Dr. ElBaradei was born in Cairo, Egypt, in 1942, son of the late Mostafa ElBaradei, a lawyer and former President of the Egyptian Bar Association. His father often found himself at odds with the regime of Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser. ElBaradei’s father was also a supporter of democratic rights in Egypt, supporting a free press and a legal system that was independent.

The son gained a Bachelor’s degree in Law in 1962 at the University of Cairo, and a Doctorate in International Law at the New York University School of Law in 1974. He began his career in the Egyptian Diplomatic Service in 1964, serving on two occasions in the Permanent Missions of Egypt to the United Nations in New York and Geneva, in charge of political, legal and arms control issues. From 1974 to 1978 he was a special assistant to the Foreign Minister of Egypt.

In 1980 he left the Egyptian Diplomatic Service for work at the United Nations, and became a senior fellow in charge of the International Law Program at the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR). From 1981 to 1987 he was also an Adjunct Professor of International Law at the New York University School of Law.

From 1984, Dr. ElBaradei has moved to a substantial senior staff member position of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Secretariat, in Vienna, holding a number of high-level policy positions, including Agency’s Legal Adviser and subsequently Assistant Director General for External Relations under  former Swedish Foreign Minister Hans Blix as Director General. The IAEA was set up by suggestions in 1953 from U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower as the world´s sleepy “Atoms for Peace” organization in 1957. It was set up as a UN affiliate that eventually had to become the UN watchdog on nuclear proliferation matters. The first Director General was American, W. Sterling Cole, 1957–1961 – followed by two Swedes 1961-1997 as nuclear issues meant arbitrating between the US ans the Soviet Union.

ElBaradei under UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali (1992-1996), another Egyptian, and it was assumed that this is an opening to what the UN called the Third World, he was then appointed to the office of the Director General of the IAEA effective 1 December 1997, and reappointed to a third term in September 2005 under UNSG Kofi Annan (1997-2006). In November 2009 he retired from that position after three terms of four years, and was succeeded by the Japanese Yukiya Amano defeating Abdul Samad Minty of South Africa and Luis E. Echávarri? of Spain.

Elbaradei’s tenure has been marked by high profile non-proliferation issues including the inspections in Iraq preceding the March 2003 invasion and tensions over the nuclear program of Iran – one could say that a main issue of the IAEA in his time was the ongoing activities to create an Islamic bomb.

In 2005, The United States initially voiced opposition to his election to a third four-year term. In a May 2005 interview with the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Lawrence Wilkerson, the chief of staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, charged former Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton with an underhanded campaign to unseat ElBaradei. “Mr. Bolton overstepped his bounds in his moves and gyrations to try to keep [ElBaradei] from being reappointed as [IAEA] head,” Wilkerson said. The Washington Post reported in December 2004 that the Bush administration had intercepted dozens of ElBaradei’s phone calls with Iranian diplomats and was scrutinizing them for evidence they could use to force him out. IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky said the agency worked on “the assumption that one or more entities may be listening to our conversations”. “It’s not how we would prefer to work, but it is the reality. At the end of the day, we have nothing to hide,” he said. Iran responded to the Washington Post reports by accusing the United States of violating international law in intercepting the communications. We guesthe deeds were illegal but iran’s actions were worse. What about ElBaradei?

The United States was the only country to oppose ElBaradei’s reappointment and eventually failed to win enough support from other countries to oust ElBaradei. On 9 June 2005, after a meeting between US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and ElBaradei, the United States dropped its objections. Among countries that supported ElBaradei were China, Russia, Germany and France. China praised his leadership and objectivity and supported him for doing “substantial fruitful work, which has maintained the agency’s role and credit in international non-proliferation and promoted the development of peaceful use of nuclear energy.”  France, Germany, and some developing countries, have made clear their support for ElBaradei as well, Russia issued a strong statement in favor of re-electing him as soon as possible, and ElBaradei was unanimously re-appointed by the IAEA Board on 13 June 2005. In 2008 ElBaradei said he would not be seeking a fourth term as Director General. One could say that the squirmish with the US because of the US false alegation regarding the Iraqi bomb, had much to do with El Baradei and the IAEA under his leadership, getting the Nobel Prize for Peace. It seems that this was rather a reaction to US high-handedness. Whatever – not much love was lost between the US last two Administrations and ElBaradei.

The current Board members of the IAEA are: Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, China, Cuba, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Japan, Kenya, the Republic of Korea (South Korea), Malaysia, Mongolia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan, Peru, Romania, Russian Federation, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, the UK, and the USA, Uruguay, and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (Venezuela) 2009–2010).

ElBaradei’s two children live and work in London.

ElBaradei’s name has been circulated recently by opposition groups as a possible candidate to succeed President Hosny Mubarak to Egypt’s highest executive position. ElBaradei demanded that certain conditions have to be met to ensure fair elections accompanied by changes to the constitution that will allow more freedom for independent candidates before he would actually consider running for presidency. Several opposition groups and parties have endorsed him, considering him a neutral figure who could transition the country to greater democracy.

—————-

Mr. Ahmad Fawzi, currently News and Media Division Director under the UN USG for Communications and Public Information, has held this position for quite a while and was thus able to shape also the roster of who is allowed to participate at UN Press conferences.

His activities at the UN Headquarters in New York started with his  serving as Deputy Spokesman for UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali from 1992 through 1996 or during the whole time that Mr. Boutros-Ghali held that job.It was thus Mr. Butros Ghali who brought him to the Headquarters.

Born in Cairo on 28 March 1948, Mr. Fawzi has a Bachelor of Arts degree in English literature and Language from Cairo University. He pursued post- graduate studies at the Newhouse School of Communications of Syracuse University, New York.

Before joining the United Nations, he worked for many years in broadcast journalism, as a news editor, reporter and regional news operations manager. Much of his work was in the Middle East and much of it with Reuters. We assume that his contacts with Mr. Boutros-Ghali started in the Middle East and Egypt – perhaps back to interviews at time Mr. Boutros Ghali was part of the Government of Egypt.

After the Boutros-Ghali years, during the Kofi Annan Years at the UN, and until now, Mr. Fawzi continued to work with the UN Department of Public Information and had various stints like his being spokesman for Lakhdar Brahimi the UN special envoy to Iraq.

—————

Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Born the 14 November 1922 in Cairo (Egypt) into a most distinguished Coptic Christian family, Mr Boutros-Ghali received a bachelor’s degree from Cairo University (1946) and a Ph.D. in international law from the University of Paris (1949). He then held a professorship at Cairo University and lectured in international law and international affairs at various universities and institutes in the United States, Europe, India, the Middle East.

From 1960 to about 1975, Boutros-Ghali founded, edited, and wrote for Al-Ahram Iqtisadi, where his beat was regional and international law, diplomacy and political science. He was a member of Parliament in Egypt, and helped negotiate the 1978 Camp David accords, bringing peace between Egypt and Israel. He worked with President Sadat’s foreign service, was known to oppose originally Sadat’s trip to Jerusalem but later was involved in furthering the succes of that mission. He was sort of an odd man in Cairo. His wife – the former Leia Maria Nadler was Jewish.

Hosni Mubarak was appointed Vice President in 1975, and assumed the presidency on 14 October 1981, following the assassination of President Anwar el-Sadat. He really was not interested in keeping Mr. Boutros Ghali in Egypt, and was quite happy to volunteer his services to the UN when that opportunity arose. So he was instrumental in getting Mr. Boutros-Ghali elected UN Secretary- General in 1992 where he lasted till 1996.

Looking back – Mr. Boutros Ghali was the former Secretary-General of the United Nations (1992-1996) and Secretary-General of the International Organization of Francophonie (1997-2002). Currently he is president of the National Council of Human Rights of Egypt, he also chairs the International Panel on Democracy and Development (IPDD), set up by UNESCO in 1998. He is also a member of the Support Committee of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine. From his work at the UN – really nothing positive to be remembered. Basically, our present posting argues that his two appointments – those he made possible to Messrs. ElBaradei and Fawzi – perhapse were his longest lasting legacies he left behind at the UN. Also, some other people he introduced to the UN, including members of his wife’s family, turned up as reasons for the UN blunder that was discovered, under his successor’s time at the UN helm, in what becanme the oil-for-food scandal. The Paul Volker investigation of that affair has left stained both named UNSGs.

—————-

Having introduced the actors – let us now look at the latest news:

Hosni Mubarak is now in his 30th year of his Presidency – that is he is ending his 5-th consecutive six year term. There will be elections, probably in a year – in 2011, but there are no candidates because of the way Mubarak kept out of site any budding opposition. Even what was supposed to be the opening for democratization – the 2005 constitutional amendment that established multi-candidate presidential elections in Egypt came with rules designed to ensure that no independents could easily enter  the race, helping to stifle challenges to Mr. Mubarak’s rule. In fact, even discussing who would replace Hosni Mubaraq was not tolerated. The feeling is that Hosni Mubaraq has full intent to stay on and then pass the mantle to his son – Gamal Mubarak – we think named so after Gamal Nasser – the previous big Chief that run Egypt as if it were still in  the Pharaohnic days – and the whole Arab world was just larger Egypt.

Anwar Sadat (Muhammad Anwar El Sadat, or Anwar El Sadat  was the third President of Egypt, serving from 15 October 1970 until his assassination by Islamists on 6 October 1981 – he was indeed different and he paid with his life for having tried to do something for his country. He also did not ask for a parliament’s permission but at least did not put himself at the center of is world.

And the press? That is all government owned – what is written is the word that comes from Mubarak – that is the kind of Journalism that conquered the UN thanks to Ahmad Fawzi – a good disciple of his Egyptian friends – you get a Press Release and don’t ask questions – you write it down because that is what you are there for. The notion that there is something like a Media Think-Tank, or Media Independent Thinking that does not serve a cause – is unheard off on the shores of the Nile.

But then, Egypt’s people are proud people indeed. They are proud that one of theirs has gotten the Nobel Prize, they also are tired of the face of the old Pharaoh – they are ready to induct ElBaredei to run for the Presidency. He is free and available – but what about those rules/ he asks Egypt to change the rules so that there is an open election and he is ready to run – he seems to be the kind of person that is saying up-front that he is not blind to the barriers that Mubarak encircled himself – something like the security wall of the Israelis.

The Muslim Brotherhood, the basic resistance that was connected in the past with those that Killed Anwar Sadat, or helped foot the Al Kaeda in its infancy, religious nationalistic fanatics that are afraid of nothing – they are still there and sort of tolerated by Mubarak who remembers that they made it all possible for him 30 year ago, they say now: “The question is, can ElBaradei, who lived most of his life – 30 years – working in Europe, can he lead a new Egyptian revolution for change?

El Baradei came for a 10 day visit last week and there were 1,000 people waiting for him at the airport for six hours. his Facebook numbers 60,000 Egyptians – they feel that for the first time there is a viable option besides Mubarak and his son – his actual persona is the symbol that there can be an alternative because some Egyptians speak up now and say – it is our right to chose the person who will represent us. Even the Muslim brotherhood agrees to see in El Baradei the transition to a new Egypt.

Considering the high level of corruption in Egypt, the fact that El Baradei came from outside, so he is not sullied by the home-grown stagnation of Egyptian politics, he has a terrific advantage of being that fresh face they would like to induct.

OK – that is ElBaradei – what about Fawzi? He is retiring next month and we suggest he can be available to be thrown into this new Egyptian brew. He is not a new face, but he knows how to look as media while backing a cause he has in mind. I really do not think that what he had in mind was Mubarak, I rather think he remembers Boutros-Ghali and other Arab interests – be it oil or culture. We do not think that ElBaradei either has fully absorbed Western liberalism and Egypt might not be ready for this either, what seems to be needed is the kind of spokesperson that knows to dress up the concerns of the Middle East environment, and Egypt,  with a good race-horse like ElBaradei, can concoct the public winning formula. So – here for a step of loosing up the frozen major States of the Middle East – Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

The correction – Yes – the Press Conference was at 7:30 am with the UNSG and four journalists present, but the two leaders – Gordon Brown and Meles Zenawi were present only via video-conference. They were at confortable hours back there in London and Addis Ababa.

===============

The most important issue in our opinion that the following shows that the UN is incapable to address, is the question if it will be unavoidable to bribe China into being more effective in its efforts to curb CO2 emissions in its development and manufacturing-for-export policies – and use for this the funds that the UN tries to raise for helping developing countries in joint projects with the old industrialized nation. We think that the UN Secretary-General owes the funding countries a clear answer on this and the UN needs an open PRESS CORPS that is capable of asking such questions. Obviously, Matthew Lee points out also other issues – some of which in our opinion are really non issues – but nevertheless they become issues if clear answers are not provided by the UN – such as the IPCC problems. Also, the snow-in-New York issue could have been handled better by turning it into science from the intended background of a joke. This is why we will post the following also in our “cartoons” categoty on our website.

——–

At UN, Climate Change Financing Discussed, IPCC Glacier and Pachauri Questions Not Taken, China Eligibility Debated.

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 12, 2010 — At an ill-attended press conference held at 7:30 am Friday in UN Headquarters in New York, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon introduced Ethiopian prime minister Meles Zenawi and his UK counterpart Gordon Brown as chairs of an Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing.

In a tightly controlled media Q &A session that followed, Mr. Ban did not address the controversy swirling about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s scientific blunders and chairman Doctor Pachauri.

Rather, Mr. Ban took on a straw man question, about whether the snow in New York undermined climate science. He also said that he will ask the heads of state of Guyana and Norway to join.

Of the four journalists at the UN in New York who raised their hands to ask questions, three were called on by Ban’s spokesman Martin Nesirky. Before a softball question about the snow outside, one asked repeatedly if any of the climate change financing would be given to China. As Mr. Ban looked uncomfortable, both Prime Ministers denied it.

Despite hand raised from the beginning of the question and answer session to the end, Inner City Press was not allowed to ask a question. In fact, the question had back on February 3 been asked and dodged by Nesirky:

Inner City Press: There has been a lot of controversy around the finding of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) about the Himalayan glaciers, and they have essentially back-tracked and said that they apologized; it was unverified information. Mr. Pachauri has said he won’t apologize. But, I wonder what, given the importance of climate change and the IPCC to the Secretary-General’s agenda, what does he make of this controversy and how can the IPCC process be reformed to not create this kind of controversy on the issue?

Spokesperson: The Secretary-General is obviously aware of these reports and what’s been happening in the last few days and weeks. But, you know, ultimately it’s for the IPCC to address this. It’s for the IPCC to talk about this, and they have talked about this in some detail. They have said that they regret what happened, and reaffirming their strong commitment to a high level of performance in their reporting and so on. So, therefore, it’s not really for the Secretary-General to weigh in on this specific report. There are many reports, there are many other aspects to the work on climate change, which is absolutely vital, as you’ve mentioned; it’s one of his priorities. So, I think that the most important thing is to focus on the road to Mexico and how you can improve the prospects for that meeting and what needs to be done between now and then.

Inner City Press: [inaudible] because… in the last 24 hours… Mr. Pachauri….

Spokesperson: IPCC regrets, Matthew, IPCC regrets.

