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.

UNEP NEWS: John Scanlon appointed as New Secretary-General of Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES)

Geneva (Switzerland)/Nairobi (Kenya), 13 March 2010 –

John Scanlon, a top advisor at the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), has been named as the new Secretary-General of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES). Mr. Scanlon was selected after a global search and selection process yielding close to 200 applicants and will assume his new position in May 2010.

Mr. Scanlon, an Australian national, joined UNEP in 2007 as the Principal Advisor on Policy and Programme to Executive Director Achim Steiner, in which capacity he also led the UNEP internal reform team.

A lawyer by training, he has had a long and distinguished career in environmental law, policy and management at national and international levels.

Among other roles, he was Australia’s first independent Commissioner on the Murray Darling Basin Commission, he held the position of Strategic Advisor to the World Commission on Dams in Cape Town (South Africa), and headed the Environmental Law Programme (Bonn, Germany) at the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

He also served as Chief Executive of the Department of Environment, Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs in South Australia and held several senior roles in New South Wales including as Deputy Director-General of the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources.

CITES is an international agreement between Governments that was adopted in 1973 in order to ensure that international trade of wild animals and plans does not threaten their survival.

With some 175 Parties, the Convention is one of the world’s most important agreements on species conservation and the sustainable use of wildlife.

Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary-General and Executive Director of UNEP, said: “John Scanlon is a highly qualified and accomplished professional in the fields of environmental law, international policy and governance. His extensive management experience in public institutions and the strategic role he played in UNEP’s recent reform programme make him an outstanding candidate for leading the CITES Secretariat at this critical juncture when the efficacy of environmental governance instruments is under scrutiny.”

CITES is currently holding its fifteenth meeting of the Conference of Parties in Doha, Qatar, from 13 to 25 March. Over 42 proposals are on the table, reflecting growing international concern about the accelerating destruction of the world’s marine and forest ecosystems through overfishing and excessive logging, and the potential impacts of climate change on the biological resources of the planet.

A growing number of commercially exploited fish have come under CITES controls in recent years. For instance, basking and whale sharks were included in Appendix II in 2002, the great white shark and the humphead wrasse in 2004, and the European eel and sawfishes in 2007.

2010 marks the International Year of Biodiversity and the role of CITES in regulating the global trade in plant and animal species is widely regarded as central to promoting the dual objectives of conservation and sustainable use.

Mr. Scanlon succeeds Mr. Willem Wijnstekers who served the CITES Convention as Secretary-General since 1999 and will retire on 1st May 2010.

For more information, please contact
Nick Nuttall, UNEP Spokesperson/Head of Media, on Mobile: +254 733 632755 or +41 795965737, or Email:  nick.nuttall at unep.org

————–

CITES world conference opens with call for new wildlife trade rules Decisions on the budget will show how seriously 175 member States take new measures to conserve and manage natural riches of the planet.

Doha, 13 March 2010 – Some 1,500 delegates representing more than 170 governments, indigenous peoples, non-governmental organizations and businesses are attending the triennial world conference of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Bluefin tuna, elephant populations and a wide range of sharks, corals, polar bears, reptiles, insects and plants are top of the agenda for the two-week meeting.

CITES Secretary-General Willem Wijnstekers thanked Qatar for hosting the meeting and noted that existing and new challenges require increased political support for the 35-year old treaty to match present day demands. Mr Wijnstekers congratulated the member States for the many conservation successes during these years but warned that more needs to be done.  “We do not want to risk letting down the developing world in its struggle to ensure that trade in wild fauna and flora is conducted legally and sustainably”, he said.

Many of the 42 proposals on the table reflect growing international concern about the accelerating destruction of the world’s marine and forest ecosystems through overfishing and excessive logging, and the potential impacts of climate change on the biological resources of the planet. The UN General Assembly has declared 2010 the international year of biodiversity and the CITES Conference will be one of the key occasions governments have this year to take action to protect biodiversity. Member States will decide by consensus or a two-thirds majority vote for measures to conserve and manage species on the agenda.

“2010 is a key year for biological diversity. By ensuring that the international trade in wildlife is properly regulated, CITES can assist in conserving the planet’s wild fauna and flora from overexploitation and thus contribute to the improved management of these key natural assets for sustainable development”, said Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme, which administers the CITES Secretariat.

Other issues on the agenda include the adoption of urgent measures to tackle illegal trade of tiger products, rhinos and other species that are on the brink of extinction. It will also address the potential impacts of CITES measures on the livelihoods of the rural poor, those on the frontlines of using and managing wildlife.

For more information on CITES, see www.cites.org.
Jim Sniffen
Programme Officer
UN Environment Programme
New York
tel: +1-212-963-8094/8210
 info at nyo.unep.org
www.nyo.unep.org

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

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

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

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

————-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Exclusive report by Robert Fisk for The Independent of London.
The demise of the dollar

In a graphic illustration of the new world order, Arab states have launched secret moves with China, Russia and France to stop using the US currency for oil trading

By Robert Fisk
Tuesday, 6 October 2009

Iran announced late last month that its foreign currency reserves would henceforth be held in euros rather than dollars.

China Threatens Dollar
Find out why China is deliberatelydestroying the Dollar. Free Report
MoneyMorning.com/dollar_china

In the most profound financial change in recent Middle East history, Gulf Arabs are planning – along with China, Russia, Japan and France – to end dollar dealings for oil, moving instead to a basket of currencies including the Japanese yen and Chinese yuan, the euro, gold and a new, unified currency planned for nations in the Gulf Co-operation Council, including Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and Qatar.

Secret meetings have already been held by finance ministers and central bank governors in Russia, China, Japan and Brazil to work on the scheme, which will mean that oil will no longer be priced in dollars.

The plans, confirmed to The Independent by both Gulf Arab and Chinese banking sources in Hong Kong, may help to explain the sudden rise in gold prices, but it also augurs an extraordinary transition from dollar markets within nine years.

Musicians from Israel, the Palestinian Territories, Jordan, Norway, and the United States, joined together to promote Middle East peace.

