the popularity stakes. Today’s Merkel has grown weary from carrying the weight of the world on her shoulders. To drive home the point, the weekly news magazine Der Spiegel recently described Merkel as looking “as though she had been forced into the decision [to run for Chancellor again] at gunpoint”.

Another factor working in the SPD’s favor is the discord between the CDU and its Bavarian branch, the CSU, over Merkel’s unpopular open-door refugee policy. CSU leader Horst Seehofer has openly clashed with Merkel on the issue and called for limits to be imposed on the number of refugees to be admitted entry—a demand that Merkel has flatly refused.

The rebuff was a risky move, since protestant Merkel needs Seehofer to rally support for her in the conservative, Catholic state of Bavaria. Although Seehofer is now officially backing Merkel’s candidacy, he is likely to be a weak pillar in her campaign. Seehofer himself is facing regional elections and seeks to distance himself as far as possible from Merkel’s migrant policy to avoid political costs on his home turf. Hence, there is a real possibility of a split between the two parties that could dent further Merkel’s overall support.

One might assume that the votes lost by the CDU on account of Merkel’s pro-refugee policy would naturally flow to the AfD. Schulz’ candidacy, however, presents a viable alternative for many non-decided and non-voters, who might have opted for the AfD in protest against the status quo in Berlin. If he also manages to reinvigorate the SPD’s traditional working class base, the Social Democrats could sway erstwhile supporters who had switched to the CDU under Merkel’s grand coalition.

While Schulz might try to stay clear of this season’s most contentious subject, the ongoing immigration issue threatens to be as much of a vote loser for Schulz as it will be for Merkel. Indeed, as he is forced to lay out his policies for public scrutiny, it is not only his stance on refugees likely to cause him difficulties with significant swathes of the electorate.

His calls for more leniency towards Greece in dealing with its debt burden will doubtlessly leave him out of step with the German public who largely supports the hardline taken by Merkel in her dealings with Southern Europe. He is also likely to face questions about suspicious payments made to his staff in Brussels, a handy brush for the far-right to paint him as the embodiment of all of Brussels’ ills.

These and other issues are surely going to take some of the varnish off Schulz’s campaign, but barring some major upset, the SPD should be in a strong bargaining position when the post-election coalition negotiations begin. The most comfortable fit for an SPD led government would be a coalition with the Left party and the Greens, but a corollary of the SPD’s rise is that it has come at the expense of support for both of these parties.

The German electorate at large is also disinclined to support such a leftist coalition, so running on a red-red-green platform might disgruntle more centrist voters and drive them into the arms of the AfD. However, should the recent trend continue it could leave as the only option a re-installment of the current CDU/SPD grand coalition, but with the SPD in a strong enough position to demand the Chancellorship for Schulz.

After more than a decade during which the SPD  seemed at times to be in terminal decline, Schulz’s election would constitute a remarkable reversal of fortunes and an invigoration of the Left in Germany – so long as Schulz can succeed where his predecessors have failed and cross the finish line with the same momentum with which he has begun the race.

The post The Rise of Schulz: Merkel’s Götterdämmerung? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

The Center on Sanctions and Illicit Finance (CSIF) recently hosted a series of discussions on “Securing American Interests: A New Era of Economic Power.” They addressed questions of economic and financial power, economic statecraft, and national security, including new offensive and defensive options for the United States. Wide-ranging discussions covered terrorist financing, financial crimes, sanctions as policy, foreign asset control, non-state actors, alternative currencies, and other Department of Treasury concerns.

Cybersecurity was approached from a singular, sober starting point. John Carlin, a former U.S. Assistant Attorney General for National Security, stated plainly:

“There’s no excuse not to know that the system is blinking red when it comes to the potential for a major national security-driven cyber incident to hit our critical infrastructure in a way that causes major economic issues.”

We pledge every year, Carlin continued, that this is the year we will strengthen our defenses, but each year we continue to leave ourselves vulnerable.

