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.

 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.

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

 http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story_s.as…

Oman- No ban on sheesha cafes

(MENAFN – Times of Oman) Even as the Muscat Municipality recently decided to ban smoking in public places, citizens are confused as to whether the ban would also be applicable to Sheesha cafes in the city.

“I wish the decision to ban smoking is extended to the sheesha cafes,” said Hussein Al Rahbi, an employee at a private company.

“As it amounts to passive smoking, which again is harmful,” he said.

The Muscat Municipality has decided to ban smoking from April this year. As per the directives, smoking is banned in enclosed and semi-enclosed places, which have been, according to the municipality, declared as public places.

The decision to ban smoking was initiated keeping in mind the complaints from the local people and for providing a healthy atmosphere at public places.

Said Mahmoud Al Hashmi, a civil servant, said some of the sheesha cafes are in the proximity of houses and as a result residents are sometimes exposed to smoke from these sheesha cafes.

He further said that the Muscat Municipality should impose certain conditions on the cafes that would also take into account the health of the people residing in nearby houses.

Another resident, Saud Alsalmi, says that sometimes people staying in the vicinity of these Sheesha cafes are forced to face the unbearable noise and shouting that emanate from these cafes until midnight, especially during football matches.

The entire neighbourhood faces significant problems at such times in terms of parking spaces for their vehicles.

Aslam, manager of a sheesha restaurant, said: “If the Muscat Municipality decides to extend the ban to sheesha cafes, it would lead to a great loss for the cafes. We have been paying for licences, health cards for workers, rent, fines and sponsor’s allowance. If smoking in Sheesha is banned, it would be better the government bans cigarettes altogether,” said Aslam.

He added that in such a scenario let the Sheesha cafes in the city be relocated to some remote areas where they will not pose any threat to the health of citizens.

Suleiman bin Hamoud Al Kindi, director-general of the Muscat Municipality, said, “The executive of the municipality is currently working out the norms that fall under the local order to comply with the application (of the ban) from the beginning of next April.”

Ibrahim Alhsni of the media department of the Muscat Municipality, said, “The decision on ban does not cover sheeshas.”

However, he said that many residents had been complaining about the Sheesha cafes and demanding that they be relocated from near their houses.

By Fahad Al Mukrashi

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.

“Nabs” becomes first Arab to reach the North Pole
by Neeraj Gangal on Friday, 01 May 2009, ArabianBusiness.com

FIRST MAN: Nabil Al Busaidi was ranked 97 on the Arabian Business Power 100 list. (Getty Images)

Omani adventurer Nabil “Nabs” Al Busaidi has become the first Arab to walk to the North Pole, the Gulf News Daily reported on Friday.

The 39-year-old was also part of the Oman North Pole Expedition team that won the Polar Race, the daily added.

Al Busaidi and his two teammates achived the distinction of walking more than 650km, an effort that took 27 hours of continuous walking until they reached the finish line.

They only took short breaks for food and clinched victory despite hallucinating and falling asleep while walking, his friend Maria Jense said, according to the Bahrain-based newspaper.

“My name is Nabil Al Busaidi, I am the son of Riadh and Salma Al Busaidi and I am calling from the North Pole,” Nabs is quoted as saying as he proudly planted the Omani flag at the North Pole.

“I am the first Omani, the first GCC national and the first Arab to walk to the North Magnetic Pole.

“I want Oman to be proud of my achievement, so today, my name is not Nabil, it is Shabab (the youth of) Oman.”

Nabil Al Busaidi was ranked 97 on the Arabian Business Power 100 list.

Before his expedition, he was quoted as saying: “When an individual is so committed to his goal that he is willing to stake his very existence on it, then nothing can stop him from achieving it.”

Dragging 50kg of equipment on sledge including food, water and tent, Al Busaidi walked the 650km over frozen sea in temperatures regularly nudging   minus 40 degrees Celsius.

Preparations for the expedition had been ongoing for eight months and Nabil had been training hard.

“Fitness endurance and aerobic training is a daily routine now,” he said. “Every day starts with running up stairs, or swimming, or on the cross-country ski machine.”

Nabs will return to Oman on May 6, according to the Gulf Daily News.

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.

WTO Talks Collapse: Was There Ever a Future for Bananas?
World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations collapsed today, July 29, after nine days of intense negotiations. Trade ministers from approximately 35 countries struggled to salvage the stalled seven-year-old Doha round. Optimistic signs and compromises surfaced as a result of last weekend’s supposed breakthrough, but these were soon followed by stubborn accusations from a number of combative nations, including the United States, China, and India. Constructing a 153-country consensus now seems even more cumbersome and talks will not resume for at least two years. During this past week in Geneva, country officials worked particularly long hours in an attempt to come up with the necessary concessions, as well as extending their stay in Switzerland in hopes of returning home “successfully.” Such a dream was, unfortunately, not to be realized.

This latest round of trade talks was launched in the Qatar capital in November 2001, but has long been stalemated over issues of farm subsidies called for by the U.S., Japan and the EU, as well as tariffs on industrial goods imposed by the developing economies of Latin America and Asia. Proposed changes included EU and U.S. farm subsidy reductions of up to 80 percent. The compromise was that developing countries would open their markets to imports of manufactured goods, removing so-called “import shields.”

In the deal last weekend, Latin American banana producers and EU officials appeared to begin the process of putting to rest a quarter-century banana “war.” Many Latin American banana exporters had contended for years that the EU routinely gave preferential treatment to their former colonies in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific (ACP), and had kept import tariffs artificially high on the fruit that originates on mainland Latin America.

The complaint was originally filed by the U.S. because three of the largest banana producers in Latin America are U.S. multinational corporations. COHA repeatedly has argued in the past that U.S. banana companies, and not Latin American economies, are likely to benefit from the removal of the tariffs (see “Banana Wars Continue – Chiquita Once Again Tries to Work Its Omnipotent Will, Now Under New Management: Likely Big Losers Will Be CARICOM’s Windward Islands”). In addition to this contention, many view the present Doha round as an inappropriate forum for banana talk to occur in the first place, as any new arrangement could anger some of the ACP nations and thus would endanger the future of the round. Nonetheless, it is important for the banana conflict to be resolved so that Latin America, as well as U.S. corporations and English-speaking Caribbean exporters (who in most cases depend upon such exports for their economic survival), can see the benefits from the sale of their largest cash crop. Throughout the negotiations, it can be said that the U.S. was less than sensitive to the importance of a favorable outcome to such islands as Dominica, Grenada, and St. Lucia- a matter of sheer survival.

