We feel that if the data here is accurate, Arab business is rather looking for new talent in the new world. We believe that most young recruits to businesses in North Africa and the Middle East are returning young talent and that this positions well these business companies for the changing global atmosphere. It is rather that then looking to hire on the cheap. The business slow down has just helped refresh the human capital of MENA (The Middle East – North Africa Arab region).

—————
 http://www.arabianbusiness.com/595422-me…

MENA firms hire new graduates to cut costs – poll

by

Elsa Baxter,  Sunday, 22 August 2010.

Almost 40 percent of Middle East and North African (MENA) employees said their company was more interested in hiring new university graduates since the global recession, according to the latest poll by Bayt.com.

The survey, which consulted 13,197 respondents from across the region, found that 37.6 percent of people said their employers preferred to hire fresh graduates, while 26.4 percent said they were less inclined to do so. A further 19.2 percent of respondents said things were unchanged.

More than half (51.7 percent) of participants said the number one motivation behind the hiring was financial because new graduates command lower salaries and fewer benefits, while 12.7 percent said it was because they would have more passion for the job.

A further 10.4 percent it was because new graduates would have more creativity, 8.4 percent said it was due to their fresh analytical thinking, and 5.1 percent cited better communication skills. {our math says this is 37.6% or that one out of 2,9 respondents was honest about the motives. The others belong to the commonly held  idea that age makes people wiser while we rather think that today ag makes most people more obsolete}

“The results of our most recent poll show that in times of economic strife employers are perceived as more likely to hire fresh graduates mostly due to the fact that they accept a lower salary and require fewer benefits,” said Amer Zureikat, vice president of sales, Bayt.com.

The US is pulling out its combat forces from Iraq, but the Sunday TV main topic was THE MOSQUE.  As always – the best conversation was on Fareed Zakaria’s CNN/GPS program.

His guest were Bret Stephens from The Wall Street Journal and Peter Beinart – Senior Political Writer at the blog The Daily Beast, Associate Professor of Journalism and Political Science at the City University of New York, and a Schwartz Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation – till 2006 he was with The New Republic and still lives in Washington DC.

Stephens said that the legalities are clear but the issue is if this Mosque at that location advances interface dialogue and the answer is NO!

Beinart said you cannot divorce the right for building a Mosque from the right to decide where to build it. What about military bases? Will you next say that because there is sensitivity to Americans killed in wars in Muslim countries you cannot have a Mosque on a military base?

Stephens asked – wait – what if the German Government decides to build a tolerance center across the street from a concentration camp – this is much more like the present case.

Zakaria said – that is about irrational sensitivity – do you call this bigotry?

Stephens answered that the rights are indisputable and Bret said that you cannot ask people in the right not to use the right – this is equal to taking away the right.

Zakaria concluded that we talk past each other so the discussion is over. And that is the true state of these matters today.

We hope that Zakaria realizes now that his returning a prize to the ADL of the Bnei Brith was – well – premature.

Also, as he said that the discussion is really not ended – we suggest he invites next time also Anne Barnard whose article in today’s New York Times he did mention.

Anne Barnard is now on the city desk of the paper, but she is not a newcomer to these issues as sh worked in the Middle East – in Israel, Palestine, Iraq and Egypt. She has seen sensitivities from very close – not your regular city desk person. We know Anne for many years – actually since she was a kid – and have met her in different locations as well. We continue here with her material and hope she continues to keep her sights on the developments we expect when Imam Raouf returns from his Middle East tour.

———-

Further comments about Beinart. His parents immigrated to the US from South Africa and work in Cambridge where he was born. His mother remarried theater personality Robert Brustein. Beinart is Jewish and belongs to a liberal synagogue in Washington.

Peter Beinart has written: “The Icarus Syndrome – A History of American Hubris,” HarperCollins, June 1, 2010, and
“The Good Fight: Why Liberals–and Only Liberals–Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again,” HarperCollins, May 2006,

Beinart was a supporter of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.[7] and in a recent essay, he has argued that the tensions between liberalism and Zionism in the U.S. may tear the two historically-linked concepts apart.[8]

After leaving The New Republic, in 2007-2009, Beinart was a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

———-

Further comments about Bret Stephens: He was born in 1973 and grew up in Mexico City. Stephens went to the University of Chicago and the London School of Economics.[2]

Stephens began his career at the Journal as an op-ed editor in New York and later worked as an editorial writer for the Wall Street Journal Europe in Brussels. In 2006 he took over the “Global View” column from George Melloan, who has retired.

Between 2002 and 2004 Stephens was editor-in-chief of the Jerusalem Post, a position he assumed at age 28 – the youngest person ever to hold that position. He is the winner of the 2008 Eric Breindel Award for Excellence in Opinion Journalism.
In 2005, Stephens was named a Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum, where he was previously a media fellow. He is also a frequent contributor to Commentary magazine.[3]

———

Fareed Zakaria promised that on his program this emotional discussion will be rational – what he did not say was that he is in effect pitting against each other two well qualified Jews. We do not believe that THE MOSQUE – that is that particular Mosque – is only an issue for Jews. We indeed believe that his next panel will pull in other “suffering souls” as well.

————————————————–

Feisal Abdul Rauf’s Balancing Act in Mosque Furor – NYTimes.com

The full article by our friend Anne Barnard, as above, but as published front page The New York Times had the title:
Complicated Balancing Act for Imam in Mosque Furor – Complicated Balancing Act for Imam.
 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/nyregi…

It includes The Imam’s history and his father’s history – both of them highly interesting people. While the father was an employee of the Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, and eventually led to the construction of the New York Islamic Center cum Mosque at the corner of East 96th Street and 3rd Avenue in Manhattan, Feisal became the Imam of the Sufi congregation downtown. Then he attempted also the building of a large Center cum Mosque.

William Sauro/The New York Times

Mr. Abdul Rauf’s father, Muhammad, in 1968. He ran the Islamic Center of New York.

————————-

Far away from New York, in Bend Oregon (by Western Communications, Inc.) retained the New York Times in print – name of the article – but our friend’s article was reshaped  as follows:
 http://bbedit.sx.atl.publicus.com/apps/p…

Complicated balancing act for imam in mosque furor.

By Anne Barnard / New York Times News Service

Published: August 22. 2010 4:00AM PST

Muslims need to understand and soothe Americans who fear them; they should be conciliatory, not judgmental, toward the West.

That was Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s message, but not everyone in the Cairo lecture hall last February was buying it. As he talked of reconciliation between America and Middle Eastern Muslims — his voice soft, almost New Agey — some questions were so hostile that he felt the need to declare that he was not an American agent.

But one young Egyptian asked: Wasn’t the United States financing the speaking tour that had brought the imam to Cairo because his message conveniently echoed U.S. interests?

“I’m not an agent from any government, even if some of you may not believe it,” the imam replied. “I’m not. I’m a peacemaker.”

That talk, recorded on video six months ago, was part of what now might be called Abdul Rauf’s prior life, before he became the center of an uproar over his proposal for a Muslim community center two blocks from the World Trade Center site. He watched his father, an Egyptian Muslim scholar, pioneer interfaith dialogue in 1960s New York; led a mystical Sufi mosque in Lower Manhattan; and, after the Sept. 11 attacks, became a spokesman for the notion that being American and Muslim is no contradiction — and that a truly American brand of Islam could modernize and moderate the faith worldwide.

In recent weeks, Abdul Rauf has barely been heard from as a national political debate explodes over his dream project, including somewhere in its planned 15 stories near ground zero, a mosque. Opponents have called his project an act of insensitivity, even a monument to terror.

In his absence — he is now on another Middle East speaking tour sponsored by the U.S. State Department — a host of allegations have been floated: that he supports terrorism; that his father, who worked at the behest of the Egyptian government, was a militant; that his publicly expressed views mask stealth extremism. Some charges, the available record suggests, are unsupported. Some are simplifications of his ideas. In any case, calling him a jihadist appears even less credible than calling him a U.S. agent.

Growing up in America

Abdul Rauf, 61, grew up in multiple worlds. He was raised in a conservative religious home but arrived in America as a teenager in the turbulent 1960s; his father came to New York and later Washington to run growing Islamic centers. His parents were taken hostage not once, but twice, by American Muslim splinter groups. He attended Columbia University, where, during the Six-Day War between Israel and Arab states like Egypt, he talked daily with a Jewish classmate, each seeking to understand the other’s perspective.

He consistently denounces violence. Some of his views on the interplay between terrorism and American foreign policy — or his search for commonalities between Islamic law and this country’s Constitution — have proved jarring to some American ears, but still place him as pro-American within the Muslim world. He devotes himself to befriending Christians and Jews — so much, some Muslim Americans say, that he has lost touch with their own concerns.

“To stereotype him as an extremist is just nuts,” said the Very Rev. James Morton, the longtime dean of the Church of St. John the Divine, in Manhattan, who has known the family for decades.

Since 9/11, Abdul Rauf, like almost any Muslim leader with a public profile, has had to navigate the fraught path between those suspicious of Muslims and eager to brand them violent or disloyal and a Muslim constituency that believes itself more than ever in need of forceful leaders.

One critique of the imam, said Omid Safi, a professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina, is that he has not been outspoken enough on issues “near and dear to many Muslims,” from Israel policy to treatment of Muslims after 9/11, “because of the need that he has had — whether taken upon himself or thrust upon him — to be the ‘American imam,’ to be the ‘New York imam,’ to be the ‘accommodationist imam.’ “

Akbar Ahmed, chairman of Islamic studies at American University, said Abdul Rauf’s holistic Sufi practices could make more-orthodox Muslims uncomfortable, and his focus on like-minded interfaith leaders made him underestimate the uproar over his plans.

“He hurtles in, to the dead-center eye of the storm simmering around Muslims in America, expecting it to be like at his mosque — we all love each other, we all think happy thoughts,” said Ahmed.

“Now he has set up, unwittingly, a symbol of this growing tension between America and Muslims: this mosque that Muslims see as a symbol of Islam under attack and the opponents as an insult to America,” he added. “So this mild-mannered guy is in the eye of a storm for which he’s not suited at all. He’s not a political leader of Muslims, yet he now somehow represents the Muslim community.”

Andrew Sinanoglou, who was married by Abdul Rauf last fall, said he was surprised the imam had become a contentious figure. His greatest knack, he said, was making disparate groups comfortable, as at the wedding bringing together Sinanoglou’s family, descended from Greek Christians thrown out of Asia Minor by Muslims, with his wife’s conservative Muslim father.

“He’s an excellent schmoozer,” Sinanoglou said of the imam.

Many different Islamic influences

Abdul Rauf was born in Kuwait. His father, Muhammad Abdul Rauf, was one of many graduates of Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, the foremost center of mainstream Sunni Muslim learning, whom Egypt sent abroad to staff universities and mosques, a government-approved effort unlikely to have tolerated a militant. He moved his family to England, studying at Cambridge and the University of London; then to Malaysia, where he eventually became the first rector of the International Islamic University of Malaysia.

As a boy, Abdul Rauf absorbed his father’s talks with religious scholars from around the world, learning to respect theological debate, said his wife, Daisy Khan. He is also steeped in Malaysian culture, whose ethnic diversity has influenced an Islam different from that of his parents’ homeland.

In 1965, he came to New York. His father ran the Islamic Center of New York; the family lived over its small mosque in a brownstone on West 72nd Street, which served mainly Arabs and African-American converts. Like his son, the older imam announced plans for a community center for a growing Muslim population — the mosque eventually built on East 96th Street. It was paid for by Muslim countries and controlled by Muslim U.N. diplomats — at the time a fairly noncontroversial proposition. Like his son, he joined interfaith groups, invited by James of St. John the Divine.

Hostage crisis

Unlike his son, he was conservative in gender relations; he asked his wife to not drive. But in 1977, he was heading the Islamic Center in Washington when they were taken hostage by a Muslim faction; it was his wife who challenged the gunmen on their lack of knowledge of Islam.

“My husband didn’t open his mouth, but I really gave it to them,” she told The New York Times then.

Meanwhile, Abdul Rauf studied physics at Columbia.

In his 20s, Abdul Rauf dabbled in teaching and real estate, married an American-born woman and had three children. Studying Islam and searching for his place in it, he was asked to lead a Sufi mosque, Masjid al-Farah. It was one of few with a female prayer leader, where women and men sit together at some rituals and some women do not cover their hair. And it was 12 blocks from the World Trade Center.

Divorced, he met his second wife, Khan, when she came to the mosque looking for a gentler Islam than the politicized version she rejected after Iran’s revolution. Theirs is an equal partnership, whether Abdul Rauf is shopping and cooking a hearty soup, she said, or running organizations that promote an American-influenced Islam.

A similar idea comes up in the Cairo video. Abdul Rauf, with Khan, unveiled as usual, beside him, tells a questioner not to worry so much about one issue of the moment — Switzerland’s ban on minarets — saying Islam has always adapted to and been influenced by places it spreads to. “Why not have a mosque that looks Swiss?” he joked. “Make a mosque that looks like Swiss cheese. Make a mosque that looks like a Rolex.”

In the 1990s, the couple became fixtures of the interfaith scene, even taking a cruise to Spain and Morocco with prominent rabbis and pastors.

Abdul Rauf also founded the Shariah Index Project — an effort to formally rate which governments best follow Islamic law. Critics see in it support for Taliban-style Shariah or imposing Islamic law in America.

Shariah, though, like Jewish law, has a spectrum of interpretations. The ratings, Kahn said, measure how well states uphold Shariah’s core principles like rights to life, dignity and education, not Taliban strong points. The imam has written that some Western states unwittingly apply Shariah better than self-styled Islamic states that kill wantonly, stone women and deny education — to him, violations of Shariah.