A number of big-picture questions were considered, at the geo-strategic level. What are the new international rules? How can the U.S. and its allies help develop these rules? How can new norms and values take shape, with bilateral and multilateral agreements? How can the U.S. and its allies develop agreements with other nations of concern? What will it mean to monitor—and enforce—such agreements? At what point does NATO’s Article 5 take effect, where “an armed attack against one… shall be considered an attack against them all,” provoking allied military response?

The panel outlined a variety of recent cyberattacks and cybersecurity concerns by U.S. adversaries. Among these: Russia‘s release of Democratic National Committee emails to influence the U.S. presidential election, the ongoing theft by China of U.S. industry’s intellectual property and interest in infrastructure controls, Iran‘s attacks on U.S. infrastructure and financial institutions, and North Korea‘s attacks on U.S. media and South Korean financial and military assets.

China garnered special attention. Carlin cited Gen. Keith Alexander, former head of the NSA and Cybercom, calling China’s theft of U.S. intellectual property “the greatest transfer of wealth in human history.” Peter Harrell of the Center for New American Security judged that this IP theft is “beginning to reach a macroeconomic level of risk.” CSIS fellow Zach Cooper noted that China’s cyber efforts are being complemented with strategic investments, “often in dollar amounts that don’t make sense, around U.S. military bases” in the western Pacific Ocean.

Two important insights identified that cybersecurity needs to be seen within larger contexts, instead of only as an isolated, distinct domain. First, we don’t think of security questions by air, land, sea, and space separate from each other. Similarly, we need to think of cyber as one option in a multi-pronged attack. Second, and perhaps more challenging, the panel continued, the United States should think of cyberattacks not as from one country or another, but as multilateral attacks against the U.S. economy, critical infrastructure, and national security assets.

Harrell noted that the U.S. has never had “any systematic evaluation of vulnerabilities either of us or of our close allies and thinking through, in a more systematic way, how do we want to be positioned to play defense for the long term.”

Recommendations included the usual government-industry cooperation, and the need to innovate—this is still new policy-making, in many ways. Traditional statecraft remains important, such as private communications with China instead of public “red lines,” supported by “mundane transgovernmentalism“—technical cooperation among the bureaucratic agencies of allies. Can we use Cold War-era concepts of signaling and deterrence (Harrell) to combat China’s “ambiguity, asymmetry, and incrementalism” (Cooper)?

Cyber is a giant and growing area of military and economic vulnerability for the U.S. and its allies. The CSIF event showed that while some progress is being made in important areas, we need to examine and address the host of issues in a comprehensive way—and soon.

An earlier version of this appeared at Giga-net.org. Video and transcripts from the event are at http://www.defenddemocracy.org/events/securing-american-interests/. All quotes here are from the session on “Shoring Up Our Defenses Against Emerging Threats of Economic Warfare.

The post Blinking Red: Reconsidering U.S. Approaches to Cybersecurity appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

What will global and regional leaders do about Syria?

The victory of the Assad regime in eastern Aleppo in December has been often considered a game changer in the Syrian war. This article lists some reasons why Assad cannot remain in power even after Aleppo. At the same time, it demonstrates why Syria is not fit for the solution claimed by the Geneva Communiqué of June 30th 2012 and the UN SC Resolution 2254 of December 18th 2015 based on principles of territorial integrity, a single inclusive transitional government, and multiparty elections.

1. Fear of a Sunni Arab revenge

No dictatorships in history has lasted forever. This also applies to the Baath regime in Syria. The trenches of sectarian hatred digged by the war are so deep that the Assad regime will not be able to build on other forces beyond a coalition of the Alawite, Christian, and Druze segments of Syrian society.

After the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, we learned that no inclusive transitional government can guarantee access to power for a previously ruling minority. This applies to the Sunni Arabs in Iraq as well as to the Alawite-led coalition in Syria.