One of the main issues of contention amongst developing countries was the possible existence of Special Safeguard Mechanisms (SSM). This provision would enable countries like China and India to raise agricultural tariffs to protect their farmers in case of a surge in imports. Latin American countries rejected the SSM proposal, saying that it would be damaging to their export interests. Venezuelan Industry and Trade Minister William Antonio Contreras said that “we are not here to block an agreement, but to defend our interests and to fulfill the command of the round that is the one of developing.” The dispute over the existence of these mechanisms, designed to help only certain nations, largely contributed to the collapse of the talks.

It now should be clearer than ever as to why WTO talks have been at a stand still for so many years. It is not an enigma why it has been so difficult to achieve consensus with a myriad of players in the field with a lot to gain, but even more to lose. Lucrative deals for some nations can be devastating to others: WTO negotiations certainly have not proven to be a win-win game.

This analysis was prepared by COHA Research Associates Revaz Ardesher and Jessica Wayne
July 29th, 2008 COHA is the Washington Based Council on Hemispheric Affairs.

———————-

WTO Talks Collapse Amidst Developing Countries’ Reluctance to Sacrifice Food Security.
Tuesday 29 July 2008

Opinion from – The Center for Economic and Policy Research.             {The Center for Economic and Policy Research is an independent, nonpartisan think tank that was established to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people’s lives. CEPR’s Advisory Board of Economists includes Nobel Laureate economists Robert Solow and Joseph Stiglitz; Richard Freeman, professor of economics at Harvard University; and Eileen Appelbaum, professor and director of the Center for Women and Work at Rutgers University. }

Indian women farm laborers plant rice. India and other developing nations are reluctant to sacrifice food security measures during World Trade Organization negotiations.

  Last-minute attempt to push through a WTO expansion “deal” fails.
Washington, DC – Despite trade ministers’ hopes for a last-minute deal, World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations collapsed yet again today, and observers at the talks in Geneva say that the failure is not surprising, given the reluctance of India and other developing nations to sacrifice food security measures in the wake of the recent global spike in food prices.
Given President Bush’s lame duck status, negotiators had been called to Geneva to try to push through a last-minute deal before Bush left office. Because negotiators need about six months after a deal on the major issues to complete the details of the agreement, this possibility has now evaporated.

“Given what’s been on the table, no deal is better than a bad deal. A Doha conclusion would have had major negative impacts for workers and farmers in developing countries. The tariff cuts demanded of developing countries would have caused massive job loss, and countries would have lost the ability to protect farmers from dumping, further impoverishing millions on the verge of survival,” said Deborah James, Director of International Programs for the Center for Economic and Policy Research, who has been observing the talks in Geneva.

  It is unclear why negotiations were proceeding, given the fact that the U.S. delegation does not have a mandate to conclude negotiations, as made clear by a letter from Senators Feingold and Byrd sent to President Bush last week. In addition, cuts in subsidies agreed to by the U.S. are also incompatible with the new U.S. Farm Bill passed by Congress, and over-riding a veto by President Bush.
Many developing nations not invited to participate in the exclusive “Green Room” meetings in Geneva this past week are likely to continue strong opposition to a deal in the midst of a global economic downturn and increasing concerns over food security.

  At a time when many countries are seeking to reduce dependence on troubled economies in the U.S. and Europe, and as fears of a global recession loom, many nations are questioning the development gains to be achieved from trade liberalization. The projected gains from the Doha Round offer developing countries very little in potential gains. According to World Bank modeling, developing country benefits would be just 16 percent of total world gains, or 0.16 per cent of GDP. This works out to less than a penny per day per capita in the developing world. Poverty reduction – which in itself would be very limited – would reach only 2.5 million people.[1] These projections do not include many of the costs of implementing the Doha Round, which UNCTAD estimates to be as much as four times the projected gains.
The Doha Round could also increase world prices for food.[2] Since most developing countries are net food importers, the recent increase in food prices has led some developing country governments to reconsider food security mechanisms such as tariffs and domestic subsidies, which the WTO seeks to reduce. A number of countries have also imposed restrictions on exports, in response to the food crisis.
“There just hasn’t been much to gain for developing countries in this round – or for that matter, the majority of people even in the rich countries,” said CEPR Co-Director and economist, Mark Weisbrot. “The attempts by the rich countries to reduce policy space for developing countries in manufacturing are widely seen as ‘kicking away the ladder’ that rich countries like the United States used when they were developing countries.
  “The whole process of subordinating national policy to special commercial interests – whether in agriculture, telecommunications, pharmaceuticals (one of the most powerful interests and gainers in the WTO), or the financial sector – has gone way too far. Growth and development in most countries has been hurt, and they are pushing back. In the United States, too, rising inequality and now an economic downturn have provoked a backlash.”

Throughout the negotiations, some developing nations promoted trade policies and objectives at odds with the Doha Round’s objectives of opening developing country markets, including commitments to food sovereignty and defending policy space for alternative forms of economic development.

In a written statement, Bolivian president Evo Morales said that, “The WTO negotiations have turned into a fight by developed countries to open markets in developing countries to favor their big companies.”
[1] Kevin P. Gallagher and Timothy A. Wise, “Back to the Drawing Board: No Basis for Concluding the Doha Round of Negotiations.” Research and Information System for Developing Countries Issue Brief. No. 36, April 2008.
[2] Sandra Polaski, “Winners and Losers: Impact of the Doha Round on Developing Countries.” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, March 2006.
———————-

www.SustainabiliTank.info does not accept that this was just about bananas – we just posted the case of the airline industry that would have come under the services end of the World Trade Agreement.

A WTO was supposed to balance global trade so that everyone has to get something out of this, but when those that have neither the money, nor the fuel, have to do something to benefit interests that are placed in position to hurt them even more – so better put up barriers to harming trade. For some this means close in your agriculture, but we just pointed at some that would be better off if they closed in their airtransport -this just as an example. So let us be blunt here – the US would be completely in its right now to put an extra “oil-cost-tax” on the National airlines of the oil-states. With an end to the running-around-Doha exercize there is no reason why the US should not do this to help its airlines.

Today’s News are full with the woes of private airlines. “Fuel Prices hurt Ryanair and Shares Tumble 25%;” “Airport Lounges are the latest casualty of the current crisis in the airline industry;” “Delta will charge for the second suitcase;” but Emirates is introducing showers to its first class passengers.