Itamar Eichner in Yedioth Ahronoth, June 29, 2009.
 http://www.israelpolicyforum.org/blog/mu…

In a pastoral farm near Oslo, capital of Norway-far from the eyes of the media-a group of Israeli, Palestinian and Jordanian musicians gathered this past week, and tried to make music together for the sake of peace.

Behind this initiative stands a Norwegian peace activist.   He invited musicians from the region for a joint 10-day workshop.   Participants from Israel included Kobi Oz, Aya Korem, Ohad Hitman and Mika Sadeh.

Three musicians came from the Palestinian Authority, and four arrived from Jordan.   They were joined by Norwegian and American musicians.

For 10 days, the musicians wrote songs together.   The Israelis learned to sing in Arabic, the Palestinians and Jordanians learned to sing in Hebrew.   They are slated to present the result on Saturday night [June 27] in a concert to be held in Oslo with the participation of about 1,000 people.

“Peace in the Middle East is important to us, and we think that musicians in the region have a great responsibility to promote peace.   After all, young people listen much more to musicians than to politicians,” he added.

Energy Risk USA, Houston – Next week!

From: Mustafah Abdullah

Dear Pincas,

If you can only attend one event this year and haven’t booked on Energy Risk USA, here’s what you are missing out on……

United Nations Climate Change Secretariat (UNFCCC) comes onboard the conference for an exclusive keynote update on the carbon regime post-2012, and how you will be affected.

John Kilani, Director of the Sustainable Development Mechanisms (SDM) Programme at the UNFCCC brings with him a unique perspective combining his regulatory role and his extensive senior management experience in Qatar Petroleum.   He will outline how different carbon policies will impact your business and shed new light on the regulation versus legislation debate.

Investing in renewable energy – bang for your buck?

Complimenting this keynote, we present you sessions discussing:

• The worth of investing in renewable energy at the current prices
• Operational considerations you need to factor in
• Impact of carbon prices on your asset values

Silent assassins – Don’t let moral hazards eat into your profits

An extended panel on the pitfalls of moral hazards and how you can decrease rogue activities at no cost.   Our speakers from Labhart Risk Advisors, Entergy Services, and International Commerce tell you how you can instil a self-correcting risk culture.

PLUS new speakers from GOLDMAN SACHS, CITIGROUP COMMODITIES, SEQUENT ENERGY, SARACEN, MACQUARIE COOK POWER, HESS, BP

PLUS all your traditional risk issues addressed in a fully interactive and concise CRO roundtable led by the Committee of Chief Risk Officers:

Credit risk                   Regulatory risk                             Operational risk                           Market risk

For the event guide click here

Energy Risk USA is the most anticipated event of year in the energy industry.   Make this your most astute time out of the office.

Book now to secure your place

See you in Houston!

Mustafah Abdullah
Conference Producer – Risk Events
Incisive Media

  Permalink | |  Email This Article
Posted in Arab Asia, Future Events, Qatar, Reporting from UNFCCC Meetings, Reporting from Washington DC, Texas

Discuss this article

For the first time, Christians in Qatar worship in church

By Caryle Murphy – The Christian Science Monitor
From the February 9, 2009 edition

The move is seen as part of an effort to modernize the emirate and demonstrate traditional Islam’s tolerance.

DOHA, Qatar – When the Rev. Tomasito Veneracion arrived in this Muslim nation seven years ago, his Roman Catholic parishioners prayed in small groups scattered in apartments, schools, and one tiny makeshift chapel. At Easter, Indian Catholics gathered in one place, Filipinos in another, Arabs in yet another.

But with last year’s opening of Our Lady of the Rosary Church, his congregants for the first time had a recognized, central place to worship. On Christmas Eve, 15,000 attended a midnight mass, with those who couldn’t cram into the 2,700-seat church watching on video screens outside.

“When I first came here, the church was not recognized. But now we are enjoying this gift,” Father Veneracion says. “It’s a tremendous feeling of relief that we can breathe, worship, and pray in a place without fear and without disturbance.”

The decision to permit church building is widely seen as part of an effort by Qatar’s leader, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, to modernize the tiny emirate, made wealthy by its natural-gas reserves, and demonstrate traditional Islam’s flexibility and tolerance.

“It’s showing the world they are open to new ideas, and I guess it’s part of growing up as a nation,” said Veneracion.

Our Lady of the Rosary will soon be joined by several churches under construction in what is informally known as “Church City,” a 99-acre site leased to Christian denominations by the Qatar government.

Qatar’s Christians, estimated at 70,000 to 80,000, are almost entirely expatriate workers, principally from India and the Philippines.

The move gave Qatar its first church since Islam took root here in the 7th century. It also brought Qatar into line with most of its Gulf neighbors, which have all had at least one church for decades. The one exception is Saudi Arabia, whose inflexible strain of Islam still bans worship of another faith.

Diplomats in Riyadh say, however, that a more relaxed atmosphere has emerged in recent years. Private services in homes are disrupted far less often, and fewer Christians are arrested, diplomats report. Customs agents no longer confiscate Bibles and crucifixes from arriving foreigners.

Though Qatar is not a pioneer in permitting an open Christian presence in the Gulf, it is bucking a massive ultraconservative drift in contemporary Islam around the world that rejects cooperation with other faiths. Al Qaeda spokesmen have berated Qatar for authorizing church construction.

Qatar’s 200,000 citizens, who enjoyed the world’s highest per capita income as of 2007, adhere to the same Islamic legal tradition as Saudi Arabians. But they differ in practice, being far more relaxed about publicly enforcing a strict social and moral code.

Most Qataris “are happy with what we’re doing because they are devout Muslims and they want their Christian employees to be able to pray,” said the Rev. Canon Bill Schwartz, Anglican rector of Doha’s Church of the Epiphany.

Mr. Schwartz is overseeing construction of the Anglican church complex going up next door to the Catholic compound. Under an agreement with the government, the facility will also be used by several other Protestant and Evangelical denominations. Schwartz anticipates that it will serve 20,000 worshipers in any given week.