Any time a minority regime falls or an inclusive transitional government ends its term, there is a threat of revanchism. Indeed, the majority Sunni Arab population may use this opportunity to exact revenge on the past Alawite-led minority coalition. Even minorities not participating on power such as the Kurds, Turkmens and Assyrians will be threatened by a possible Sunni Arab campaign for domination. Therefore, any post-war architecture must secure the Alawites and other minorities against such a scenario.

2. Arab Spring and Sunni political Islamism

The Arab Spring was an irreversible process of mass mobilization, radically changing primarily the Sunni Arab societies in multiple Arab states. It is true that the Muslim Brotherhood proved to be an nonviable solution for the region. Even its main financial sponsor Qatar eventually stopped supporting it.

However, it is important to mention that the main political sponsor of the Muslim Brotherhood, Turkey’s AKP and its leader Erdogan, significantly consolidated their power in Turkey after the coup attempt in summer 2016. Furthermore, the Muslim Brotherhood is still the most influential Muslim grouping within the European Muslim immigrant community. These two factors are still sufficient for a great comeback of the Muslim Brotherhood on the scene in some Arab states.

Moreover, Saudi Arabia, the main sponsor of the Salafist groupings worldwide, became one of the two great winners of the Arab counterrevolution since 2013. Salafism has probably became the most influential Islamist sect among the Egyptian and Syrian Sunni Muslims.

Any of the two options, the Muslim Brotherhood or Salafism, are bad news for anybody expecting social reconciliation with Shi’a Arabs in the following decades. Any political solution based on a united Syria will intensify the Sunni-Shi’a political competition. It will generate further inter-communal strife just because the Sunni Arab population is not ready for secular solutions anymore. Unless a Sunni Arab regime imposes it like it did in Algeria in the 90s or like the Sisi regime is trying to do it these days. In any case, the Alawite-led regime or an inclusive government are incapable of that.

3. Iran: a regional power

Iran is the other great winner of the Arab counterrevolution. Of course, controlling a continuous strip of land from its western borders, via pro-Iranian regimes in Iraq and Syria, down to the Hezbollah-Aounist coalition in Lebanon on the Mediterranean coast is almost an irresistible temptation for Iran.

On the other hand, Iran may wish to improve its relations with global powers including the U.S. and regional powers such as Turkey and Egypt. It needs to strengthen its influence in Shi’a regions of Yemen and Afghanistan or in Sunni Persian-speaking countries like Tajikistan and Pakistan as well as to join global institutions like the G20. In order to secure these goals, Iran must be ready to make concessions that may substantially change the current status quo in Syria and Iraq.

For Iran, Assad’s monopoly over Syria and a Shi’a  majority government in Iraq are definitely attractive but not the only possible solutions. Finally, Iran, with its outstanding standard of education (in comparison to other Arab states or Pakistan), is not fated to be a Russian puppet and has very good prospects to be an equal partner of the U.S., EU and Turkey.

4. Sunni Arab refugees must return

The burden borne by Turkey, Germany and other European countries as a consequence of the refugee wave caused by Assad’s targeted ethnic cleansing in Sunni Arab areas is so heavy that the current status quo is unacceptable for these powers. This is supported by the attempts to get the atrocities committed by the Assad-Putin coalition in Aleppo in late 2016 before international justice.

The inflow of hundreds of thousands of Sunni Arabs in the EU has caused an unprecedented spike in xenophobia that has the potential to destroy the very foundations of European democracy. The inflow has also triggered Turkey’s hysterical behavior towards the EU. The imperative of return of hundreds of thousands of refugees from Turkey, Germany and other European countries is a strong factor for why Syria cannot be ruled solely by the Assad regime even if the latter eventually wins the war.

In other words, if European governments accept a united Syria under Assad’s rule without creating conditions for return of the vast majority of the Sunni Arab refugees, the EU may be destabilized by the rise to power of mainstream Islamophobic voters. The influence of the anti-European forces in France, Netherlands and Austria and the anti-EU sentiment in Italy are alarming.

