The UN Peace bodies need support, not destruction

On April 14th 2018 three members of the UN Security Council decided to conduct a missile assault in the midst of the populous area of the city of Damascus. The rationale for this act can be found in the press release of the French President Emmanuel Macron:

„There is no doubt as to the facts and to the responsibility of the Syrian regime. The red line declared by France in May 2017 has been crossed. Tonight, I have therefore ordered the French armed forces to intervene, as part of an international operation conducted in coalition with the United States of America and the United Kingdom against the clandestine chemical weapons arsenal of the Syrian regime. Our response has been limited to the Syrian regime’s facilities enabling the production and employment of chemical weapons.“

Beside the fact that there is serious doubt that the event happened – if the governments of the US, the UK and France had evidence for the existence of a ‚clandestine chemical weapons arsenal‘ to attacking these arsenals with missiles may cause thousands of deaths and an environmental disaster.
Picture: United Nations

The Basel Institute of Commons and Economics. a member of the UN stakeholdership to achieving the common UN Goals – especially Goal 16 Peace – therefore released information from the ground in Douma that raise questions on the chemical weapons attack.
Further the Basel Institute condemned the assault on Syria, that since seven years now suffers from a proxy war causing millions of refugees and around 700’000 death up to now.
Attacking this country again without considering the Charta of the United Nations weakens the bodies of the UN such as the Security Council, the General Assembly, OHCHR but as well UNDESA and UNESCO that work for peaceful relations and solidarity between the countries.

The release of the Basel Institute has been published by the Austrian News Agency APA in the context of the UN’s activity concerning the alleged attack with chemical weapons and appeared in Austria’s ORF on April 22nd 2019.
The Basel Institute of Commons calls to all governments and Civil Society to supporting the bodies of the United Nations. Only respect for the community of the United Nations and its General Secretary António Guterres can prevent further violations in the future.





Kommentare deaktiviert für The UN Peace bodies need support, not destruction

admin am April 23rd 2018 in Allgemein

Interactions between Common Global Goals – make your choice

Imagine a group of people discussing and agreeing on 17 common goals. In general they will sort of voting on the goals with the most support across the group. So their goals are in fact a chart on what they favor. But one thing they never do is to thinking on the dependencies and interactions between the goals. You can see that in every local administration budget where measures and limits on spending are confronted with the projects they want to fund. One of the two doesn’t fit at the end. Goals collide.
Now imagine 193 countries agreeing on the 17 Global Goals, called the Sustainable Development Goals. Let’s have a look at them:

Of course none of us would find any of them irrelevant or useless. But after two years within the process to promoting these goals – let’s call them the Global Goals – some goals achieve much more support and funding than others. The reasons for that choice are different, but two motivations can be mentioned:
1) Choosing Global Goals that a government or an organization can easily meet and achieve without any extra intellectual, political or financial efforts, e.g. of course the crops industry feels to ‚fighting hunger‘ (Goal 2). Rich OECD countries implement compliance and governance to achieving goals 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 14 and 15.
2) Choosing Global Goals were you can attend funding from donors. This choice quickly leads to a couple of goals such as 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15.
As we can see, both motivations lead to the choice of the same goals. But unfortunately the 17 Global Goals as well have an interaction between them. ‚Zero Hunger‘ (Goal 2) is even a goal that requires to eliminating poverty (Goal 1) and social inequality (Goal 10) before and as well to achieving peace (Goal 16) of course. On top Goal 17 is about financing all the Global Goals. To achieving any of them without any extra funding is out of reach.
To better understanding these interactions we created the first UN Goals Impact Matrix, that you can download here.

Even if you won’t share all of the estimates lying behind this matrix you will being inspired by playing a bit with it.
We therefore provide a MS Word version here so that you fill it out by yourself.
The paradox thing is, that the Global Goals with the highest impact are the ones with the lowest support. So the funding and support moves to the low impact, which we explained before by the motivation.

So how can we create any motivation to considering Goals 10, 11, 16 and 17 as well? If we don’t, the Global Goals will fail.