Question: So, I mean, Mr. Pachauri says he wasn’t responsible for it. So, I guess what I’m saying is, who is in charge of the agency on which Ban Ki-moon rests his, you know, the case has been made by that agency [inaudible].

UN’s Ban and Meles Zenawi, glaciers and Pachauri not shown

Spokesperson: No, no, Matthew, the Secretary-General does not rest his case purely on the IPCC. There is an enormous body of evidence and information out there from various different sources, not just from the IPCC, however important that may be. And an error in one report does not undermine the entire science that is clearly proven.

So who apologized — the IPCC’s website? To have nothing to say about the various scandals surrounding the IPCC and Pachauri seems strange. To not allow the question a week later is worse.

Update: in the hallway after the press conference, away from the screen of the Spokesperson, UN climate advisor Janos Pasztor at least took Inner City Press’ other question, on the way to Ban’s next appearance, signing compacts with some senior officials, on which we will later report — how this UN Panel would interact with the IMF’s idea of using SDRs. It will consult, Pasztor said. Possible duplication of effort?

Also after the press conference, a senior Chinese official told Inner City Press that the question about China taking climate change funding was “stupid” and “insulting.” He said, “We are entitled to it!”

UN’s Ban Has No Comment on Himalayan Glacier Gaffe, Doesn’t Rely on IPCC

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 3 — With various ice research related scandals opening up around UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s signature issue of climate change, Inner City Press on Wednesday asked his spokesman Martin Nesirky for Ban’s views on the misleading of the public about the melting of Himalayan glaciers.

While Nesirky dodged the question, Ban’s climate change advisor later in the day told Inner City Press that Ban may have something to say later on the topic. Meanwhile Doctor Pachauri, with no guidance from Ban, it attacking those who question him, refusing to answer questions or apologize. From the UN’s transcription of its February 3 noon briefing, video here:

Spokesperson Nesirky: Last question, Matthew.

Inner City Press: There has been a lot of controversy around the finding of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) about the Himalayan glaciers, and they have essentially back-tracked and said that they apologized; it was unverified information. Mr. Pachauri has said he won’t apologize. But, I wonder what, given the importance of climate change and the IPCC to the Secretary-General’s agenda, what does he make of this controversy and how can the IPCC process be reformed to not create this kind of controversy on the issue?

Spokesperson: The Secretary-General is obviously aware of these reports and what’s been happening in the last few days and weeks. But, you know, ultimately it’s for the IPCC to address this. It’s for the IPCC to talk about this, and they have talked about this in some detail. They have said that they regret what happened, and reaffirming their strong commitment to a high level of performance in their reporting and so on. So, therefore, it’s not really for the Secretary-General to weigh in on this specific report. There are many reports, there are many other aspects to the work on climate change, which is absolutely vital, as you’ve mentioned; it’s one of his priorities. So, I think that the most important thing is to focus on the road to Mexico and how you can improve the prospects for that meeting and what needs to be done between now and then.

Inner City Press: [inaudible] because… in the last 24 hours… Mr. Pachauri….

Spokesperson: IPCC regrets, Matthew, IPCC regrets.

Question: So, I mean, Mr. Pachauri says he wasn’t responsible for it. So, I guess what I’m saying is, who is in charge of the agency on which Ban Ki-moon rests his, you know, the case has been made by that agency

UN’s Ban and Pachauri, no one responsible for Glacier-Gate, novel

Spokesperson: No, no, Matthew, the Secretary-General does not rest his case purely on the IPCC. There is an enormous body of evidence and information out there from various different sources, not just from the IPCC, however important that may be. And an error in one report does not undermine the entire science that is clearly proven.

So who apologized — the IPCC’s website? To have nothing to say about the various scandals surrounding the IPCC and Pachauri seems strange. It’s why some say Ban is now shifted to rolling the dice on a trip to North Korea — our next story, forthcoming.

Footnote: The UN’s and Ban’s climate unit under Janos Pasztor, which was told there was no room for it in the UN’s Temporary North Lawn Conference Building where Ban has his office, is now looking at space in the Alcoa Building on 48th Street, Inner City Press is told.

For now, they are left behind in the nearly empty UN skyscaper where asbestos removal has already begun. Meanwhile, Pachauri has wished asbestos on his critics….

* * *

« Rencontre Régionale: Adaptation aux changements climatiques au Maghreb: Bilan et Perspectives »

from: Prof. Dr. Med-Saïd KARROUK to African
Feb 14, 2010
from  KarroukSaid at yahoo.com

Le Comité National IGBP, et l’Université Hassan II, Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines Ben M’Sick, Casablanca (Maroc) – Avec le soutien du programme ACCA du CRDI et du DFID

Organisent :

La « Rencontre Régionale: Adaptation aux changements climatiques au Maghreb:
Bilan et Perspectives »

Le 16 et 17 mars 2010, FLSH Ben M’Sick, Casablanca

Préambule :

En réponse aux défis environnementaux et socio-économiques majeurs liés aux changements climatiques, placés actuellement au cœur de l’ordre du jour des grandes réunions internationales, et dans la perspective d’une contribution à l’effort mondial de sensibilisation sur les enjeux du changement du climat, que cette rencontre sur l’adaptation aux changements climatiques au Maghreb est organisée, à laquelle seront invitées des personnalités de très haut niveau et d’éminents scientifiques et experts. D’autre part, un plan d’action concret sera proposé pour la mise en place de projets prioritaires d’adaptation pour les gouvernements, les entreprises et la société civile.

Ceci permettra en même temps d’imprimer une dynamique nouvelle aux actions jusqu’ici timides des pays maghrébins sur le plan international dans le domaine des changements climatiques.

La diffusion de l’information recueillie durant cette conférence sera effectuée par le réseau « ClimDev » qui desserve plus de 10 000 lecteurs francophones à travers le monde. A cela s’ajoutera la publication des actes de la conférence qui seront adressés aux différents acteurs visés par la conférence : les décideurs, les scientifiques, les ONG, …etc.

Objectifs de la rencontre :

Cette rencontre a trois objectifs :
Renforcer la capacité des scientifiques, des organisations, des décideurs et d’autres intervenants à contribuer à l’adaptation aux changements climatiques ;
Susciter une meilleure compréhension des conclusions des scientifiques et des organismes de recherche en ce qui concerne la variabilité du climat et les changements climatiques ;
Fournir aux concepteurs de politiques des données scientifiques de bonne qualité.

Les axes de cette rencontre sont les suivants :
·         L’adaptation de la sécurité environnementale au Maghreb (extrêmes thermiques, ressources en eau, sécheresse, inondations, désertification, feux de forêts, érosion littorale et continentale, santé, biodiversité)
·         L’adaptation de la sécurité alimentaire au Maghreb (agriculture : contraintes spatiales, des essences, la nouvelle distribution agricole régionale, etc),
·         L’adaptation de la sécurité énergétique au Maghreb (efficacité énergétique, énergie renouvelables, activités socio économiques, etc)
·         Réalité de l’adaptation aux pays du Maghreb ; états des lieux : contraintes et défis

Enjeux :

Gravement préoccupés par la vulnérabilité des systèmes socioéconomiques et de production du Maghreb au changement climatique et aux faibles capacités de riposte de la région, les décideurs politiques ont retenu le changement climatique comme l’une des préoccupations prioritaires et ont lancé un appel de coopérations aux partenaires pour appuyer leurs pays et les communautés économiques régionales afin qu’ils puissent intégrer de façon efficace la problématique du changement climatique dans leurs plans de développement.

Les négociations actuelles sur le changement climatique recherchent un nouvel élan pour l’après 2012 qui prendrait en compte les leçons du Protocole de Kyoto et la nécessaire convergence des priorités des diverses Parties. Dans cette perspective elles ont identifié quatre domaines-clés pour un dialogue de haut niveau, pour la coopération et l’action de long terme sur le changement climatique. Il s’agit :
du développement durable,
des technologies,
de l’adaptation et,
des opportunités de marché.

Le Maghreb se doit d’y inscrire sa spécificité et ses priorités et d’en saisir les opportunités pour son développement.

La Rencontre de Casablanca s’intègre dans cet élan et souhaite participer à l’aide à la décision pour une adaptation efficace par la recherche et le renforcement des capacités vis-à-vis de ce crucial problème, celui des Changements Climatiques au Maghreb.

Public cible :
Chercheurs
Décideurs politiques
ONG
Journalistes

Comité scientifique :

KARROUK Mohammed Saïd, Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines Ben M’Sick, Casablanca
ALIFRIQUI Mohamed, Faculté des Sciences, Marrakech
BAHI Lahcen, Ecole Mohammadia d’Ingénieurs, Rabat
CHAKER Miloud, Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines, Rabat
DAMNATI Brahim, Faculté des Sciences et Techniques, Tanger
EL ASSAAD Mohamed, Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines Ben M’Sick, Casablanca
EL HAIBA Mahjoub, Faculté de Droit, Casablanca
EL HARRAK Ahmed, Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines Ben M’Sick, Casablanca
EL HATTAB Ahmed, Ministère de l’Enseignement Supérieur, de la Formation des Cadres et de la Recherche Scientifique, Rabat
HEFNAOUI Ahmed, Faculté de Droit, Mohammedia
HENIA Latifa, FSHST, Université de Tunis
IRAQI Ahmed, Faculté de Médecine et de Pharmacie, Casablanca
LAOUINA Abdellah, Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines, Rabat
MESSOULI Mohammed, Faculté des Sciences Semlalia, Marrakech
MOKSSIT Abdellah, Directeur de la Météorologie Nationale, Casablanca
MOUHIDDINE Mohamed, Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines Ben M’Sick, Casablanca
ORBI Abdellatif, Institut National de la Recherche Halieutique, Casablanca
SALOUI Abdelmalik, Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines, Mohammedia
YACOUBI-KHEBIZA Mohamed, Faculté des Sciences Semlalia, Marrakech

Comité d’organisation :

KARROUK Mohammed Saïd, Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines Ben M’Sick, Casablanca
KADDOURI Abdelmajid, Doyen de la Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines Ben M’Sick, Casablanca,
GONEGAI Abdelkader, Vice Doyen de la Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines Ben M’Sick, Casablanca,
AIT KADIR Jamal, Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines Ben M’Sick, Master ClimDev, Casablanca,
AKBLI Siham, Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines Ben M’Sick, Master ClimDev, Casablanca,
ALLALI Asmaâ, Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines Ben M’Sick, Master ClimDev, Casablanca,
BELOUARDA Youssef, Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines Ben M’Sick, Master ClimDev, Casablanca,
CHAïR Majda, Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines Ben M’Sick, Master ClimDev, Casablanca,
EL ALAMI Mohammad, Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines Ben M’Sick, Master ClimDev, Casablanca,
EL ASSAAD Mohamed, Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines Ben M’Sick, Casablanca,
EL HARRAK Ahmed, Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines Ben M’Sick, Casablanca,
ELKHABBAZ Rachid, Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines Ben M’Sick, Master ClimDev, Casablanca,
FATTAH Hind, Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines Ben M’Sick, Doctorat ClimDev, Casablanca,
HABIL Kenza, Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines Ben M’Sick, Casablanca,
HAJJI Ilham, Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines Ben M’Sick, Master ClimDev, Casablanca,
HAJJOUBI Mohamed, Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines Ben M’Sick, Doctorat ClimDev, Casablanca,
KIRD Hanane, Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines Ben M’Sick, Master GAT, Casablanca,
LAKHAL Fouad, Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines Ben M’Sick, Master ClimDev, Casablanca,
MOUHIDDINE Mohamed, Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines Ben M’Sick, Casablanca,
SAFARI Abdelati, Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines Ben M’Sick, Master ClimDev, Casablanca,
SAHIB Zahra, Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines Ben M’Sick, Master ClimDev, Casablanca,
SALLOK Amal, , Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines Ben M’Sick, Doctorat ClimDev, Casablanca,
SEFRI Youssef, Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines Ben M’Sick, Casablanca,
ZOUHADI Abdellah, Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines Ben M’Sick, Casablanca,

Date-limite et directives pour soumettre des résumés :

Nous voudrions inviter les participants à présenter des communications orales et des affiches basés sur les thèmes de la rencontre, liés à la région du Maghreb. Les résumés doivent être soumis avant le 31 janvier 2010 par courriel, en anglais, français ou arabe.
Ils ne doivent pas excéder 300 mots, ni contenir des abréviations ou citations inconnues.
Le résumé doit être soumis dans le format « word » de Microsoft. Aucun autre format ne sera accepté
Le résumé doit être en format papier A4. Le titre en “gras” en utilisant une police « Arial » de 12 points.
Le titre doit être court, précis et reflète le sujet de la présentation ou de l’affiche.
Inclure les noms et les adresses de l’auteur(s), l’adresse complète, et adresses courriel de l’auteur(s) et de l’affiliation institutionnelle.

Aide aux participants :

La rencontre fournira l’aide de voyage, d’hébergement et de restauration, partielle ou totale, à un nombre limité de participants qui sont dans le besoin d’aide financière. On s’attend à ce que les participants puissent financer leurs propres dépenses et ou recevoir l’appui d’une autre organisation pour couvrir les frais.
La demande de subvention est conditionnée par l’acceptation d’une participation abstraite.
La priorité sera accordée à:
Jeunes scientifiques,
Etudiants doctorants,
Avocats stagiaires,
Educateurs en environnement,
Et régulateurs praticiens des pays du Maghreb,

Conditions :
Une lettre d’application qui inclut:
Titre(s) du résumé(s) soumis;
Description claire des activités professionnelles principales;
Description des participations récentes dans  des activités relatives aux changements climatique (conduite d’activités communautaires, recherche, éducation, politique et prise de décision);
Description claire des besoins d’aide financière, comprenant une évaluation de fonds demandés (c.-à-d., voyages par avion, hôtel, repas, etc.), exprimant également par qui seront couvert les frais complémentaires ;
Un curriculum vitae de pas plus de deux pages (CV) :
Des présentateurs des pays développés ne seront pas soutenus quoiqu’ils puissent être à l’origine résidants ou citoyens des pays en voie de développement.

Frais de participation :
Aucun frais de participation n’est exigé, cependant, la fiche d’inscription doit être adressée aux organisateurs dans les délais prévus.

Conférences invitées :
Des conférenciers de très haut niveau ont confirmé leur participation, et nous attendons la réponse des autres.