The point is that Emirates and other government owned oil-state airlines benefit from clear subsidy of their fuel costs thus undermining air-transport competition. DOHA happens to be in such a State and DOHA is the keyword for ongoing trade negotiations that include also services – and air transport is these days a main service. We know that when you are dependent on the power that has the cash, and also happens to have the fuel that your country is addicted to – you may not have the stomach for true negotiations.

The DOHA round, supposedly is stuck on agriculture – but what about transport – be it air transport loke in the case of “Emirates” or maritime transport like in the case of Norway – will the negotiators on world trade step up now to an honest witness stand? That is the Question in our present posting.

As Most Airlines Struggle, Middle East Carriers Are Expanding.
By CAROLINE BROTHERS, Published: July 29, 2008, The New York Times.

HAMBURG — As carriers from American Airlines to Thai Airway International respond to high oil prices by shedding jobs, culling routes and grounding aircraft, Middle Eastern carriers are expanding as fast as they can in hopes of redefining their region as the aviation crossroads of the globe.

“There is no sign of a crisis there,” said Thomas O. Enders, the chief executive of Airbus, in an interview on Monday shortly before handing over a new A380 jet to the chairman of Emirates, Sheik Ahmed bin Saeed al-Maktoum. “These airlines are on a very impressive growth path and expansion course.”

Emirates, which in 2000 became the first customer to sign a firm commitment to buy A380s, has since increased its order more than eightfold to 58 planes. At Monday’s ceremonial delivery, Sheik Ahmed signed a letter of intent for an additional 60 Airbus jets with a total price tag of $13.3 billion: 30 wide-bodied A330 planes and 30 of the A350s that are still under development.

The technological capacity of new-generation aircraft like the Airbus A380 allows gulf states to leverage their geographical position as a crossroads, putting 80 percent of the world’s most attractive markets, like India and China, within reach of nonstop flights.

Tim Clark, president of Emirates, said that from the start, the airline had focused on Dubai’s central location. The aim was to link places that were not already linked, like Africa and China, or Russia and South Africa, Mr. Clark said.

The Middle East is pouring $54 billion into airport expansion over the next decade, according to the International Air Transport Association, and airlines in the region have ordered 700 planes at a cost of $140 billion over the last three years.

“The size of our order mirrors the rising prominence of the Middle East and its increasing emergence as a new focal point of global aviation,” said James Hogan, the chief executive of Etihad, an airline based in the region that ordered 100 aircraft in July, including 10 Airbus A380s.

The big Emirates order for the superjumbos — which would be able to compete with low-cost carriers if configured for 750 passengers in economy class — might sound like a recipe for overcapacity. But so far, airlines in the gulf have done well in matching demand, which grew 11 percent in the first five months of this year, with capacity that rose 11.1 percent, according to the transport association.

Furthermore, the gulf airlines are mining fast-growing routes. Passenger traffic between the Middle East and Africa rose 19.8 percent in the five months to June this year, and 14 percent between the Middle East and Far East, though from a low base, the association said. That compares with average growth of 4.5 percent for all international routes.

The Middle Eastern carriers are also running a tight ship. During the five months to May, the load factor, or percentage of available seats sold, on the region’s airlines was 74.6, according to association figures, in line with a “high” global average of 75.2.

The level means that Middle Eastern airlines are flying as full as their rivals and suggests that they are not emptying their competitors’ planes.

But over the longer run, aviation experts said, airlines like Emirates, which compete on price for the mass market and on service for business travelers, should make some inroads against competitors.

The A380 that Sheik Ahmed received Monday represents a crucial element of a business strategy that makes the Middle Eastern airlines “a competitive threat to any European-based carrier,” according to Daniel Solon, an independent aviation consultant based in Barcelona.

The technological advances of the A380 mean that it can fly more passengers farther and for less money than their competitors.

In eight capitals on the Indian subcontinent, Emirates already offers travelers to the United States a chance to change planes in Dubai as an alternative to congested European airports.

Industry executives say that the gulf region would also be a well-positioned hub for traffic from China to Africa, while Emirates’ services between Europe and Australia mean that passengers can bypass Asia altogether.

“The capability of airlines has changed the reach of the gulf region,” said Chris Tarry, an analyst at Ctaira, a British aviation consulting firm. “If you’ve got planes that can fly farther, you change the structure of the market.”

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

Tracing back to 1492 Spain, via Turkey and Syria – the family settled in Jerusalem and became staples of the modern Israeli culture and its economy. They were at the periphery of its politics and had they wanted to reach for it – both brothers, very popular, could have also been part of Israel political scene. Their life is testimony to the fact that Israel belongs to its place in the Middle East.

What coincidence that Benny’s passing happened on the day that President Bush was being celebrated in Jerusalem for his backing the unrelenting stubbornness of this State to show just that.

The obituary is from the New York Times of today, May 15, 2008.

Below are remarks by the President to the Knesset. This speech is worth taking the time to read.

Jeremy Katz
White House Liaison to the Jewish Community

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

(Jerusalem)

________________________________________________________________

For Immediate Release May 15, 2008

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT TO MEMBERS OF THE KNESSET.

The Knesset

Jerusalem

2:55 P.M. (Local)

THE PRESIDENT: President Peres and Mr. Prime Minister, Madam Speaker, thank very much for hosting this special session. President Beinish {this is the Chief Justice called in Israel President of the Supreme Court}, Leader of the Opposition Netanyahu, Ministers, members of the Knesset, distinguished guests: Shalom. Laura and I are thrilled to be back in Israel. We have been deeply moved by the celebrations of the past two days. And this afternoon, I am honored to stand before one of the world’s great democratic assemblies and convey the wishes of the American people with these words: Yom Ha’atzmaut Sameach. (Applause.)

It is a rare privilege for the American President to speak to the Knesset. (Laughter.) Although the Prime Minister told me there is something even rarer — to have just one person in this chamber speaking at a time. (Laughter.) My only regret is that one of Israel’s greatest leaders is not here to share this moment. He is a warrior for the ages, a man of peace, a friend. The prayers of the American people are with Ariel Sharon. (Applause.)

We gather to mark a momentous occasion. Sixty years ago in Tel Aviv, David Ben-Gurion proclaimed Israel’s independence, founded on the “natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate.” What followed was more than the establishment of a new country. It was the redemption of an ancient promise given to Abraham and Moses and David — a homeland for the chosen people Eretz Yisrael.