The complex, likely to cost around $12 million and take years to complete, is being built in stages. Schwartz is hopeful the first phase can be ready for use by the end of 2009. “We’re asking for money from anybody who’ll give it to us,” he says. “It is very much a work of faith, including on the part of the contractor.”
Schwartz ministers to a dispersed congregation of about 30 nationalities. On Fridays, the day of worship for all faiths in Qatar, he presides at services in a school gym. But scores of other services are held in villas, hotels, and restaurants, he says.

Besides the Anglican and Roman Catholic compounds, buildings are also under construction for Copts, Greek Orthodox, and Indian Protestants at the leased site about eight miles from downtown Doha.

The government’s move to permit church building, which began to surface after it established diplomatic relations with the Vatican in 2002, was controversial among Qataris. A final decision was taken only after a 2003 referendum approving the country’s new Constitution, which guarantees freedom of worship.

Also, Qatar-based Muslim cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who has wide influence in the Middle East, ruled that Christians have a right to build a church in Muslim lands, just as Muslims are permitted to construct mosques in non-Muslim countries.

Both Schwartz and Veneracion, who wear their clerical collars when visiting government offices, but not elsewhere, say that they have not encountered hostility.

“The government asks us to be discreet,” says Schwartz, which is why none of the churches have exterior bells or crosses. Christian proselytizing is forbidden.

Veneracion said that Qatar’s prime minister attended last March’s ribbon-cutting ceremony at his church, whose $15 million cost was financed mostly by Catholics living in the Gulf states.

The next day’s consecration of the building was attended by six bishops, 40 priests, and congregants from 67 nations, who carried their flags in a parade.

“We have 16 masses on Friday alone” with an average attendance of about 8,000, said Veneracion, who is Filipino and has a staff of five other priests. Masses are said in Konkani, English, Tagalog, Sinhala, Arabic, Malayalan, Urdu, Tamil, French, and Italian.

During a recent visit to the church, a police car was stationed outside. It is there 24 hours a day, Veneracion says, to protect against any untoward incident.

A group of young Lebanese Catholics socializing in the sun-filled plaza said they were thrilled to have a worship place of their own.

“You know, the church is first a community before being a stone place,” said Maroun Nassar, an electrical engineer who runs the Arabic catechism classes. “But now, we can gather officially without offending the Qataris.”

The next day, Indonesian Catholics gathered in one of the small church halls for a belated Christmas service. There were two decorated trees, and the choir, accompanied by an electric keyboard, sang “It Came Upon a Midnight Clear.”

“You cannot imagine,” said engineer Adi Dwinanto when asked how he felt about the new church. “It’s just amazing, that here in this country we can do this freely…. All of us are happy, for sure.”

________________________________________________________________
This and all “other news” issues can be found at http://www.other-net.info/index.php

The international news station, Al Arabiya, is based in Dubai Media City, United Arab Emirates, and is partly owned by the Saudi-controlled broadcaster Middle East Broadcasting Center (MBC).

Actually, the original investment in Al Arabiya was $300 million by MBC, with Lebanon’s Hariri Group, and other investors from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, so, in reality this is as well a Lebanese company – with connection to other Hariri investments in media and air traffic. The Middle East in the name of the company standing indeed for Lebanon.

Al Arabiya broadcasts 24 hours a day with news updated at the top of the hour. The free-to-air channel carries news, current affairs, business and financial markets, sports, talk shows, and documentaries. It is consistently rated among the top pan-Arab stations by Middle East audiences.

On January 26, 2009 President of the United States Barack Obama gave his first formal interview as president to the television channel to Hisham Melhem, the Washington based head of Al Arabiya.

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 28, 2009

MIDEAST: A Tale of Two Summits.

Analysis by Adam Morrow and Khaled Moussa al-Omrani for IPS.

CAIRO, Jan 27, 2009 – Despite declarations of Arab unity at a recent economic summit, Egyptian commentators say that fundamental differences between rival Arab camps – especially over the issue of Palestine – are far from over. “The deep divisions currently plaguing the Arab world cannot be solved over the course of an official state luncheon,” Mohamed Abu Al-Hadid, political analyst and chairman of the board of the state-owned Dar Al-Tahrir publishing house wrote in official daily Al-Gomhouriya Thursday (Jan. 22).

On Jan. 16, leaders and representatives of 12 Arab League (AL) member states attended a meeting in Doha, Qatar to discuss the carnage then taking place in the Gaza Strip through Israel’s military campaign. The meeting followed repeated calls by Qatar for an emergency AL summit in hope of forging a common Arab stance against ongoing Israeli aggression.

Regional heavyweights Egypt and Saudi Arabia, however, declined to attend. Instead, they announced their intention to discuss the crisis at a scheduled Arab economic summit in Kuwait three days later. The move highlighted the longstanding divide among AL members, which pits Washington’s “moderate” Arab allies – including Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan – against those opposed to U.S. policy in the region.

The differences between the two blocs are defined largely by their respective positions on the Israel-Palestine conflict. While the former grouping backs U.S.-backed Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas, the latter supports resistance against Israel led by Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas.

Abbas recognises Israel and insists on holding U.S.-sponsored negotiations with Israeli counterparts, despite the abject failure of talks to realise even modest Palestinian demands. By contrast, Hamas – democratically elected in 2006 – rejects Israel’s legitimacy, cleaving instead to a strategy of armed resistance.

Israel’s 2006 war on southern Lebanon fostered similar divisions, with Washington’s Arab allies supporting the U.S.-backed Beirut government against Lebanese resistance faction Hizbullah. Israel’s recent war on the Gaza Strip – which lasted from Dec. 27 to Jan. 17 and resulted in more than 1,300 Palestinian deaths – aggravated the longstanding rift.

According to Nabil Abdel Fattah, assistant director at the semi-official Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies, the decision by Egypt and Saudi Arabia to avoid Doha reflected “conflicts over how to deal with the crisis” then playing out in Gaza.