After 9/11, Abdul Rauf was all over the airwaves denouncing terrorism, urging Muslims to confront its presence among them, and saying that killing civilians violated Islam. He wrote a book, “What’s Right With Islam Is What’s Right With America,” asserting the congruence of American democracy and Islam.

That ample public record — interviews, writings, sermons — is now being examined by opponents of the downtown center.

Those opponents repeat often that Abdul Rauf, in one radio interview, refused to describe the Palestinian group that pioneered suicide bombings against Israel, Hamas, as terrorist. In the lengthy interview, Abdul Rauf clumsily tries to say that people around the globe define terrorism differently and labeling any group would sap his ability to build bridges. He also says: “Targeting civilians is wrong. It is a sin in our religion,” and, “I am a supporter of the state of Israel.”

“If I were an imam today I would be saying, ‘What am I supposed to do?’” said John Esposito, a professor of Islamic studies at Georgetown University. “‘Can an imam be critical of any aspect of U.S. foreign policy? Can I weigh in on things that others could weigh in on?’ Or is someone going to say, ‘He’s got to be a radical!’”

——————————————————————–

Could it be that the solution leads to a true CORDOBA HOUSE OF CULTURE AND INTER-RELIGIOUS UNDERSTANDING with all Cordoba three religions having footholds at the center – not  a Mosque.

In this case what if Rabbi Marc Schneier who started together with the East 96 Street Islamic Center’s Imams his good-will exchanges gets a foothold and offices there? The Battery Park Holocaust Museum could be linked, and the Archbishop of the Trinity Church of the neighborhood as well – that is with offices in the building. This would call for a joint board and joint ownership in the name of good intentions. It would be considered a step towards healing within the possible of the memory of 9/11/o1 within reach of the 10th memorial of the event. Clearly – this does not answer the call for a larger Mosque, neither will this be a place with Synagogue and church – we know that the institutions must be separate.

If separation is preferred, then a gesture of exchange of real estate for a different location would be appreciated.

——————————————————————

President Obama also went on TV today – breaking his vacation because of the media attacks on him branding him a Muslim.

Obama blamed this crazzy media culture when the main issue is the pulling out from Iraq but the focus is on “THE MOSQUE” – is this just an August diversion? By whom?

Michel Martin (an Emmy Award winning American journalist and correspondent for ABC News and National Public Radio. After ten years in print journalism, Martin has for the last 15 years become best known for her news broadcasting on national topics.), asks whom are we talking about as media? It is just the Conservative Pundits that keep on drumming? Or is there by now a symbiotic relationship between the right wing bloggers and the main-stream media? It does not make sense to pretend that there is not a concern with Islam. We heard on TV that Glen Beck said Lincoln Day has no meaning for him – so he calls for a rally at the mall on that day. Aha I said – if that is so – why do you expect more consideration from adherents of Islam – Americans or otherwise? Are Americans so dam by now that they cannot see that insensitivity breeds more insensitivity?

It is easy to sum up the situation in regard to Muslims being believed that they intend to lead a healing attempt while creating a furor that can only result in a new heating up of deep sentiments. If the intent was by some to build a Mosque at the place of victory over the infidel, but the Muslim majority was – or was not – part of that intent – is now irrelevant. The way out can be by moving the new Islamic Center to some place – “in eye contact” – across the water – Brooklyn, Staten Island, New Jersey – and dedicate it as originally stated  to a CORDOBA HOUSE – rather then the limping  Park 51 Project.

We want also to point at the clearly sluggish pace of donations to Pakistan as another outcome from this last stand taken by Muslims in America – and the threat hanging over America’s head that 100 million young Pakistani Muslims, helped by extremists at their moment of physical constraints, rather then by their own government, nor by the Western cultures, as nothing less then the evolution of Bin Laden because of his fight against the America propped up Saudi regime.

The reality is that internal disagreements in the Islamic world are being projected against US Administrations that support out of convenience the existing regimes in these Islamic countries, and the extremists stood up in efforts to oppose their own leaders, and only secondly, took upon themselves to fight the protectors of the hated regimes.

The US people are not supposed to understand all of that when faced with a 9/11 and are not to be stepped upon even in a case where the superficial right as well as the deep meaning of American Democracy is on their side. Clever Arab States will try – like the Obama Administration is trying – to build bridges rather then burrowing in the trenches of the small print. Go ahead and show magnanimity.

By the way, could little Kuwait that offered $5 million to Pakistan, without ever having been involved in the dismantling of that country, or the UAE at $1.5 million, tell the much larger Saudi Arabia, that shipped its own Jihadists to Pakistan being part of the internal fracas there, that according to UN listings offered now peanuts to Pakistan – could they do some more when compared with the US offer of $150 million. Actually – just remember those two planes of Bin Laden family being shipped out from a US under air embargo by the Bush family, those days immediately following 9/11. There are very good reasons for Americans to be mad and for Arabs to take the low road that we suggest can be in this case the real high road.

———————

From all that sea of articles in the press of today – I pick the following as it is the easiest – it is from aol:

NATION
Construction Workers Oppose Mosque Near Ground Zero

by Hugh Collins, Contributor to aol News.

NEW YORK (Aug. 20) — The proposed Islamic center near ground zero is facing stiff opposition from a group that will be vital if the plan is to be realized: the New York City building industry.

Construction worker Andy Sullivan has set up a “Hard Hat Pledge” on his website, calling on construction workers to vow not to do work on the Park51 community center and mosque, the New York Daily News said.

Diane Bondareff, MCT
Mosque opponent Andy Sullivan stands outside the site of the proposed mosque and Islamic center on Park Place near lower Manhattan’s ground zero on Thursday.

Sullivan is not alone. Several New York construction workers interviewed by AOL News declared their opposition to the project.

“It doesn’t make any sense to be there,” said Eduard Nika, a marble worker. “The mentality these people have, it’s not anything to do with religion.”

The planned mosque and community center two blocks from the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks that killed 3,000 people has spiraled from a local zoning issue into a national political debate.

Public figures such as Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich have blasted the plan, saying it is an insult to the families of the victims. The Anti-Defamation League, whose mission statement says it exists to fight “all forms of bigotry,” has said the center should be built at another location.

Others, such as Mayor Michael Bloomberg and President Barack Obama, have said that while they understand the strong resentment the project arouses, any effort to block the Islamic center would infringe on American values of freedom.

Handyman Frank Rivera, who said three of his relatives were in the World Trade Center at the time of the attack but survived, believes the project would be bad for New York City and an insult to the families of victims.

“It shouldn’t be there. It’s a slap in the face,” Rivera said.

Like Nika, he said he would sooner quit his job than work on the project.

But not everyone is opposed to the Islamic center. Mike Bakovic, who works in interior construction and painting, said he’d work on the project — even if he didn’t get paid.

“Muslim people have the freedom or religion, same as everyone else, the Jew, the Catholic, everyone else,” Bakovic said. “Islam is peaceable, like every other religion. “

Louis Coletti, president of the Building Trades Employers Association, told the Daily News that labor unions had not taken a “formal position” on the plan. Still, he said it was ” a very difficult dilemma for the contractors and organized labor force.”

State Dept. sponsors trip for imam connected to N.Y. mosque project

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man behind the Park51 Muslim community center and mosque proposed on a site near New York’s Ground Zero, leaves this week for a three-nation Middle East tour on behalf of the State Department, during which he is expected to speak about the controversy surrounding his project.

Rauf will leave New York and travel to Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, a State Department official tells The Cable. The cost of the trip is $16,000.

The State Department has no knowledge or control of the specifics of what Rauf will talk about as he tours the region, but officials note that his agenda could not be more directly related to the backlash against his project, still slated to be built in Lower Manhattan.

“His program is about religious diversity and tolerance in America. Will he relate that to his personal situation? Probably,” another State Department official said.

The State Department has been shy about talking about Rauf and the trip, ostensibly to avoid wading into the controversy over the community center. But that didn’t stop officials from posting New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s impassioned defense of the project on the State Department-run Web site America.gov. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said that because the site is directed at foreign audiences, State was not violating the Smith-Mundt Act, which prohibits the U.S. government from spreading propaganda inside American borders.

Rauf’s trip is organized by the State Department’s Bureau of International Information Programs and will not include any fundraising. This is his third trip with the State Department; the first was in 2007 under the George W. Bush administration. Rauf also visited Egypt in January.

A push to assist Iraqis who aided U.S.

As the drawdown of U.S. troops in Iraq accelerates, the thousands of Iraqi citizens who have worked with the U.S. military since the 2003 invasion face an even more uncertain future. Members of Congress are calling on the administration to devise a new plan to help them.

In 2008, a shocking article in the New York Post, written by U.S. Marine Owen West, described the harrowing experience of translators and aides to U.S. troops in Iraq as they tried to escape the threats on their lives and transition to a better life in America. It was an excruciatingly long process full of bureaucratic hurdles.

Those who have made it the United States — more than 35,000 Iraqi refugees have arrived since 2003 — face another set of near-insurmountable challenges. Eligible for one-time grants ranging from $900 to $1,800, most have trouble finding work and are still fighting with the State Department for permanent resident status.

Congress held hearings and eventually passed legislation in 2008 to expand services for Iraqis who had worked with the U.S. military. But now, as the U.S. military leaves Iraq, Congress members are calling on the administration to do more.

Twenty-two senators and representatives wrote to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates recently to demand that the administration come up with a comprehensive plan to support the thousands of Iraqis who have worked for the U.S. military.

“The United States has a moral obligation to stand by those Iraqis who have risked their lives — and the lives of their families — to stand by us in Iraq for the past seven years,” the lawmakers wrote.

Senator contests pick for ambassador to Turkey

The GOP is holding up the nomination of Frank Ricciardone to be the next U.S. ambassador to Turkey. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) wrote to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday explaining his objections to the nomination.

Brownback, who will retire from the Senate at the end of this year, has long been critical of Ricciardone, dating to the nominee’s time as ambassador to Egypt during the Bush administration and as one of the key officials chosen to strengthen Iraqi opposition groups in early 2003. Brownback states in his letter that Ricciardone “downplayed” the Bush administration’s pro-democracy efforts in Egypt and “did not favor” a strong effort to work with Iraqi opposition groups in the run-up to the invasion.

“From the latter days of the Bush administration to today, opposition groups from Africa to the Middle East to Asia have been questioning the U.S. commitment to democracy and human rights. Given these questions, I am not convinced that Ambassador Ricciardone is the right ambassador for Turkey at this time — despite his extensive diplomatic experience,” Brownback wrote.

www.arabianbusiness.com suggests that modern advanced thinking about energy might someday find its way to the oil countries – that is when they run out of gas, but we wonder why they needed the regional grid anyway and why they do not think of the sun and the wind in their energy planning.

———————-

Gulf power grid to meet demand for extra 55,000MW

by Neeraj Gangal

Saturday, 26 June 2010.

The regional electricity network currently servicing the four GCC countries of Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, will play a key role in meeting demand for an additional 55,000 MW of power through 2015, according to a report on Friday.

The first phase of the grid, which was launched during the second half of 2009, has already been completed, Oman Daily Observer said.

The UAE could be added to the network within 2010, it added.

“The transnational system might still not be enough to keep pace with the Gulf’s rapidly growing power consumption. Although ongoing regional capacity is at around 75,000 MW, a projected 9.5 percent growth in annual demand will require more electricity and energy projects,” the Oman Daily Observer report noted.

GCC Power 2010, the 8th Regional Conference for National Committees of CIGRE (the International Council on Large Electric Systems) in the Arab Countries to be held from October 18 to 20, 2010 in Doha, Qatar, will reveal business and partnership opportunities driven by the region’s huge power demand, it said.

George Ayache, General Manager, IFP Qatar, organiser of GCC Power 2010 said, “GCC Power 2010 is the only event capable of providing a comprehensive view of the latest developments in electricity and energy affecting the Gulf region.”

The event will combine panel and technical sessions with international exhibitions to offer a full range of information and options to industry and government decision makers.

The event will also share valuable insights on Qatar’s thriving energy business, which has emerged as one of the country’s primary growth sectors, George Ayache said.

The GCC Power 2010 Conference will discuss development, technologies and techniques in system operation and control, system planning, development and technical studies, substations, power transformers and reactors, switchgear and hv equipment, transmission lines and cables, hvdc and power electronics, and emerging technologies, according to the Oman Daily Observer.

Last year’s edition gathered around 500 international delegates to discuss more than 50 papers on electricity and energy. GCC Power 2010 is owned by CIGRE, the GCC regional committee for large electricity systems, it added.

————————–
 http://www.arabianbusiness.com/591436-gu…

READERS’ COMMENTS

Disclaimer: The views expressed here by our readers are not necessarily shared by  ArabianBusiness.com or its employees.

—-   —-  —-

Waste to Energy
Posted by scorp2x, Abu Dhabi, UAE on Sunday 27 June 2010 at 17:29 UAE time

There are other options for creating power as well. My own company are trying to establish an excellent ‘waste to energy’ facility in the UAE and other Gulf States. Such a facility can produce power by converting all kinds of waste into usable energy and with almost zero emissions and no harmful waste product at all. In fact, any waste by product is all usable in either the steel industry of the building industry. This is a truly green project and we hope to win support for this very soon.

– — –

Energy is saved is equal to energy produced.
Posted by Dastagir, Trichur, India on Saturday 26 June 2010 at 19:22 UAE time

One important thing that I noticed during my 3 months in stay in Dubai is the misuse of electricity. Almost all the buildings there are power hungry, especially the malls,exhibition halls,flats etc… The excessive height, over usage of glass,lack of ceiling fans in some flats,some types of light fittings, etc… are some reasons for the huge conception of electricity. It is already been to late to enter the green electricity concept like solar power at least to some areas like public parks,traffic lights,etc.. Nuclear power is also a option if it is built and operated safely. Let us not forget nuclear accidents like Chernobyl and the after effects of a accident.