Eleven minutes later, on the orders of President Harry Truman, the United States was proud to be the first nation to recognize Israel’s independence. And on this landmark anniversary, America is proud to be Israel’s closest ally and best friend in the world.

The alliance between our governments is unbreakable, yet the source of our friendship runs deeper than any treaty. It is grounded in the shared spirit of our people, the bonds of the Book, the ties of the soul. When William Bradford stepped off the Mayflower in 1620, he quoted the words of Jeremiah: “Come let us declare in Zion the word of God.” The founders of my country saw a new promised land and bestowed upon their towns names like Bethlehem and New Canaan. And in time, many Americans became passionate advocates for a Jewish state.

Centuries of suffering and sacrifice would pass before the dream was fulfilled. The Jewish people endured the agony of the pogroms, the tragedy of the Great War, and the horror of the Holocaust — what Elie Wiesel called “the kingdom of the night.” Soulless men took away lives and broke apart families. Yet they could not take away the spirit of the Jewish people, and they could not break the promise of God. (Applause.) When news of Israel’s freedom finally arrived, Golda Meir, a fearless woman raised in Wisconsin, could summon only tears. She later said: “For two thousand years we have waited for our deliverance. Now that it is here it is so great and wonderful that it surpasses human words.”

The joy of independence was tempered by the outbreak of battle, a struggle that has continued for six decades. Yet in spite of the violence, in defiance of the threats, Israel has built a thriving democracy in the heart of the Holy Land. You have welcomed immigrants from the four corners of the Earth. You have forged a free and modern society based on the love of liberty, a passion for justice, and a respect for human dignity. You have worked tirelessly for peace. You have fought valiantly for freedom.

My country’s admiration for Israel does not end there. When Americans look at Israel, we see a pioneer spirit that worked an agricultural miracle and now leads a high-tech revolution. We see world-class universities and a global leader in business and innovation and the arts. We see a resource more valuable than oil or gold: the talent and determination of a free people who refuse to let any obstacle stand in the way of their destiny.

I have been fortunate to see the character of Israel up close. I have touched the Western Wall, seen the sun reflected in the Sea of Galilee, I have prayed at Yad Vashem. And earlier today, I visited Masada, an inspiring monument to courage and sacrifice. At this historic site, Israeli soldiers swear an oath: “Masada shall never fall again.” Citizens of Israel: Masada shall never fall again, and America will be at your side.

This anniversary is a time to reflect on the past. It’s also an opportunity to look to the future. As we go forward, our alliance will be guided by clear principles — shared convictions rooted in moral clarity and unswayed by popularity polls or the shifting opinions of international elites.

We believe in the matchless value of every man, woman, and child. So we insist that the people of Israel have the right to a decent, normal, and peaceful life, just like the citizens of every other nation. (Applause.)

We believe that democracy is the only way to ensure human rights. So we consider it a source of shame that the United Nations routinely passes more human rights resolutions against the freest democracy in the Middle East than any other nation in the world. (Applause.)

We believe that religious liberty is fundamental to a civilized society. So we condemn anti-Semitism in all forms — whether by those who openly question Israel’s right to exist, or by others who quietly excuse them.

We believe that free people should strive and sacrifice for peace. So we applaud the courageous choices Israeli’s leaders have made. We also believe that nations have a right to defend themselves and that no nation should ever be forced to negotiate with killers pledged to its destruction. (Applause.)

We believe that targeting innocent lives to achieve political objectives is always and everywhere wrong. So we stand together against terror and extremism, and we will never let down our guard or lose our resolve. (Applause.)

The fight against terror and extremism is the defining challenge of our time. It is more than a clash of arms. It is a clash of visions, a great ideological struggle. On the one side are those who defend the ideals of justice and dignity with the power of reason and truth. On the other side are those who pursue a narrow vision of cruelty and control by committing murder, inciting fear, and spreading lies.

This struggle is waged with the technology of the 21st century, but at its core it is an ancient battle between good and evil. The killers claim the mantle of Islam, but they are not religious men. No one who prays to the God of Abraham could strap a suicide vest to an innocent child, or blow up guiltless guests at a Passover Seder, or fly planes into office buildings filled with unsuspecting workers. In truth, the men who carry out these savage acts serve no higher goal than their own desire for power. They accept no God before themselves. And they reserve a special hatred for the most ardent defenders of liberty, including Americans and Israelis.

And that is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the “elimination” of Israel. And that is why the followers of Hezbollah chant “Death to Israel, Death to America!” That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that “the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties.” And that is why the President of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map.

There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It’s natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history. (Applause.)

Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it. Israel’s population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you. (Applause.)

America stands with you in breaking up terrorist networks and denying the extremists sanctuary. America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions. Permitting the world’s leading sponsor of terror to possess the world’s deadliest weapons would be an unforgivable betrayal for future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. (Applause.)

Ultimately, to prevail in this struggle, we must offer an alternative to the ideology of the extremists by extending our vision of justice and tolerance and freedom and hope. These values are the self-evident right of all people, of all religions, in all the world because they are a gift from the Almighty God. Securing these rights is also the surest way to secure peace. Leaders who are accountable to their people will not pursue endless confrontation and bloodshed. Young people with a place in their society and a voice in their future are less likely to search for meaning in radicalism. Societies where citizens can express their conscience and worship their God will not export violence, they will be partners in peace.

The fundamental insight, that freedom yields peace, is the great lesson of the 20th century. Now our task is to apply it to the 21st. Nowhere is this work more urgent than here in the Middle East. We must stand with the reformers working to break the old patterns of tyranny and despair. We must give voice to millions of ordinary people who dream of a better life in a free society. We must confront the moral relativism that views all forms of government as equally acceptable and thereby consigns whole societies to slavery. Above all, we must have faith in our values and ourselves and confidently pursue the expansion of liberty as the path to a peaceful future.

That future will be a dramatic departure from the Middle East of today. So as we mark 60 years from Israel’s founding, let us try to envision the region 60 years from now. This vision is not going to arrive easily or overnight; it will encounter violent resistance. But if we and future Presidents and future Knessets maintain our resolve and have faith in our ideals, here is the Middle East that we can see:

Israel will be celebrating the 120th anniversary as one of the world’s great democracies, a secure and flourishing homeland for the Jewish people. The Palestinian people will have the homeland they have long dreamed of and deserved — a democratic state that is governed by law, and respects human rights, and rejects terror. From Cairo to Riyadh to Baghdad and Beirut, people will live in free and independent societies, where a desire for peace is reinforced by ties of diplomacy and tourism and trade. Iran and Syria will be peaceful nations, with today’s oppression a distant memory and where people are free to speak their minds and develop their God-given talents. Al Qaeda and Hezbollah and Hamas will be defeated, as Muslims across the region recognize the emptiness of the terrorists’ vision and the injustice of their cause.