“Qatar wanted to take a very tough stand against Israel,” Abdel Fattah told IPS. “The moderate states, meanwhile, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia, wanted to adopt a more nuanced approach in hope of persuading Israel to halt hostilities.”

In the absence of leading “moderate” representatives, the Doha meeting took a relatively strong stand against the Israeli aggression in Gaza, with both Qatar and Mauritania announcing the suspension of official relations with Israel.

In a joint declaration, participants urged Arab countries to cut all ties and break off all peace talks with Israel, which they charged with committing war crimes. The statement also demanded that Israel “cease its assault on Gaza and leave unconditionally,” and called for the immediate reopening of the embattled enclave’s borders.

Speaking at the meeting, Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad described the 2002 Arab peace initiative – which offers full Arab recognition of Israel in exchange for key Palestinian demands – as “dead”. He went on to say that Syria had called off indirect talks with Israel, launched last year through Turkish mediators.

Notably, for the first time ever at a high-level Arab political meeting, the Palestinian people were represented by Hamas, not – as has always been the case at AL meetings – by the PA. Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal used the opportunity to reiterate Hamas’s rejection of any ceasefire proposal that did not include the permanent reopening of the Gaza Strip’s borders.

According to Abdel Fattah, the decision by Egypt and Saudi Arabia to spurn the event was also partially aimed at Qatar. Despite its tiny size, Qatar has recently reinvented itself as a regional power broker, straddling the fence between rival camps.

“Qatar has tried to take a leading role in the region, and Egypt and Saudi Arabia see this as an infringement on their own diplomatic roles,” he said. “Egypt also fears that Qatar might be acting as a mask for Iranian and Syrian influence.”

In an editorial, Abu Al-Hadid reminded readers that Qatar – despite its pretensions – represented no less of a U.S. ally than states of the “moderate” axis. “Let’s not forget that Qatar, while trumpeting a tough stand against Israel, plays host to the biggest U.S. airbase in the region,” he wrote.

Nevertheless, discord appeared to give way to unity when Arab leaders gathered in Kuwait for the economic summit on Jan. 19 and 20. Although initially intended to focus on Arab economic, social and development issues, the meeting was dominated by ongoing violence in Gaza.

On the summit’s first day, Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah bin Abdelaziz hosted a formal luncheon for the leaders of Kuwait, Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Qatar. At the conclusion of the closed-door event, attendees announced they had turned a “new page” of Arab reconciliation, declaring an end of traditional rivalries, particularly those between Egypt and Qatar and between Syria and Saudi Arabia.

“We turned a new page for the good of the Arab world,” Qatari PM Sheikh Hamad bin Jassem told satellite news channel Al-Jazeera shortly afterwards.

The following day, Arab leaders announced the establishment of a sizable financial trust for the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip, along with a number of other joint economic projects. In a final statement, longstanding political differences between participants were downplayed or avoided.

Most local commentators, meanwhile, doubted the sincerity of the abrupt expressions of unity heard at the conference.

“These declarations don’t amount to real reconciliation,” said Abdel Fattah. “The same old divisions remain – over Israel, the role of the Palestinian resistance and the role of non-Arab neighbours in the region.”

According to Abdelhalim Kandil, editor-in-chief of independent weekly Sout Al-Umma, the issue of Arab division is largely illusory, “since both camps appear to be on the U.S.-Israeli doorstep, albeit to differing degrees.”

“All these regimes are fully aware that there is no difference between Israel and the U.S.,” Kandil wrote Jan. 19. “Yet despite the massacres taking place in Gaza, none of them ever considered cutting relations with Washington or expelling the U.S. military presence from their respective countries.”

He added: “This, of course, is because the U.S. is in the region expressly to protect these regimes.”

 

Hijacked Ship Holds $100 Million in Oil

By BARBARA SURK, AP

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (Nov. 18) – The owner of a Saudi oil supertanker hijacked by Somali pirates over the weekend said the company is working to win the release of the crew and vessel, which is carrying about $100 million in cargo.

Dubai-based Vela International Marine Ltd., a subsidiary of Saudi oil company Aramco, said in a statement Monday that company response teams have been created. The MV Sirius Star is the largest ship ever taken by Somali pirates, according to the U.S. Navy.

Dangerous Waters ? …. and How Many Boing 747 Can Feed This Ship? Then How Many Fish Can Kill This Ship?

Sirius Star: Somali pirates hijacked the oil tanker, here in an undated photo, about 450 nautical miles off the Kenyan coast Nov. 15. It is the farthest from shore Somali pirates have struck and is thought to be the largest ship ever hijacked. The aircraft-carrier-sized tanker, owned by Saudi oil company Aramco, was carrying crude oil. It can carry about 2 million barrels.

The statement gave no further details. Employees who answered the phone said no one was immediately available to comment and that Vela executives were meeting to discuss the situation. They declined to give their names.
The Navy said the brand-new MV Sirius Star, with a crew of 25, was seized far off the coast of Kenya on Saturday and the bandits were taking the ship to a Somali port known as a hub of pirate activity. It announced the hijacking on Monday when it first received the information.

The statement posted on Vela’s Web site late Monday said the ship was hijacked Sunday. The discrepancy could not immediately be explained.
Attacks by Somali pirates have surged this year as bandits have become bolder, better armed and capable of operating hundreds of miles from shore.

A coalition of warships from eight nations and from NATO and the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet is patrolling a critical zone in the Gulf of Aden leading to and from the Suez Canal. The gulf is where most of the more than 80 attacks this year have taken place.

The Saudi tanker, however, was seized far to the south of the patrolled zone, about 450 nautical miles southeast of Mombasa, Kenya, according to the U.S. Navy.

Maritime security experts said they have tracked a southward spread in piracy over the last several weeks into a vast area of the Indian Ocean, noting with alarm that the area would be almost impossible to patrol.
The U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet said Tuesday it was monitoring the situation but did not expect to send warships to surround the vessel as it has done with a Ukrainian ship loaded with tanks and other weaponry the was seized off the Somali coast on Sept. 25 and remains in pirate hands.