Probe at UN climate talks after Saudi sign smashed

Saturday, 12 June 2010 10:06
author:Reuters
POLITICS & ECONOMICS / NEWS
by Reuters, Saturday, 12 June 2010

UN climate negotiators agreed to an investigation on Friday after protesters smashed a sign emblazoned “Saudi Arabia” and dropped it in toilet after Riyadh blocked a study of deeper cuts in greenhouse gases.

Many countries condemned the protest, after Saudi Arabia blocked a request by small island states at the May 31-June 11 talks for a study of tougher cuts in greenhouse gases to help slow a rise in world sea levels.

Mexico’s delegate Luis Alfonso de Alba, whose country will host the main climate talks in late 2010, said he was initiating an investigation by the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat.

 http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowP…

Vol. 9, No. 25    May 14, 2010 Rising Tension between Iran and the Gulf States. by Zvi Mazel The Gulf states are conducting an appeasement policy toward Tehran while with increasing dread they helplessly follow the nuclear crisis, epitomized by Iranian determination and aggression in the face of American weakness. In the last few weeks we witnessed a number of acrimonious exchanges between the Gulf states and Iran following the exposure of an Iranian clandestine network in Kuwait and renewed tension between the UAE and Iran over the continuous occupation by Iran of three islands belonging to the UAE. An Iranian spokesperson said that the Emirates states belonged to Iran and when the time came, they would come under Iran’s control. The official Iranian news agency warned the Gulf states against pursuing confrontation: “There is no lion in the region save for the one that crouches on the shore opposite the Emirate states. He guards his den which is the Persian Gulf. Those who believe that another lion exists in the vicinity (meaning the U.S.) – well, his claws and fangs have already been broken in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Palestine.” It is Qatar, which hosts large American military bases, that maintains the most cordial relations with Iran. Qatar is also influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood. Despite the fact that the Brotherhood members are Sunni, they have elected at this juncture to support Iran in its conflict with the United States. The provocative naval maneuvers that Iran continues to conduct are indeed intended as a warning to the United States and Israel, but they also convey a clear message to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states: “We are here alongside you and we have massive power. Do not dare to provoke us.” The Impotence of the Gulf States Relations between Iran and the Gulf states are more strained than ever. Iran is issuing threats and working non-stop to undermine their stability. It repeatedly declares that these countries are part of its historic territory and it will take them over at the appropriate time. In the meantime, Iran is exploiting their territory and services to circumvent the sanctions that were already imposed on it over the last two years. Straw companies were established in Dubai and apparently in Bahrain and Kuwait as well to purchase sophisticated products on Iran’s behalf that were needed to advance its nuclear program. The banks in these countries also provide a smokescreen for illicit transactions and money-laundering by Revolutionary Guard leaders. The Gulf states are aware of what is going on, but in the meantime, they are conducting an appeasement policy toward Tehran – even if they themselves have no confidence in it. All this is occurring while with increasing dread they helplessly follow the nuclear crisis, epitomized by Iranian determination and aggression in the face of American weakness. Iranian Subversion and the Gulf States The tension level in the region has increased in recent days as once again a measure of Iranian subversion in the Gulf states came to light.1 In Kuwait a spy network acting on behalf of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards was uncovered; it intended to establish the infrastructure in anticipation of a takeover of the country: to incite the Shiites against the regime, establish sleeper cells to act when the time came, and provide support for illicit economic activity.2 This time parliament members insisted that Kuwait not back down from confronting Iran, and the attorney general has already submitted an indictment to the courts. Kuwait, located between Iraq and Saudi Arabia on the Gulf shore, is considered a stable and moderate country, with close ties to the United States. It provides strategic depth and a lifeline for the American army in Iraq. American soldiers on their way to and from Iraq pass through Kuwait, and the U.S. Army’s weapons and munitions are funneled via Kuwait. Tension with the Emirates over the Occupied Islands The confrontation between Iran and the United Arab Emirates escalated as UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahyan compared the continuous occupation by Iran of three islands belonging to his country to “the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian lands.”3 Iran conquered these islands (Abu Musa and Greater and Lesser Tunb) during the time of the Shah in 1971, the year that the Emirates gained independence from British rule. In recent years Iran has settled the islands and established military camps there. The rulers of the Emirates, on the other hand, continue to reiterate their demand that Iran restore the islands or agree to international arbitration. Iran refuses. The issue is also on the Arab League agenda, and at every senior-level conclave the demand to restore the islands to their legal owners is emphasized. Iran Responds to Kuwait with Derision and Menace The Iranian response to Kuwait and the UAE was as brutal as ever. Iran totally denied that spies acting on its behalf were operating in Kuwait and warned the entire regional media “not to take lightly their responsibility to publish credible information and particularly [avoid] baseless information.” This affair recalls the exposure of a Hizbullah cell in Egypt whose members were placed on trial and sentenced to long prison terms.4 In this case, Hizbullah conceded its guilt, but explained that the intention was to assist Hamas in Gaza against Israel. Nevertheless, everyone knows that Hizbullah was operating in the service of Iran to strike at Egyptian stability. In a response to the declaration by the UAE foreign minister, the charge’ d’affaires of its embassy in Iran was summoned to the Foreign Ministry where he was read a protest, whose main points were that “the Iranian people considered itself aggrieved by the foreign minister’s declaration and that the response to these declarations would be severe.” An Iranian spokesperson even said that the Emirates states belonged to Iran and when the time came, they would come under Iran’s control. The Lone Lion in the Gulf With these incidents in the background, the official Iranian news agency published a notice warning the Gulf states against pursuing confrontation in the following picturesque language: There is no lion in the region save for the one that crouches on the shore opposite the Emirate states. He guards his den which is the Persian Gulf. Those who believe that another lion exists in the vicinity (meaning the United States) – well, his claws and fangs have already been broken in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Palestine. No good can be expected of him or his hunting sorties. Today he is counting the days until he finds a way out that will allow him to escape by the skin of his teeth. Iran, the Emirates, and the other countries in the region will remain, by dint of geography, neighbors forever.5 This is indeed an interesting and realistic expression of the condition in the region as long as the West does not alter its weak policy. A Rise in the Level of Escalation with Bahrain Iranian confrontation with Bahrain made recent headlines when the director of the Bahraini anti-drug trafficking apparatus, Mubarak bin Abdallah al-Marri, said at a regional conclave in Riyadh that Iran operated directly to smuggle drugs into Bahrain and Saudi Arabia and that both countries had thwarted many smuggling attempts by sea in Iranian vessels coming from Iranian territory.6 A year ago, one of Khamenei’s advisors announced that Bahrain was the 14th district of Iran, an announcement that triggered severe responses in the Arab world. Egyptian President Mubarak immediately flew to Bahrain to express his support. Intermittent reports are published about Iranian subversion in Bahrain with the assistance of Shiite citizens who constitute about 60 percent of the population.7 It is to be recalled that the Bahraini authorities produced intelligence for the Clinton administration in the mid-1990s that Iran was behind a subversion campaign to overthrow the Bahraini government. In 1995, Tehran acquired a new incentive: the U.S. upgraded its naval presence in Bahrain to become the headquarters of the newly-created U.S. Fifth Fleet. Successful Iranian subversion in Bahrain would also have a major strategic consequence by forcing the withdrawal of the U.S. Navy from its main base in the Persian Gulf, just as Iran seeks to establish itself as the hegemonial power of the entire region. Qatar – The Odd Man Out in Its Support of Iran It is precisely Qatar, which hosts large American military bases, that maintains the most cordial relations with Iran. This policy apparently derives from the desire of Qatar’s ruler, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa, who is engaged in a protracted dispute with Saudi Arabia, to flaunt his independence as compared with the other Gulf states which efface themselves before Saudi Arabia. Qatar is also influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood, which maintains a large and influential presence there. Despite the fact that the Brotherhood members are Sunni, they have elected at this juncture to support Iran in its conflict with the United States. Two years ago, the Qatari ruler invited Iranian President Ahmedinejad to a summit meeting of the Gulf Cooperation Council without informing his colleagues, who expressed their displeasure. He also sent his chief of staff to Tehran to examine options for military cooperation.8 During Israel’s Gaza Operation, he even convened an Arab summit, together with Syria, that called for severing relations with Israel, thus arousing Mubarak’s ire. The Qatari shift occurred right after the Bush administration released its 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran that suggested the Iranians had suspended key aspects of their nuclear weapons program back in 2003. From the perspective of the Persian Gulf states, this was the first indication that they might not be able to rely on U.S. determination to block Iran’s quest for regional hegemony, and the Qataris sought a rapprochement with Iran instead. Oman, situated astride the exit from the Persian Gulf, attempts to maintain balanced relations with both Saudi Arabia and Iran, and recently refused to join a convention for a monetary union of Gulf states. Saudi Arabia’s Plight Saudi Arabia, the largest Sunni state and the caretaker of Islam’s holy places, is worried. Despite the fact that it has expended prodigious sums on the purchase of American weapons and equipment, its small army is incapable of deterring or even contending with Iran. It is doing its utmost to assist Sunni forces struggling against the spread of the Shiite wave under the baton of Iran, as we have witnessed in Iraq, Lebanon, and most recently in Yemen with the Houthi revolt that is supported by Iran. Eastern Saudi Arabia, where the country’s largest oil reserves are located, contains a sizable Shiite minority. Their incitement by Iran could trigger a civil war and inflict mortal damage on Saudi oil resources and exports, the cornerstone of the Saudi economy and the royal family’s power. At this stage, although Saudi Arabia is in the same camp with Egypt versus Iran, Riyadh prefers to maintain relative calm in its communications, to avoid provocation and aggravated tension, in the belief that its friend the United States will protect it. Yet Saudi-owned media outlets openly admit the magnitude of the Iranian threat. For example, Abd al-Rahman al-Rashed, director-general of the Saudi Al-Arabiya network, wrote in the Saudi London daily Asharq al-Awsat that nuclear weapons in Iran’s hands would help it dominate the Middle East region through subversion: “We fear the logic of the current regime in Tehran, which spent the country’s funds on Hizbullah, Hamas, the extremist movements in Bahrain, Iraq and Yemen, and the Muslim Brotherhood, and supported every extremist in the region. The Ahmadinejad regime aspires to expansion, hegemony, and a clear takeover on the ground, and to do this he needs a nuclear umbrella.”9 Given the failed attempts by the West to impose sanctions on Iran, and the voices emerging from Washington that diplomacy is the way to solve the crisis and that the military option is off the table, Ahmedinejad has nothing to fear, at least at the current stage. He feels he can advance his subversive plan and strike at the countries of the region. The provocative naval maneuvers that Iran continues to conduct are indeed intended to deter the United States and Israel, but they also convey a clear message to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states: “We are here alongside you and we have massive power. Do not dare to provoke us.” Meanwhile, the United States offers no response. *     *     * Notes 1. Iran has trained secret networks of agents across the Gulf states to attack Western interests and incite civil unrest in the event of a military strike against its nuclear program, a former Iranian diplomat has told the Sunday Telegraph. Trained by Iranian intelligence services, they are also said to be recruiting fellow Shias in the region, whose communities have traditionally been marginalized by the Gulf’s ruling Sunni Arab clans. The claims have been made by Adel Assadinia, a former career diplomat who was Iran’s consul-general in Dubai and an adviser to the Iranian foreign ministry. Colin Freeman, “Iran Poised to Strike in Wealthy Gulf States,” Sunday Telegraph (UK), March 4, 2007. 2. In the wake of the arrests, Bahraini authorities said they had arrested a Bahrain national suspected of links to the Kuwait spy operation. “Gulf Leaders Back Kuwait in Alleged Iran Spy Case,” AFP, as reported in Asharq al-Awsat, May 12, 2010. 3. “Iran Occupation of UAE Islands like Israel’s: FM,” Al Arabiya, April 21, 2010, http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2010/04/21/106444.html. 4. Miret El Naggar, ”Hezbollah Spy Cell in Egypt Found Guilty of Terror Plots,” McClatchy-Christian Science Monitor, April 29, 2010, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2010/0429/Hezbollah-spy-cell-in-Egypt-found-guilty-of-terror-plots. 5. IRNA news agency, as reported in Asharq al-Awsat (UK), May 2, 2010. 6. “Iran Accused of Money Laundering, Drug Trafficking,” Arab Times (Kuwait), May 7, 2010, http://www.arabtimesonline.com/NewsDetails/tabid/96/smid/414/ArticleID/153492/reftab/96/t/Iran-accused-of-money-laundering-drug-trafficking/Default.aspx. 7. While it’s unclear whether the Kuwaiti cell indeed extended to Bahrain and the UAE, Bahrain has also been subject to subversive activities in recent years. On the eve of the Gaza war of 2008-2009, the Bahraini authorities announced the arrest of a group of Shia militants who had received training in Syria, accusing them of planning terrorist attacks during Bahrain’s national day celebrations. As for the UAE, it followed Kuwait’s lead by deporting foreigners, especially Lebanese Shia. Starting in summer 2009, scores of Shia were suddenly expelled. Tony Badran, “The Shape of Things to Come with Iran,” Now Lebanon, May 13, 2010, http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=167522. 8. “Iran, Qatar Sign Defense Cooperation Agreement,” Tehran Times, February 25, 2010, http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=214868. 9. L. Barkan, “Reactions in the Gulf to Tension over Iranian Nuclear Issue,” MEMRI, April 8, 2010. *     *     * The writer, a former Israeli ambassador to Egypt and Sweden, is a Fellow of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. This essay reflects the view of the author alone.

|  Privacy Policy |  Site Map |  Home |
JCPA, Beit Milken, 13 Tel Hai St., Jerusalem 92107, Israel, Tel: 972-2-5619281 Fax: 972-2-5619112, jcpa@netvision.net.il

The six-member Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) agreed in 2001 to create a shared currency to help them integrate economies and pursue a monetary policy more independently of the US.