Kommentare deaktiviert für Interactions between Common Global Goals – make your choice

admin am Februar 23rd 2018 in Allgemein

Surprise: six NATO members among the most peaceful countries

Within the United Nations activities to Financing Development the Basel Institute of Commons and Economics recently provided a calculation of transactions costs such as credit/debt and expenditures on alleged ‚defence‘. On the occasion of the Munich Security Conference 2018, that in the Munich Security Report 2018 again pretends a ‚decline‘ of military costs within the NATO, the Basel Institute released a first ranking of 146 countries by their Export-Defence-Ratio (please click to download). Surprisingly we find six NATO member countries among the countries with the best ratio (see table).

These six NATO countries are in charge of only 1.33 per cent of the estimated $ 1.5 trillion NATO spendings on alleged ‚defence‘ every year. So in our view to achieving the common UN Goals of the 193 countries that agreed to them in 2015 to reducing the transaction costs for both capital and military opens space to financing the World’s public goods.
These $ 1.5 trillion include not only the official NATO expenditures but as well the expenditures and the damage NATO causes in other countries such as first in Russia and China, but as well in DPR Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Ukraine, Donbass, European Union, Afghanistan, Pakistan and many more.
Of course this calculation may encourage as well NATO members to considering their transaction costs. To transforming NATO into a diplomatic civil initiative might be the thing to do 73 years after World War II and 27! years after the abolition of the Warszaw Treaty. Basel Institute will advocate this proposal on the Munich Security Conference 2018.
Unfortunately Basel Institute does hard to diminishing the threat imposed to the United States of America by it’s aggressive neighbors Canada, Mexico and Afghanistan; a threat longing for more than 500 years yet 🙂


Kommentare deaktiviert für Surprise: six NATO members among the most peaceful countries

admin am Februar 11th 2018 in Allgemein

Financing Development: Where is the Market Price for Peace?

While most of the countries and their statistical offices still believe that the 17 UN Goals are an audit for the year 2030 only – and therefore enhance their capacity building to delivering their right figures – the single Goals such as Goal 1 (Overcoming poverty), 13 (Stopping Global Warming) or Goal 16 (Peace) according to the estimates need funding up to $ 5tn per year.
The recently launched UN Inter Agency Task Force (IATF) on Financing Development now published a first report for 2018 – including the figures presented by the Basel Institute of Commons and Economics: . While reading the figures we learn that the annual World development assistance is around $ 140bn per year and the World Bank reaches out credits of $ 47bn.
But unfortunately only the OECD countries raise new sovereign debt at the size of $ 14tn per year. According to the Swedish SIPRI, the military expenses reached $ 1.69tn in 2016. The good thing is: both, the military expenses as well as the sovereign debt is money controlled and raised by the governments. Governmental money is a public good.
So if the governments had the will to reaching some of the more expensive SDGs such as 1, 13 and 16, they have the opportunity to shift their allocation: instead of dedicating public money to defense, weapons, war and conflict ($ 1.69tn per year) they may investing in peace.

Finally an Inter-Agency Task Force for Financing Development. The Basel Institute supports this attempt and contributes to the challenge of financing up to $5tn per year to reaching the SDG. Visit their website:

Instead of providing zero-interest-credits only to financing their own debt ($ 14tn per year), they may starting to provide zo-interest-credits to the regions of conflict and crises where they are hardly needed to rebuilding the countries such as in the Middle East, in Ukraine, in Afghanistan and Pakistan. in Brazil, Mexico and Venezuela and of course in almost the entire Africa.
If we had a market price for peace: why not expecting governmental and private investors to paying it? The peace bond is not on the market yet. After World War II many European regions have been entirely damaged. It took only ten years – from 1948 to 1958 – to establishing common prosperity by peace in most of the European countries. That peace lasted up to our year, the year 2018. Now we have to repeating this success story for countries and regions still in conflict.