“I don’t anticipate any U.S. ships on station,” said Lt. Nathan Christensen, a spokesman for the 5th Fleet, speaking from its headquarters in Bahrain. He would not elaborate on how the Navy was watching the hijacked tanker.
“We remain deeply concerned because this attack represents a fundamental change in pirates’ ability to hijack bigger vessels farther out at sea,” he said.
The Sirius Star is the “largest pirated vessel in the region” to date, Christensen said.
At 1,080 feet, the Sirius Star is the length of an aircraft carrier and can carry about 2 million barrels of oil.
“We are very concerned that a (ship) of this size has been hijacked. We have safety concerns, security concerns, environmental concerns,” said Noel Choong, the head of the International Maritime Bureau’s regional piracy center in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

“Of course, as long as there is no firm deterrent, pirates will continue to attack. The risk is low and returns are extremely high. You will see more and more of such attacks,” he told The Associated Press on Tuesday.
Somali fishermen and witnesses on shore said the pirates apparently anchored the ship last night in Harardhere, a pirate stronghold some 265 miles by land from Eyl.

The Saudi tanker was just a few miles from shore Tuesday morning, said Abdinur Haji, a fisherman.
“As usual, I woke up at 3 a.m. and headed for the sea to fish, but I saw a very, very large ship anchored less than three miles off the shore,” he told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.
He said two small boats floated out to the ship and 18 men — presumably other pirates — climbed aboard with ropes woven into a ladder.

“I have been fishing here for three decades, but I have never seen a ship as big as this one,” he said. “There are dozens of spectators on shore trying to catch a glimpse of the large ship, which they can see with their naked eyes.”
Vela, the ship’s owner and operator, says it is one of the largest crude oil tanker companies in the world.

Including the Sirius Star, Vela owns and operates a fleet of 19 vessels classed as Very Large Crude Oil Carriers and five product tankers of various sizes. It transports supplies primarily between the Middle East, Europe and the U.S. Gulf Coast, according to the company’s Web site.

The Sirius Star was sailing under a Liberian flag and its crew includes citizens of Croatia, Britain, the Philippines, Poland and Saudi Arabia. A British Foreign Office spokesman said there were at least two British nationals on board.
Associated Press Writer Mohamed Olad Hassan contributed to this report from Mogadishu, Somalia.

Hijacked Ship Holds $100 Million in Oil

————–

The UN sensation   of the day as per Title of UN Wire:

From:          un.wire at smartbrief.com
Subject:         Pirates seize Saudi oil supertanker; Court to hear Croatia’s genocide case against Serbia
Date:         November 18, 2008

Pirates seize Saudi supertanker
Los Angeles Times (11/18)

Piracy abates in Southeast Asia
Piratical activity has dropped along the Asian coasts where it once proliferated, falling 11% from last year and 32% from 2006. Many of those attacks off Indonesia and throughout Southeast Asia were low-level attacks against small ships or incidents of petty theft of cargo. Naval patrols along the “littoral states” of Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore are credited for the sharp decline. The New York Times (11/18)

Uri Avnery
Tel Aviv, 20.09.08

Fly, Tzipora, fly!

THE POLLS were wrong, as usual. And in a big way. As usual.

Instead of winning by a huge margin, as predicted until the very last moment by all the polls, she just squeaked through. Of the 72 thousand or so registered Kadima members, only 39,331 troubled themselves to go to the polls, and among these she defeated Shaul Mofaz by just 431 votes.

But a majority is a majority. Tzipi Livni was duly installed as Kadima chairperson.

What does that say about the Israeli public?

FIRST OF ALL: this is the victory of a person without a military background over someone with almost nothing apart from a military background.

On the advice of his right-wing American political strategist, Stanley Greenberg, Mofaz emphasized the word “security” on every occasion, almost in every sentence. A popular talk-show turned this into a parody: Security, security, security, security.

Well, it did not work. T-h-e general, the chief of Staff, the Defense Minister, was beaten by a mere woman devoid of any military experience (even if she did serve for 15 years in the Mossad.)

That does not mean that Tzipi Livni may not turn out to be a warmonger, like Elisabeth I, Catherine the Great, Margaret Thatcher and Indira Gandhi. But fact is fact: the Kadima voters have preferred a non-general to a general.

MOREOVER, KADIMA is a party of the center. The very center of the center. Its members are not fervent about anything, neither on the right or the left, they have no strong convictions of any kind. So their decision can be regarded as a reflection of the general mood.

Mofaz presented himself not only as Mr. Security, but also as a genuine right-winger, a man who opposes both peace with Syria and peace with the Palestinians, a leader prepared to set up a coalition with the Right, even with the extreme Right. He was the declared exponent of open-ended-war.

Tzipi Livni presented herself as the personification of the peace effort, the woman who conducts the negotiations with the Palestinians, who prefers diplomacy to war, who points the way to the end of the conflict. All this may be sleight of hand, pure deceit. Perhaps there is no difference at all between the two. But even if this is so, that is not the most important aspect. The important fact is that the Kadima voters, the most representative group in the country, accorded victory – well, a tiny victory – to the candidate who at least pretended to favor peace.

In his “The Second Coming”, the Irish poet W. B. Yeats describes utter chaos: “Things fall apart, the center cannot hold”. The metaphor is taken from military history: in bygone days, armies drew up for battle with the main force in the center, and lighter forces defending the two flanks. As long as the center held, everything was fine.

In Israel today, the center is holding. The centrist party voted for the woman of the center.

***

It can also be described otherwise: in Israel, 2008, the forces are divided equally between the “Right” and the “Left”, and the “Left” won this time by the smallest possible margin.

I REMEMBER the elections nine years ago. In May 1999, Ehud Barak won a decisive victory over the incumbent, Binyamin Netanyahu: 56.08% against 43.92%, a difference of 388,546 votes. The public was just fed up with Netanyahu.