All of the council’s members except Kuwait peg their currencies to the dollar.

Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Qatar on December 15 announced the creation of a Monetary Council, a step toward establishing a shared currency. The board of the council, which will set a timetable for establishing a joint central bank and choose a currency regime, will meet for the first time on March 30.

Oman opted out in 2007. The UAE, the second-biggest Arab economy, withdrew from the currency project in May 2009 after the Saudi capital, Riyadh was selected as the location for the Monetary Council, the future central bank.

The UAE has no plans to rejoin the union project, said January 6, 2010 central bank Governor Sultan bin Nasser al-Suwaidi.Today, in Abu Dhabi, he said that the UAE remains committed to the concept of a single currency, though free trade in the region must come first. That is the reason for a Bloomberg new report on the topic.

In Washington DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh – the news were the record snow. So, that keeps them busy – the need to dig out from under that snow.

So far as governing goes, the Village Voice – that is Greenwich Village in new York City – wrote that the Republicans won a 41-59 majority as a result from the Massachusetts avalanche.

The new weather predictions are that the President will set now the agenda and expect the Democrats to follow – AMEN!       That is leadership – for God’s sake with 59 still standing – what do they wait for?

Further – he – that is Obama – will try to brow-beat the Republicans to cooperate first. The American people say Washington is too partisan ? If that were true the 59 would be good enough – but really? Who are the Obstructionists?

If Obama invites the Republicans to come on board that would be very clever – it would tell the Democrats to stop being obstructionists.

But, politics might be such that the Republicans feel comfortable to project that they are THE PARTY OF NO!

How do you pull out a rabbit from your top-hat? How do you change unemployment rates with nothing happening in the economy? The Republicans might be happy to see the Administration collapse – the country collapse – so who cares about OSAMA!

Obama tells the Democrats – we will be losers together if you do not shape up and they returned – SHOW US THE WAY!

——————

Next topic:  How long can the World’s biggest borrower continue to be the World’s biggest power?

If we get to the point that we have a difficulty to sell our treasuries in the world we will cease to be a big power – that came from Greenspan – the former head of the Federal Reserve. Henry Paulson, the present holder of that job seemed less convincing.

David Walker, former US Controller General – head of the GAO – now head of te Peterson Foundation – wrote a book on the US deficit that has reached now $1.56 trillion and this is untenable.

—————–

Fareed Zakharia on China-US relations – a US – China economic war is MAD – that is Mutual Assured Destruction – he thinks that the two are symbiotically bound now. I think he is wrong. China has such a huge internal market that it can continue well by producing just for their own people without exports to the US. They may not want to do that because it would mean a too soon push at increasing China’s middle class and risking folks ask for a mellowing down of the political regime. But nevertheless, this does not assure an immediate rebellion. In the US rather – a rebellion is possible – or a call for some real war – internally or externally.

To the latest two skirmishes – the US sending $6.4 billion worth of weapons to Taiwan, and Obama hosting The Dalai Lama at the White House. Both topics are not new. The military hardware agreement with Taiwan was agreed in 2001, and the Dalai Lama has visited every single US previous President since he landed in India. Why did the Chinese get excited right now? That is before the April visit they will be making themselves to the White House? What about the Iran sanctions and the fact that Obama was left to wait outside that China conference room in Copenhagen? Are we going to see some muscle show here?

Christiane Amanpour, on her program had as guest Victor Gao, of the China National Association of International Studies.

He pointed out that the US sells weapons to Taiwan that it does not allow for sale to China. China is now the largest credit maker to the US. What if China buys less for several months? Is 2010 going to be the year that Obama gets tough and China gets nasty? Neither of them can afford a real trade war.

David Rothkopf affirmed that “we are interconnected” so we have to develop a different approach.

Victor Cha – he was on China desk at the National  Security Council. He said – This is a MUTUAL HOSTAGE GAME – both sides lose.

—————-

Fareed Zakharia in Davos, had in front of an audience a half hour interview with King Abdullah II of Jordan.

It started out with Fareed pointing out the two main problems he thinks are facing Jordan: Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the Islamic fighting movement, but he was brushed aside by the King who continued coming back to the Israeli – Palestinian problem.

Fareed said that no-one has yet lost money by betting against Peace in the Middle East, but the King countered that the credibility of the US is at stake. We desperately need the undivided attention of the US – he said. If God forbid we cross the line of the viability of the 2 State Solution, what are we left with – continuing warfare – or even worse – the One State solution that many Israelis dread?

Fareed wanted to know if there is a Jordan option and was told flatly by the King that it will not work – Jordan absolutely does not want the West Bank. Are we talking of a viable entity? A third of the UN do not recognize Israel now.  The building of the wall has made Israel safer Fareed said and he spoke with President Peres who believes in a two States solution for the future of Israel but because of the security threats they think only of today and not the future.

The King disagreed – the injustice felt towards the Palestinian people pushes all other issues. He thinks that if you solved the problem of the Palestinians why should Iran then want the nuclear power. It does not make any sense for them to continue on that path. For now, it is the Palestinian issue that propels Iran’s efforts. When asked if he thinks that if not for the Israeli – Palestinian issue, there would be no Islamic terrorism? The King retreated by saying that – for evil to succeed – is for good men to do nothing. Evil will always exist – the evil always will be evil. On November 9, 2005 we had our own 9/11 and proportionately we lost twice as many people as the US casualties. The Israeli-Palestinian issue is is incendiary that it drives everything else.

Fareed suggested that Professor Bernard Lewis explained that it was rather because of the lack of openness in the Muslim world that created the Al Qaeda – it was against Egypt and Saudi Arabia. We have 400 million young people in the Islamic world that need a direction. My role is to create a viable political Middle Class. If you want to move your country it is education – education – education. Bahrain speaks our language – so is a list of young countries that agree.

————-

Christiane Amanpour had a panel on security issues and wanted to know what are the real security problems today. Surely it was not what you would have expected to hear. She was told:

- Outer Space

- The Open Sea

- The Cyber Space

- The Polar Ice Caps.

So far as the conventional thinking she was told that Washington and Beijing have less to fear from each other then from failed States like Somalia.

When satellites become more crucial they become targets. Where are the National borders in cyber-space? Most governments cannot even define a cyber attack.

Zbigniew Brzezinski said that we have to define the nature of the threat. Today it is not as lethal as it was when within 6 hours we could have had 80 million casualties in the cold war. But today attacks are less predictable even though less lethal.

The US still has a higher sophisticated technology capability. The Google issue is a cyberthreat. Are the hackers from China government? Do they really come from China? We may have to retaliatete selectively and we must have a foreign policy that does not object to this.

The way the domestic policy goes now, will Obama continue the international engagement that he started out with so well? Now we have gridlock.

Brzezinski called for Presidential leadership. Also – the President should persevere with the Iran effort.

The other topic is the Israeli -Palestinian conflict. Rhetorically Obama gets an A, For Performance a B or B-

On space – we must avoid a nuclear race in space – we must have the capacity to shoot down satellites and space vehicles.

———————

From the Kathie Crowley show – her interview with Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, I picked up one fleting issue – the names of the countries the Secretary mentioned as friends to work with in the present world. She clearly mentioned the big two China and India, but then she spoke also of other major economies – Brazil, South Africa and Turkey. I mention this here because it vindicates our recent decision to move Turkey to the Home-page of www.SustainabiliTank.info and it seems that we were right.

Clearly, there were no Europeans mentioned in that segment, neither Mexico nor Canada or Japan.

The title may look strange, and indeed nobody put the three meetings I attended Friday, November 20, 2009, in direct contact with each other – but then my imagination was busy telling me – what if those people would indeed sit in the same room and plan together for a better functioning world?

First – the Solar Tower Technology:

An experimental smaller tower I saw years ago in Israel, but in the 1980s a German firm built a 50 kw prototype tower in Spain and operated it for 8 years collecting data. That tower was 650 feet tall and 33 feet wide, and the collector was about 1000 feet wide. The technology combines wind and solar technologies to produce electricity without emissions, without using up water, and at a price competitive with fossil fuels. The Solar Tower uses solar insolation and radiation to heat air beneath a large translucent collector (greenhouse) that creates a constant flow of air to drive electricity-generating turbines. The turbines are located at the base of the tower in a shape like an orange cut in a half. There is an updraft of air in the tower. There is also a capability to store heat so the system works also at night and electricity is delivered 24/7.
For more information look please at - www.enviromission.com.au

A 200MV Tower is planned for the Mohave desert in Arizona. The tower will reach 2400 feet height and the inside temperature will be 180 degrees. The location was picked so that it will supply electricity to a market in California.

The information was presented by Mr. Christopher Davey, President, EnviroMission (USA), Inc. and hosted by Mark Townsend Cox, Managing Partner of New Energy Fund www.newenergyfundlp.com with further backing from Raymond James & Associates, Inc., members of the New York Stock Exchange.

Second – the financial meeting was billed as The Middle East Leaders Forum 2009 and was hosted by DLA Piper a law firm with pan-Gulf presence www.dlapiper.com  I www.MiddleEastLeadersForum.com was organized with the help of Edgar Perez, CEO of Golden Networking who chaired the event. www.goldennetworking.com DLA has 3,500 lawyers in 29 countries throughout Europe, the Middle East, Egypt, the US, South Asia, and Asia in general.

The panels dealt with -
Evolution of Capital Markets in the Middle East;
Alternative Approaches for Private Equity Investing in the Gulf;
Tapping into the World’s Richest Sovereign Wealth Funds;
Retaining Talent and Focusing Teams in the Middle East.

The speakers ranged from the Thompson Reuters Head of Islamic Finance to various International Investment Groups – management and strategy heads. What I came away with is the clear understanding that there is a lot of private money out there – even if much of it is held by individuals in the name of Sovereign entities. This money will not want to buy US treasuries. Places like Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and Qatar – the smaller members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) – have turned into Financial Centers and one of the speakers called the GCC the biggest bank in the world. Sure, there was a lot of talk of outside investments potential in the GCC States, also about income from oil, but now the ruling families are rather interested in being seen as investors and manager of finances then oil producers. So, here is my angle – why not invest in the technologies of the future – like the Solar Tower I mentioned above? There is also the angle of Islamic Finances that do not have as a target gains from interest – so why not turn this into investments instead?

There is a lot of sun in the desert, but no water – so these towers could do a lot of good for the development of the GCC region itself. They could also invest in the production of electricity in Sahara and sell it in Europe. Cables will be the new energy pipelines. They could start by participating already in the first development of the technology in Arizona. This could also improve the image of states that seem to be pushing only for sales of oil – something they can start being less dependent on because of their new standing as financial centers. The technology could also be related to desalination projects …

Third – the Friendship Ambassadors Foundation that since 1973 facilitates cultural exchange programs that promote mutual understanding and peace. The foundation brings volunteers and NGOs for meaningful exchanges that also focus on sustainable development. These are the people that could through example facilitate thinking that there is a common good in helping bring about change when change is needed – and today doing something about decreasing a potential runaway of climate change is the order of the day. Patrick Sciarratta, is the Executive Director of the Ambassadors – they could try to promote a common ground between those that have the money they could use to work out needed answers to the stalled Copenhagen process, and the technology people that have the know-how. www.FAF.org

One not so trivia I learned about the Friendship Ambassadors last evening was the fact that among the many young people they brought from the Developing world to the United States were Kofi Annan and Shashi Tharoor, when they were still young students – they later became among the most successful, low key, public servants in UN history. Kofi Annan as perhaps the only other Secretary General, besides Dag Hammarskjold, that left a positive imprint on the organization, and Shashi Tharoor, author of many books of thought, the highest intellectual Under-Secretary General in charge of Communications, who tried to be Annan’s successor, but was seemingly too much for the G.W. Bush Administration for that job. I mention this here as it seems that this youth-Ambassador NGO, that was funded originally from the Readers Digest fortune, has indeed had the penchant of picking right people – specially among the young – to promote global understanding for right causes.

My conclusions for the day – there is hope if the right people will provide the links between the different elements that are in place already, rather then allow these elements to fester in their solitude and pursue a detrimental future unconnected.

OBAMA BEGINS PRESSURING ARAB LEADERS ON DEAL WITH ISRAEL
The San Francisco Sentinel, 28 July 2009

BY NATHAN GUTTMAN

Freezing the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank was once seen as a unilateral Israeli obligation. But the Obama administration is now treating this as part of a package that will require concessions from Arab states as well.

An intensified and more public focus on this idea appears to be one of the byproducts of U.S. President Barack Obama’s July 13 pledge to American Jewish communal representatives to address perceptions that he is pressuring only Israel.

So far, the Arabs have been resistant. Still, in the wake of Obama’s White House meeting with the Jewish delegation, Israeli, American and Arab leaders have, to varying degrees, shifted their rhetoric in ways that reflect acceptance of a new principle of reciprocity.

“The Americans now understand that if they get anything from us on the settlement issue, it will only be in the broader context of some kind of Arab return,” said an Israeli diplomat, echoing other similar comments from Israeli officials recently. The official added that talks between U.S. Mideast envoy George Mitchell and Defense Minister Ehud Barak have focused on components of a two-sided deal that will include both a settlement freeze and reciprocal steps by Arab countries.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared to confirm this in a policy speech two days after Obama’s White House meeting with the Jewish representatives.

“Progress toward peace cannot be the responsibility of the United States – or Israel – alone,” Clinton told the Council on Foreign Relations. “Arab states have a responsibility to support the Palestinian Authority with words and deeds, to take steps to improve relations with Israel and to prepare their publics to embrace peace and accept Israel’s place in the region.”