Programme Prévisionnelle :

Programme :
Mardi 16 mars 2010
Mercredi 17 mars 2010
08:00 – 09:00
Enregistrement

09:00 – 09:30
Plénière d’ouverture
conférence magistrale plénière Sessions 3
09:30 – 10:00
Session 3 : présentations orales
10:00-10:30
Pause café / Session poster
10:30-11:00
conférence magistrale plénière
Session 1
Session 3 : présentations orales
11:00 – 12:00
Session 1: présentations orales
Session 3 : présentations orales
12:00 – 13:00
Session 1: présentations orales
Session 3 : discussion ouverte
13:00 – 14:00
Pause Déjeuner
14:00 – 14:30
conférence magistrale plénière Session 2
Session de conclusions, recommandations et de clôture
14:30 – 15:30
Session 2: Présentations orales
15:30 – 16:00
Pause café / Session poster
16:00 – 16:30
Session 2: Présentations orales
Assemblée Générale :
CN IGBP et AMERCE
16:30 – 18:00
Sessions 1 & 2:
discussion ouverte

***************
Dr. Mohammed-Saïd KARROUK ??????? ???? ???? ????
Professeur de Climatologie ????? ??? ??????

Directeur Exécutif du Comité National IGBP (Global Change)
Université Hassan II, FLSH Ben M’Sick
Centre de Recherche de Climatologie (CEREC)
Master & Doctorat “Climat & Développement” (ClimDev)
BP 8220 Oasis, MA-20103 Casablanca (Maroc)
Tél: +212 661 156 051 Fax. +212 522 705 100
E-Mail:  KarroukSaid at Yahoo.Com
ou:  ClimDev.Maroc at Gmail.Com
ou:  CEREC at UnivH2M.Ac.Ma
Skype: ClimDev.Maroc

CLIMATE CHANGE: ONE STEP FORWARD AND ONE STEP BACK.

By Maurice Strong – he was the  Secretary General of the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, first Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme, and  Secretary General of the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). He is Canadian and American and lives now in China.

BEIJING, February 18, 2010 (IPS)  The good news about the Copenhagen Summit on Climate Change (December 7-18) is that it produced universal agreement on the importance of early action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to manageable levels. It also made progress on some of the key elements to be included in such an agreement and on continuing the ongoing process of negotiation. The bad news is that it revealed deep and unresolved differences between the positions of the main parties, notably between the more developed and the less developed countries.

Particularly important is the position of China, now the biggest source of emissions. While a latecomer to its position as the world’s most rapidly developing economy, it has contributed much less to the accumulation of greenhouse gases that has brought us to the threshold of the risks we now face and on a per capita basis still contributes much less than the United States and others.

We must treat the current erosion of support for action on climate change as an opportunity to resolve the issues which continue to divide the positions of governments and respond to the urgent warnings of scientists which have been undermined by recent differences among some of them.

One of the most important results of Copenhagen is that the more developed countries have, however reluctantly, had to yield to China and other newly developed countries the political role which accords with their growing economic powers. It thus confirmed that the world’s geopolitical centre has shifted to Asia.

China is strongly committed to major initiatives that will make it a leader in a transition to a low-carbon economy. Overall, these are likely to go beyond what it would be expected to accept as mandatory under an international agreement. However, China has joined with other leading, newly-developing countries – India, Brazil and South Africa – in insisting that the actions of all developing countries on climate change be voluntary while the commitment of the more developed countries be mandatory. The chances of agreement on this have deteriorated since Copenhagen.

With unusually severe winter weather in North America, Europe, and China, the recession which has exacted such heavy costs on our economies and preoccupation with related issues have taken a toll on support for early action. This is particularly true in the US, where health care and other controversial issues have reduced the ability of President Obama to mobilise the support required to take the lead in addressing climate change that is so indispensable to the success of these negotiations.

At the core of the issues that remain to be resolved is the need to make available to developing countries the funding and access to technology which they require to reduce their emissions while enabling them to continue to develop their economies and to participate fully and equitably in the further development of the global economy. For both climate change and economic crisis are rooted in the inadequacies of the existing economic system that has now so dramatically revealed the ominous consequences of the growing gap between rich and poor. Assistance to developing countries must go well beyond foreign aid, which has never reached the level at which it was promised. Emissions of greenhouse gases have the same effect on global climate whatever their source.

The finances required for this will be on the order of one trillion dollars over the first 10 years, and much more beyond. This is beyond anything the more developed countries are now willing to do, in light of the economic problems which we are facing. Yet if the figure of one trillion dollars seems unrealistic, it is much less than what is now being spent on military conflicts, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are far less threatening to the human future.

It will take a fundamental change in attitudes and mind-set to rise to this challenge. Nations have always been able to give highest priority to threats to their own security. The risk to the security and sustainability of all nations with which climate change confronts the entire community constitutes the greatest security threat ever. We all face it together and can only resolve it by working together.

This is why it is so essential that new impetus be generated to negotiate a mandated and enforceable agreement to extend or replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. This will be feasible only with an unprecedented degree of international cooperation. It is a daunting challenge that will require all countries to accept that the interests of their own people can be ensured only in cooperation with others and by transcending narrower national interests.

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Mother Jones <newsletters@motherjones.com>
Date: Tue, Feb 16, 2010
Subject: End Genocide Forever.

Dear friend, The world made a commitment to stop genocide after the Holocaust. Yet our actions haven’t been enough to stop the mass killings in Rwanda, Bosnia, and Darfur. We must prevent genocide. Ask President Obama to prioritize genocide prevention today! It didn’t end with the Holocaust. Since World War II, the world has repeatedly failed to stop genocide. Just over 60 years ago, with the horrors of the Holocaust fresh in mind, the world adopted the U.N. Genocide Convention, and promised to prevent and punish the crime of genocide. Yet we haven’t followed through on that promise: think of Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, and now Darfur. Last year, some of America’s best minds issued clear recommendations for doing better. Now it’s up to us to see the struggle through—and end genocide forever. Join us by asking President Obama to make genocide prevention a priority. Today, the crisis in Darfur continues, while the U.S. and the world have still failed to act on the policies recommended by the Genocide Prevention Task Force. We can’t stand by while the threat of genocide looms. We need strong government action for the people of Darfur today and for the victims of future genocides tomorrow. Ask President Obama to make ending genocide a priority today. Early in his presidency, President Obama told the world that we “find cause for hope in a movement to save Darfur that has…people of every age and faith and background and race united in common cause with suffering brothers and sisters halfway around the world.” Now we must make sure genocide prevention is one of President Obama’s priorities. Help us grow the movement to end genocide forever: Ask President Obama to live up to his words by making genocide prevention a priority today. Thank you, Mark Lotwis Save Darfur Coalition

The Save Darfur Coalition is an alliance of over 180 faith-based, advocacy and human rights organizations whose mission is to raise public awareness about the ongoing genocide in Darfur and to mobilize a unified response to the atrocities that threaten the lives of more than two million people in the Darfur region. To learn more, please visit http://www.SaveDarfur.org.

HIGH COURT IN TEL AVIV FLEXES ITS LIBERAL MUSCLES.
16 February 2010
BY CHRISTOPH SCHULT
Der Spiegel via The San Francisco Sentinel.

On many issues, from human rights to social mores, Israel’s high court is well out in front of society at large. Israeli politicians now want to clip the court’s wings.

Tel Aviv, an apartment building from the Ottoman era on the edge of the Karmel market. The Sabbath is about to end, and a casserole is baking in the oven in the apartment of the Berner-Kadisch family. The three sons are playing in their rooms, while the parents drink tea in the living room.

The parents are Nicole, 44, an attorney, and Ruti, 45, an academic with a doctorate in Middle Eastern studies. The two women alternated having children, with the help of a sperm bank and a reproduction clinic. Their first son, Matan, was born in 1995. Ruti was his biological mother and Nicole adopted him, which is permitted in some states of the United States.

Their problems began when they moved to Israel a year later. Both women had Israeli citizenship, but the consulate general in Los Angeles refused to recognize Nicole as the adoptive mother. The two women contested the decision in an Israeli court and, after 10 years, the Israeli Supreme Court recognized the adoption. The birth certificate of their youngest son, 6-year-old Segev, is lying on the coffee table in the living room. Nicole and Ruti are listed as his parents, under Israel’s national coat of arms. The Interior Ministry issued the document only recently.

Once again, the Supreme Court was more progressive than the country. The court’s ruling on the parenthood of Nicole and Ruti is only one of many sensational decisions in recent years. “If the Supreme Court didn’t exist, who would safeguard democracy in Israel?” asks Ruti Berner-Kadisch.

Insisting on Compliance

The court takes an interventionist approach. For instance, it prohibited the country’s attorney general from dropping rape charges against former President Moshe Katsav in return for a confession of other, lesser offences.

In the conflict with the Palestinians, the judges have resisted pressure from the military and the government and are insisting on compliance with human rights regulations.

Is it legal to use force on a Palestinian if he has information about an imminent terrorist attack? No, the high court ruled in 1999, when it imposed a torture ban on the military and the intelligence services. In 2006, the judges set narrow limits on the practice of preventive liquidation of presumed terrorists. Under the new rules, the targeted killings are only allowed if no civilians are harmed and there is no possibility of arrest. The Supreme Court has also issued several orders to move the security wall with which Israel protects itself against terrorists along its border with the West Bank. Arguing that there is no such thing as absolute security, the judges limited the Israeli government’s ability to seize land owned by Palestinians.

“In no other country in the world has a high court dealt with issues of international law as much as it has in our country,” says Aharon Barak, the former president of the Supreme Court. This is precisely why the judges have made so many enemies with their liberal administration of justice. For some rabbis, the court’s rulings are nothing short of blasphemy. Some generals consider the judges to be a security risk, and politicians see them as rivals.

Doris Beinisch, 67, an elegant woman wearing gold earrings and a scarf draped over her shoulders, has been the president of the Supreme Court for more than three years. From her office, she has a view of the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, while the prime minister’s office is on the other side. Beinisch points out that her office sits right in the middle, both physically and symbolically, between the legislative and the executive branches of government.

No Constitution

The families of Palestinian terror attack victims recently appealed to the Supreme Court to force the government to release the names of the Palestinian prisoners it intends to set free in exchange for Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier abducted by Hamas in 2006. Beinisch rejected the appeal.

It is only one of 12,000 cases the Supreme Court hears each year (by comparison, the US Supreme Court hears fewer than 100 cases a year). Every Israeli citizen can appeal to the court to raise doubts about government decisions or laws enacted by the Knesset. The “High Court of Justice” (known by the Hebrew acronym “Bagaz”) also serves as a court of appeal for the lower courts.

The central problem, says Beinisch, is that Israel doesn’t have a constitution. Although the 1948 declaration of independence expressly stipulates the creation of a written constitution, it hasn’t been formulated yet — in deference to the ultra-orthodox Jews, who refuse to recognize any constitution other than the Torah. This frequently gives the government and members of parliament an excuse to question the sovereignty of the highest court — for political expediency, of course.

In addition, because there is no constitution, there is nothing that clearly states whether each citizen has certain inalienable rights. The country only has its so-called basic laws, which, like any other laws, can be amended with a simple majority. According to the basic law on “human dignity and freedom,” Israel aims to be a Jewish state and a democracy at the same time. But what does this mean for its roughly 1.3 million Arab citizens?

Not Allowed for Arabs

Adel Kaadan, 54, lives in Baka al-Gharbiya, a small Arab city of 30,000 people halfway between Tel Aviv and Haifa. He wanted to move away years ago, he says, citing problems like bad roads, a lack of waste disposal services and asbestos in schools. He saw an advertisement for a new community, Kazir, which was being planned a few kilometers north of Baka al-Gharbiya. It sounded appealing: new roads, inexpensive land, his own house. But when Kaadan went to see the town council, he was told that Arabs were not allowed to move to Kazir.

“I thought I was a citizen of Israel,” says Kaadan, who works as a nurse in a hospital. “In school, we were taught that discrimination on the basis of race, gender or religion was not allowed.”

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel took on Kaadan’s case. Eleven years and two trials later, Kaadan finally won the case, when the town of Kazir was ordered to sell him a piece of land. Meanwhile, the house is almost finished, and in six months Kaadan plans to move in, together with his wife and their five children. “It’s good that the court exists,” says Kaadan, “but why do you have to go through the trouble of going to court just to assert your rights?”

Even when it comes to the major conflict in the region, between the Palestinians and Israelis, the judges insist on compliance with human rights laws. In Nilin, for example, a small town in the West Bank. The security wall separates the village from the Israeli settlement of Hashmonaim — and Palestinian farmers from their olive plantations. Every morning, the residents of Nilin protest against the wall, usually peacefully. On July 7, 2008, the military stopped the protestors and a few activists were arrested, including Ashraf Abu Rahma. The soldiers blindfolded him, tied his hands behind his back and let him sit in the sun for one-and-a-half hours.

Then He Shoots

“Suddenly something hit my right foot,” says Abu Rahma. “I had the feeling that my leg was flying away from my body.” He is sitting, smoking a cigarette, in the courtyard of the Amira family’s house, at the entrance to Nilin. Journalism student Salam Amira, 18, is sitting next to him. She filmed the events of the day from her window, using a digital camera.

On the video, the Israeli commander holds down Abu Rahma while one of his soldiers points his gun at the Palestinian’s feet. Then he shoots.

The Israel human rights organization Betselem published the video. A military judge merely reprimanded the soldiers for their “improper behavior” and suspended the commander from duty for 10 days. Betselem took the case to the Supreme Court, which ordered that both soldiers be punished more severely. The incident, the court argued, was a “serious deviation from the moral norms incumbent upon all soldiers in the Israeli army, particularly senior commanders.”

“Although it is a Jewish court, it issued a fair verdict,” says Abu Rahma. These words of praise don’t come easy for Rahma, whose brother was killed when he was shot in the chest during a demonstration a few months ago. Journalism student Amira says that she was positively surprised by the verdict. Palestinian judges, she says, rarely demonstrate such independence.

‘Illegal to Attack the Courts’

Israeli politicians, particularly the conservatives, feel that the court is too independent. To address this concern, the administration of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu plans to propose a law that would limit the power of the judges on Jerusalem’s high court in an important way: The court would no longer have the power to invalidate laws enacted by the parliament. The government also wants to supervise the selection of judges more strictly in the future.

The court’s decisions often go too far for many Israelis, as well. Judge Beinisch has become a target of their indignation, so much so that she now has several bodyguards. In a hearing at the end of January, an older, balding man stood up and threw his shoe at the judge. Beinisch was hit in the head and fell, unconscious, from her chair. Although the man who had thrown the shoe was only expressing his dissatisfaction over his divorce decree, the opposition in the parliament claimed that the right wing, with its many reproaches of judges, had made the attack possible in the first place.

Ironically, this left Prime Minister Netanyahu with no choice but to express his solidarity with the judge. He called Beinisch and confirmed publicly: “It is illegal to attack the courts.”

This website participates in Inter-religious dialogue as a way to mutual understanding by religions that agree beforehand to live in peace with one-another. This includes Imams in the US and wherever else – that are ready to enter this larger tent.

The following new leaders in Islam are welcome to the above tent – but as a new breed – not as apologists for the “is” – the problem is not the “Misperception” but the hurt from the effect of on-going actions.

The a-priory perception is that Muslims that come to live in the west have done so in order to avoid oppression in their lands of origin – this like all those that moved to the West before them and came from other religious backgrounds. Some came because they were oppressed, others because they did not agree with the oppression – both groups created new harmonies here – that is the melting pot that has to be understood and cherished.