Overall, the Middle East will be characterized by a new period of tolerance and integration. And this doesn’t mean that Israel and its neighbors will be best of friends. But when leaders across the region answer to their people, they will focus their energies on schools and jobs, not on rocket attacks and suicide bombings. With this change, Israel will open a new hopeful chapter in which its people can live a normal life, and the dream of Herzl and the founders of 1948 can be fully and finally realized.

This is a bold vision, and some will say it can never be achieved. But think about what we have witnessed in our own time. When Europe was destroying itself through total war and genocide, it was difficult to envision a continent that six decades later would be free and at peace. When Japanese pilots were flying suicide missions into American battleships, it seemed impossible that six decades later Japan would be a democracy, a lynchpin of security in Asia, and one of America’s closest friends. And when waves of refugees arrived here in the desert with nothing, surrounded by hostile armies, it was almost unimaginable that Israel would grow into one of the freest and most successful nations on the earth.

Yet each one of these transformations took place. And a future of transformation is possible in the Middle East, so long as a new generation of leaders has the courage to defeat the enemies of freedom, to make the hard choices necessary for peace, and stand firm on the solid rock of universal values.

Sixty years ago, on the eve of Israel’s independence, the last British soldiers departing Jerusalem stopped at a building in the Jewish quarter of the Old City. An officer knocked on the door and met a senior rabbi. The officer presented him with a short iron bar — the key to the Zion Gate — and said it was the first time in 18 centuries that a key to the gates of Jerusalem had belonged to a Jew. His hands trembling, the rabbi offered a prayer of thanksgiving to God, “Who had granted us life and permitted us to reach this day.” Then he turned to the officer, and uttered the words Jews had awaited for so long: “I accept this key in the name of my people.”

Over the past six decades, the Jewish people have established a state that would make that humble rabbi proud. You have raised a modern society in the Promised Land, a light unto the nations that preserves the legacy of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. And you have built a mighty democracy that will endure forever and can always count on the United States of America to be at your side. God bless. (Applause.)

END 3:18 P.M. (Local)

From The Transatlantic Institute in Brussels, as per an article in the Daily Star of Lebanon by a writer from the Washington Heritage Foundation:
 http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?…

Should Egypt embrace Iran’s overtures?

By Claudia Schwartz
Published in The Daily Star
03/03/08

After almost 30 years of mutual tension, Iran is taking steps to improve its ties with Egypt. The Islamic Republic cut off contacts following the Camp David peace treaty signed between Egypt and Israel. Antagonism intensified when Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi was granted asylum by Anwar Sadat and later Iran named a street in memory of the Egyptian president’s assassin, Khaled Islambouli. Iran’s hostility to the United States and Egypt’s close alliance with Washington is a further impediment to normalization.

The stirrings of rapprochement have included diplomatic meetings between representatives of the two countries – most significantly the visit to Cairo at the end of last year of Ali Larijani, a senior adviser to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and a landmark telephone conversation between Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This diplomacy has been bolstered by the restoration of some economic and cultural ties.

Iran’s overtures to Egypt mirror its broader regional strategy, namely courting the Sunni Arab world. This comes in response to the Bush administration’s attempt to consolidate an anti-Iranian Sunni bloc in the Middle East, which formed a significant part of President George W. Bush’s recent tour of the region. Iran’s efforts have led to a thaw with leading Sunni Arab countries, allowing Ahmadinejad’s attendance at the last Gulf Cooperation Council summit in Qatar, his journey to Mecca for the annual pilgrimage, and his visit to Baghdad on Sunday. In the words of Iranian presidential adviser Samarej Hashemi, renewed relations with Egypt would mean “the enemies of Islam and Islamic unity would be segregated.”

Egypt, being one of America’s strongest Middle East allies, provides fertile ground in which Iran can plant seeds to consolidate its gains in the Arab world. However, despite positive beginnings, there remain obstacles in the way of renewed friendship. Tehran’s support for the Syrian-backed Lebanese opposition and its meddling in the Gaza Strip through Hamas and Islamic Jihad are major hurdles that Iran and Egypt must cross.

The current political climate is tense, amid signs that Mubarak will not participate in the forthcoming Arab League summit in Damascus unless the Lebanese crisis is resolved. Egypt and Saudi Arabia believe Syria is blocking efforts to allow the election of a new Lebanese president. They have both been disappointed with Iran, which has paramount influence over Hizbullah, for doing nothing to help find a resolution. News reports suggest that Iran remains deeply reluctant to cross Syria in Lebanon.

Iran’s interference on the Palestinian scene, particularly its support for Hamas and Islamic Jihad, has also marred Iranian-Egyptian relations. The recent Hamas border breach with Egypt, which heightened Cairo’s internal security fears, was but one facet of the two countries’ disagreement over how to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Another is that Egypt remains committed to peace with Israel, while Iran rejects Israel’s right to exist.

Egypt’s need for American aid is another obstacle. The United States, which provides Egypt with $1.3 billion annually, will not take kindly to improved Egyptian-Iranian relations. Following Congress’ withholding of $100 million as a result of Egypt’s failure to prevent weapons smuggling into Gaza, Cairo will be careful before risking watering down further US financial support.

For Israel, strengthened Egyptian-Iranian relations are a worrying prospect too. Not only does Israel fear a concomitant cooling in its relation with Egypt – on which it relies to be its main mediator in the Arab world – but it is also fearful that if ties improve between Cairo and Tehran, Egypt would be less able to counterbalance Iran’s interference in South Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza, through its support for Hizbullah and militant Palestinian groups.

Egypt must hedge its bets when it comes to Iran. In the short term, it cannot rely on the US to contain the Islamic Republic, particularly after the release last year of a US National Intelligence Estimate asserting that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. At the same time, the Egyptians are uncertain that better relations with Iran will push it to reduce its meddling in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, or help resolve the Lebanese crisis.