Kommentare deaktiviert für Financing Development: Where is the Market Price for Peace?

admin am Januar 11th 2018 in Allgemein

Highly topical in 2018: the five principles of peaceful coexistence

It was 63 years ago, exactly on April 29th 1954, when India’s first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru, and China’s first premier, Zhou Enlai, signed a treaty that has been since recommended as the Panchsheel Treaty. It contained a few mutual and common rules that are called the five principles of peaceful coexistence. At the time the Charter of the United Nations (link to the original version)  that is supposed to containing the same principles had become effective for nine years yet. But within this period the American and French wars in Korea and Vietnam questioned the UN Charter.

Still agreeing on peaceful co-existence: China’s Xi Jinping and India’s Narendra Modi (AP photo from Hindustantimes)

So when the Chinese President Xi Jinping and his colleague Prime Minister Narendra Modi met in September 2017 on the occasion of the BRICS meeting in China’s Xiamen, remembering the Panchsheel Treaty was a rare sample of successful bilateral agreements that have never been broken or put in question.
And these are the five principles:

  1. Mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.
  2. Mutual non-aggression.
  3. Mutual non-interference in each other’s internal affairs.
  4. Equality and cooperation for mutual benefit.
  5. Peaceful co-existence

    Understanding the paradox of rules: Lao-Tzu

    While other international agreements, beside the UN Charter from 1945 e.g. the Helsinki Act from 1975 or the Minsk Protocol from 2015 failed to bringing enduring peace, the five principles appear astonishing highly topical. The Basel Institute of Commons and Economics therefore started to adopt them as a base for other bilateral agreements on peace and reconciliation.
    In a broadcast from May 1954 Nehru said: ‚If these principles were recognized in the mutual relations of all countries, then indeed there would hardly be any conflict and certainly no war.‘ In any case they shift the issue of peace from entirely complicated rules that cause endless violations to a couple of clear basic rules.
    It was the Chinese philosopher Lao-Tzu (6th century B.C.) who discovered the paradox of law and rules long before Immanuel Kant’s (1724-1804) Categorical Imperative when he considered:
    The more rules and regulations,
    The more thieves and robbers.
    Today’s peacemakers may being inspired by such thoughts.

Kommentare deaktiviert für Highly topical in 2018: the five principles of peaceful coexistence

admin am Oktober 30th 2017 in Allgemein

Palestine’s Social Capital is their key to peace – outcome of the presentation at the Palais des Nations

Organized by the UN SDG Lab on September 12th 2017, several international organizations and countries were invited to attend a presentation and discussion of the World Social Capital Monitor, the innovative set of indicators for the SDG, provided by the Basel Institute of Commons and Economics at the Palais des Nations of the UNOG. Among the contributors was Jos Verbeek, representant of the World Bank in Geneva, who introduced the entire history of the Social Capital Initiative of the Worldbank since 1992 yet. You can read Verbeek’s input to the social dimension of the SDG here

H.E. Dr. Ibrahim Khraishi, Ambassador of the State of Palestine to the United Nations (right) with Christian Lonnqvist (left) and Alexander Dill (midst) at the Embassy of Palestine

Across the event the Basel Institute could hold separate meetings with ten UN missions in order to following the motto of the SDG which is to leaving noone behind.
Since the expulsion of hundreds of thousands Palestinians in 1948, the so called Nakba, the occupied territories more than many countries only survived due to the solidarity, helpfulness and friendliness across their citizens and friends.
Palestine is literally built on Social Capital.
Of course this Social Capital can now being the asset to finally achieving peace and reconciliation.
Especially while experts do not expect less Social Capital on the other side of the wall that divides this beautiful region of Olive and Orange trees, herbs and calm atriums, bridging Social Capital will help to making the first steps.
The commitment of the World Social Capital Monitor to Goal No. 16 – which is peace – includes to starting where peace is needed most.

Salām – and hopefully as well Shalom – to all people in the Middle East!