We wish all the best to those interviewed in the following article, and those that go to meetings like the one in Doha, Qatar, mentioned in the article. We hope they change the leadership of Islam, the relationship to their women, the material learned in the madrassas, the perception of the infidel, etc. That does not mean a castration of their culture, but the bringing out to the forefront of the postive in their culture that we can easily admire also. The venom is what has to be removed internally before an attempt to claim misperception. Westerners are ready to accept the idea that the venom is not the juice of the pure religion it claims to be the guardian thereoff.

————-

Young Western Muslims Fight Misperceptions.
writes Liza Jansen of the IPS, February 16, 2010.

NEW YORK, Feb 15 (IPS) – Islamophobia is rising in the West, and sectarian clashes have undermined unity in the Muslim world, but there is hope from “within”, says a group of young Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow (MLTs) working to address these problems. “There is a lot of misinformation out there about our face, and there are many obstacles to getting the right information out,” Asim Rehman, a member of MLT in the United States, told IPS.

Rehman is also president of the Muslim Bar Association of New York, a professional grouping of Muslim lawyers, law students, and legal professionals. “When you see a 10-second clip of an angry young Muslim but there is no context to it, it disheartens and saddens me that this particular part of the faith has been given priority,” added member Rusha Majeed.

Majeed, also based in New York City, is dedicated to bridging the gap between the wider public and the Muslim community through dialogue, culture, arts, academia and current affairs.

Muslims are currently living in a pivotal period of enormous challenge and transformation, they said, and Muslims seeking positive Islamic solutions must directly tackle this situation.

The MLT programme brings together diverse young Muslims from around the world who are committed to fostering healthy Muslim identities, and working as agents of change in their communities.

In only six years, the network has expanded from 25 countries in Western Europe to about 75 countries all over the world, ranging from Somalia to Iraq to Kosovo, and coming from diverse schools of thought and myriad ethnic, cultural, socio-economic and professional backgrounds.

Rehman says the group’s biggest challenge in the U.S. is undoing the negative perception of Islam. The diverse Muslim community here is an asset in this effort, he said, since “Americans see greater potential for intra- and inter-religious harmony in the U.S. than we do in other countries, because of the melting pot model.”

MLT’s focus for the Muslim community in the U.S. is on interfaith work, building coalitions with different religious communities, and a balanced portrayal of Islam in the media, which is “crucial and critical and a big challenge to keep the conversation going”, according to Majeed.

At the MLT convention in Doha, Qatar, last January, the MLT global network was launched to tackle thorny issues such as violent extremism, competing values, and strained relations with the West.

One of the outcomes was that 86 percent of participants said Muslims face a crisis in religious authority.

“There are competing voices for that space and traditionally there is the Ulema – the educated class of Muslim legal scholars – where people go to,” Majeed explained.

However, many young Muslims don’t know who to turn to if they have questions about Islam, she said, and there is confusion about who is the “right” authority to consult – ranging from the local imam to the popular search engine Google.

“I truly feel that if non-Muslims just knew a little bit more about their Muslim neighbours, and if Muslims themselves were to be a little more open to embrace both non-Muslims and the diversity within Islam, we’d all be in a much better place,” Rehman said.

There are a lot of unqualified Muslim imams in the world, and others blindly follow them, he added.

The MLT programme is the largest of its kind, with 300 young civic-minded Muslim leaders from diverse backgrounds stepping up around the globe as spokespersons, journalists, religious leaders, activists for peace and tolerance, leaders of NGOs, writers and academics.

One Dutch MLT works to affect change by playing music. An Italian MLT and a local imam are working to promote interfaith harmony. And an MLT from Pakistan is involved in reform of the madrasah, the schools of Islamic theology and religious law.

Although the MLT programme does not have an explicit focus on women, the number of female MLTs is remarkable, since many interpretations of Islam oppose women taking leadership roles.

“We aim to keep the group diverse and representative, which includes encouraging women to participate,” said Majeed.

Majeed joined the network two years ago, and says it has provided her with the opportunity to meet a fascinating group of people.

“The MLT programme has done an amazing job in connecting young Muslim leaders around the world,” agreed Rehman. “These are people I can reach out to in participation. It is very inspiring to see people doing the work that they are doing.”

“The MLT network helps building a tremendous confidence for people in their own work. You need a level of pride in order to really make a change for communities,” he concluded.

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: NYU Abu Dhabi Institute <nyuad.institute@nyu.edu>
Date: Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 3:25 AM
Subject: “Leadership for a New Era” and other Upcoming Events

All events are free and open to the public. Events are held at the Al Mamoura Auditorium, Abu Dhabi. For a map and directions, go here. For more information on these events go here. Seating is Limited RSVP for all events at nyuad.institute@nyu.edu.	Leadership for a New Era: Fostering Leadership for Public Well-Being Tuesday, February 16 6:30 – 8:30 pm Fadi Ghandour CEO and Founder, Aramex International Barbara Ibrahim Founding Director, John D. Gerhart Center for Philanthropy and Civic Engagement, AUC Asya Al-Lamki Omani Cultural Attaché, Embassy of Oman, Washington D.C. Moderated by Mariët Westermann Provost, NYU Abu Dhabi	Texts and Textiles Thursday, February 18 6:30 – 8:30 pm Paula Sanders Dean of Graduate & Postdoctoral Studies, Professor of History, Rice University Visual Re?ections on Arabic Poetry Sunday, Feb 21 6:30 – 8:30 pm Salwa Mikdadi Head of the Arts & Culture Programme, The Emirates Foundation

From: ALDE-PRESS <press@alde.eu>
Date: Thu, Feb 11, 2010

Distribution: immediate – February 11, 2010, 1:19 pm
Verhofstadt: 20 years on, Mandela’s dream is alive

On the occasion of the 20th anniversary of Nelson Mandela’s release from jail, which signalled the end of apartheid, Guy Verhofstadt the President of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe made the following statement:

“The dream of Nelson Mandela is still alive. February 11, 1990 was a historical day for South Africa and the World. It was the symbol of tolerance, anti-apartheid and anti-racism. South Africa is now an equal player at the world’s top table. The transformation that took place in the country should serve us both as an inspiration and a reminder of what the courage of one man can do in the plight for freedom.

Mandela’s commitment to peace has been unwavering. I remember very well how we cooperated in Central Africa’s peace process. This brought the end of the war after the terrible genocide. It was thanks to Mandela that this peace was reached.”

Louis Michel (MR, Belgium) and former commissioner for development added:

“Mandela’s fight is witness that the conscience of a single man can illuminate the whole of humanity and transform the world for the better.”

For more information, please contact:

Neil Corlett: +33-3-88 17 41 67 or +32-478-78 22 84
e-mail:  neil.corlett at europarl.europa.eu
Web: http://www.alde.eu

Robert Borosage urges facing up to reality with China as a rogue nation when it comes to trade:“…the US will have to have an aggressive trade policy to challenge Chinese mercantilism and a smart industrial policy to revive advanced US manufacturing. We know how to do it – to target a key industry with public supported R and D, smart procurement, planning to build supply chains, subsidies for investment here.”

OurFuture.org’s Natasa Chart says the US should treat job creation the way China does: “…even though I’m glad the US government isn’t being called out as a global hacker menace, I wish they gave as much of a damn about making sure there was an abundance of good jobs for Americans. The Chinese government is at least trying to keep food on the table. I can respect that.”

OurFuture.org’s Dave Johnson begins exploring how we can double exports: “Paul Krugman recently calculated the job loss just from the currency imbalance to be 1.4 million American jobs, but [C. Fred Bergsten's] statement that 1 percent [increase in the US dollar's value] = 150K jobs [lost] indicates the job loss could be much higher than that.”

888888888888888888888888888888888888888

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Campaign for America’s Future
Date: Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 9:33 AM
Subject: Your Progressive Breakfast: Jobs Forecast Calls For Snow

FEBRUARY 10, 2010 On the menu this morning: Chance For Small But Bipartisan Jobs Bill … After the Snow Health Care Summit To Establish “Common Facts” Calls For Filibuster Reform After NLRB Nom Blocked WH Steps Up Pressure To Pass Student Loan Reform Dodd May Back Version of Consumer Financial Protection Agency Dealing With China Tea Party Exposed Click here for the web version of Progressive Breakfast » Chance For Small But Bipartisan Jobs Bill … After the Snow Senate jobs package based on GOP tax cut ideas, though GOP still hasn’t endorsed. LAT:“In a rare move toward bipartisanship, Senate Democrats prepared Tuesday to unveil an $85-billion jobs bill that would include payroll tax breaks for employers who create new jobs, aid to small businesses and other GOP-backed ideas to attack unemployment … Few Republicans had seen the proposals Tuesday and bridled when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he hoped the Senate would pass the bill by the end of the week … Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) did not endorse the emerging bill, but neither did he shoot it down.” GOP negotiators suggest they won’t vote for the bill by themselves. W. Post: “Sens. Orrin G. Hatch (Utah) and Charles E. Grassley (Iowa) — senior Republicans who walked away from health-care talks last year — have been heavily involved in drafting the legislation but are reluctant to sign on to the bill unless it attracts broad GOP support.” CNN reports key components of House jobs bill are missing in Senate bill: “What’s not included in the draft legislation is additional funds for states or stimulus money for infrastructure, which Republicans have said they will not support.” No vote this week. NYT:“With snow quickly accumulating around the Capitol again Tuesday night, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, gave up on his hope of advancing a jobs-creating bill by the end of this week … no real action appeared likely until Congress returns the week of Feb. 22 following a President’s Day recess.” Reid still working on building support for jobs bill. The Hill: “Fifteen senators missed votes on Tuesday and Democrats would likely not have enough support to pass a jobs bill by Friday, as Reid had hoped. Reid said Democrats would hold a special meeting on jobs legislation Thursday at 12:30 pm and urged all members of his conference to attend … Reid said he is making progress negotiating the jobs legislation with GOP leaders.” GOP leader downplays scope of package. Bloomberg: “[Sen. Jon] Kyl … said Democrats shouldn’t advertise the package as jobs legislation because it’s just ‘extending a bunch of tax policy and related items that we need to do.’ … Lawmakers tentatively agreed to three-month extensions of unemployment insurance and aid to help jobless workers buy health insurance from their former employer…” Speaker Pelosi cool to Senate emphasis on business tax cuts in WH meeting. Politico:“White House economic advisers Christina Romer and Larry Summers defended the administration’s proposal to give employers a $5,000 credit for each new worker they hire as well as help with Social Security taxes. Pelosi countered that no one she’s consulted believes that the plan will actually lead to the creation of new jobs, sources said … [But] she didn’t say she’d refuse to move the bill…” The Atlantic’s Don Peck explores “How A New Jobless Will Transform America”: “…this era of high joblessness will likely change the life course and character of a generation of young adults-and quite possibly those of the children behind them as well. It will leave an indelible imprint on many blue-collar white men-and on white culture. It could change the nature of modern marriage, and also cripple marriage as an institution in many communities. It may already be plunging many inner cities into a kind of despair and dysfunction not seen for decades … Concerns over deficits are understandable, but in these times, our bias should be toward doing too much rather than doing too little.” [back to menu] Health Care Summit To Establish “Common Facts” President Obama explains bipartisanship to Republicans at presser.“Bipartisanship can’t be that I agree to all the things that they believe in or want, and they agree to none of the things I believe in and want.” Referee will be in the room for bipartisan health care summit, President Obama announces: “I do want to make sure that there’s some people like the Congressional Budget Office, for example, that are considered non-partisan, who can answer questions … [As] Senator Moynihan said, ‘Well, you’re entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.’” WH won’t rule out use of Senate budget rules to pass health care with simple majority. HuffPost: “White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs said on Tuesday that Republicans coming to the West Wing for the much-anticipated February 25 meeting would be better off arriving ‘without preconditions.’ Asked whether Obama would commit to not using reconciliation … Gibbs replied: ‘The president is not going to eliminate things based on preconditions.’” “Top Pelosi Aide Says Reconciliation Process Is ‘The Only Way’ To Save Health Reform” reports Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky. New ABC/W. Post poll finds public still wants health care reform, more bipartisanship from GOP: “Nearly six in 10 in the new poll say the Republicans aren’t doing enough to forge compromise with President Obama on important issues; more than four in 10 see Obama as doing too little … nearly two-thirds of Americans say they want Congress to keep working to pass comprehensive health-care reform [including] 56 percent of independents.” washingtonpost.com” rel=”nofollow” href=”http://caf.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=F%2B8Q46oMqpW9zqr3sgqhRH57lBN3C9wV” target=”_blank”>The best W. Post’s Ruth Marcus can say about the summit, “It can’t hurt.”: “To take this at face value is to assume that (a) these conversations have not been occurring over the past year, which flies in the face of Democratic assertions that they have accepted numerous Republican ideas, or that (b) Republicans are correct that they’ve been shut out of the sausage-making, which ignores the endless weeks of negotiations among the Senate Finance Committee ‘Gang of Six.’” Salon.com” rel=”nofollow” href=”http://caf.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=G8mHEuIR777qdvpNuDSq2357lBN3C9wV” target=”_blank”>Digby concludes the health care stall means the “Obama Bubble” has popped: “…people are now dealing with political realities. Believing that he was some kind of wizard whose very person was imbued with the power to change reality with a few well-chosen words wasted a lot of time. But if its over, I’m very glad of it. Now maybe they can start looking at problems realistically and understand just how hard they have to fight to solve them.” HHS Sec. takes to WH blog to attack massive Anthem Blue Cross rate hike:“What’s happening in California can happen in any state. It’s clear that we need health insurance reform that will give American families the secure, affordable coverage they need and put a stop to insurance company abuses and control out-of-pocket costs.” House to hold hearing on rate hike on Feb. 24 reports AP. The Treatment’s Jonathan Cohn on the political significance of Anthem’s rate hike: “…many Americans are still asking: What’s in it for me? They should put that question to Californians who have individual insurance coverage from Anthem Blue Cross–and just learned their premiums will be going up by almost 40 percent this year.” The Nation continues its Voices of the Uninsured” series:“Many stories expressed great, unshakeable fear that one medical emergency would ruin them. ‘I would say my wife and I are one medical emergency away from losing everything, but actually I’ve pretty much resigned myself in my head to the reality that if I have a medical emergency I am going to die,’ says a used-book seller in California.” Reviving Liberalism criticizes renewed focus on tort reform: “…California, the home of Anthem Blue Cross, has capped medical malpractice claims since 1975. And research shows that that capping medical malpractice claims in other states has had no effect on insurance rates.” [back to menu] Calls For Filibuster Reform After NLRB Nom Blocked Craig Becker’s nomination to the NLRB was filibustered. The Hill: “The confirmation of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) was considered a key priority for the labor movement. But the nominee failed to clear the 60-vote threshold in the Senate to beat back a Republican-led filibuster … Sens. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) joined GOP senators in blocking the nominee…” McClatchy explores the consequences for the labor movement: “‘”It’s a statement that anything friendly to organized labor won’t get through the Senate as long as Republicans stand together,’ said Gary Jacobson, an expert on Congress at the University of California at San Diego. ‘The labor wing of the Democratic Party is not going to get what they were hoping for.’” washingtonpost.com” rel=”nofollow” href=”http://caf.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=KJmDHmYpTWcs7hR6t9e2RX57lBN3C9wV” target=”_blank”>W. Post’s Harold Meyerson suggests labor should have made more advances under Obama: “For American labor, year one of Barack Obama’s presidency has been close to an unmitigated disaster. Labor’s primary priority – the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) – died when the Democrats lost their 60-vote majority in the Senate. Labor’s normal priority – a functioning National Labor Relations Board – also seems out of reach … In their failure to advance labor’s prospects, the Democrats condemn themselves to a future of fewer Democratic voters and their nation to a future of mass downward mobility.” Exasperated Senators explore rule changes to end obstruction. HuffPost: “‘I’m in my thirty-sixth year. I’ve never seen anything like it,’ said Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), noting that no previous Republican Senate leader would have allowed his party to filibuster such a routine nomination. Leahy said that the overuse of filibusters by the GOP was leading Democrats to consider ways to modify it. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) … said that abuse of the filibuster is unsustainable. ‘I think it will either fall of its own weight … or it will fall after some massive conflict on the floor…’ adding that the filibuster should be restricted to major issues.” [back to menu] WH Steps Up Pressure To Pass Student Loan Reform HuffPost reports Education Sec. Arne Duncan attacking bank lobbyists opposing end of student loan subsidies: “Taking aim at Sallie Mae … Education Secretary Arne Duncan on Tuesday accused the company of using taxpayer funds to lobby and advertise, and cast its executives as white-collar millionaires uninterested in serious education reform … Duncan called the administration’s plans to overhaul the student loan program by ending government subsidies for private lenders ‘a once-in a generation, maybe once-in-a lifetime’ opportunity that Congress would be foolish to let slip away.” OurFuture.org’s Richard Eskow warns Senate of consequences for siding with banks over students: “any politician who fails to fight for this program will be hurting themselves politically and punishing college students financially, leaving those students in the hands of rapacious and corrupt lenders.” Campaign for America’s Future launches online campaign demanding Senate choose students over banks. [back to menu] Dodd May Back Version of Consumer Financial Protection Agency HuffPost’s Shahien Nasiripour reports Sen. Dodd will likely include housing an independent consumer agency within Treasury: “[The bill] will likely call for an agency dedicated to protecting consumers from abusive financial practices — while not a stand-alone entity, it will nevertheless be free from outside interference … Key details, however, are scarce. Committee aides are still writing the legislative text.” GOP Sen. Shelby withholds support of independent agency. HuffPost’s Ryan Grim: “Shelby said: ‘I’m sure at this juncture that he’s gonna go with his bill and go it alone. We don’t believe he can pass a bill without us …’ HuffPost asked Shelby if Dodd had confirmed to him on the floor that he was moving ahead with an independent Consumer Finance Protection Agency. ‘Well, that’s been our biggest split, okay, and it’s still at impasse there,’ Shelby said. ‘But we’re talking.’ … Asked if he specifically told Shelby he was moving ahead with an independent CFPA, Dodd said: ‘No, I didn’t say that. I said the door was open.’” [back to menu] Dealing With China Robert Borosage urges facing up to reality with China as a rogue nation when it comes to trade:“…the US will have to have an aggressive trade policy to challenge Chinese mercantilism and a smart industrial policy to revive advanced US manufacturing. We know how to do it – to target a key industry with public supported R and D, smart procurement, planning to build supply chains, subsidies for investment here.” OurFuture.org’s Natasa Chart says the US should treat job creation the way China does: “…even though I’m glad the US government isn’t being called out as a global hacker menace, I wish they gave as much of a damn about making sure there was an abundance of good jobs for Americans. The Chinese government is at least trying to keep food on the table. I can respect that.” OurFuture.org’s Dave Johnson begins exploring how we can double exports: “Paul Krugman recently calculated the job loss just from the currency imbalance to be 1.4 million American jobs, but [C. Fred Bergsten's] statement that 1 percent [increase in the US dollar's value] = 150K jobs [lost] indicates the job loss could be much higher than that.” [back to menu] Tea Party Exposed Newsweek.com” rel=”nofollow” href=”http://caf.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=zRuAFT8B786K96Mf%2FVTeiX57lBN3C9wV” target=”_blank”>Newsweek’s Jonathan Kay – a self-identified conservative – delves into the far-out conspiracy theorists that populated the convention: “Within a few hours in Nashville, I could tell that what I was hearing wasn’t just random rhetorical mortar fire being launched at Obama and his political allies: the salvos followed the established script of New World Order conspiracy theories, which have suffused the dubious right-wing fringes of American politics since the days of the John Birch Society.” Recalling the radical leanings of original Tea Party leader Samuel Adams, 1973 Tea Party attendant Jim Sleeper wonders where today’s Tea Party radicals are hiding: “Do they have a Sam Adams in Sarah Palin? Is there a John Adams among their cheerleaders at Rupert Murdoch’s global News Corporation? Tea Partiers protest that government is coddling incompetent and dishonest corporations with taxpayers’ money. But have they taken action against incompetent and dishonest corporations’ control of government?” [back to menu] past progressive breakfasts » OurFuture.org |   Donate |   Contact Us Subscribe to E-Publications