Taking into account the likely repercussions of a rapprochement, full diplomatic relations between the two countries would be asymmetrical: They would serve Iran to Egypt’s detriment. Iran would profit from a renewed stance in the Sunni world and a weakening of American efforts to isolate it. Egypt, in turn, would lose American confidence, face a more destabilized situation in Gaza, and may find itself partly neutralized in how to respond to Iranian actions. In a worst-case scenario, Iran would gain latitude to divide the Arab countries and pursue its efforts to become a regional power.

That’s why an improvement in relations between Egypt and Iran, while it might deliver change in the region, might not deliver the kinds of changes that necessarily elicit optimism.

Claudia Schwartz is a Legacy Heritage fellow at the Transatlantic Institute. She wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Vice President

________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release March 10, 2008

Vice President to Visit Middle East

Vice President Cheney will travel abroad beginning March 16, 2008. President Bush has asked the Vice President to travel to Oman, Saudi Arabia, Israel, the West Bank, and Turkey for discussions with these key partners on issues of mutual interest.

The Vice President will meet with Sultan Qaboos of Oman, King Abdullah of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Prime Minister Olmert of Israel, President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad of the Palestinian Territories, President Gul and Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey, as well as senior officials of their respective governments.

——————————————-

www.SustainabiliTank.info asks – The Above trip does not include Egypt – What does this mean in above context?

From: The Oil Drum [mailto:theoildrum@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 10:47 AM
Subject: The Oil Drum: The Latest on Cyclone Gonu, and an Exclusive on Damage to LNG and Oil Assets Based on Damage Models,

Credit: THE OIL DRUM: http://theoildrum.com,
and Chuck Watson of KAC/UCF: http://hurricane.methaz.org

KAC/UCF and Chuck Watson are forecasting, based on their damage models, that the Qalhat (Sur) LNG terminal will be out for 20-30 days and the Mina al Fahal oil terminal will be down for 10-15 days–all of this assuming they are built to US standards.

We will be discussing the ramifications of this news and any changes to the cyclone’s track in the top thread of The Oil Drum for the rest of the day.

I also wanted to make you aware of our newest Cyclone Gonu coverage thread here:
 http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2626

(this will also be the top thread for the rest of the day at http://theoildrum.com)
Kyle
The Oil Drum
 http://theoildrum.com

—————————–

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: June 7, 2007
Story by Lin Noueihed, for Reuters.

DUBAI – Cyclone Gonu pounded Oman on Wednesday, halting oil and gas exports for a second day and forcing thousands to flee the coast, but weakened as it moved through the Gulf of Oman, a major route for oil shipments.

The storm, which peaked to a maximum-force Category Five hurricane on Tuesday, has been downgraded to a Category One hurricane, with a maximum sustained wind speed of about 75 mph, the US military’s Joint Typhoon Warning Center said.
The cyclone “continues to weaken under the influence of land interactions and low ocean heat content,” it said.

Oman’s meteorology department said the storm’s centre made landfall in Oman around midnight and was moving northwest to Muscat, bringing torrential rains, strong winds and high waves.

“The eastern region has absorbed most of the impact but we expect the rain to continue tonight and early tomorrow as the cyclone moves northwest over Oman,” director Ahmed al-Harthi told Reuters.

“There could be local rainfall on Friday but it should have finally dissipated by then.”

The Joint Typhoon Warning Center said it would reach Iran in the next two to three days but would continue to weaken.

A senior Iranian oil official said the cyclone was not expected to disrupt supplies from OPEC’s number two exporter as its main terminals were inside the Gulf waterway.

In Oman, however, the country’s only outlet for 650,000 barrels per day of crude exports, Mina al-Fahal, was shut for a second day as was the Sur terminal, which handles 10 million tonnes per year of liquefied natural gas.

The United Arab Emirates’ eastern port of Fujairah, in the Gulf of Oman, has been cleared of anchored vessels and is closed to all ships until further notice, the state news agency said.

More than 100 ships are anchored along the Fujairah coastline and around 180 vessels, mainly oil tankers, pass through the area daily.

The police of regional trade and tourism hub, Dubai made preparations to evacuate residents of coastline areas in case the cyclone hit the Gulf emirate, the agency said.

Lieutenant Commander Marn Balolong, meteorologist on the USS Nimitz, which is in the Gulf, said it would be unsafe for ships to pass through the Strait of Hormuz in the next 48 hours but said they would speed up after that to return to schedule.

Shipping sources said there had been no disruption to oil tanker transit so far.

Saudi Aramco, the world’s largest oil company by output, said the storm was too far away to affect its facilities and its tankers were made to withstand high seas. Abu Dhabi’s ADNOC said it would not be affected either.

NO CASUALTIES

Strong winds and heavy rain turned the deserted streets of Muscat into rivers as people heeded warnings to stay at home or shelter in buildings that could withstand strong winds.

“So far we have not confirmed any casualties. But the power is out and phones are disconnected in many areas so we just don’t know for sure,” Abdallah al-Harthi, spokesman for the Oman relief committee told Reuters.

Gonu has caused some material damage on the coast of both Oman and the UAE but not on a catastrophic scale. Waves pounded the eastern coast of the UAE and some residents were evacuated.

All private and public sector institutions, including the stock exchange, were closed until Sunday due to the storm.

Oman’s airport was closed, an airport official said.

The port of Sohar, north of Muscat, was effectively closed too but had not been expecting any ships, an official said.

Oman’s weather centre, which has been keeping records since 1890, says Gonu could be the strongest storm to reach Oman’s coast since 1977 though meteorologists say milder tropical storms are common in the region from mid-May to the end of June.

Iranian state television said waves had reached six metres high and coastal residents had been told to avoid travel by sea.

“Tropical Cyclone Gonu … is moving to the northwest parallel to the coast of Oman towards the Strait of Hormuz,” said a report on The Weather Channel  www.weather.com).

It said heavy rain would continue for a day or two over southeastern Iran, northern Oman and the eastern UAE before Gonu hits land in Iran on Friday as a much weaker storm. There is no record of a tropical cyclone hitting Iran since 1945, it added. (Reporting by Luke Pachymuthu in Singapore, Mohammed Abbas aboard USS Nimitz, Inal Ersan, Summer Said and James Cordahi in Dubai, Edmund Blair in Tehran)

You are invited to register to the organized transportation from Israel to The Second Annual Conference in Bil’in. The conference is three days, and you can register to each one of the days or to all of them.

Register as early as you can preferably before Monday night.

Phones:
03-6482749
052-4-655520
Or better by e-mail with your mobile phone number to:
 ilan at shalif.com
_______________________

Salam Friends

I’m sending to you the “Bili’n International Conference” program … Its Next week as you see. Your participation is important!!