The response was overwhelming. The general feeling in the peace camp was of a release from servitude to freedom, from an era of failure and corruption into an era of peace and well-being. Without any proclamations, without anybody planning it, masses of people streamed into Tel-Aviv’s Rabin Square, the place where a Prime Minister had been assassinated four years earlier. I was among them.

In the square, the atmosphere was intoxicating. Delirious people danced, embraced each other, kissed. Tel Aviv had not seen anything like it since November 1947, when the United Nations General Assembly decided to establish a Jewish (and an Arab) state. I experienced a similar scene in April 1948, when I was part of the force that brought a huge relief convoy into beleaguered and starving West Jerusalem. A similar atmosphere was captured by film of Charles de Gaulle entering liberated Paris.

Barak promised to be a second Rabin, only more so. He promised to make peace with the Palestinians within months. A rosy future was warming the horizon, “the dawn of a new day”.

A year and a half later, nothing of all this remained. Ehud Barak, the hero of peace, brought on us the greatest disaster in the annals of the struggle for peace. He came back from the Camp David conference, which had taken place on his express demand, with a declaration that was to become a mantra: “I have turned every stone on the way to peace / I have offered the Palestinians unprecedented generous terms / Arafat has rejected everything / We have no partner for peace.”

With 20 Hebrew words Barak destroyed the peace camp and brought about a public mood which even Netanyahu could not create: that there is no chance for peace, that we are condemned to live with an everlasting conflict.

Therefore, no one got excited about Tzipi Livni’s victory. The masses did not stream into the square, did not dance and did not embrace – and not only because this was just a party-internal election. The general reaction was a sigh of relief and a shrug of the shoulder. So Kadima has voted. So it has a new chairperson. So there will be a new Prime Minister. Let’s wait and see.

***
SO WHAT to expect, after all?

There are already jokes circulating about “Tzipi and the Tzipiot” (a Hebrew word-play, “tzipiot” meaning expectations), a new rock-band which is about to take to the road. Nobody really knows what kind of a Prime Minister she will be. Strong or weak. Determined or open to pressures. Tough or compromising. Warmonger or peace-seeker.

One can only point at her background, as I hinted last week, and perhaps go into some detail.

On the eve of the elections, in one of those vapid questionnaires the media are so fond of, she was asked who was her hero. Her answer: Jabotinsky.

That was the most predictable answer there could be. Tzipi Livni grew up in a Revisionist household. She is a Revisionist, model 2008. What does that mean?

Her father, Eitan, who was born in Grodno (a town that has belonged variously to Lithuania, Poland, Russia and now Belarus), came to this country at the age of 6 and joined the Irgun underground in 1938 (the same year as I did), when he was 19 years old. He lived all his life under the influence of Ze’ev (Vladimir) Jabotinsky and his teachings.

Eitan Livni, as I knew him, was not a brilliant or exceptional person, but rather solid, loyal, as his name suggests. (In Hebrew, “eitan” means strong, steadfast). A person one could rely on. He served in the Irgun as an operational officer, and among other operations he took part in the daring break-out from Acre prison, where he was being held. As a Knesset member for the Herut Party, the predecessor of today’s Likud, he was rather inconspicuous and supported Menachem Begin through thick and thin.

In order to understand Tzipi, one has to go back to Jabotinsky. His many enemies have often called him a Fascist, but that is inaccurate. He was born in the 19th century, and was a nationalist in the 19th century mold. Born in Odessa, he lived for some years as a young man in Italy, and his heroes were the leaders of contemporary Italian nationalism: the ideologue Giuseppe Mazzini and the fighter Giuseppe Garibaldi.

Jabotinsky wanted, of course, all of Palestine to become a Jewish state. When he founded his party in the 1920s, he named it according to this vision: the demand was for a “revision” of the British decision to separate the land west of the Jordan river from the land east of the river, today’s Kingdom of Jordan, then called Transjordan. In her youth, Tzipi sang Jabotinsky’s most famous song: “Two banks has the Jordan – this one belongs to us and that one, too.”

But Jabotinsky was also a real liberal, and a real democrat. He entered the political arena for the first time when he formulated the “Helsingfors (Helsinki) Plan”, which demanded human and national rights for the Jews and the other minorities in Czarist Russia.

A PERSON educated according to these values is faced today with a tough dilemma.

***

Years ago, the Revisionists used to tell this joke: rewarding David Ben-Gurion for founding the state, God promised to grant him one wish. Ben-Gurion asked that every Israeli should be honest, wise and a Labor Party member. “That’s too much even for me to grant,” God replied, “but every Israeli can choose two of the three.” So a Labor member can be wise but not honest, a Labor member can be honest but not wise, and somebody who is wise and honest cannot be a Labor member.

Something like this is now happening to the Revisionists themselves. They ask for three things: a Jewish State, a state that encompasses all of historic Palestine and a democratic state. That is too much even for God. So a Revisionist must choose two of the three: a Jewish and democratic state in only a part of the country, a Jewish state in all the country that will not be democratic, or a democratic state in all the country that will not be Jewish. This dilemma has not changed over the last 41 years.

Tzipi Livni, an honest to goodness Revisionist, has announced her choice: a Jewish and democratic state that will not encompass the whole of the country. (We leave open here the question of whether a “Jewish” state can be democratic.)

***

In up-to-date Hebrew, we differentiate between “national” and “nationalistic” attitudes. A national view recognizes the importance of the national dimension in today’s human society, and therefore respects and recognizes the nationalism of other peoples, too. A nationalistic view says “we and no others”, my nation ueber alles.

It seems that Tzipi, like her hero Jabotinsky, adheres to the national view. Hence her emphasis on “two nation-states for two peoples”. She speaks about a Jewish nation-state and is ready to sacrifice Greater Israel on this altar.

That may not be an ideal basis for peace (what would be the status of Israel’s Arab citizens in this Jewish nation-state?) but it is realistic. If she has the power to implement her ideas, she can make peace. If.

REACTING TO the election results, Gideon Levy wrote that the heart wants to hope, but the brain cannot. That is an understandable reaction.