A U.S. State Department official told the Forward that steps by the Arab parties were fundamental to Mitchell’s mission.

“Special envoy Mitchell continues to engage in constructive conversations with all parties, including Israel, the Palestinians and the Arab states, on steps they could take to help create a climate in which to re-launch negotiations,” he said.

At least some Arab parties to the peace process also now appear to accept this.

“The price we pay will depend on what kind of a deal we get on the settlement issue,” said an Arab diplomat in response to questions about Israel’s stand. “In return for a symbolic compromise on the settlements, some Arab states will be willing to pay with some symbolic gestures.”

But so far, the Obama administration appears stymied in its efforts to obtain a commitment to new concessions toward Israel by Arab states, even in the event of an Israeli commitment – nonexistent up to now, even conditionally – to a settlement freeze.

The administration has been frustrated in particular in its quest for flexibility from Saudi Arabia. According to experts and diplomats, tensions between Washington and Riyadh were building even prior to Obama’s meeting with Jewish leaders, as a result of a June 3 meeting between Obama and King Abdullah in the Saudi capital. The meeting ended with a clear disagreement over the issue of Israel.

“Why should the king of Saudi Arabia, who is the leader of the Muslim world and the imam of his Muslim community, give something of this nature to the Israelis for free?” asked Jamal Khashoggi, editor-in-chief of the Saudi daily newspaper Al-Watan. “This is a new idea that was probably developed by Israel’s friends in Washington.”

Khashoggi said the Saudi monarch believes his 2002 peace initiative, supported by the entire Arab League, already offered concessions and showed the kingdom’s wish for peace.

Israel never responded to the Saudi initiative. But in her speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Clinton said that embracing the 2002 Arab peace plan is not enough, and that concrete initial steps are needed now.

The initiative, which Obama has cited as a helpful basis for discussion, commits the Arab world to an official peace agreement with Israel and normalized relations with it if Israel withdraws to its pre-1967 borders, accepts the establishment of a Palestinian state and resolves the issue of Palestinian refugees in accordance with United Nations resolutions.

Those U.N. resolutions, however, appear to require the refugees’ return to homes in present-day Israel, constituting one of Israel’s principal objections to the proposal.

No handshakes or visas

America’s request for signs of normalization with Israel is now focused on symbolic steps. According to Arab and American diplomatic sources, Washington is now asking for the reopening of commercial interest offices of Oman, Qatar and Morocco in Israel and for permission for Israeli commercial airliners to fly over Gulf states, shortening flights from Israel to East Asia by several hours. Public overtures, such as a handshake with Israeli leaders, or providing tourist visas to Israelis seeking to visit Arab countries, are not on the table now, said an Arab diplomat with close knowledge of the talks. The diplomat stressed that such public gestures are viewed as being at the top of the scale of normalization and therefore will be kept for the final phase of the peace process.

“The Arab consensus is that normalization is the last card they have to play,” the diplomat said.

Prior to the emerging emphasis on reciprocity, Israel’s obligation to freeze the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank was understood to be an independent requirement of the so-called road map for Middle East peace. The 2002 road map, forged by the Bush administration with international partners, required Israel to “immediately” dismantle settlement outposts that even Israel classifies as unauthorized, and to freeze all settlement activity, including natural growth.

The road map also requires the Palestinians to take concrete steps to halt terrorism and violence. But this, too, appears as an independent obligation, untied to any action by Israel.

The new Sadat:

The most significant sign thus far of Arab willingness to adopt America’s call for normalization has come from the small Gulf kingdom of Bahrain. In a July 16 op-ed published in The Washington Post, Sheikh Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa, the Bahraini crown prince, called on Arab countries to reach out and communicate with Israel.

“Essentially, we have not done a good enough job demonstrating to Israelis how our initiative can form part of a peace between equals in a troubled land holy to three great faiths,” Khalifa wrote.

He went on to criticize Arabs who wish to perpetuate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict so that Palestinian victims “can be manipulated as proxies.” The Bahraini leader also urged Arabs not to waste more time in waiting for Israelis to take the first step, calling this approach “small-minded.”

Samuel Lewis, a former American ambassador to Israel who was directly involved in the Israeli-Egyptian peace talks in the late 1970s, equated Khalifa’s article to peace gestures made by Egyptian president Anwar Sadat before signing the treaty with Israel 30 years ago.

“This is exactly the kind of message that an Arab leader gives both to the United States while at the same time aiming at other Arab leaders,” Lewis said in a July 17 conference call organized by Israel Policy Forum.

But Bahrain is still a lone voice among Arab countries. Letters that Obama sent out in June to Arab leaders calling on them to be forthcoming in the peace process have remained largely unanswered. This prompted the president to reportedly state, in his meeting with Jewish leaders, that “there is not much courage” within the Arab leadership.

Experts argue that the roots of the disagreement with Saudi Arabia, considered a linchpin for progress, go deeper.

Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said the Saudis are disappointed with many aspects of Obama’s policy: His drive for ending America’s dependency on foreign oil, the decision not to appoint a close confidant as ambassador to Saudi Arabia and choosing the route of diplomatic engagement with Iran.

“There is a Saudi feeling that this administration does not recognize the importance of Saudi Arabia and does not appreciate them,” Alterman said.

—————

further, Daniel Levy, Director, Middle East Task Force, New America Foundation and Senior Fellow, Prospects for Peace Initiative, The Century Foundation, informs us of a recent debate on the Economist’s website. The motion in question was:

“This house believes that Barak Obama’s America is now an honest broker between Israel and the Arabs.”

The content can be found at: http://www.economist.com/debate/overview…

Bahraini Crown Prince: “We Must Do More, Now, To Achieve Peace.”

The Pulse, POSTED JULY 17, 2009
In an unprecedented and far reaching op-ed in the Washington Post, the Crown Prince of Bahrain, Shaikh Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa makes some critical points about the need for some “fresh thinking” apropos the Arab Peace Initiative and the Arab-Israeli relationship.  As the Crown Prince puts it:

This crisis is not a zero-sum game. For one side to win, the other does not have to lose.

The peace dividend for the entire Middle East is potentially immense. So why have we not gotten anywhere?

Our biggest mistake has been to assume that you can simply switch peace on like a light bulb. The reality is that peace is a process, contingent on a good idea but also requiring a great deal of campaigning — patiently and repeatedly targeting all relevant parties. This is where we as Arabs have not done enough to communicate directly with the people of Israel.

An Israeli might be forgiven for thinking that every Muslim voice is raised in hatred, because that is usually the only one he hears. Just as an Arab might be forgiven for thinking every Israeli wants the destruction of every Palestinian.

Essentially, we have not done a good enough job demonstrating to Israelis how our initiative can form part of a peace between equals in a troubled land holy to three great faiths. Others have been less reticent, recognizing that our success would threaten their vested interest in keeping Palestinians and Israelis at each other’s throats. They want victims to stay victims so they can be manipulated as proxies in a wider game for power. The rest of us — the overwhelming majority — have the opposite interest.

It is in our interest to speak up now for two reasons. First, we will all be safer once we drain the pool of antipathy in which hatemongers from both sides swim.

Second, peace will bring prosperity. Already, the six oil and gas nations of the Gulf Cooperation Council have grown into a powerful trillion-dollar market. Removing the ongoing threat of death and destruction would open the road to an era of enterprise, partnership and development on an even greater scale for the region at large.

The wasted years of deadlock have conditioned Israelis to take on a fortress mentality that automatically casts all Palestinians as the enemy — and not as the ordinary, decent human beings they are.

Speaking out matters, but it is not enough. Our governments and all stakeholders also must be ready to carry out practical measures to help ease the day-to-day hardship of Palestinian lives.

The two communities in the Holy Land are not fated to be enemies. What can unite them tomorrow is potentially bigger than what divides them today.

Both sides need help from their friends, in the form of constructive engagement, to reach a just settlement.

We must stop the small-minded waiting game in which each side refuses to budge until the other side makes the first move. We’ve got to be bigger than that. All sides need to take simultaneous, good-faith action if peace is to have a chance. A real, lasting peace requires comprehensive engagement and reconciliation at the human level. This will happen only if we address and settle the core issues dividing the Arab and the Israeli peoples, the first being the question of Palestine and occupied Arab lands. The fact that this has not yet happened helps to explain why the Jordanian and Egyptian peace accords with Israel are cold. They have not been comprehensive.

We should move toward real peace now by consulting and educating our people and by reaching out to the Israeli public to highlight the benefits of a genuine peace.

To be effective, we must acknowledge that, like people everywhere, the average Israeli’s primary window on the world is his or her local and national media. Our job, therefore, is to tell our story more directly to the Israeli people by getting the message out to their media, a message reflecting the hopes of the Arab mainstream that confirms peace as a strategic option and advocates the Arab Peace Initiative as a means to this end. Some conciliatory voices in reply from Israel would help speed the process.

Some Arabs, simplistically equating communication with normalization, may think we are moving too fast toward normalization. But we all know that dialogue must be enhanced for genuine progress. We all, together, need to take the first crucial step to lay the groundwork to effectively achieve peace. So we must all invest more in communication.

Once we achieve peace, trade will follow. We can then create a “virtuous circle,” because trade will create its own momentum. By putting real money into people’s hands and giving them real power over their lives, trade will help ensure the durability of peace. The day-to-day experience would move minds and gradually build a relationship of trust and mutual interest, without which long-term peacemaking is impossible.

When stability pays, conflict becomes too costly. We must do more, now, to achieve peace.

It’s hard to create a democracy: From The Economist print edition – Kuwait’s mould-breaking election.

Via Roberto Savio’s IPS “Other News,” May 21st 2009 – Cairo- A recent general election in Kuwait may not make the government more effective.

THE economy of Kuwait is exceedingly well oiled. With just 3.4m residents, only a third of them indigenous citizens, the emirate sits on a claimed 8% of the world’s petroleum reserves. Yet for all this wealth, Kuwait’s political system remains creaky and crash-prone. Rather than inspiring the Persian Gulf’s more authoritarian monarchies to reform, its 46-year-old experiment with limited democracy has often seemed a model to be avoided. Just since 2006, batterings from the 50-member parliament, which has tended lately to be dominated by Islamists and conservative tribal leaders, have sent five successive governments tumbling like ninepins.

Growing frustration with this game prompted a lower turnout in a general election on May 16th, but the results have raised hopes of change for the better. Overall, 21 incumbents lost their seats, among them several prominent Sunni Islamists.

Parties are officially outlawed in Kuwait, meaning that candidates run as independents. But the affiliations of many are widely known, making some trends clear.

Representation of the Muslim Brotherhood, for example, has shrunk from three seats to one in the incoming parliament; an arch-traditionalist Salafist Islamist group has dipped from five to two. At the same time, the number of Shia MPs has risen from five to nine, closer to the minority sect’s 20%-plus share of the population.

Most eye-catchingly, enough of Kuwait’s 385,000 eligible voters shook off traditional habits to elect women for the first time since they gained full political rights in 2005.

Four women, all with doctorates from American universities, and only two of whom cover their hair as a sign of piety, won seats, and by convincing margins.

Masouma Mubarak, a dean at Kuwait University, who had faced stiff Islamist opposition when holding ministerial rank in three cabinets, easily outpolled all rival candidates in her district. This is a first for the Gulf monarchies-bar a woman in the nearby kingdom of Bahrain who stood unopposed in a tiny constituency; a female has also been elected to the United Arab Emirates’ federal council, but the voters are themselves handpicked by the authorities.

Yet while liberals have cheered the result as a mark of social progress, it does not necessarily augur plain sailing for the al-Sabah family that has ruled Kuwait since the 18th century. Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad, who became emir in 2006, has exercised his privilege of giving family members top cabinet posts, repeatedly choosing his nephew, Sheikh Nasser Muhammad, as prime minister. Yet parliament’s latest dissolution, in March, was prompted by the prime minister’s objection to being questioned in parliament over his alleged mishandling of the economy, and possibly having to face a confidence motion.

With the emir having again reappointed Sheikh Nasser, and with the returning parliament sure to include some of his loudest critics, the stage looks set for a resumption of clashes. Ordinary Kuwaitis are wary not only of further dithering over such things as a planned bail-out package for financial institutions hit by the global recession and an oft-delayed mega-project to develop new oilfields. Rumours also hint at tensions in the Sabah family, with princely rivals to Sheikh Nasser said to be quietly egging on his parliamentary foes.

Given their huge stockpile of national savings from the oil boom years, plus plenty of continued income despite the drop in oil prices, Kuwaitis can probably afford to go on bickering anyway. Some incoming MPs, including Ms Mubarak, promise to push for procedural reforms to make the parliament’s relations with the cabinet less confrontational. And still, for all its hiccups, Kuwait’s hybrid system of government looks downright racy next to the crusty paternalism of the states nearby.

Saudi Arabia’s rulers, for instance, have just scorned another of the numerous petitions from their people demanding democratising reforms, showing disdain by abruptly postponing the only elections the country runs, to half the seats on town councils that do not do much anyway. In the kingdom, Ms Mubarak would not only be denied the right to vote or run for public office. She could not drive to such an office in her own car, or even sit in it if that might mean mingling with the opposite sex.

His Excellency Manouchehr Mottaki, Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran since 2005, has come now for the third time to The Asia Society during the September – October period of the UN General Assembly In New York City.

Last year I had the opportunity to ask him about about Climate Change and why Iran, with its great scientists, and people involved at the UN level, does not embark in a leadership position in the area of renewable energy rather then striving for nuclear energy incurring only indignities. Others asked him about Iran’s stand on Israel.