The NYU Conference on the Africa – Arab Gulf Relationships will be
held on March 3-4, 2009 in Abu Dhabi. The event is organized as part
of NYU Africa House’s initiative to explore the relationship between
contemporary Africa and the rest of the world. The conference seeks to
examine the modern relationships between Africa and the Arab Gulf.
The lectures and discussions will focus on modern interactions as well
as future possibilities of the relationship.

NYU Africa House is an inter-disciplinary institute devoted to the
study of contemporary Africa with a concentration on politics,
economics, culture, language and social science. In the past, Africa
House has hosted a variety of events, seminars, and presentations
featuring panels of African Heads of Government, scholars, diplomats,
professors and ambassadors.

Africa’s own relationship with the Arab world is centuries-old. Oman
was once part of an influential political presence headquartered in
Zanzibar off the coast of Tanzania, and a significant part of East
Africa’s population is of Arab descent. Swahili, the language of East
Africa, even has linguistic connections with Arabic. The ancient West
African kingdoms of Ghana, Mali, Songhay and Kanem are all marked by
historic partnerships with the Arab and Islamic world.

Today, the Arab influence is poised to become an even stronger
presence in Africa and vice versa, as the Gulf is becoming a hub for
intra-African and international travel and business. Politically,
there is also increasing desires for an examination of the potential
for the development of stronger South-South relations, with Africa and
the Arab Gulf becoming closer allies in the international political
arena.

These possibilities, both economic and political, are topical issues
that demand thoughtful consideration and debate, which is where the
Africa – Arab Gulf Relationships conference hopes to step in and
facilitate provocative conversation and discussion.

The Organizers:

Africa House
Africa House at NYU is an inter-disciplinary institute devoted to the
study of contemporary Africa, focusing on Economic, Political and
Social issues on the continent, as well as on programs in the Arts,
and particularly contemporary African Art. Part of our vision for
Africa House has been for it to be a meeting place for people in the
New York City metropolitan area who have a personal or professional
interest in Africa. It provides a venue for African dignitaries,
leaders, cultural figures, and academics who are visiting the city.
One area that Africa House is devoting attention to is the area of
Economic Development in Africa today by hosting a number of very high
level conferences and seminars, as well as policy luncheons and
research presentations on contemporary African topics. Part of Africa
House’s core mission is to understand the links between Africa and the
rest of the world, through the social, historical, economic and other
lenses.

Yaw Nyarko (New York University)
Yaw Nyarko is Professor of Economics at NYU. Professor Nyarko, a
Ghanaian national, is the founding director of Africa House at NYU and
founding co-director of the Development Research Institute at NYU. His
research interests include human capital theory, economic development
especially as it pertains to Africa, as well as migration and brain
drain studies and game theory. In addition to his academic work, he
has often served as a consultant for international organizations with
recent assignments at the World Bank and the UN Economic Commission
for Africa. He holds a PhD in Economics from Cornell University.

Please Find The Conference Proceedings By Day

Day 1: March 3 | Day 2: March 4

Tuesday, March 3

8:30 – 9:00

CHECK-IN AND COFFEE

9:00 – 10:30
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

Mariet Westermann
Vice Chancellor, NYU

HE Abdullah A. Al Saleh
Director General of the UAE Ministry of Foreign Trade

Tarik Yousef
Dean, Dubai School of Government

Yaw Nyarko, “The Africa Gulf Relationship: History, Politics, Economics”
Professor of Economics, NYU; Director of NYU Africa House; Co-founding Director of Development Research Institute, NYU

Dean, African Ambassadors, UAE 

10:30 – 10:45
BREAK

10:45-12:15
PANEL
Africa and the Gulf: Historic Ties, Contemporary Transformations

Panel Chair: Philip Kennedy

New York University    

Presenters:
Emmanuel Akyeampong, “For Prayer and Profit: West Africa’s Religious and Commercial Ties to the Gulf”
Professor of History, Department of African and African American studies, Harvard University

Edward Alpers, “Image and Reality of East Africa’s Ties to the Gulf  and Arabia”

Professor and Chair of Department of History, University of  California, Los Angeles

Matthew S. Hopper, “The African Presence in Eastern Arabia:  Globalization and Diaspora in the Age of Empire”       
Assistant Professor of History, California Polytechnic State University

Panel Discussion: Q & A

12:15 – 1:15
LUNCH BREAK

1:15-2:45
PANEL
Africa and Arab Gulf Tourism Relations
Panel Chair: Judith Aidoo

NYU Africa House Board Member; private investor and Chief  Executive of the Aidoo Group, Ltd.

Presenters:
Shamsa Mwangunga
Minister of Natural Resources and Tourism of the United Republic of Tanzania and President of the Africa Travel Association

Edward Bergman
Executive Director of Africa Travel Association; Faculty member in Department of Hospitality Management at CUNY’s New York City College of Technology 

Ogo Sow
African television and radio pioneer, producer and publisher; Special advisor and consultant to Africa Travel Association
Representatives of Tourism Boards in the Arab Gulf and in Africa

Panel Discussion: Q & A

2:45–3:00
BREAK

3:00-5:00
PANEL
Africa and the Gulf: The Economics of the Relationships I

Panel Chair: Kasirim Nwuke
Senior Economic Affairs Officer and Chief, MDGs/Poverty Analysis & Monitoring at the UN Economic Commission for Africa

Presenters:
Ibrahim Elbadawi, “Economic Links between Sub-Saharan Africa and the Arab Gulf: Recent History and Future Prospects”
Lead Economist at Development Economic Research group of the World Bank

Leonce Ndikumana, “Options for Transforming Transitory Income from Natural Resources into Permanent Income”

Head of Research, African Development Bank

Hippolyte Fofack, “Africa and Arab Gulf States: Divergent Development Paths and Prospects for Convergence”
Professional and Research Economist, World Bank

Panel Discussion: Q & A
——————–

Click here to download the complete conference brochure.

From: Alice Jay - Avaaz.org <avaaz@avaaz.org>
Date: Tue, Feb 9, 2010
Subject: Save Frank’s life
To: “PJ@SustainabiliTank.com” <PJ@sustainabilitank.com>

Dear friends,

Uganda’s parliament is set to pass a law that makes being gay punishable by prison or death — let’s raise 1 million signatures to stop this brutal bill:

Uganda’s parliament is preparing to pass a brutal new law that would punish gay people with prison — even death.

Initial international criticism drove the President to call for a review. But after a well-funded and vicious lobbying effort by extremists, the bill looks set to be passed — threatening hundreds of thousands of lives.

Opposition to the bill is rising, including from the Anglican church. Ugandan gay rights advocate Frank Mugisha writes, This law will put us in serious danger. Please, sign the petition and tell others to stand with us – if there’s a huge global response, our government will see that Uganda will be internationally isolated by the proposed law, and strike it down.

With the decision expected in days, only an irresistible wave of worldwide pressure will be enough to save Frank’s life and many others. Let’s raise 1 million signatures to stop the gay death law — click here to take action, then forward this email:

 http://www.avaaz.org/en/uganda_for_toler…

The petition will be delivered to President Museveni, members of the review committee and Ugandan embassies worldwide this week before it’s too late, as well as to key donor governments.

The bill proposes life imprisonment for anyone convicted of having same-sex relations and imposes the death penalty for “serial offenders”. NGOs working to prevent the spread of HIV could be imprisoned for up to 7 years for “promoting homosexuality”. Even members of the public face up to three years in jail if they fail to report homosexual activity to the police within 24 hours!

The bill’s advocates claim that it defends national culture, but its strongest critics come from within Uganda. The Reverend Canon Gideon Byamugisha is one of many who’s written to us – he says,

It is violating our cultures, traditions and religious values that teach against intolerance, injustice, hatred and violence. We need laws to protect people — not ones that will humiliate, ridicule, persecute and kill them en masse.

By rejecting this dangerous bill and supporting the breadth of opposition to it, we can help set a crucial precedent. Let’s raise 1 million signatures for Uganda’s human rights defenders, and save lives by stopping this bill — sign now here, then tell friends and family:
 http://www.avaaz.org/en/uganda_for_toler…

With hope and determination,

Alice, Ricken, Ben, Paul, Benjamin, Pascal, Raluca, Graziela and the whole Avaaz team

SOURCES

African letter to Ugandan President to throw out Anti-Homosexual Bill:
 http://www.africafiles.org/article.asp?I…

Ugandan church leader brands anti-gay bill ‘genocide’:
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/katine/2009/de…

Human Rights Impact Assessment of Uganda’s Anti-homosexuality Bill By Sylvia Tamale, The Dean of Law at Uganda’s Makerere University:
 http://www.zeleza.com/blogging/african-a…

To contact Avaaz, please do not reply to this email. Instead, write to us at www.avaaz.org or call us at +1-888-922-8229 (US) or +55 21 2509 0368 (Brazil).

==============================================

To be taken seriously by the civilized world, Africa must find a way to police its own States from doing things that are far from modern times wisdom. I know that we like the idea of allowing for different cultures to behave differently, but at a time that we cannot accept the killing of whales or seals for reasons of “culture” or “tradition” – how much more that we should express as repugnant the killing of the “different” as it becomes obvious from this Ugandan proposal as law. Now, one could say that democracy itself might be strange to some cultures, but using the pretence of democracy in order to push for archaic tradition is even worse.

The basic law of the UN, if sovereignty is to be respected, is THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT ONE’S OWN CITIZENS. Killing the gays in one’s midst is a clear example of what should be anathema to all peoples.

——————————————-

Uganda’s parliament is set to pass a law that makes being gay punishable by prison or death — let’s raise 1 million signatures to stop this brutal bill.

Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the Turkish OIC Secretary General : The Donors Conference for the Development and Reconstruction of Darfur on 21 March.

But the OIC Calendar posted in the same posting says: “March 23: OIC Conference for the Development and Reconstruction of Darfur – Cairo, Egypt.” (??)

OIC Secretary General  Ihsanoglu also expressed his great satisfaction on the visit of H.E. Idriss Deby, the President of Chad, to Sudan and the agreement reached between the two countries to normalize their bilateral relations.

Also – OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu expressed his deep disappointment over the announced decision of the appeals chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to direct the pre-trial chamber to decide anew on the charge of genocide against the President of Sudan Omer Hassan Ahmed Al-Bashir.