Yours

Khulood Badawi  Khulood48 at yahoo.com

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE PROGRAM PLAN

WEDNESDAY, 18 April 2007

time
Activity
Title

8-10 am
Registration

10:00
The Palestinian National Anthem, Welcome & Greeting, Bil’in Popular Committee
Representative of President Mahmoud Abbas

10:10
Opening Address: Mairead McGuire

“Nonviolence – the way forward for the Human family”.

10:30

Azmi Bishara

10:50
Luisa Morgantini

11:10
History of Bil’in’s Nonviolent Resistance

Bil’in Popular Committee, Mohammad Khatib

11:30
Break

12:00
Stephan Hessel
“The impunity of Israel and the responsibility of the international community in that issue”

12:15
Jean-Claude Lefort
Double standard particularly in the present situation in Palestine

12:30
Report & Panel from the Palestinian-Palestinian Conference on Non Violence.

Mohammad Elias

1:45
Lunch

2:45
Amira Hass, Dr. Mustafa Barghouti

Media

4:00
Break

4:15
Ilan Pappe, Omar Barghouthi

Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions

5:30
break

5:45- 6:15
Final Remarks

6:15
Rest & Fun, Dinner with Families

8:30- 10:00
Films & Dabka

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE PROGRAM PLAN, Day Two

THURSDAY, 19 April 2007

time
Activity
9:00
Welcome, Announcements

9:15
Jeff Halper, Mikado Warshavsky and Uri Avnery

10:30-
11:45
Panel: George S Rishmawi, Sam Bahour, Mohamed Shtaye

Economic Independence
11:45
Break

12:15-
WORKSHOPS:
1- Bil’in Development
2- BDS
3- BDS
4- Media
5- Pal-Isr Joint Struggle [Hanna & Mohammad]
6- Palestinian Recommendations from the Palestinian conference
7- Palestinian Recommendations from the Palestinian conference
8- International experiences in Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions

2:00
Lunch

3:00
Country Meetings

4:00
Palestinian, Israeli, International Nonviolence Trainings

6:30
Closing

7:00
Rest & Fun, Dinner with Families

Third Day: Friday April 20th 2007

Friday Morning: Meetings with Bil’in Popular Committee
1:00 Action

Botswana is among 11 countries/territories with sustained high economic growth rate for a period of at least 25 years. It is the only State of Africa to do so, and with Malta, the only States on the list that are not in Asia.

The information is from “FinFacts Ireland online Business and Financial Portal,” which claims to be “Ireland’s Top Business Website.”

In the article below Botswana is identified as being among the 11 countries or territories in the world that enjoyed “high”, i.e. over 7%, sustained growth over the last 25 years (that is throughout the Masire and Mogae administrations of Botswana, which of course followed the double digit, post diamond discoveries etc., economic boom during the first decade and a half of independence under Seretse Khama)

The 11 countries or territories that have been identified as the world’s sustained high performers are,
in alphabetical order:

Botswana, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, Malta, Oman, Singapore, Taiwan and Thailand. Except for Botswana and Malta all of the countries or territories are in Asia.

“Growth Miracles: China and 10 other countries had the best 25 year performances of export-driven high economic growth… article By Michael Hennigan, Editor and Founder of Finfacts:

Dr. Michael Spence, a winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize in Economics and Chairman of the Commission on Growth and Development, says that sustained high growth in developing economies is a recent, post-World War II phenomenon. Using GDP figures, “high” is above 7% and “sustained” is over 25 years or more. He says that these cut offs are arbitrary, but a similar picture emerges with variants. Growth at these rates produces very substantial changes in incomes and wealth: Income doubles every decade at 7%.

There are 11 such cases of sustained high growth, and eight are in Asia. These are Botswana, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, Malta, Oman, Singapore, Taiwan and Thailand.

Each and every one of these miracles had an export sector as a driver of growth and an increasing share of trade in GDP. There are no exceptions. Every growth miracle involves leveraging the demand and resources of the global economy… (Full article @ www.finfacts.com

Last night C-SPAN showed the Thursday, March 29, 2007, closing Session of the two day long, very intense, 2007 Arab Summit that was held in Ryadh. We posted yesterday an opinion column written for the Israeli paper Yedioth Ahranoth by French Journalist Orly Azoulay – that article was probably written March 28, 2007.

In effect there was little good coverage from the meetings – basically – the good material I saw was from Orly and New York Times UN   correspondent Warren Hoge. There was some reporting that we call “scribbling.” This is the reporting that comes from what we call “scribblers” – people that listen to what people in high position say, and report just that, believing that good journalistic reporting means – watch out and do not editorialize. The problem with such reporting is that – unless you actually reproduce word by word what was said or released – by the nature of things you must chose what to write and what to leave out. And here is the rub – in most these cases “scribblers” write what they are paid to write – this because their boss, their paper, and thanks to the pay-check, they themselves – all of these – have a point of view which they look to find expressed in the material presented to them. They think, in many cases quite honestly, that this is also what their readers want to read. So, in the process the real news are not discussed and do get lost in the short shuffle. That is why the C-SPAN show was really important – even though it was given in English translation and we wonder if what the translator said was indeed what the speaker said.         As a case in point I will mention that my eyebrows went up when I heard the interpreter say in the name of the Iraqi President that he wishes to see “independence for the Golan Heights.” If he really called for “INDEPENDENCE” of the Golan Heights – that was a master strike suggestion – but I hardly believe that this was the word that President Jalal Talabani used in his speech. I rather think he called for a return of the Heights to Syria – or did he have some interim suggestion that got lost?   In effect   in a joint Washington Post article   by writers from Ryadh, Jerusalem, and Washington, there is an allusion to a Saudi analyst close to the foreign minister who thinks that if the Syrians and the Israelis decide to partition the Golan Heights – this is fine with the Saudis – did Talabani think here of a way to make progress?

Anyway, let us start with the visual effect of the unbelievably lush hall, the huge wide chairs and the seating arrangement. Once I was at a State Dinner in the old Dolombashi Palace in Istanbul. Obviously, there was nothing as elaborate as I saw here, but the place gave me hallucinations of divans and Persian 1001 nights stories. Even though these words may sound like hodgepodge, the emotional impressions were correct. Orly described the Ryadh hall in the article we posted – she also went beyond, in her opinion piece, and explained why things look the way they do – the intent behind the staging – and I cannot try to upstage her because I was not there. In effect I wanted to go, but was not chosen to be one of the 11 journalists that went with the UN Secretary General. Having included Orly and Warren in that list left me nevertheless with good feelings, even though I did not go.   King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz was sitting alone on   what looked like a higher seat under the flags. In front of him the seats of the other monarchs or presidents of the Arab world. Seemingly only President Khadafi of Libya was missing.   The UN Secretary-General had also a section to himself and looked immersed in the proceedings – specially when, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Lebanon spoke.