5. Egypt: another beneficiary of Russian victory

al-Sisi’s Egypt is another close ally of Russia in the Middle East. Egypt has always had strong interests in Syria and was its closest partner in the modern history of Pan-Arabism: both states were parts of the Nasserist United Arab Republic (1958-61) as well as Sadat’s attempts for the Federation of Arab Republics (1972-77).

In other words, Iran is not the only regional protégé of Putin’s Russia (who is the real winner of the Battle of Aleppo). In turn, Assad is not the only possible option for Russia in Syria. Moscow can also promote the interests of its other regional allies such as Egypt.

The recent rapprochement between Iran and the U.S. is also a potential threat for Russia. Putin cannot bet on a single card and needs to secure Russian interests in the Middle East in case of a future Iranian-U.S. alliance. In addition, Iran’s proxy, Hezbollah, is a threat to a close alliance between Putin and the Netanyahu-Lieberman tandem in Israel.

Therefore, Egypt is an ideal Middle Eastern partner for Russia to diversify risk. Being a partner of the U.S. and China (as well as Saudi Arabia and Israel), Egypt with its historical interests in Syria and a secularist military dictatorship is a good compromise solution for power-sharing in Syria.

Finally, Egypt rules most of the Libyan Cyrenaica and Fezzan via its Libyan proxy, general Haftar. This provides additional compensation potential for Russia on the global scene instead of a full domination of Syria.

6. Kurds as a non-Islamist model for Middle East

The Arab Spring and the following years radically changed the Sunni Arab societies, leaving a very limited space for non-Arabic or non-Sunni minorities including the Kurds.

Kurds were already deceived by the West several times: in the Treaty of Ankara splitting Kurdistan between Turkey and France in October 1921, in the Treaty of Lausanne officially annexing large portions of Kurdistan to Turkey in July 1923, in defeating and ending the Barzanji’s Kingdom of Kurdistan in July 1924, in League of Nations Council decision in December 1925 annexing the Vilayet of Mosul to Iraq, by the hostile attitude in spring 1946 resulting in the reincorporation of the Mahabad Republic to Iran and in the betrayal of the Kurdish revolution in March 1991.

Russians also deceived the Kurds several times: in the March 1921 Treaty of Moscow recognizing the Turkish claims on current Turkish, Iraqi and Syrian Kurdistan , in the liquidation of the Kurdistan okrug in August 1930, in the Kurdish deportation from Transcaucasia in 1937, in the termination of support for the Mahabad Republic in June 1946 and in termination of support for the Kurds in Turkey after the coup attempt in July 2016.

Concerns that Kurdish independence would destabilize Turkey and Iran are just a buck passing attitude not reflecting the reality. Iranian Kurdistan is not destabilized at all. The ceasefire between the Turkish government and the Kurds between March 2013 and July 2015 proved that the Kurdish question in Turkey can be solved under Turkish sovereignty.

The only issue is Iraqi and Syrian Kurdistan due to the new Arab Sunni Islamism. The alliance between the Turkish and Kurdish leaders, Erdogan and Barzani, proved that Kurdistan outside the Turkish borders (i.e. in contemporary Iraq) is not a destabilizing factor for Turkey. If the so-called Rojava (Syrian Kurdistan) gets under the rule of the Iraqi Kurdistan with friendly relationship to Turkey, there is no reason for Turkish security concerns.

Iraqi and Syrian Kurds are the only reliable allies in the war against the Islamic State. Kurds proved that they could organize a country based on national instead of Islamist ideas. Neither Westerners nor Russians should deceive Kurds anymore and should grant them their right to self-determination on the territories of Iraq and Syria without jeopardizing the security of Turkey or Iran.

Today, Kurds are the closest to achieving their century old goal of nationhood. If they fail to achieve it this time, they can lose their confidence in global powers and in their nationalist leaders and, as Palestinians did a decade ago, start supporting political Islamism and the global Caliphate. This is another reason why Syria cannot stay a unified country.