This year – none of the above. One question from the floor asked about Israel – but was answered in the general line of the presentation – without the question been tackled at all. The Moderator was illustrious US Career Ambassador Frank G. Wisner, who served as impeccable host, presenting lots of compliments to his guest and making sure he is very comfortable. Further, The Asia Society simply managed to put the press away in a back room, and without the Q & A period reaching out to them – that is except the literally last question which asked about the possibility for regional negotiations in the crucial Middle East problem.   And the answer to that question was then submerged under the previous line of presentation that exposed beautifully the way Iran wants to be seen. No mention was made of the name Israel also in this   answer by the Minister.

The reality is   that many in Iran like actually some of the cocoons   created via the 1980 revolution that came as a reaction to some real injustices its people incurred from the hand of the US CIA when it undid the Mohammad Mosaddeq   April 28, 1951 – August 19, 1953 regime for its nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) and reinstated the   Shah who returned   on 22 August 1953, from the brief self-imposed exile in Rome. Also, some in the US Administration feared that Mossadeq was, or would become, dependent on the pro-Soviet Tudeh Party, at a time of returning Soviet influence, and too close for comfort to have the cold War Tectonic Plates reach towards the Saudi and Iraqi oilfields.

The extent of the US role in Mossadeq’s overthrow was not formally acknowledged for many years, although the Eisenhower administration was quite vocal in its opposition to the policies of the ousted Iranian Prime Minister. In his memoirs, Eisenhower writes angrily about Mossadeq, and describes him as impractical and naive, though he stops short of admitting any overt involvement in the coup.

Eventually the CIA’s role became well-known, and caused controversy within the organization itself, and within the CIA congressional hearings of the 1970s. CIA supporters maintain that the plot against Mosaddeq was strategically necessary, and praise the efficiency of agents in carrying out the plan. Critics say the scheme was paranoid and colonial, as well as immoral.

In March 2000, then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stated her regret that Mosaddeq was ousted: “The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran’s political development, and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America.” In the same year, the New York Times published a detailed report about the coup based on alleged CIA documents. For his sudden rise in popularity inside and outside of Iran, and for his defiance of the British, Mosaddeq was named as Time Magazine’s 1951 Man of the Year. Other notables considered for the title that year included Dean Acheson, President Dwight D. Eisenhower and General Douglas MacArthur.

In early 2004, the Egyptian government changed a street name in Cairo from Pahlavi to Mosaddeq, to facilitate closer relations with Iran.

 Now, these last few paragraphs, obviously, do not come from the monologue of Minister Mottaki, but I thought to bring this up because otherwise the show at the Asia Society cannot be understood, and the Ministers personality grasped.

***

The literally last question mentioned above, that came from the back-room filled with people from media was added when the announced “last question” that came from a lady sitting at the front-right table, clearly laudatory asked, “for those of us interested in the understanding of the history of the Middle East, when did Iran invade last one of its neighbors?”   The clear short answer was – “not in our lifetime.”

***

Had be given to me the opportunity to ask a question – what I had in mind was something like this:

“In light of what your excellency has said in regard to regional solutions for regional problems, and in light of justifiable aspirations by Iran to become an Asian powerhouse, what is your reaction to the Bahrain proposal at this year’s High-Level Meeting of the UN General Assembly, when Bahrain suggested the creation of a new UN organization comprising ALL STATES OF THE REGION – that wasinterpreted as meaning a Middle East organization that includes Israel?” This is exactly the most wanting direct question that was not put before our guest.

***

From The Speakers Profile and The Internet:

 Manouchehr Mottaki was born   May 12, 1953 in Bandar Gaz, in the northern Iranian Province of Golestan, and went to school there. Bandar-Gaz, during the Reza Shah Pahlavi rule, was an important city in the north with a national railroad and “several infrastructures.” It was considered   a transit bridge to the Soviet Union. After graduation, he joined the army and as per national plan joined the public education program by which was conducted by the government. He went to Khorasan province and established a school in a poor village around Mashhad, and taught there. After his service in the army, since he was interested in social and political issues, he decided to travel abroad both for experience and study. At that time India was a popular academic destination for young Iranians. So he traveled and studied for a few years in India, before the revolution in Iran.       He holds a bachelor’s degree in social sciences from Bangalore University in India (1976). Mottaki also holds a master’s degree (MA) in international relations from the University of Tehran (1996).

 After the 1980 revolution, he was elected by the people of his home town and the neighboring cities as the first parliament representative and assigned by the other representatives as the head of the national security and foreign policy committee due to his politic and diplomatic talents. During his years in Majlis (Congress) and effective collaboration with the foreign ministry, he was employed then by the ministry after parliament.   Or, he made thus his career within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs during 24 years of continuous presence in different positions through   the Majlis (Parliament)..

He served thus as member of parliament in the first Majlis, head of seventh political bureau of Foreign Ministry (1984),

Iran’s ambassador to Turkey (1985),

Foreign Ministry’s secretary general for Western European affairs (1989),

Deputy Foreign Minister – first for international affairs (1989) and then   for legal, consular and parliamentary affairs (1992).

 Iran’s ambassador to Japan (1994),

Advisor to foreign minister (1999),

Deputy head of Culture and Islamic Communications Organization (2001)

Chief of the Foreign Relations Committee of the 7th Majlis National Security and Foreign Relations Commission (2004).

During the 2005 presidential election, he was the campaign manager of Ali Larijani, the right-conservative candidate.

President Mahmoud Ahmadi-nejad, in 2005,   appointed him to the position of Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 2005.

 

Mottaki quotations:

“Referring the case to the Security Council would be a lose-lose game, and we would prefer that this game does not happen. We see a win-win situation, that is where the EU and international community have confidence and the Islamic Republic of Iran reaches its legitimate right.”

“The Islamic Republic pays great cost to control and prevent transfer of narcotics to West.

“We do not accept global nuclear ‘apartheid’ and scientific ‘apartheid’.

“All voluntary measures taken over the past two-and-a-half or three years have been halted and we have no further commitment to the additional protocol and other voluntary commitments.”

“We should try to cool down the situation. We do not support any violence.”

“Nobody can remove a country from the map. This is a misunderstanding in Europe of what our president mentioned.”

“The time for using language of threats is over, it’s time for negotiation. We express our readiness for negotiations based on justice and a comprehensive compromise. We want to peacefully solve the problem.

“Nuclear weapons are not in Iran’s defense doctrine.”

“The issue is quite simple. We would like to enjoy our membership as well as the other members of the [Nuclear] Nonproliferation Treaty. The country has followed the rules and regulations of the [International Atomic Energy Agency] and wants to keep its rights.”

***

The Foreign Minister’s Introductory Presentation Before The Asia Society, Thursday, October 2, 2008:

Mottaki started by saying that since our last meeting here (2007), we had three events:

(1) The enjoyable visit of members of this Society in Tehran – he hopes this is a start for more such exchanges. This as a better way for mutual understanding – Scholars, Tourists, Students in such exchanges create the possibility to have more realistic picture of each other.

 

(2) LEBANON: A solution of more then 30 months of crisis was achieved after being initiated by different parties. Foreign Minister Mottaki wants to talk about how it was achieved – because the process is as important as the results.

It was a regional-based solution for the Lebanon crisis. The decision was that it has to be a solution based on votes by a 50+ plurality of all groups in the country – all groups in the country come to the table and a consensus is built – that was the tone of the Lebanon Policy agreement.

On the second day of the negotiations in Doha, at 2:30 AM, the feeling was that it all collapsed the negotiations were locked. Amr Moussa, the Secretary General of the Arab League said go ahead, but others opposed. Mottaki was in contact with Doha and Beirut and   at 9 AM they took up the issue again, and it was settled after a day of negotiations by 9 PM.

One learned that use of force should expect a reaction from the other side. Then also that territorial integrity is an integral part of any solution. These lessons apply whenever you have conflict – this clearly also in the Georgia – Russia case.

 

(3) GEORGIA: The areas are already affected by crisis – energy, transportation, security.

The crisis started by use of force based on wrong information and miscalculation. The latter by not expecting reaction.

The second point is territorial integrity.

Its the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia now, before it was Kosovo, Does it result from the same policies? If so, are there other areas where action led to reaction? If Yes – What are these?

On the second day of the Georgia case there was an agreement signed with Poland. If this signing of the agreement with Poland has become another step, should we look for reaction in Syria? in Venezuela?

What is NATO going to do?

Iran is a neighbor of Azerbaijan and Armenia – so there is a regional concern and Iran has to take part in the initiatives – parallel with Europe. So he went to the region and to Berlin. Is NATO moving to accept Georgia as a member?                             The interesting question is then the borders.

***

 

Now it was the turn for Ambassador Frank G. Wisner to take his position as moderator and conversation partner.

He has retired from the US Foreign Service in 1997 with the highest rank – that of a Career Ambassador, but continued to be involved in special positions like the Special US envoy for the Kosovo Final Status (December 2005 – March 2008).   Now he is in the private sector.   In his career postings he was Ambassador to India, the Philippines, Egypt, Zambia… among other appointments, he was also Under Secretary of Defence for Policy.

He started by saying that Iran is a great nation that commands and deserves respect – yet for many of us it is difficult to see how Iran chooses to challenge the international community. How do you square your requirement for respect with a confrontation attitude he then asked the Minister.

Mottaki, who made his introductory presentation in English, but now used a translator for the conversation part of the event, started to smile.

His answer was: A very nice gathering and behavior – my response – What we see is   selective dealing and approach – and double standards.

Back in the 80s we extensively talked up issues. I suggest how the first Iraq war was dealt with and the second war – the war of Saddam against Kuwait. In all   these the underlying issue is the occupation of foreign lands. {I assume he means the Iraq war against Iran as the first war and the war of Iraq on Kuwait as the second war}   Back then the heated discussion was having a cease-fire not a settlement. So the first step is a cease-fire, another first step is withdrawal. We wanted to have the an “a” inserted so that it is clear that a withdrawal comes after the cease-fire. See, using “oil-for-food” money – even now a percentage goes to Kuwait, this while for 4 years we were engaged in lengthy negotiations that were ordered by the UN. Two Assistant Secretary-Generals that dealt with this are present here – they remember those negotiations. Sometimes just to keep things going we had to put proposals on the table. We felt these were in Iraq’s favor and Iraq asked – what do you pay us to accept?

On the nuclear issue – at the end of the day – it is officials of one country … But Islamic and Sharia teachings say that atomic bombs have no place in our defense.we also contend that nuclear weapons are nomore effective. Also military powr has lost effectiveness.

I outlined new agreements for the IAEA last year. 1,5 years ago, in Madrid, we said to the Agency we will give the right answers to the IAEA questions. Then the US turned over questions to the IAEA and they posed them to us. The agency said they have other questions and we started answering them one by one. For each set of questions they sent us a written letter that they accepted the answer as adequate. What expectations should Iran have? We expect the 5+1 to thank us for these efforts to answer all questions. We expected that at the September meeting to be told by the Agency that they put aside all questions, but they provided a second US set of contentions.

They were supposed to bring up questions in one set of timetable. These questions went beyond the timetable. but we accepted.

These questions, like the previous are baseless, we will not agre to the US directed routes. I believe if we continue the negotiations we will reach a point of agreement that will lead to action.

 

{All the above sounded to me like a reprise of the 1001 Nights stories – this time from Tehran. I wonder how many people in the room accepted these, though, as I remarked at the beginning of this article, I am probably one of the most inclined to allow some slack to the Iranians because of past US behavior – but this story contained really too much rope. It did not inspire safety at all.}

 

Now Ambassador Wisner had one more short question he said. The elections in the US. “Do you see from Iran’s point of view an opportunity for dialogue? What will be the modalities for negotiation?

A. A US President will have to reach out including the Middle East. If there are changes in the White House we will intently consider them. We take note of comments made by previous Presidents, who are not in power anymore, also candidates not yet elected. Comments made, promises given by them cannot yet be seriously considered. We have to wait and see.

As for an interest section, there is only stories in news media.

 

***

Q&A from the floor:

Answer On Israel of sorts:   Iran US relations are dependent on a number of issues. Unilateral Vs. Policies in the Middle East have complicated the situation. NO MENTION OF ISRAEL IN THE ANSWER.

 

Answer on Nuclear In The Middle East:   Atomic weapons cannot provide security. We all heard that the US had enough to destroy Russia. It helped in the balance of fear.

Six years have passed from the day your troops have entered Iraq – they have not succeeded. Why could not atomic weapons help in Afghanistan and Iraq? This year the 13th anniversary since the Islamic revolution in Iran.

if I were to list our grievances against the US it will be a long long list. Had we a nuclear bomb, could that have changed your actions in Iraq?

In tandem with development on hardware side, the software side. The US is not lacking in modern weapons, also in its economic might (except for the present problems). No serious changes will occur in the US. The problem is – insufficient reasoning to convince the international public opinion.

 

Answer to the last question on the Middle East: We go about our business about our nuclear problems. We provided the answers.

if a person is asleep- how hard you knock, it will not help. The US cannot accept Iran’s peaceful proposals because once they accept they will not be able to stay in this position.

US intelligence agencies announced that Iran does not work on nuclear bomb, but the uS did not accept. I know of five different reports. I think it is high time for them to accept this.

The 15 years they were against my country. What is wrong about changing policies – and see what was wrong for their country?

 

 

No interim peace deal with Israel, Saudi says, Arab nations will totally reject any partial or interim solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because historically such arrangements have become permanent, Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister said Saturday.

By EDITH M. LEDERER, September 28, 2008, UNITED NATIONS (AP)

While supporting current Israeli-Palestinian negotiations to reach “a comprehensive final solution,” Prince Saud Al Faisal said “the least that we expect from Israel during these negotiations is that it should halt all settlement operations.”
“The continuation of settlement activity in the occupied Arab territories renders the negotiations meaningless and makes it difficult for us to convince our peoples of the feasibility and benefits of achieving peace,” he said.