All the above seems to show that the Islamic countries are ready to step into a problem solving mode in Sudan – but will the UN keep its Darfur and South Sudan watchdog positions? White washing Al-Bashir should not be allowed. What was done in Sudan was a series of Government sanctioned crimes. We also said that some of the motivation to those crimes had to do with impacts of climate change – will the oil rich Islamic countries – those countries that got financial advantage by selling the oil to the rest of the world, will they indeed pay their dues in the form of real help to the black people of Darfur – be they Islamic or not?

———–

The Secretary General of the OIC Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu discussed with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Egypt Ahmad Aboul Gheit the current arrangements for the organization of the ‘International Donors Conference for the Development and Reconstruction of Darfur’, due to be held in the Egyptian Capital, Cairo, in March 21, 2010. The meeting was at Aboul Gheit’s office in Cairo on 6 February 2010. During the meeting, the two sides discussed the facets of joint cooperation between the OIC and Cairo, and their bilateral relations.

The meeting also addressed the ongoing arrangements for the next Islamic Summit Conference, which will be held in Egypt in March 2011, as well as various other issues of mutual interest.

The Secretary General had arrived in Cairo on 5 February. During his visit he also met with the Egyptian Minister of Islamic Affairs Mahmoud Himdi Zaqzouq and discussed the existing cooperation between the two parties in many fields.
In statements made to journalists, the Secretary General said that the Donors’ Conference for the Development and Reconstruction of Darfur will be held in Cairo on 21 March 2010, commending at the same time the concrete Egyptian role towards making the conference a success and its provision of all facilitations for organizing the conference. He also highlighted the significant support the OIC receives from both the leadership and the people of Egypt.

Ihsanoglu said that the Conference, which will be held at the ministerial level, will submit to the donors a number of vital projects in Darfur with the aim of completing the development process, which will strengthen stability in the province.

On another level, the Secretary General delivered on February 7, 2010 a lecture on ‘The Future of the Muslim World’ at the International Book Exhibition in Cairo.

————–

Turkish Minister of Trade and Industry visits the OIC General Secretariat in Jeddah.

A ninety-member Turkish delegation led by the Minister of Trade and Industry of Turkey Dr. Nihat Ergun visited the headquarters of the General Secretariat of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) in Jeddah on 8 February 2010. The Minister, whose delegation comprised industrialists and businessmen from the private and public sectors in Turkey, was received by the Assistant Secretary General for Economic Affairs Ambassador Hameed A. Opeloyeru, and the Director General of the Cabinet and Chief Advisor to the Secretary General Ambassador Sukru Tufan, on behalf of the OIC Secretary General Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu. They exchanged views on how to expand cooperation between the OIC and Turkey in economic sector.

The Minister and his accompanying delegation attended a briefing session on expanding intra-OIC cooperation in the fields of trade and industry delivered by Ambassador Opeloyeru. The presentation covered a range of vital issues which included Intra-OIC Trade, Trade Preferential System of OIC, Cotton Rehabilitation Program, Agro-Food Development, Development of OIC Halal Food Standards, Cooperation in Tourism, Banking and Financial Sectors, Transportation and Private Sector initiatives.

Minister Ergun for his part stressed that his country will continue to take an active role in the OIC initiatives. He also noted that Turkey will soon finalize the ratification process of the Statute of the Standards and Meteorology Institute for Islamic Countries (SMIIC) which will function under the umbrella of the OIC.

——————–

The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is the second largest inter-governmental organization after the United Nations which has membership of 57 states spread over four continents. The Organization is the collective voice of the Muslim world and ensuring to safeguard and protect the nterests of the Muslim world in the spirit of promoting international peace and harmony among various people of the world. The Organization was established upon a decision of the historical summit which took place in Rabat, Kingdom of Morocco on 12th Rajab 1389 Hijra (25 September 1969). The Headquarters of OIC are in Jeddah - http://www.oosterhuis.nl/quickstart/inde…

 http://ipsterraviva.net/UN/currentNew.as…

South-South Cooperation Key to MDGs
IPS Correspondents

UNITED NATIONS, Feb 7 (IPS) – Member states meeting here Thursday called for the immediate implementation of development commitments made during the Nairobi high-level U.N. conference on cooperation between developing countries.

UNDP Administrator Helen Clark highlighted the importance of the Nairobi meeting on South-South cooperation in sharing information, technologies, and experiences across the South. The Nairobi outcome document calls for concrete measures to mainstream support for South-South and triangular cooperation in the U.N.’s work.

“I can assure you that we in UNDP have received that loud and clear message,” Clark said. “We have long proudly hosted the Special Unit for South-South Cooperation and fully supported its work.” On the heels of Thursday’s General Assembly High-level Committee on South-South Cooperation (HLC) meeting, focal points of South-South cooperation at 29 U.N. agencies met Friday at headquarters to discuss follow-up to the Nairobi conference.

“South-South cooperation is an expression of solidarity that has proven its relevance by a rapid growth,” said Ambassador Abdullah M. Alsaidi of Yemen, the chair of the Group of 77 developing countries.

“Cooperation across the South has been transformed by the growth of the emerging economies,” Clark explained.

The share of global GDP generated by low and middle income countries has grown from 15 percent to 25 percent over the last 50 years according to UNDP estimates, and analysts predict that emerging markets will outperform developed markets over the course of the next decade.

“Strengthening of regional integration and improved networking among members of regional blocs and organisations has a multiplier effect to South-South cooperation,” said Ambassador Zachary Muburi-Muita of Kenya, who was elected president of the HLC meeting here.

“The emerging economies in the South are attracting international attention and will increasingly acquire the muscle to influence the course of economic growth and development,” said Ambassador Gyan Chandra Acharya of Nepal, stressing that the recent successes of the developing world are in danger of being reversed and are not being felt equally across countries or regions.

Despite the gains achieved through trade and finance, delegations noted the deepening economic asymmetries among developing countries, particularly in regard to the least developed countries (LDCs) and landlocked developing countries.

The HLC stressed that the current financial, food and energy crises have exacerbated the vulnerabilities of developing countries that lack the capacity to withstand shocks.

There is an “implementation gap” that has been looming over the recommendations of the major U.N. conferences in the economic and social areas, delegates agreed.

It is only with “political will towards fulfilling the commitments that parties have undertaken in Nairobi that we can make real progress,” an Egyptian delegate stressed.

“South-South cooperation is immensely important at this time for achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and other internationally agreed goals, and for tackling climate change,” said Clark.

Clark urged delegations to take a particularly close look at the gender aspects of achieving the MDGs.

“Progress is lagging behind particularly on MDG5 on maternal health; on MDG3 on empowering women; and on MDG2 with respect to gender parity in access to education,” Clark said, “To achieve the MDGs and indeed other internationally agreed development goals, women have to be an equal part of the equation.”

In order to effectively implement the Nairobi outcome with demonstrable results, stakeholders need to identify “quick wins” whose implementation should be devoid of unnecessary red tape and bureaucracy, said Muburi-Muita.

The government of Brazil and the International Labour Organisation (ILO) have signed agreements on South-South cooperation to prevent and combat child labour and to promote good practices and lessons learned in Latin America and Portuguese-speaking countries in Africa and Asia.

“This is an excellent example of how member states are able to engage entities of the U.N. system through a South-South and triangular partnership in support of their national development strategies,” according to the ILO delegation.

The HLC stressed local ownership of solutions as a key component of South-South cooperation.

“Now, as UNDP positions itself to be of the greatest possible relevance and support to developing countries in the 21st century, we see facilitating South-South exchanges of experience and knowledge as absolutely central to what we do,” Clark explained.

A growing priority of the U.N. will be to share experience on climate change adaptation and mitigation. This could include sharing knowledge on growing drought-tolerant crops, on reforestation, or on providing low-cost access to clean energy and transport technology.

Clark emphasised that a very wide range of developing countries make contributions to South-South cooperation. In the recent weeks “we have seen least developed and low-income countries, along with middle-income and net-contributing countries, digging deep into their pockets for Haiti,” she said.

from: http://twitter.com/AfghanNews?utm_source…

—————

Militarism in Afghanistan is not enough: The U.S. Afghanistan policy needs a revision, given realities on the ground.
PUBLISHED: 01/31/2010 - http://bit.ly/99iGQm
BY UTTAM DAS

President Barack Obama’s announcement in December 2009 of the deployment of 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan has received mixed reactions at home and abroad.

Military compulsion on the ground and political expediency at home are apparently in collision; frustration and anger are growing. Allies in the Afghan war such as France, Germany and Australia have reportedly opposed Obama’s announcement. However, the United Kingdom, Poland and Italy promised to send a small number of additional troops.

By June 2010, the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan is expected to be 98,000. There were 29,950 U.S. troops in the International Security Assistance Force under NATO command, which has 64,500 troops, most supplied by the NATO member countries.

Though Obama had promised “change you can believe in” following his landslide victory in the 2008 presidential election, in the meantime he’s faced criticism for his decision to deploy additional troops to Afghanistan. The president announced that he will begin to withdraw troops in Afghanistan by July 2011 to bring an end to the decade-long war; however, the timeline has not convinced the American people, especially those on the left of the president’s own Democratic Party, who are increasingly demonstrating in front of the White House against the war.

Analysts and media in the region of South Asia are also critical of Obama’s new plan. The influential Indian daily The Hindu observes that sending additional troops to Afghanistan may provide “tactical relief to American commanders on the ground;” however, there is no guarantee that this new deployment would bring any “victory against terrorism and extremism.” For this, innovative strategies must be devised.

In a Dec. 3, 2009 editorial, The Hindu identified four deficits in America’s war against the Taliban and al-Qaida: the political consideration or attention, military doctrine, Afghan capability and a commitment from Pakistan where both the Taliban and al-Qaida allegedly have bases. Flurries of questions will continue to surround the comprehensiveness of U.S. policy and military actions in Afghanistan in the Asian media.

Given the reality on the ground, Pakistan is now in a crisis of sectarian conflict and a rising religious militancy. There is also reported presence of al-Qaida members in its territory; thus, Pakistan’s stability, politics, economy and military power are under great threat, as observes the Bangladeshi newspaper The Daily Ittefaq.

Analysts comment that it is likely impossible for the United States to win the war in Afghanistan by merely raising the number of troops. On the contrary, it may prolong the war with serious casualties on both sides.

Analysts recommend improving the conditions of the Afghan people by investing in poverty reduction, education and health. But the country has been further devastated by a war that has brought insufferable civilian casualties. Any investment in social sectors would facilitate to decrease the anger of the Afghan people toward the United States. Without this infrastructure, the poverty- and illiteracy-ridden country will not be able to get on its feet.

The U.S. policy should also engage resources to other countries in the region where al-Qaida is reportedly trying to spread its “ideology.” The presence of poverty, illiteracy, unemployment, natural challenges and displacements all contribute to the people’s vulnerability, which catalyses the spread of ideological organizations like al-Qaida. Reportedly, a swath of religious schools in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh — allegedly beyond the reach of government monitors — are working as bases for the spread of the militaristic, ideological challenge to the West, especially the United States. To offset this trend, governments need to engage civic institutions, but this deserves investment.

In the latest development, a London conference on Afghanistan has drafted a recommendation to initiate dialogues between the Afghan government and the Taliban, with an aim to dislodge al-Qaida from the country. The Taliban extremist Islamic group is essentially ideologically distinct from the terrorist al-Qaida and seized power in Afghanistan in 1996.

However, the international community must monitor such dialogues to ensure they are strategic and to guard against the Taliban using it as a legitimization and recruitment tool.

These dimensions in the Afghanistan conflict make a challenging situation all the more difficult, but for now, the deployment of more troops to the region seems only to increase our dependence on military strategy. What is needed most desperately in the region, however, is stability, investment and infrastructure.

———————

Robert NaimanPolicy Director of Just Foreign Policy
Posted: February 2, 2010 - http://bit.ly/apDj4q

Eat Your Spinach: Time for Peace Talks in Afghanistan – What’s Your Reaction:

In the last week the New York Times and Inter Press Service have reported that the Obama Administration is having an internal debate on whether to supports talks with senior Afghan Taliban leaders, including Mullah Muhammad Omar, as a means of ending the war in Afghanistan. Senior officials like Vice President Biden are said to be more open to reaching out because they believe it will help shorten the war.

Wouldn’t it be remarkable if this remained merely an “internal debate” within the Obama Administration? Wouldn’t you expect that the part of public opinion that wants the war to end would try to intervene in this debate on behalf of talks in order to end the war?

As an administration official told the New York Times,

“Today, people agree that part of the solution for Afghanistan is going to include an accommodation with the Taliban, even above low- and middle-level fighters.”
And in fact, US and British officials have been saying for months that the “endgame” in Afghanistan includes a negotiated political settlement with the Afghan Taliban.

Now, suppose you tell Mom that you want to have ice cream. And Mom says, you can have ice cream when you’ve eaten your spinach. Wouldn’t you eat your spinach? If you don’t eat your spinach now, you didn’t want ice cream very badly.

So if U.S. and British officials say the endgame includes a negotiated political settlement with the Afghan Taliban, and you figure, extrapolating from the last five thousand years of human history, that a negotiated political settlement typically does not just drop down from the sky, but in fact is generally preceded by political negotiations, and you want to end the war as soon as possible, wouldn’t you be clamoring for political negotiations to start as soon as possible? Because the longer political negotiations are delayed, the longer the war will last. If you don’t support political negotiations now, you don’t want to end the war very badly.

If you consider peace negotiations with the Afghan Taliban “distasteful,” consider this: every month that the war continues, every month that U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan, is another month in which U.S. soldiers will die horrible deaths, be horribly maimed, and be horribly scarred psychologically, perhaps for life. It’s also another month in which the U.S. military is likely to “accidentally” kill Afghan government soldiers (such episodes “are not uncommon,” the New York Times notes) and kill Afghan civilians, as they have done at least twice in the last week, according to the reporting in the New York Times and the Washington Post.

I put the word “accidentally” in quotation marks, not of course because I believe that the U.S. military is killing Afghan soldiers and Afghan civilians “on purpose,” but because when you repeatedly take an action (continuing the war) that leads to a predictable result (killing Afghan government soldiers and civilians) you lose the exoneration otherwise conferred by the word “accidentally.”

Is this not also “distasteful”? Is killing innocent people not more “distasteful” than peace talks?

Gareth Porter, writing for Inter Press Service, reports that an official of the Western military coalition says there has been a debate among U.S. officials about “the terms on which the Taliban will become part of the political fabric.” The debate is not on whether the Taliban movement will be participating in the Afghan political system, Porter reports, but on whether or not the administration could accept the participation of Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar in the political future of Afghanistan.

The Afghan Taliban has insisted in published statements that it will not participate in peace talks that would not result in the withdrawal of foreign troops, Porter notes. That raises the question of whether the administration would be willing to discuss the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan as part of a negotiated settlement to the conflict.