Conclusion: partitioned Syria and Iraq

All the aforementioned arguments rule out an option of a united Syria (and Iraq) after the war, even in case of a Russian, Iranian, and Assad victory. The fear of future Sunni Arab reprisals can only be prevented by establishing a separate country for the Syrian Alawites and their allies. Political Islamism of any color, either Salafism or Muslim Brotherhood, can only be moderated or countered in Syria with a foreign occupation by Sunni powers.

Iran, in order to be accepted as a regional power by the West, can grant some concessions in Syria and Iraq while getting others in Yemen, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Ethnic cleansing by the Assad regime in Sunni Arab areas of Syria must be reverted and return of the refugees from the EU and Turkey must be granted.

Finally, an eventual Russian victory in Syria does not necessarily mean a political monopoly of the Assad regime after the war, but possibly the participation of other Russian allies such as Egypt or Turkey.

A lot of blood has been shed in the name of a chimeric political stability and immutability of the borders since the Sykes-Picot agreement a century ago. This blood has proved that boundaries need to be altered in Syria and Iraq in order to get real political stability. This can be achieved if five new nations emerge in Syria and Iraq: a Shi’a Arab state in Iraq, an Alawi Arab state in Syria, two Sunni Arab states in Syria and Iraq, respectively, and a single Kurdish state in Iraq and Syria while Druzes of Syria join Lebanon.

The post Partition Remains An Option Even After Aleppo appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Deeply concerned about increased tensions in the vicinity of Guerguerat in the buffer strip in southern Western Sahara between the Moroccan berm and the Mauritanian border, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres today called on Morocco and Frente Polisario to &#8220take all necessary steps&#8221 to avoid escalation.

The United Nations Security Council has strongly condemned the recent spate of violence in the south-central Kasai region of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), calling on the Government to &#8220immediately dispatch a credible and impartial investigation.&#8221

As details on the destruction of and damage to Iraq’s rich and diverse cultural heritage emerge, the United Nations cultural agency has appealed to the international community to help protect and revive the country’s archaeological, religious and cultural sites for future generations.

United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres has asked Member States to inform him by 6 March if they intend to make voluntary financial contributions to the implementation of the new UN plan to counter cholera in Haiti, his spokesman said today.

The United Nations peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and the National Episcopal Conference of Congo, known as CENCO have called for an immediate end to the spate of violent attacks against Catholic facilities in several parts of the country.

Giving voice to people affected by conflict and crises in Africa’s Lake Chad Basin, a global United Nations-supported humanitarian conference in Oslo today generated more than $670 million in pledges that will help sustain critical relief operations over the next two years and beyond across four counties where millions are in need of aid.

An estimated 366 migrants died at sea during their Mediterranean journey to Europe in the first 53 days of 2017, down from 425 of the comparable period of last year, the United Nations migration agency said today.

Against the backdrop of health systems struggling to adapt to the growing needs of migrants around the world, health leaders from over forty countries, meeting at a United Nations consultation underscored the call for international collaboration to improve the health and well-being of migrants and their families.

Cette recension a été publiée dans le numéro d’hiver de Politique étrangère (n°4/2016). Marc Hecker, chercheur au Centre des études de sécurité de l’Ifri, propose une analyse de l’ouvrage de Claire Arènes, La prévention du terrorisme en Grande-Bretagne. Le programme Prevent et la communauté musulmane (Presses universitaires de France, 2016, 256 pages).

Le prix Le Monde de la recherche universitaire permet, depuis près de 20 ans, de donner une visibilité importante à des thèses de doctorat. Non seulement les thèses sélectionnées font l’objet d’une présentation dans le quotidien, mais certaines d’entre elles sont publiées aux Presses universitaires de France. Parmi les lauréats 2016 se trouve Claire Arènes, récompensée pour son travail sur la prévention du terrorisme en Grande-Bretagne.