Since Tzipi, short for Tzipora, means bird, one wants to cry out: Fly, Tzipora, fly! Fly to heaven! After your election as Prime Minister, lose no time! Set up a government coalition with the peace forces, use the first few months of your term to achieve peace with the Palestinians, call new elections and submit yourself and the peace agreement to the public test! As Livni herself phrased it in her direct way: “There is no time for bullshitting!”

That is what Ehud Barak should have done in 2000. He did not take the chance, and therefore he lost.

Will Tzipora the bird reach these heights? The heart hopes. The brain has its doubts.

————-

Collected articles           http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/chan…

permlink: http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/chan…

 gush-shalom.org

————-

Middle East peace talks =Palestinians lose faith in two-state solution:
Study group calls for new form of resistance to Israeli occupation with goal of single, bi-national state.
Rory McCarthy from Jerusalem, for the guardian.co.uk,
Thursday September 04, 2008.

A group of prominent Palestinian figures has proposed a radical change in strategy to demand a single, bi-national state if the current round of Middle East peace talks fails.

The Palestinian Strategy Study Group, an EU-funded project written by 27 leading Palestinian figures from across the political spectrum, argued that the current two-state framework for peace talks is failing to bring the promised independent state. Instead, it suggested ending the negotiation process that has gone on now for nearly 20 years, reconstituting the Palestinian Authority into what might become a “Palestinian Resistance Authority”, and developing a form of “smart” resistance.

“The central aim will be to maximise the cost of continuing occupation for Israel, and to make the whole prospect of unilateral separation unworkable,” it said. The final, and most striking proposal, is to shift to a “single state outcome” as the Palestinians’ preferred goal. This, it said, would regain the strategic initiative for the Palestinians.

“Although many Palestinians may still prefer a genuine negotiated two-state solution, a failure of the present Annapolis initiative will greatly strengthen those who argue against this,” the report said. “Most Palestinians are then likely to be convinced that a negotiated agreement is no longer possible.”

———–

It is not the first time a bi-national state has been proposed as a Palestinian goal, but the new report signals a marked shift in Palestinian thinking at a time when the latest peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians are yet again struggling to make any headway. Questions are now being asked on both sides about the future of the two-state solution that for so long has been the framework of Middle East peacemaking.

The greatest disquiet is on the Palestinian side, where even moderates are now beginning to sense the two-state formula is moving out of reach.

“I feel that a two-state solution is losing currency amongst both our peoples and with the world community beyond,” said Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian prime minister and former World Bank and IMF economist, in a speech he wrote for a meeting of former Israeli diplomats yesterday and which was delivered by Riad Malki, the Palestinian foreign minister.

Malki himself admitted that, despite 10 months of talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders, which began in Annapolis, in the United States, not a single word of agreement had been put on paper. The Annapolis process, the first such peace talks in seven years, were supposed to produce a peace agreement by the end of this year – a goal that has proved wildly unrealistic.

***
Another group, the Israel-Palestine Centre for Research and Information, published a policy document this week with proposals for the Palestinians to change the status quo. Among the options it said were available were dissolving the Palestinian Authority, calling for a one-state solution and making a Kosovo-style unilateral declaration of independence.

However, it noted that the chief risk of calling for a single, bi-national state was that nothing would change and the status quo would simply worsen given how deeply unpopular the idea is among Israelis. “With so little support from the more powerful neighbour, it seems unlikely that the Palestinian call for unity will bring many positive results in the near term,” it said. Instead, it concluded: “We feel that a tightly coordinated non-violent campaign toward statehood is the best option.”

One of the key obstacles on the Palestinian side now is the bitter infighting between the two leading factions, Fatah and Hamas. Since last year, Hamas, the Islamist group that won elections in 2006, has been in full control of Gaza and daily seems to be dividing ever further from its rival Fatah, which effectively controls the West Bank. Even if a peace agreement was reached this year, it is hard to see how it might be implemented in Gaza without reconciliation between the rival factions, and for now that seems out of their grasp.

Hamas has long argued against negotiations with Israel. “We don’t see any fruits from the political negotiations,” Ghazi Hamad, a Hamas advisor said in a recent interview in Gaza. “So we have to make an evaluation for the whole Palestinian national project. Since Madrid in 1991 until now it’s been 17 years but we’ve seen nothing on the ground. How can I convince people that we are going in the right direction?”

On the Israeli side, opinion is more mixed. In general the two-state solution is still broadly regarded as a reasonable goal, although there are many on the rightwing who say Israel should not give up the land it captured in 1967 or who say Israelis have a Biblical right to settle in the West Bank that cannot be negotiated away.

***

Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister who will step down later this month, has pursued negotiations, arguing that a two-state solution is attainable. On Sunday he will discuss with the cabinet a plan to pay compensation to encourage some of the more distant settlers in the West Bank to move either to Israel or to settlements within the West Bank barrier.

Tzipi Livni, the foreign minister who is likely to replace him as head of the ruling Kadima party, also argues in favour of negotiations and has been deeply involved in the latest talks, although she has said she would resist pressure to hurry the negotiations. Ehud Barak, the defence minister, suggested yesterday that some of the Palestinian areas of Jerusalem might become the future capital of a Palestinian state, an idea which has not always been palatable to Israelis.

***

Yet there are others beginning to voice different ideas. In a newspaper column in the Yedioth Ahronoth this week, Giora Eiland, a former head of the National Security Council and former national security adviser under Ariel Sharon, said the gap between Israel and the Palestinians was “enormous” and growing.

“The maximum that the Israeli government [any government] will be able to offer the Palestinians [and survive politically] falls short of the minimum that the Palestinian government [any government] can agree to accept [and survive politically],” he wrote. Eiland argued that a final status peace deal “will not be achievable in the foreseeable future” and that new ideas should be considered. He suggested returning control of the West Bank to Jordan, who controlled it before the 1967 war.