At a Security Council meeting Friday on Israeli settlements, held at Saudi Arabia’s request, Saud said the settlement problem is the “one issue that threatens to bring down the whole peace process.”

He said that addressing it was the only way to save the peace deal brokered in Annapolis, Maryland, early this year by President Bush’s administration, which set the goal of achieving a substantive peace accord by January 2009 when he leaves office.
Saud took up the issue again in a speech he was scheduled to give to the U.N. General Assembly’s annual ministerial meeting. He did not deliver the speech and it was distributed to all U.N. members, said Brenda Vongova, the assembly president’s assistant spokeswoman.
The foreign minister said Arabs have affirmed their commitment to “a just and comprehensive peace based on international law” and have not yet received the same commitment from Israel.

“Please allow me, on behalf of the Arab Group, to make it absolutely clear that we will totally reject any partial or interim solutions, because history has taught us that such solutions tend to become permanent,” he said.

While peace negotiators representing Israel and the West Bank’s moderate Palestinian leadership privately report progress, the talks are taking place in a vacuum, and haven’t been accompanied by serious goodwill gestures that could help them succeed.

Israel’s corruption-tainted prime minister Ehud Olmert, who launched the talks together with the Palestinian president, has stepped down, the Palestinians remain deeply divided, and time is running out. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reminded the Security Council on Friday that “just one year ago, there was no peace process,” and noted that Israel and the Palestinians continue their negotiations, along with many other partners.

In his speech to the General Assembly, Bahrain’s Foreign Minister Sheik Khalid bin Ahmed Al Khalifa said it was time for the Mideast to develop “new regional frameworks to overcome our long-standing challenges” and ensure “stable and lasting peace.”

He said it was time to consider the possibility of creating an organization that would include “all states in the Middle East, without exception, to discuss long-standing issues openly and frankly” to reach a stable and durable understanding between all parties.”

U.N. diplomats pointed to the words “without exception” as significant because that would mean Israel’s inclusion.
Many Arab leaders called for a peaceful solution to the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program. Tehran insists it is purely peaceful and aims to produce nuclear energy but the U.S. and many Western nations suspect Iran’s goal is producing nuclear weapons.

Saudi Arabia’s Saud expressed hope that Iran will take practical steps “to ensure a peaceful and rapid solution to the problem of the Iranian nuclear program and save the region from devastating conflicts, futile arms races and serious environmental hazards.”

From:  liasieghart at hotmail.com
Subject: Yemen, cogeneration and the CDM an outline of opportunity
Date: September 4, 2008

The Clean Development Mechanism has been instrumental in the development of a number of cogeneration projects around the world, but none yet in Yemen, where the scope for projects is certainly present. Lia Carol Sieghart looks at the role that cogeneration could play as part of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the country. The Kyoto Protocol was signed in 1997, at the 3rd Conference of the Parties (COP 3) to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Kyoto, Japan. This treaty significantly bolstered the Convention by committing parties from developed countries, known as Annex 1 Parties, to legally binding limits on GHG emissions. They may also acquire emission reduction credits by taking advantage of the three ‘flexibility mechanisms’ defined under the Protocol.These mechanisms are:

• International Emissions Trading (IET)
• Joint Implementation (JI)
• Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). The latter is the only mechanism that involves developing countries. The CDM allows Annex 1 Parties (or entities from those Parties) to invest in project activities that reduce GHG emissions and contribute to sustainable development in non-Annex 1 countries.The CDM has seen an exponential growth since the Kyoto Protocol came into effect in 2005. The end of 2007 provided a milestone with the 100-millionth certified emission reduction credit being issued. In April 2008 the 1000th project, an energy efficiency project, was registered with the Executive Board. At present there are more 3000 projects in the UNFCCC pipeline.Nevertheless, the number of host countries playing a vital role is still very limited. The geographic dispersion of registered projects remains imbalanced. So far the main share of projects is with Asia and Latin America. Most projects are registered with India as a host country, followed by China, Brazil, Mexico, Malaysia and Chile. India and China in particular have been early movers and have grasped the investment opportunities provided by the CDM. The vast majority of projects registered are in the energy sector. Taking into consideration the projects under validation and those requesting registration, it seems that this distribution pattern will not change significantly during the first commitment period.

  There are many reasons why the CDM has so far fallen short of its full potential, many of which are country-specific while others are repeatedly reported from various countries. In the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region 18 countries have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, but to date only 20 projects have been registered (Table 1). This amounts to ~2 % of the total of registered project activities.

  Click here to enlarge image

  The MENA Region population comprises about 6% of the total world population, almost equivalent to the population of the European Union. Most MENA countries are experiencing a rapid population growth. The region is economically diverse – the spectrum ranges from oil-rich economies to countries that are resource-scarce in relation to population.

  By 2050, the MENA countries will reach an electricity demand of the same magnitude as Europe (3500 TWh/y). In some of the countries, electricity demand is expected to triple from almost 1500 TWh/y at present to 4100 TWh/y in 2050. Correspondingly, the effects of climate change will become more severe. The fossil fuel-based power sector offers enormous potential for CO₂ emission reductions, both through energy efficiency improvements in existing applications as well as utilization of state-of-the-art technology for new capacity additions.

  Given the surging growth in energy demand, the region needs to develop sustainable energy patterns, increase energy accessibility – particularly for marginalized populations in rural areas – and encourage efficient use of energy. Countries need to embark on a less carbon-intensive development path. Utilizing the CDM can provide a vital trigger in this process.

  CHP has a clear opportunity to expand quickly. CHP installations, by combining electricity production with a heat recovery system, provide reliable and cost-effective opportunities for GHG emissions reduction and an important contribution to meeting heat and electricity demand. Cogeneration projects also have the potential to bring energy efficiency measures to large industries in the region, while the MENA oil industry and refinery capacity offers further significant cost-effective potential for heat recovery and cogeneration.

  THE REPUBLIC OF YEMEN

  The Republic of Yemen lies to the south of Saudi Arabia, bounded by the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. The 2004 census recorded a population of 19.72 million, with an average annual population growth rate of 3.2 % and one of the highest birth rates in the MENA Region. Yemen remains one of the poorest countries in the world, and currently ranks 49 on the UN’s list of the 50 Least Developed Countries. Yemen’s GNI per capita is US$760, compared to, for example, US$12,510 in Saudi Arabia, US$23,990 in the United Arab Emirates and US$9070 in Oman². According to the Country Social Analysis (2006) by the World Bank the GDP growth rate has been falling steadily in recent years. Inflation has been averaging at almost 12% since 2002, rapidly increasing the cost of living.

  The country, a non-OPEC member, is the smallest oil producer in the Middle East³. Nevertheless, the economy is highly dependent on the oil sector, with the country’s oil exports accounting for approximately 85% of export revenues and 33% of gross domestic product (GDP). Yemen’s energy use relies heavily on fossil fuels. Thus, there is potential to reduce GHG emissions in the energy sector, the oil and refinery industry and in the industrial sector.

  GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IN YEMEN

  The 2001 First National Communication to the UNFCCC used 1995 as a reference year for Yemen’s GHG emissions inventory due to the high uncertainty of 1994′s information as a result of the April–July 1994 civil war. The total GHG emissions (CO₂, CH⁴, N²O) of the country, in 1995, amounted to 18.7 million tonnes CO₂eq, (CO₂=11.4 million tonnes, CH⁴=128,000 and NO₂=15,000). Taking CO₂ removal into account, the total net emission of CO₂ is 845,000 tonnes. These figures are exclusive of the emission from the international bunker (114,350 tonnes CO₂) and from combustion of biomass (353,290 tonnes CO₂).

  Yemen’s emission profile by gas type for 1995 shows that CO₂ accounts for 61% of the total national GHG emissions (113,580 tonnes CO₂), N²O 25% (465,700 tonnes CO₂eq) and CH⁴ 14% (269,400 tonnes CO₂eq). Table 2 shows gas emissions by various sectors.

  Click here to enlarge image

  If we look at the industrial processes, there are many that create GHG emissions as a by-product of the process itself. Cement production generated the most emissions (99.3%). Other production processes with minor emissions are lime production, limestone use and soda use (food & beverages). The total GHG generated by these processes was estimated at 547,000 tonnes CO₂eq, which accounted for 2.92% of the country’s total GHG emissions. The production of cement in Yemen in 1995 was 1,089,000 tonnes that resulted in CO₂ emission of 543,000 tonnes CO₂eq representing 4.8% of the country’s total CO₂ emissions (energy sector, industrial processes etc), while it represents around 2.9% of the total GHGs.

  The CO₂ emission from cement production was calculated by multiplying 1995 cement production (1,089,000 tonnes) by the emission factor (0.4985 tonnes of CO₂ per tonne of cement produced). The SO₂ emitted from cement production was obtained by using an emission factor of 0.3 kg SO₂/tonne cement, thus leading to 330 tonnes SO₂ in 1995.

  THE YEMENI ENERGY SECTOR

  Yemen’s 100% state-owned Public Electricity Corporation (PEC) formed in 1991, under the Ministry of Electricity, is the sole public utility with the mandate for generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electricity in the country. The entity operates approximately 80% of the country’s generating capacity as part of the national grid. The remainder is generated by small off-grid suppliers and privately owned generators, predominantly in rural areas⁴. In urban areas diesel generators are also used as back-up systems. The efficiency of diesel generators can be up to 40%. Electricity demand amounted to 3294 GWh in 2005, an increase of 9.6% annually since 2000.

  The Yemeni population has the lowest access to electricity in the region, with only 53%⁵ of the total population having access. Of the 72% of the Yemeni population living in rural areas, only 23% have any access to electricity, which compares unfavourably with 85% of the urban population that have access to electricity. Out of this 23%, about 10%–14% is connected to the national grid system while the remainder is estimated to have some access from other sources, typically a diesel generator that operates only a few hours in the evening. Even for those connected to the grid, electricity supply is intermittent, with regular rolling blackouts in most cities.

  Click here to enlarge image

  Yemen has been experiencing a chronic power supply shortage. An estimate for the electric power deficit in 2006 was 220 MW, a figure that is expected to increase to 250 MW in 2008. With the 2005 increase in diesel prices, the cost of diesel generation has become economically unsustainable thereby significantly increasing the demand for a lower-carbon, more-efficient, lower-cost and reliable energy future.

  The Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP, 2003–2005) states the following: ‘Indicators show the failure of electric power in Yemen in keeping pace with demand [is] due to the ageing of the power stations and the distribution networks, which is reflected in the high losses that are currently estimated at about 38%, well above the internationally prevailing levels. This situation prevents the full utilization of machinery and equipment in the different productive and service units, or burdens the private sector facilities with the cost of setting up their own generating plants, not to mention the inability to systematically fulfil domestic lighting requirements. This situation is expected to continue over the medium term due to the increase of demand at high rates, and thus increases the adverse aspects on investment opportunities and the growth of output, income and employment, clearly showing the importance of strategic investment by the private sector in this field.’

  In the industrial sector, power is purchased either from the national grid or off-grid from privately owned diesel generators with poor electrical efficiency ranging from 25% up to 35% especially in light industry. Heavy industry, e.g. the cement sector – the most energy intensive of any industry⁶, covers its heat needs using boilers fired either by heavy fuel oil or diesel, again with an overall poor fuel efficiency. The main electricity consuming sections in a cement plant are the mills (finish grinding and raw grinding) and the exhaust fans (kiln/raw mill and cement mill) which together account for more than 80% of the total electrical energy usage.⁷ The separate production of heat and power is an obvious waste of energy. Change is needed by using a range of existing and emerging technologies, particularly in relation to the production and consumption both of heat and electricity.

  The cement industry is considered as one of the main players in the industrial sector. Commercial production started back in 1973 with the launching of the first production line of the Bajil Cement Factory. Cement production is highly competitive, both locally and internationally, so any improvements in production efficiency can result in important increases in competitiveness.⁸

  Despite 16.9 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of proven natural gas reserves, a cleaner source of non-renewable energy, heavy fuel oil or diesel-fuelled power generation remains the energy source. Use of natural gas is hampered by the absence of a domestic natural gas infrastructure. On the downstream side there is a crude refining capacity of 130,000 barrels/day from two ageing refineries. The Aden refinery has a capacity of 90,000 to 120,000 barrels/day, while the capacity at the Marib refinery, is 10,000 barrels/day.

  So the challenge for the government is to meet the energy needs of the country in an economic and environmentally sustainable manner. To address this challenge, one approach is to integrate the use of CHP as part of a larger portfolio of low-carbon energy technology solutions. Also the First National Communication under the UNFCCC suggests CHP as a viable measure to reduce GHG emissions and to cope with climate change.

  COGENERATION – AN OPPORTUNITY FOR YEMEN

  The Yemeni electricity sector driven by fossil-fuelled power generation is characterized by a loss of waste heat and a deficient transmission and distribution system resulting in poor net generation. Energy use and efficiency are important factors for economic development and environmental integrity.

  Click here to enlarge image

  CHP applications could be viable and cost-effective in the Yemeni setting because they:

  • reduce energy-related carbon dioxide emissions
  • provide a decentralized energy source which results in reduced investment in energy system infrastructure
  • reduce transmission and distribution losses.

  Energy-intensive industrial sites such as oil refining, heavy processing (food and textiles) and the cement industry with its simultaneous demand for heat and power, could all benefit. Also the commercial and institutional/residential sectors could match their thermal and electrical needs. CHP application in the commercial/institutional sector could address light manufacturing, hotels, hospitals and large office complexes.