Claire Arènes analyse bien la manière dont la perception du terrorisme a changé en Grande-Bretagne au tournant des années 2000. Les autorités découvrent alors que des citoyens britanniques participent à des actions de terrorisme international à l’étranger. En avril 2003 par exemple, deux jeunes hommes nés en Angleterre se font exploser dans une boîte de nuit de Tel Aviv. Dans certaines mosquées radicales de Londres – que d’aucuns surnomment « Londonistan » –, des prêcheurs radicaux appellent au djihad. En juillet 2005, quatre terroristes – nés au Royaume-Uni pour trois d’entre eux et en Jamaïque pour le quatrième – commettent des attentats-suicides dans la capitale britannique. Le terrorisme est désormais perçu comme une menace interne et il apparaît nécessaire aux responsables politiques de prévenir la radicalisation des « communautés vulnérables ».

L’auteur décrit précisément la mise en œuvre du principal programme de prévention, baptisé PREVENT. Son analyse repose sur de nombreux entretiens avec des acteurs de terrain, notamment des militants associatifs, des représentants institutionnels et des policiers. Son verdict est sévère : PREVENT aurait entretenu un mélange des genres dangereux entre community cohesion et lutte contre-terroriste, et conduit à une stigmatisation des communautés musulmanes. La réforme du programme consécutive à la défaite des travaillistes en 2010, n’aurait pas inversé la tendance : PREVENT demeurerait une « marque honnie » que les acteurs de terrain chercheraient à cacher.

Si le livre de Claire Arènes mérite assurément d’être lu – en particulier par les acteurs chargés de la lutte contre la radicalisation –, il appelle cependant deux regrets. D’une part, l’essentiel du travail de recherche a été réalisé entre 2010 et 2012 : il est donc question d’Al-Qaïda, mais pas de Daech. Or on aurait souhaité savoir dans quelle mesure PREVENT avait réussi à détourner les jeunes Britanniques de l’État islamique. D’autre part, un chapitre comparatif aurait été utile, la stratégie britannique ayant fait des émules en Europe. La France, qui a longtemps résisté à l’approche britannique en mettant en avant son incompatibilité avec le modèle laïque et républicain, est aujourd’hui plus encline à s’inspirer des expériences conduites outre-Manche. Les similitudes entre le plan d’action contre la radicalisation et le terrorisme (PART) présenté par Manuel Valls en mai 2016, et la stratégie britannique CONTEST – dont PREVENT est un des piliers – sont frappantes.

Claire Arènes se demande à l’issue de son travail si PREVENT ne s’est pas révélé contre-productif, et n’a pas conduit le gouvernement britannique à « perdre les cœurs et les esprits » d’une partie de la population. Si tel est le cas, espérons que le PART français connaîtra un meilleur destin.

Marc Hecker

Pour vous abonner à Politique étrangère, cliquez ici.

United Nations human rights experts are calling for strong, urgent action by States to ensure that people around the world can enjoy the human right to live in environments free from contamination.

Condemning, in the strongest terms, the terrorist attack on 16 February in Iraq’s capital, Baghdad, the United Nations Security Council underlined the need to bring the perpetrators, organizers, financiers and sponsors of such reprehensible acts of terrorism to justice.

A working group of the United Nations agency which coordinates telecommunication services throughout the world completed today a cycle of studies on key performance requirements of the next generation mobile networks (5G) for the International Mobile Telecommunications-2020 systems.

Amid renewed violence that has led to “successive gross violations” of international humanitarian law in two north-eastern provinces of the Central African Republic (CAR), the most senior United Nations relief official in the country has called for free and unhindered access to civilians impacted by the clashes between rival armed groups.

Wrapping up the opening of the intra-Syrian negotiations in Geneva this evening, United Nations Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura said he would hold bilateral meetings with participants on Friday to decide on a work plan, as Secretary-General António Guterres said he was encouraged the Syrian parties held face-to-face talks.

Ahead of a major donors conference in the Norwegian capital, Oslo, seeking to generate global action to tackle the complex crisis in Africa’s Lake Chad Basin, the top United Nations relief official highlighted that investing in support for the region will in turn help strengthen broader security around the world for all to benefit.

Depression is the leading cause of disability worldwide, the United Nations health agency today reported, estimating that it affects more than 300 million people worldwide – the majority of them women, young people and the elderly.