King Abdullah’s mother was from the Shammar tribe. He was born in Riyadh in 1924, but the exact date is unknown because no exact records of births or deaths were kept at the time, in what was then an impoverished desert land. He has only a rudimentary education. Abdullah’s selection as crown prince in 1982 was challenged by Prince Sultan, who wanted the title for himself. But the sons of Abdul-Aziz closed ranks when the issue was decided, aware that a direct confrontation with Abdullah could tear the family apart.

He sports a goatee and moustache and has a passion for the simple bedouin pleasures of horse riding and falcon hunting. He spends at least a month every year hunting in Morocco in a special high-tech desert encampment. His reputation as a fair and unpretentious man have won him unswerving loyalty of the National Guard, which he has led since 1962. He built up the once largely ceremonial unit into a modern 75,000-strong force as a counterweight to the army. It protects the royal family and is the foundation of his power. For most Saudis, Abdullah has become a larger-than-life leader. Back in 1974 I wrote a paper for the American Graduate Schhol for International Management (The Thunderbird School) on the Saudi Royal family and my main issue was to see if it will be Abdullah or Sultan that will become eventually king – the National Guard or the regular army – who will win the internal Saudi fight for succesion?

Part of the widely-told folklore about him is a fable he reportedly told Madamme when she was visiting the kingdom in 1997 for permission to strike Iraq:

He is said to have told her the story of a shepherd who hired dogs to help guard his flock from wolves, a reference to U.S. troops stationed in Saudi Arabia. The dogs became too expensive to maintain, and the shepherd had to kill some of his sheep to feed them. In the end, he decided to get rid of the dogs and try to handle the wolves himself. Now the dogs of the story seem to be the Americans and the wolves of the story his enemies, such as the internal enemies and the Shia on the outside. Will he now dismiss the Americans and fight the wolves by himself? Some think that his statements now may point in this direction, others think that he intends to become more active at making the land safer for the Americans and for himself.

Abdullah’s own strict upbringing is exemplified by the three days he spent in prison as a young prince, a punishment by his father Abdul Aziz bin Saud for not having given up his seat for a visitor, a severe violation of bedouin hospitality.

 This brings us to the main presentation of this summit – in our opinion it was the Jalal Talabani speech.

At first, let us state immediately that Talabani is not an Arab – he is a Kurd – so this is the exceptional appearance of a-non Arab at the League’s table. This, at the same time, that the first Muslim woman spoke before the Arab League as the president of the UNGA, a member of the Sunni ruling family in Bahrain   – a country with a Shia population majority on an Island in the Persian/Arab Gulf, whose shores are lined up with Iranian and Arab Shia. It was not only that the Talabanis are not a fixture of this assembly that is rather built on Saudis and Mubaracks, that was the novelty. I assume that Talabani already represented Iraq at previous Arab League Summits – that is the one organized by Sudan last year.

What was new here was really in Talabani’s presentation. He unabashedly continued to talk as the representative of a New Iraq. He kept referring to Saddam’s regime, the Sunni darling of the League for years, as a murderous regime that kept killing people. He told them of an inexcusable war against – you’ll never believe it if you did not see it – yes – against IRAN! He told them that the country is rid of him and his regime, and is building a legitimate government and DEMOCRACY – “All Iraqis as multicolor flowers with 22 million people having voted for the government – AND THE OIL BELONGING TO ALL THE PEOPLE OF THE COUNTRY.” NU! THESE ARE WORDS LIKE SPEARS falling on the ears of a roomful of despots – monarchs without recourse and plain dictators – countries were the belief still exists that oil is a God-given right to the Heads of State, and Democracy in its western sense, is against the dearest beliefs of the Heads of State. We wonder what would happen to the President of the UNGA were she to try to drive away to have coffee at one the local Starbucks (there must be some – they are even in Vienna – the quintessential city of coffee houses.)

Emil Lahoud, the Syrian puppet President of Lebanon, who with the Syrians is probably responsible for the killing of Rafik Hariri, spoke for Lebanon, and was all democracy. He as well as Talabani, and as most everybody else, mentioned Israel – the obligatory target for an Arab speaker. Only The Syrian President did not say Israel – he plainly said “the Jews.” Emil Lahoud kept mentioning that already in 2002 at the Arab Summit in Beirut, there was this proposal to Israel by King Abdullah. One might think that indeed all Lebanon’s problems are because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that the continuing existence of the refugees camps and the Shia-Sunni-Maronite wars had nothing to do with the so called democracy, that by its inequalities perpetuated schisms that made the ruling of this small country impossible.

Syria invited next Summit to Damascus – and we clearly think this is a good idea so further attention can be given to Syria’s role in the Middle East mess.

Somalia pleaded for help – they reminded that a lot of money was promised by the Arab States to help the Somalis, but only $2 million from Algeria and $1/2 million from Yemen materialized.

The bottom line, from having watched the C-SPAN program, is that my thinking about the Iraq war has been rattled. Quite clearly we have said it in the past that taking out Saddam was a good idea, but staying in Iraq, as an occupying force for purpose of oil, was a catastrophic idea. Now Talabani rattled me by actually becoming a live example that something did work there after all. We believe it could have happened also without this terrible loss of life, without the American’s staying there for over four years, but nevertheless, Talabani, who also stated in his presentation, that there remained an occupying force in his country, after what was there a liberating force, shows his own ambiguity about this situation.

Will the Saudis be able to bring about Arab-Israeli real negotiations under Quartet supervision?

OK – the Israelis say the proposal includes elements that make it impossible to accept – it also does not include a call for NEGOTIATIONS. Now, with the prodding of the UNSG, will it be possible to move this through channels that say – statements can be made but negotiations have to start – and as the Saudis said of the reward – as long as the sides agree – they will go along. We may realize a new motto: IF THERE IS MONEY THERE IS A WILL. And what we saw on C-SPAN is that there is no Arab monolith, and when in danger from the outside (Iran, Shia and new ideas about the ownership of the oil) there may be nevertheless a circling of the wagons.