The Obama Administration has stated publicly that it has no long-term interest in maintaining U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Therefore, should not the U.S. be willing to agree to a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops as part of a negotiated settlement? We’re leaving anyway, according to U.S. officials – what’s holding us back from agreeing, as part of a negotiation, to do what we plan to do anyway?

U.S. officials have said that the war is all about the relationship between the Afghan Taliban and al Qaeda. When the Afghan Taliban breaks with al Qaeda the war is over, say these officials. Some say that Mullah Omar is ready to break with al Qaeda, including the Pakistani intelligence officer who trained him; while Osama bin Laden’s son Omar says Al Qaeda and the Taliban are only “allies of convenience.” Why wouldn’t we put these propositions to the test through negotiations?

If you think, for the sake of peace, the United States should be willing to agree to do on a timetable that which it claims it intends to do anyway, tell President Obama.

Follow Robert Naiman on Twitter: www.twitter.com

—————–

Lesson from Somalia echoes in Afghanistan
By Adam Folken – Contributing Columnist - http://bit.ly/dv6IT3

|Published: Thursday, February 4, 2010

Last Thursday, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown hosted a conference in London regarding NATO’s plans in Afghanistan.  In attendance were U.S. General Stanley McChrystal, commander of NATO operations in Afghanistan, and Richard Holbrooke, Obama’s special emissary to Afghanistan and Pakistan.  According to CTV News, both officials expressed plans to advocate peace and negotiations with Taliban forces.  Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s plan of “reconciliation and reintegration” of potential Taliban defectors complements McChrystal and Holbrooke’s strategies.  These plans represent a growing trend in emphasizing political action over the use of force to suppress the militant insurgency plaguing Afghanistan.  This switch comes nearly nine years after the beginning of the United States’ Operation Enduring Freedom, though it is  better late than never.

The Taliban was the power in Afghanistan prior to 2001, and their ranks draw from various Pashtun clans.  The Pashtun people represent the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan and have dominated Afghan politics for centuries.  It is therefore the appropriate move to include Taliban members in negotiations and going the step further in allowing their involvement in the new Afghan government. This was one of many lessons taken from U.S. involvement in the United Nations’ intervention in Somalia.

The fall of Said Barre’s regime in 1991 created a power vacuum in Somalia that resulted in vicious inter-clan fighting.  The collateral damage was devastating to the Somali people, who suffered the conflict and widespread famine.

For the U.N., what began as an international effort to deliver humanitarian aid evolved into a struggle to stabilize and democratize Somalia.  General Mohamed Farrah Aidid, with the support of members of his clan – the Habr Gidr – and other militant factions, repeatedly assaulted U.S. and U.N. forces to drive them out of Somalia.  Many U.S. and U.N. officials wanted Aidid and his supporters marginalized in the new government.  Rather than work with the local power, the U.S. wished to create a more ‘ideal’ system that had little focus on clannism.  The attempts to remove Aidid’s influence served to unite Somalis against the U.S., culminating in a humiliating retreat from Somalia.

The parallels with the situation in Afghanistan are clear.  Local power structures, such as clannism in Somalia and Afghanistan, must be considered when creating a functional government.  If powerful players are not given incentive to play the game, they won’t have to.

Further Recommended Articles:

Canada and Germany’s mission in Afghanistan (The Concordian)
Fein: ‘Graveyard of empires’ challenge for Obama (The Daily Northwestern)

In a room where members of the Security Council met after us, the subject was “GLOBAL CRISIS, MORE THAN JUST ECONOMICS,” and we learned it is actually a Triple Crisis – Finance, Food, Climate – Crises – a global security problem.

The introducer/moderator was Dr. Jean-Marc Coicaud, Director of the United Nations University Office in New York.

The Presenters were from the World Institute for Development Economics Research (WIDER) of the UNU-WIDER in Helsinki: Professor Finn Tarp the Director of WIDER who is also Chair of Development Economics at the Department of Economics at the University of Copenhagen, and Professor Tony Addison the Chief Economist/ Deputy Director of WIDER who hails from the Universities of Manchester and London.

The Discussant was Joseph H. Melrose Jr., a retired US Ambassador with an illustrious career and stays with the UN during the 61st to 64th UNGA Sessions (2006-2009) and now Professor of International Relations at Ursinus College in Pennsylvania.

The Event Brief read: “As the global economy is passing through a period of profound change, the immediate concern is the financial crisis, originating in the developed world. The global South is affected by lower demand and decreasing prices for their exports, reduced private financial flows, and remittances. Simultaneously, climate change remains unchecked with the growth in greenhouse gas emissions exceeding previous estimates. Finally, malnutrition and hunger are on the rise, propelled by the recent inflation in global food prices. Seeking potential policy solutions, the discussion will address threats to development arising from the global economic crisis, food shortages and climate change.

To put this in simple words – there is a Triple Crisis:

(1) a Finance Crisis
(2) a Food     Crisis
(3) a Climate Crisis.

These three crises sit in their separate “POLICY SILOS” and undermine World Peace. A voice must be heard that this is not just a question of economics but it is a series of social problems that undermine World Peace.

The present economic downturn is the deepest in 60 years and let us remember that the UN is only 65 years old. Just a short few weeks ago we used to say that the world crisis has engulfed the whole world except MENA – now came the Dubai crisis and we see that nobody is safe. I would like to add here that the globalization process got us to this situation and now clearly – when there is a sneeze in one corner of the world its echo will thunder all over. Will the North respond to the need of increased assistance for development? The World Pie, or cake, has shrunk – but that means that the percentage for foreign aid must increase if the pace is to be held in place in what regards the needs by the poorer peoples of the world. Their needs become a question of security for all – Is it likely that the richer countries will increase their aid percentage wise? But see – aid did not increase since the late 80’s. We even look now at a world that will call for CARBON TAXES because of the need to react to climate change. What will be the impact on the economic development in the emerging countries?

Dr. Melrose pointed out that the US funded since 2006 activities on nutrition – last year there was a seminar on the subject. Good ……but?

A question from the room – Nobody mentioned demography & population increase – the population explosion!

Tony Addison – on the global food architecture & population – at $80/barrel of oil going to $200 – biofuels becomes attractive – so global food architecture calls for higher efficiency. 1.5 billion people in high poverty – institutions are needed – even remittance flows are drying up.

Fossil fuels subsidies are much higher then is the ecosystem aid. Watch the origins of conflict and energy resources and follow the lines of fossil fuels. That was the greatest finale I witnessed at a UN show. This could happen only in a Think tank environment and one would wish every country to send someone to these sessions – they might learn something about what makes human disasters happen. You just cannot paint man made catastrophes with the natural disaster hazard colors.

I am also thinking of our recent posting about Ethiopia, a country with 5.2 million people needing food help from abroad, while plans are being made to turn it into a new bread-basket for exports. Is this something that we should also look at closely? Is there someone who will help integrate local needs with export potential?

The problem was the 51 cents/gallon of ethanol from sugar-cane tariff, the US imposes against imports from international producers of bioethanol – so they do not compete with US agro-ethanol.

We are cynics by nature and wonder if the release today has anything to do with Shell Oil Company having announced last weekend that they will invest over a billion dollars in the production of sugar-cane ethanol in Brazil. So, did we have to wait until an oil company steps heavily into this area – so we finally allow US door to be opened to a non-petroleum liquid fuel?

WE ARE VERY PARTIAL TO THIS TOPIC BECAUSE BACK IN 1978 AT UNIDO IN VIENNA, AND IN 1979 IN NEW ORLEANS, I WAS PERSONALLY INVOLVED IN BRINGING THIS SUBJECT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LIQUID FUEL HUNGRY WESTERN WORLD. IN VIENNA WE SHOWED THE CUBAN EXPERIENCE AT A UN – AUSTRIA – SWEDEN EVENT. IN NEW ORLEANS THIS WAS “THE FIRST INTER-AMERICAN CONFERENCE ON RENEWABLE SOURCES OF ENERGY” THAT I HELPED ORGANIZE. OBVIOUSLY – TO LOUISIANA WE COULD NOT BRING THE CUBANS – BUT BRAZIL, ARGENTINA AND MANY OTHERS WERE PRESENT UNDER THE FRIENDLY EYES OF THE US DEPARTMENT OF STATE. ETHANOL BECAME A RECOGNIZED FUEL, BUT US AGRICULTURE MADE SURE IT WILL BE US CORN AS FEEDSTOCK. WE COULD NOT EVEN GET PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT FOR IMPORTS FROM FRIENDLY COUNTRIES BECAUSE OIL AND AGRICULTURE – SOME OF THE STRONGEST LOBBIES IN WASHINGTON – WOULD NOT ALLOW IT , EVEN AFTER THE INTERVENTION OF US REPUBLICAN SENATORS LIKE FRANK CHURCH, JACOB JAVITS, CHARLES PERCY – SO WHAT WILL IT BE NOW? WILL THOSE TARIFFS COME OFF?

—————-
EPA Reaffirms Sugarcane Biofuel is Advanced Renewable Fuel with 61% Less Emissions than Gasoline.
Brazil Sugarcane Update – Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Welcomes U.S. EPA’s Renewable Fuels Rules.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has confirmed that ethanol made from sugarcane is a low carbon renewable fuel, which can contribute significantly to the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As part of today’s announcement finalizing regulations for the implementation of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2), the EPA designated sugarcane ethanol as an advanced biofuel that lowers GHG emissions by more than 50%.

“The EPA’s decision underscores the many environmental benefits of sugarcane ethanol and reaffirms how this low carbon, advanced renewable fuel can help the world mitigate against climate change while diversifying America’s energy resources,” said Joel Velasco, Chief Representative in Washington for the Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA).

Sugarcane ethanol is a renewable fuel refined from cane that grows typically in tropical climates. Compared to other types of ethanol available today, using sugarcane ethanol to power cars and trucks yields greater reductions in greenhouse gases and is usually much cheaper for drivers to purchase. Brazil has replaced more than half of its fuel needs with sugarcane ethanol – making gasoline the alternative fuel in that country and ethanol the standard.  Many observers point to sugarcane ethanol as a good option for diversifying U.S. energy supplies, increasing healthy competition among biofuel manufacturers and improving America’s energy security.

The RFS2 will help the United States meet energy security and greenhouse gas reduction goals sought by the Energy Security and Independence Act of 2007 (EISA). The new regulations establish minimum biofuels consumption in the U.S. of more than 12 billion gallons (45 billion liters) in 2010, rising to 36 billion gallons (136 billion liters) in 2022, of which 21 billion gallons per year would have to be one of three types of advanced biofuels: cellulosic, biomass diesel, and “other advanced,” that meet required GHG reduction thresholds as determined by the EPA.

Today, EPA affirmed that sugarcane ethanol meets the “other advanced” category in the RFS2, although with a GHG reduction level that exceeds the requirement for all categories as well.  Specifically, EPA’s calculations show that sugarcane ethanol from Brazil reduces GHG emissions compared to gasoline by 61%, using a 30-year payback for indirect land use change (iLUC) emissions.

“We are pleased that EPA took the time to improve the regulations, particularly by more accurately quantifying the full lifecycle greenhouse emission reductions of biofuels. EPA’s reaffirmation of sugarcane ethanol’s superior GHG reduction confirms that sustainably-produced biofuels can play a important role in climate mitigation. Perhaps this recognition will sway those who have sought to raise trade barriers against clean energy here in the U.S. and around the world. Sugarcane ethanol is a first generation biofuel with third generation performance,” noted Velasco.

Last year, UNICA submitted comments to EPA with abundant scientifically credible evidence showing that – even including indirect emissions – sugarcane ethanol has a reduction of GHG emissions of 73-82% compared with gasoline, on a 30- or 100-year time horizon respectively. The RFS2 requires the use of at least 4 billion gallons (over 15 billion liters) of “other advanced” renewable fuels a year by 2022. In 2010, the RFS requires 200 million gallons of this type of advanced renewable fuels.

“While we are reviewing the final rule, it is clear that EPA has incorporated many of the comments that UNICA and other stakeholders made during the public process. EPA should be congratulated for the way it upheld the Obama’s goals of transparency and scientific integrity in the environmental rulemaking. And we hope that other governments should take note of the manner that EPA has handled this process,” concluded Velasco.

Brazil is a leader in the production of sugarcane ethanol, which is widely considered as the most efficient biofuel available today. In 2009, Brazil produced over 7 billion gallons of sugarcane ethanol, most of which is used in Brazil in flex fuel vehicles. As a result of Brazil’s innovative use of sugarcane ethanol in transportation and biomass for cogeneration, sugarcane is the leading source of renewable energy in the nation, representing 16% of the country’s total energy needs. In fact, gasoline has become the alternative in Brazil, reducing the country’s dependence on fossil fuels lowering emissions. A recent study in the November 2009 edition of the journal Energy Policy indicated that since 1975, over 600 million tons of CO2 emissions have been avoided thanks to the use of ethanol in Brazil.

———

ABOUT UNICA. The Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA) represents the
top producers of sugar and ethanol in the country’s South-Central region, especially the
state of Sao Paulo, which accounts for about 50% of the country’s sugarcane harvest
and 60% of total ethanol production. UNICA develops position papers, statistics and
specific research in support of Brazil’s sugar, ethanol and bioelectricity sectors. In 2008,
Brazil produced an estimated 565 million metric tons of sugarcane, which yielded 31.3
million tons of sugar and 25.7 billion liters (6.8 billion gallons) of ethanol, making it the
number-one sugarcane grower and sugar producer in the world, and the second-largest
ethanol producer on the planet, behind the United States.

—————-

Brazil Hopes Shell-Cosan Can Boost Ethanol Exports

Date: 04-Feb-10, Reuters from Brazil
Author: Inae Riveras – Analysis

SAO PAULO – Brazil’s ethanol industry, which invested heavily to boost output of the cane-based biofuel, is counting on a tie-up between sugar and ethanol producer Cosan and Royal Dutch Shell Plc to revive its prospects after exports fell short of expectations.

“Shell chose ethanol as the renewable fuel they want to be in and it chose Brazil. Whether this will mean more exports will depend on a series of circumstances beyond the companies’ control,” said ethanol expert Eduardo Pereira de Carvalho.

The slow rate of growth for ethanol exports has disappointed Brazil, where more than 450 mills joined the ethanol sector’s expansion drive in recent years.

Some analysts say any growth in ethanol exports will depend on oil prices more than other factor.

“The deal itself does not raise or reduce the economic viability of blending anhydrous ethanol in gasoline. This will be determined by the oil market,” said sugar and ethanol analyst Julio Maria Borges, director at Job Economia.

In 2008, when oil prices reached record highs of $147 per barrel, Brazil exported 5.1 billion liters of ethanol, up sharply from 3.5 billion liters the previous year. Countries simply bought more of the fuel to replace gasoline.

But oil prices tumbled as the global credit crisis intensified, and there was a similar decline in foreign interest for the cane-based fuel. Brazilian ethanol exports in 2009 slipped to 3.3 billion liters despite extremely low prices on the Brazilian market.

STEADY SUPPLIES, TARIFFS

If ethanol is economically viable compared to oil, however, Brazilian ethanol exports should benefit from Shell’s global infrastructure, commercial relationships and know-how.