  Despite good potential for CHP, to date no systems are operating in Yemen. The main barriers are: technical, financial, lack of maintenance capacity and awareness, the heavy subsidy of petroleum products and the absence of a domestic natural gas infrastructure – the fuel of choice for most new industrial CHP systems. However, access to reasonably priced and reliable electricity supply systems are an obvious prerequisite for economic stability and development. The development of a strategy for CHP would assist in kick-starting the momentum in Yemen and should include the following elements:

  • identification of projects that could be initially implemented by the public sector and identify pipeline of projects that can be promoted for private sector development
  • formulation of CHP-enabling market
  • elaboration of incentives that attract private investors and lower the costs of electricity generation from CHP applications.

  Coupling GHG emissions abatement with CHP installation would help guide the country’s economic growth to a less carbon-intensive development path. The emission reduction potential makes CHP applications, in principal, eligible for the CDM. In order to qualify for Certified Emission Reductions under the CDM, one needs to address ‘additionality’, ‘permanence’, and ‘leakage’ requirements as well as satisfy sustainable development criteria defined by the country. By gaining CDM support for projects, Yemen could gain access to significant additional flows of technology and finance to assist in achieving a more sustainable, less greenhouse-intensive pathway of development. Also the National Adaptation Programme of Action⁹ is suggesting CHP systems as an efficient method of power generation and a suitable measure to reduce GHG emissions. Considering a cogeneration project as a CDM project activity would assist in generating emission credits and thereby make the project more feasible.

  RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSION

  The CDM is a key model fostering broad engagement in climate change mitigation, and can be used as a means of promoting sustainable development by providing access to improved energy services. The energy sector is a major source of GHG emissions and a critical area for socio-economic development of the country. Yemen has a good potential for cogeneration projects in the industrial, commercial and institutional/residential sectors.

  In keeping with the dual aim of climate protection and sustainable development, the CDM can trigger the installation of CHP systems by removing barriers to implementation of state-of-the art technology in this area. Despite the strong potential of cogeneration for GHG reduction to date there is no installed capacity – project developers often lack the technical and financial capacity to identify projects within their operational activities. Mainstreaming carbon finance into business operations would have a catalytic impact on facilitating CDM project development and consequently assist in the feasibility of cogeneration in Yemen.

  Lia Carol Sieghart is with the Ministry of Water and Environment, DNA Secretariat, Republic of Yemen.
  e-mail: sieghart@yemen.net.ye

  References

  1. Status: 29.03.2008

  2. World Development Indicators database, World Bank, 1 July 2007

  3. Report No.: 34008-YE – Republic of Yemen – Country Social Analysis – January 11, 2006 – Water, Environment, Social and Rural Development Department, Middle East and North Africa Region

  4. Energy Information Administration  www.eia.doe.gov): Yemen – Country Analysis Brief (October 2007)

  5. World Bank and UNDP (2005): Household Energy Supply and Use in Yemen: Volume I, Main Report

  6. WADE (2007): Concrete Energy Savings – Onsite Power in the Cement Industry

  7. IPPC (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control). 2001. Reference document on best available techniques in the cement and lime manufacturing industries, European Union.

  8. WADE (2007): Concrete Energy Savings – Onsite Power in the Cement Industry

  9. 2001 First National Communication to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

  Cogeneration and On-Site Power Production July, 2008

  ---

  To access this article, go to:http://www.cospp.com/articles/article_display.cfm?ARTICLE_ID=338180&p=122
  

  ---

  Copyright © 2008: PennWell Corporation, Tulsa, OK; All Rights Reserved.

Monday, June 30, 2008

Teams from 24 nations to hold camps in Japan before Olympics.

Kyodo News
Sports teams from at least 24 countries including Canada, Germany, France, Israel and the United States will hold camps in Japan for final preparations prior to the Beijing Olympics in August.

Concerns about air pollution, food safety and “political tension” in China, and good facilities in Japan, were cited as reasons for making a final stop here prior to the Aug. 8-24 Olympics.

Japan’s proximity to China, with only a one-hour time difference with Beijing, was another selling point.

The teams will hold camps in 20 prefectures, from Hokkaido in the north to Kumamoto in the southwest, starting in July.

About 150 athletes, coaches and other staff from Sweden will hold camps for 13 Olympic events in Fukuoka, partly because the city has numerous facilities and its airport provides direct flights to Beijing.

A 30-member Dutch track and field team will also hold a camp in Fukuoka around the same time.

A track and field team from Bahrain will hold an Olympic camp in Kaminoyama, Yamagata Prefecture. It decided against holding a camp in China partly because of worries about air pollution and food.

The Bahrain team also held a camp in Kaminoyama before the 2007 World Championships in Athletics in Osaka.

For that visit, Kaminoyama provided the team from the Muslim country with clarification regarding food ingredients, which apparently played a role in the team coming back.

A French track and field team will hold a camp in Wakayama. The team initially planned to use Shanghai but judged it was better to avoid China because of “political tension” in the country, a team source said.

Anti-France demonstrations were held in China after the Olympic torch relay in Paris drew rowdy protests.

An Irish track and field team has selected Matsue, Shimane Prefecture.

Monday, June 30, 2008

G8 COUNTDOWN
U.N. chief calls for leadership on setting midterm emissions cuts

By ERIC JOHNSTON
Staff writer
KYOTO — U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon said Sunday that while long-term goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are important, it is more critical that a post-Kyoto Protocol treaty with midterm targets be concluded in Copenhagen by next year.

But he warned there appears to be insufficient political leadership, especially among developed countries, to reach that goal and said Japan needs to do more to push the matter forward.

“Japan’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60 percent to 80 percent by 2050 is impressive. Japan has also indicated that it might reduce emissions by 14 percent from the current level by 2020. Today, I call on Japan to provide further leadership in developing an even more far-reaching proposal,” Ban told a group of scholars, students and local residents during a meeting at Kyoto University.

“There is a lack of political will at the leadership level (for midterm targets). Each country must contribute, and this is something I will discuss with Prime Minister (Yasuo) Fukuda on Monday,” Ban said.

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012, and efforts are on to hammer out a new agreement in Copenhagen in December 2009.

“Ambitious targets by all major emitters are essential to conclude the deal,” Ban said. “By Copenhagen, we must agree not only on long-term goals, but also on short and medium-term targets.”

Ban arrived in Japan on Saturday on the first leg of a two-week Asia tour that will also take him to South Korea and China as well as next week’s Group of Eight summit in Toyako, Hokkaido.

His visit comes at a time when international pressure is growing on Japan as host of the G8 summit to aggressively push other summit leaders to make a strong statement on the need for binding midterm emission reduction targets.

However, hopes for strong leadership from both Japan and the G8 summit for such a statement dimmed earlier this month when Fukuda said it is up to U.N. negotiators, not the G8, to agree on midterm targets.

Ban’s visit to Japan is designed to put political pressure on Fukuda to get the G8 leaders to make a statement that will show developing countries the rich nations are serious about taking the lead in reaching a climate change agreement.

Many in Japanese industry, especially the steel and utility companies that burn a lot of coal, oppose midterm targets.

At Sunday’s meeting, a representative from Kansai Electric Power Co. said the industry agrees that long-term goals are important, and spoke on the need for improved green technologies as the ultimate solution for reducing greenhouse gases worldwide.

However, others noted that the consensus of the scientific community, as outlined by the U.N. last year, is that climate change is occurring much faster than previously thought and that action between now and 2020 is needed to prevent a global climate catastrophe.

Ban praised Fukuda’s recently announced plan for a low-carbon future society, saying it is the kind of leadership by example other developed countries need to follow.

He also said that improved energy efficiency and the widespread use of renewable energy sources are necessary to cut emissions by half by 2050.

From:  rcervigni at worldbank.org
Subject: Climate Change in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) – New World Bank web site.
Date: June 27, 2008

We are pleased to announce the launch of the World Bank web site on climate change in the Middle East and North Africa region (MENA).

The site contains information on ongoing and planned World Bank activities aimed at helping MENA countries enhance their resilience to Climate Change, and move to a low carbon development path.

The URL for the site is: http://www.worldbank.org/mena/climatecha…

Raffaello Cervigni
Senior Natural Resource Economist
Regional Coordinator, Climate Change
Sustainable Development Sector Department (MNSSD)
Middle East and North Africa Region
The World Bank
Room H 8-225
1818 H Street, N.W.
Washington D.C. 20433 USA
Office: 202 458 8473
Fax: 202 614 1688
Cell Phone: 202 378 4432
E-mail:  rcervigni at worldbank.org

  PRESS RELEASE
April 7, 2008

Islamic and African States Fail to Block UN Webcast of Human Rights Hearings

Bahrain First to Undergo “Seriously Flawed” Review Procedure

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: +41-79-332-8106

Geneva, April 7, 2008 — Facing opposition by Arab, Islamic and African states, the UN Human Rights Council’s decision to webcast its review of Bahrain, the first to undergo a new procedure that will scrutinize all UN members, constituted a small victory for reform, UN Watch said today.

“The new system of universal periodic review has serious institutional flaws, including its grant of excessive control over the outcome to the state under review,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based human rights monitoring organization.

“Although the official verdicts are likely to be questionable at best, the very fact of holding debates on countries that were previously given a free pass, even if only once every four years, helps activists to shine an international spotlight on human rights violations, and to challenge government responses that are inadequate or false.”

Today’s three-hour session on Bahrain offered little in the way of scrutiny, and was dominated by praise of the gulf state’s record. In his presentation, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Nizar Al Baharna told the council that Bahrain respected women’s rights, equality and freedom of expression. Of the more than 30 states that then took the floor, most were fellow Islamic nations that complimented Bahrain’s record on “social and economic rights,” with Pakistan citing the growth of its GDP.

“We are deeply disappointed that the session summarily ignored the detailed NGO submissions, which presented evidence of restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly, torture, and violations of women’s rights,” said Neuer. “Although the U.S., Canada, France and a handful of Western democracies posed questions, their interventions were overly cautious and diplomatic, and did little to make this new procedure into one of real scrutiny. Human rights victims deserve far better.”

On Friday, the Arab, Islamic and African blocs made a last-ditch effort to block UN webcasting of the session, but their attempt failed. Click here to read set of demands.

“After a series of major setbacks at the council—including the outrageous insertion of anti-blasphemy provisions into the freedom of expression mandate—this is one small victory that human rights activists must cherish,” said Neuer.

  Permalink | |  Email This Article
Posted in Africa, Arab Asia, Bahrain, Geneva, New York, Reporting From the UN Headquarters in New York, Reporting from Washington DC, South Africa

Discuss this article

CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE: TOP-DOWN POLITICAL REFORM IN ARAB WORLD PROLONGS STAGNATION – 12/12/2007.
UNITED NATIONS –   MaximsNews Network   – December 12, 2007 :   Despite passing considerable economic and social reforms Arab regimes continue to avoid substantive political reforms that would jeopardize their own power. Reformers in ruling establishments recognize the need for change to increase economic competitiveness, but the preferred process of “managed reform” is leading to further political stagnation, says a new paper from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

In Incumbent Regimes and the “King’s Dilemma” in the Arab World: Promise and Threat of Managed Reform, Carnegie Senior Associates Marina Ottaway and Michele Dunne argue that emerging, reform-minded leaders in Arab nations face a dilemma—globalization and better public access to information are prompting calls for modernization, yet history shows that even limited reforms introduced from the top often increase, rather than decrease, bottom-up demand for more radical change, as in the case of the Iranian revolution.

To contend with this threat, Arab regimes are attempting to control the process of change through “managed reforms”: the introduction of formal, institutional reform without the transfer of real power (Bahrain and Egypt); substantive improvements in citizens’ rights without institutional reform (Morocco); or the limited participation of legitimate opposition groups (Yemen and Algeria).

Key Conclusions:

There is growing awareness in the Arab world that reforms are necessary to create a viable, competitive economy. Oil is no longer seen as an inexhaustible source of revenue that gives governments an infinite capacity to manipulate their citizens.

Pressure from the United States and Europe to introduce reforms has been inconsistent and has favored managed reforms, sending signals that external expectations are not very high, and that external actors can be easily appeased.

Further political stagnation is the likely scenario for most Arab regimes, characterized by limited change rather than an uncontrolled slide into an uncertain future. The power of reformists remains limited in most countries, as they have generally failed to convince the population that they are serious about change, resulting in tarnished reputations.

To be successful, regime reformers need to find allies in civil societies or moderate parties. Some reformers could decide that a competitive political environment would benefit their political future—yet a more participatory reform process could prove unpredictable.

“The evidence so far is that the top-down process is having very little effect, making at best a marginal difference on specific issues but not leading to the redistribution of power that a true process of democratization and even liberalization would entail. For domestic advocates of managed reform and for outsiders seeking to promote change alike, the lesson appears to be that political reform can never be risk free: Too much close management perpetuates authoritarianism, and unmanaged processes have unpredictable outcomes.”

NOTES

Marina Ottaway is a senior associate in the Democracy and Rule of Law Program and director of the Carnegie Middle East Program. Her upcoming publication, Beyond the Façade: Political Reform in the Arab World (co-edited with Julia Choucair-Vizoso), will be released in January 2008.

Michele Dunne is a senior associate and editor of the Carnegie Endowment’s Arab Reform Bulletin . A specialist on Middle East affairs, formerly at the State Department and White House, Dunne’s most recent publication is Egypt—Don’t Give Up on Democracy Promotion (Policy Brief, July 2007).

The Carnegie Middle East Program combines in-depth local knowledge with incisive comparative analysis, Carnegie’s Middle East Program examines politics in the Arab world. The Program studies extensively attempts at political reform, through detailed country studies and the exploration of key cross-cutting themes. The Program has special expertise in Islamist participation in pluralistic politics throughout the region.

The Arab Reform Bulletin addresses political developments and reform in the Middle East. Sent monthly, it offers analysis from Arab, American, and European political experts, as well as news synopses and annotated resource guides. The Arab Reform Bulletin is published in English and Arabic.

Contact: Trent Perrotto, 212/939-2372,  tperrotto at ceip.org