Kommentare deaktiviert für Palestine’s Social Capital is their key to peace – outcome of the presentation at the Palais des Nations

admin am September 22nd 2017 in Allgemein

How Ghana did the fastest social study ever been conducted and published some days later

While doing the first open access survey in history, the World Social Capital Monitor, finding partners in all countries creates amazing and inspiring stories. The most recent one is the one of Rachel Boadu, 20, from the town of Kumasi in Ghana where she studies Social Sciences at the University of Ghana. Only a week ago Rachel (who we contacted through Researchgate)  started to spreading our questionnaire among young people across Ghana via Smartphone.
She was that successful that after three days she had several hundreds of respondents from 50 Ghanaian cities and more than fifty qualitative statements.
So we decided to creating the fastest Social Capital Report ever being published today. Why that? If we are capable to achieving results that quick we have to share and spread them right now.
Social sciences are not for the drawers only.
So you can have a look at the amazing Social Capital of Ghana with a 837kb PDF file now.
Congrats Rachel to your great study and the passion and speed you’re spreading it!


Kommentare deaktiviert für How Ghana did the fastest social study ever been conducted and published some days later

admin am September 2nd 2017 in Allgemein

Why discussions on what Social Capital is often end in the desert

Three Nobel laureates, Elinor Ostrom, Joseph Stiglitz and Amartya Sen contributed to the World Bank’s Social Capital Initative in 1999. Unfortunately the group has been „disbanded“ – that’s how Michael Woolcock, the head of the initiative, expressed it in an email to Alexander Dill of the Basel Institute in November 2015. Recently the World Bank on the occasion of the World Social Capital Monitor recovered the issue. In their report to the European Commission (p. 186) Stiglitz and Sen wrote 2009: „Bridging social capital is the most important under-measured form of social connections for many outcomes.“ But Joseph Stiglitz as well wrote: „Social capital is tacit knowledge“.

So why did it not happen? Why are so many organizations and Statistical Offices not interested in measuring and considering Social Capital?

Alexander Dill at South Asian Dean’s Conference in Phnom Penh 2016

The major reason is the reaction policy makers and officials have on what they suppose to being academic in any meaning: Let’s leave this to specialists and report in three years again.
So we try to explaining the definition, the meaning, the use and the outcome of Social Capital such as:

  • Violent conflicts can only be resolved by trust, helpfulness and friendliness.
  • Public goods such as security, health, education and climate care can only be funded if the citizens support them by taxes, contributions and voluntarism.
  • Sovereign debt can only be repaid by the willingness of citizens to accept austerity measures and an asset levy. For both trust and solidarity are required.
  • Affluence grows by people trusting and helping each other. Otherwise the transaction costs will be too high and will prohibit economical relations.


How can bridging Social Capital being measured then?
Logo_neuThe only eight questions of the Social Capital Assessment are available in several languages on www.trustyourplace, the survey portal of the Basel Institute of Commons and Economics. We offer a social media application to identify, to enhance, to protect and to recover core assets of Social Capital.
The participation is anonymous and we neither require registration nor do we collect any socio-demographic data such as on political, ethnic or religious bonding. Why?
Because in most of the conflict regions they are the reason of the conflict.

Issues cutting across


Social Capital cuts across with various issues

Social Capital in our definition is the amount of core interpersonal perceptions among a community. In our Social Capital Assessment we are now able to quantify and to compare the Social Capital of around 150  countries today.
Of course Social Capital cuts across with a bundle of issues such as social cohesion, voluntarism, public goods and civil society.

The practical impact of Social Capital on society

While studying the literature on Social Capital you can easily get the impression that discussing ‚The concepts of Social Capital‘ is a theoretical egghead issue only. In the following interview Professor Pahlaj Moolio from the Pannasastra University of Cambodia gives examples for where Social Capital is created and required: first in the family, then in rural development, banking and tourism. The example of the newborn child he gives, sounds convincing: the baby brings friendliness as a gift into the family. This friendliness causes and inspires trust, solidarity and helpfulness. So the development of the child to becoming a valuable member of the community is built on non-material assets beyond GDP and GNP:

If we you want to learn more on Social Capital, it’s history and contributors, our recent introduction „Why Social Capital 2016?“ might be an easy way to access. The major references are linked in the article so that you can make your own picture of the major sources.

Kommentare deaktiviert für Why discussions on what Social Capital is often end in the desert

admin am November 14th 2009 in Allgemein