Shell, with distribution centers and 45,000 filling stations around the world, will have access to annual supplies of 2 billion liters of Cosan ethanol.

“Shell will be able to strike long-term deals with clients around the world, something that currently hardly exists, as it will be backed by a big provider,” Borges said.

“It’s difficult to predict (when exports could rise)… but the strategic meaning of a company the size of Shell to invest here is the most important point,” Carvalho said.

The EU refuses to see the multi headed Hydra it has become and expects President Obama to play along. Reality calls – EU please get serious at becoming some sort of one headed entity! The US President is a busy man now with all that US Jazz.

It slowly starts sinking in – we said it a long time ago!

Battling the ‘Multilateral Zombie’ – EU climate strategy after Copenhagen.
LEIGH PHILLIPS

February 3, 2010, http://euobserver.com/9/29354/?rk=1,
 http://old.norden.org/analysnorden/defau…

EUOBSERVER / ANALYSIS – “The EU’s post-Copenhagen strategy should be
just to have a strategy, any strategy,” quips one Brussels think-tank
wag during an interview.

The rough hip-check Europe received in the Danish capital in December,
sidelining the bloc during the eleventh-hour huddle between major
powers that produced the Copenhagen Accord, has produced a wave of
despondency and cynicism amongst Brussels politicians, green
lobbyists, and analysts – and carbon traders across the continent to
boot. They’re all having a crack at how poorly the EU played its hand
during climate negotiations.

For the last three years, if it hasn’t been the institutional reform
of the Lisbon Treaty, it’s been the bloc’s obsession with climate
change that has dominated the EU agenda. Even if the EU is well off
the at least 40 percent cut in emissions that science demands if we
are to avoid catastrophic climate change, it remains the case that as
a result of its 2008 climate and energy package, Europe remains the
most advanced rich-country power on the planet in terms of its binding
CO2 reduction commitment.

With its climate boy-scout badge afixed to its sleeve, Brussels headed
off to Camp Copenhagen expecting at least to see its self-proclaimed
leadership reflected in winning something along the lines of a broad
commitment from other powers to at least a 20-percent cut in carbon
emissions below 1990 levels by 2020.

But in the end, the EU ended up the goody-two-shoes pupil who’s top of
the class, but yet, when he invites all the other kids over for a
party, glumly watches as they end up playing among each other instead
of with him. It was the US, China, India, Brazil and South Africa that
cobbled together the last-minute three-page-long Copenhagen Accord
without the EU even in the room, while most of the developing world
complained throughout the two weeks that Brussels was at best just a
cat’s paw for Washington.

Denmark’s Connie Hedegaard, now incoming EU
climate commissioner, was repeatedly attacked for favouring rich
countries over the developing world.

“It was the strangest conference I have been at in my life, from all
points of view,” Mr Barroso told a pow-wow of the leading European
think-tanks in early January.

Typical of the initial EU reaction were comments from Swedish
environment minister Andres Carlgren, who, when meeting in Brussels in
late December with his EU counterparts to debrief after the UN summit
and begin the discussion of what to do next, slammed the result as a
“disaster.”

“It was a really great failure and we have to learn from that,” he
said at the time. { but the gentleman forgot to say whose failure it was!}

Glass half full!

However, after the holidays, a clutch of pollyanna-ish EU officials
have since fervently urged everyone to consider the Accord’s silver
lining. Both President Barroso and the bloc’s chief climate
negotiator, Artur Runge-Metzger, in various venues have emphasised
that many of the things the EU had been pushing for were contained in
the final result – developed countries agreed for the first time a
concrete sum for climate finance, a target maximum average global
temperature increase of two degrees was embraced and a review,
allowing for a ratcheting up of targets if necessary, is foreseen for
2015.

At the same time, EU member states that have never been comfortable
with the bloc’s climate ambitions have used the opportunity to delay
or block European plans to boost its CO2 emissions reduction
commitment from 20 percent on 1990 levels to 30 percent. On 18
January, environment ministers met in Seville, to assess, for the
second time, the reasons for the failure in the Danish capital. UK,
France, Germany, Belgium and Spain continued to push for the increased
pledge, while Italy and Poland said now was not the time given the
poverty of ambition by other states at Copenhagen.

As of this week, the consensus in the bloc is to maintain its target
of 20 percent and conditional offer of 30 percent if other powers make
comparable efforts – in other words exactly the same position the EU
has held for the last year, although Ms Hedegaard has publicly said
she hopes to see a move to 30 percent “by Mexico,” meaning the next UN
climate summit in the Central American nation at the end of 2010.

At the same time, the commission itself is in the ‘twenty-percenter’
camp, pushing this position in Copenhagen, “afraid to be naked” with
nothing left to put on the table in the game of climate strip poker.
Moreover, crucially, the executive’s goal of a transatlantic emissions
trading system is unworkable with cuts pledges that are wildly
divergent and without legally binding commitments from Washington.

The US is looking to a 17 percent emissions reduction on 2005 levels,
which works out to be just three percent when using the same 1990
baseline year as the EU. Watch for the US, if legislation gets
through, at some point to somehow nudge up its cut to 20 percent and
the EU to stick to the same figure, dressed up in language about how
the two targets are now comparable, with a fudge over the differing
baseline years.

Support unravelling:

Separately, four of the five architects of the Accord, Brazil, South
Africa, India and China, have themselves gone lukewarm on the project,
smarting from accusations from much of the rest of the developing
world that these four richest of the poor countries had broken ranks
after a year of unprecedented global south unity.

“The two-track negotiating process …is the only legitimate process
to reach a legally binding treaty in Mexico,” he added.

Meanwhile, the cornerstone of the Accord, an understanding that
however limited America’s commitment, Washington would at least be
able to deliver on this promise.

But with the surprise election to the US Senate of Massachusetts
Republican Scott Brown on an anti-climate-bill ticket, killing the
Democrat’s filibuster-proof majority, the country’s climate
legislation is threatened. A defeated or heavily watered down bill
only engenders further reservations in the minds of Chinese, Indian
and even European leadership about promising tough reduction targets.

For all the public talk of Latin American, Chinese and African climate
“villains” blocking the process in Copenhagen, privately, there is
frustration with Washington as well. A senior EU policy official
speaking to EUobserver described President Obama’s position as the
same as that of George Bush. “We are willing but only if others move,”
the official said, attributing the position to both the current and
former US leaders.

One EU climate voice {?}

A popular post-Copenhagen analysis from the Brookings Institute, the
centrist US think-tank, that has made the rounds of officialdom and
NGO-land warns of a slow-motion failure scenario similar to the Doha
round of WTO talks, a process it describes as a “multilateral zombie”
in which climate negotiations “stagger on piteously, never making much
progress while never quite dying either.”

Nevertheless, despite the dark days and the cynicism of some
onlookers, we can already begin to sense the outlines of a European
strategy.

EU Council President Herman Van Rompuy has already said he hopes to
see a common climate strategy emerge from an 11 February extraordinary
EU summit originally scheduled to deal with the economy. Angela
Merkel, as well, has upgraded a climate meeting in Bonn in June from
expert to ministerial level and the European Commission is preparing a
series of proposals that it is to put to the member states.

While this sort of member-state activity is likely to continue, the
Lisbon Treaty has given the commission a powerful new diplomatic
weapon it intends to use to the fullest.

Sidelining the UN:

Related to this, the major task will be to break the remarkable unity
shown by developing nations. The UNFCCC’s principle dating back to
Kyoto of “common but differentiated responsibility,” is understood by
developing nations to mean that those countries that caused the
problem should pay for solving it and make binding commitments to CO2
reductions.

The third world has said that it would be happy to develop along a
low-carbon path itself, but that the rich north will have to pay for
this and that their emissions cuts should in any case be voluntary.
The World Bank, unhelpfully, has estimated the cost of all this to be
$400 billion a year. Meanwhile, wealthy nations, would rather that the
developing world, but specifically China and to a lesser extent India,
agree to binding, verifiable CO2 cuts without the price tag.

The key advantage of the Copenhagen Accord for rich countries is that
it “weakens or even does away with the principle of common but
differentiated responsibilities,” as the South Centre, a Geneva-based
think-tank close to developing world governments, warns – another
reason why the Basic countries, upon reflection, have taken a distance
from the deal.

In many ways, Copenhagen was a victory for the developing world, in
that it managed to hold off against pressure to junk the Kyoto
Protocol and in the end ensured that the Copenhagen Accord was only
“noted” by the UN plenary instead of endorsed, making it a document
floating in a legal limbo.

Border tariff:

It should also be remembered that many other major powers were
sidelined at Copenhagen. Japan and Russia were also absent from
Copenhagen’s endgame. In many ways, the EU’s limited influence has
been largely a product of its own climate success. Although Europe is
the world’s third largest emitter, this will likely change in the near
future. Ironically, if the continent isn’t going to be as much of a
problem in absolute (as opposed to per capita) terms as China or India
by 2030, it doesn’t have much of a bargaining chip. Washington was
always going to be far more interested in Beijing.

Copenhagen was very much the US and China show, but it won’t always be.

——–

This feature was originially written for the Nordic Council’s Analys
Norden website.

{ We wonder at the last sentence of the article because we think that unless the EU does in fact unite under  one leadership it will not amount to much when the US continues to deal with the BASICs – I mean the countries that are form the basic future. The EU should aim at becoming the G3 to be added to China and the US in future global negotiations that will include also the IBSA and one or two more states. See please next article.}

——————————————————————————-

US blames Lisbon Treaty for EU summit fiasco. Mr Obama – the Madrid summit decision is being seen as a diplomatic snub to Spain.
by ANDREW RETTMAN from Brussels.

February 3, 2010, http://euobserver.com/9/29398/?rk=1
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS  writes -  The US State Department has said that President Barack Obama’s decision not to come to an EU summit in Madrid in May is partly due to confusion arising from the Lisbon Treaty.

State department spokesman Philip J. Crowley told press in Washington on Tuesday (2 February) that the treaty has made it unclear who the US leader should meet and when. { that sounds very clear to me.}

“Up until recently, they [summits] would occur on six-month intervals,
as I recall, with one meeting in Europe and one meeting here. And that
was part of – the foundation of that was the rotating presidency
within the EU. Now you have a new structure regarding not only the
rotating EU presidency, you’ve got an EU Council president, you’ve got
a European Commission president,” he said.

“We are working through this just as Europeans themselves are working
through this: When you have a future EU-US summit meeting, who will
host it and where will it be held?” he added. “All of this is kind of
being reassessed in light of architectural changes in Europe.”

The Lisbon Treaty came into force on 1 December, 2009. It created the post
of a new EU Council president and EU foreign relations chief in order
to give the union a stronger voice abroad.

It kept the institution of the six-month rotating EU presidency as
well, with the member state holding the chairmanship to do the bulk of
behind-the-scenes policy work in Brussels.

The Spanish EU presidency is being closely watched to see how the EU
manages the transition to the new power structure. The EU Council
president has so far taken charge of summits in the EU capital. But
Madrid was to share the limelight with a few top-level events at home.

The state department’s Mr Crowley said the US and Spain have been in
touch “directly” to discuss Mr Obama’s decision after Madrid learned
about it through the media on Monday.

“Obviously, there’s been some disappointment expressed by the
government of Spain, and we understand that and we’ll be working with
them on that,” he said.

Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero and Mr Obama are both
expected to attend the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington on
Thursday. But no bilateral meeting has been announced so far.

Mr Zapatero, a centre-left secularist, has taken flak for his trip in
Spanish media, with the El Pais daily calling his decision to attend
the prayer event “shocking.”

The kernel of the future – the projected five world leaders – are in trouble. With the US and China in a tiff because of Taiwan (arm sales by US manufacturers) and Tibet (a visit with the Dalai Lama), now South Africa, one of the three IBSAs that met with the G2 in Copenhagen, shows sings of 21st century immaturity. You just cannot go on living by Zulu rules if you want to lead your people out of poverty. Tiger Woods learned that very very fast that the limelight of world media will do you in, and even oil rich monarchs do not father now 20 children anymore. The stories about Zuma’s ascent in South Africa were plenty and his people we know told us so when it was rumored that he is in line to take over his country’s helm. It seems that Mandela’s South Africa deserves better – so does the 15 States group of Southern Africa { http://www.sadc.int }, and black Sub-Sahara Africa at large. We said before, South Africa is the third IBSA not alone, but as the symbol of all that immense Sub-Sahara black chunk of resources rich land and its one billion people that have the potential of evolving into next great consumers market to drive their own economy and the world economy. To this mass of people, the South African President must be an example and our prejudice that we knowingly attempt to show by this posting, calls for an exemplary leader for South Africa – someone fit to try on Mandela’s shoes.

This week the African Union rejected the attempt of Libya’s rambling Gaddafi to hold on to the chairmanship of Africa for another year, and voted instead to give the position to Malawi President Bingu wa Mutharika. We attach the story about that event at the end of this posting, as we focus on the further ramblings by a Libyan-sponsored group of African traditional leaders from an unnamed French speaking African country, who crowned Qaddafi “King of Kings.” Africa seems to react indeed with understanding to the fact that the world is changing into a 7 to 10 countries structure and that Africa wants one of its own, and that means not Qaddafi, to be part of this structure – a modern man rather then a traditional chieftain – neither do they think anymore that the position of leader in Addis Ababa belongs to a Mediterranean North African settler. They want a black leader – but hiding under a Zulu mantle, and invoking rules of the desert, simply  can not do anymore.

——————–
South Africa’s President Sows (Another) Sex Scandal.

Theunis Bates
 http://abbaymedia.com/News/?p=3699
By JASON McLURE

ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia — Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, the Libyan leader, delivered a rambling rebuke of fellow African heads of state Sunday after they chose to replace him as chairman of the African Union and failed to endorse his push for the creation of a United States of Africa.

“I do not believe we can achieve something concrete in the coming future,” said Colonel Qaddafi, before introducing President Bingu wa Mutharika of Malawi as his successor at the African Union’s annual summit meeting, held in Addis Ababa. “The political elite of our continent lacks political awareness and political determination. The world is changing into 7 or 10 countries, and we are not even aware of it.”

South Africa, Ethiopia and Nigeria were among the countries opposing Colonel Qaddafi’s attempts to form a continental government, which many view as impractical given the political and economic disparities in Africa.

Colonel Qaddafi argued that individual African states are too weak to negotiate with major powers like the European Union, the United States and China. His efforts to become the first African leader to win another one-year term as chairman of the African Union were thwarted by a push for Mr. Mutharika, 75, by the 15-member Southern African Development Community.

The Libyan leader also complained that such summit meetings were boring, that his colleagues were too long-winded and that he often was not informed of African Union decisions.

Colonel Qaddafi did not leave the lectern before giving the microphone to an unnamed representative of a Libyan-sponsored group of African traditional leaders who had crowned him “King of Kings” in a ceremony in 2008.

The representative, bearing a golden scepter and trailed by an aide fanning him with a large feather, spent much of his address praising Colonel Qaddafi.

“You have the African people with you,” said the man, who spoke in French and did not identify himself. “This is what is important, not politicking. It is politicians who have destroyed us.”