—————–

At www.SustainabiliTank.info, we go even further – we are advocating a Three State Solution.   That is sort of a Hamasstan in the Gaza Strip – to be started under the supervision of Egypt, and a Palestine-West-Bank State that will start out with organized help led by Jordan. The aim of the two “supervising states” will have o be well defined in advance – not as annexation – but as a management for obtaining future total independence. If in the end this leads to some sort of confederation that involves also Israel, so much the better. But without first preparing the ground for some sort of clearly defined Palestinian economies (and I mean two of them in parallel) there is no future for any sort of solution.             A united -one-Palestinian entity is not in the cards, so a two State solution is also very difficult.

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.

Gulf ruler buys top club – then reveals his plan to spend, spend, spend…
Tuesday, 2 September 2008, The Independent.

The tiny Gulf state of Abu Dhabi launched an audacious raid on one of Britain’s top football clubs yesterday in a move that will transform the shape of global football.

The £210m takeover of Manchester City threatens to dethrone their closest rivals Manchester United and establish City as the biggest team in the world. The club announced that it had signed a memo of understanding with the Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG), a holding company set up by Middle East investors, backed by the country’s royal family. The new regime’s first move was an attempt to gazump United’s £30m signing of Tottenham Hotspur’s star striker Dimitar Berbatov with an offer of £34m. And they quickly followed that by lodging bids for Spain’s highly rated forward David Villa and Stuttgart’s Mario Gomez.

ADUG will spend the nextfew weeks examining the club’s books before taking control, and will become the first Middle East investor to be in control of a Premier League team.

The Arab group is fronted by Sulaiman Al Fahim, a multi-billionaire nicknamed the “Donald Trump of Abu Dhabi,” who has pledged to invest enough to break up the “Big Four” of Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal by next year.

It could herald a whole new era for transfer fees, as the investors’ plans could dwarf even Roman Abramovich’s outlay at Chelsea, estimated at more than £500m.

A Dubai group failed in an attempt to buy Liverpool two years ago. Dubai International Capital (DIC), held talks about a £450m takeover but lost to two US investors. It remains interested and, given the turmoil in Liverpool’s boardroom, there is a serious chance they could yet buy into the Merseyside club. Middle Eastern influence in football has grown recently, with Manchester United travelling to Saudi Arabia last year and announcing a £10m marketing deal with Saudi Telecom. Emirates, one of the largest airlines in the regions, has invested heavily in the Premier League, sponsoring Chelsea before switching allegiance to Arsenal, whose new stadium carries the Dubai-based carrier’s name.

It is the latest demonstration of the region’s financial muscle. Investors from across the region, particularly state-owned sovereign wealth funds, have grown in strength off the back of the soaring oil prices, which hit record levels just shy of $150 a barrel this summer. It comes at a time when the credit crunch has wreaked havoc across Western economies causing many to look for outside investment.

Mr Al Fahim spoke of plans to support the Manchester City manager, Mark Hughes, “by bringing in the best football players in the world” and had fans dreaming of stars including Thierry Henry, David Villa and Ronaldo lining up at Eastlands. The world record transfer fee of £46m which took Zinedine Zidane to Real Madrid in 2001, now looks under severe threat.

After the Premiership, the next step will be Europe, Mr Sulaiman said. Yet City fans will be most interested in overhauling United, their bitter rivals, who have claimed the bragging rights in Manchester for the past 30 years.

Manchester United claim the most supporters worldwide and, according to accountancy group Deloitte, are second only to Real Madrid in terms of generating cash.

This year was the first time that three clubs from one country made the top five of the revenue league table – the other two being Chelsea and Arsenal. Manchester City didn’t even make the top 20.

It is the latest twist for a club that was lifted out of mid-table and on to the front pages just over a year ago when it was bought by Thailand’s former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Mr Thaksin, affectionately dubbed “Frank” by the City faithful, brought huge investments as well as some serious issues that troubled some at the Football Association. They were crystallised this year when Thailand issued a warrant for his arrest after he failed to show up in court to face corruption charges. He will become honorary chairman of City when the deal is completed, according to the new investors, but will be stripped of his power.

The Arab investors have targeted businesses that would have been off limits five years ago. Sovereign wealth funds have invested hugely in the largest financial institutions in the world, taking significant stakes in banks including Citigroup, Merrill Lynch and UBS.

In the UK, Qatar has spent about £1.8bn in becoming the largest investor in Barclays, while Dubai invested £880m in taking a stake in the London Stock Exchange, according to data from Thomson Reuters.

No brand is off limits, it seems. Although Qatar failed in a £10bn bid for Sainsbury’s last year, the market hasn’t ruled out a second attempt, and a Middle East-backed group bought the luxury car group Aston Martin for almost £500m last year. Arab investors have also built holdings in the property companies Minerva and British Land during the past few months.

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:

 http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display…

Call for pact to combat terrorism.
Web posted at: 7/19/2008
Source ::: AFP

The Secretary General of the Muslim World League Dr Abdullah bin Abdulmuhsin Al Turki during the World Conference on Dialogue in Madrid yesterday. (AFP)

MADRID • Islamic, Christian and Jewish leaders yesterday called for an international agreement to combat terrorism, at the end of a landmark Saudi-organised conference.

The representatives of the world’s great monotheistic religions also appealed for a special session of the UN General Assembly to promote dialogue and prevent “a clash of civilizations.”

“Terrorism is a universal phenomenon that requires unified international efforts to combat it in a serious, responsible and just way,” participants at the three-day World Conference on Dialogue said in a final communique.

“This demands an international agreement on defining terrorism, addressing its root causes and achieving justice and stability in the world.”

They called for more “ways of enhancing understanding and cooperation among people despite differences in their origins, colours and languages,” and a “rejection of extremism and terrorism.”

Around 200 participants attended the gathering in Madrid, organised by the Makkah-based Muslim World League from an initiative by the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia and aimed at bringing the world’s great monotheistic faiths closer together.

Among the representatives were the secretary general of the World Jewish Congress, Michael Schneider, and Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, who is in charge of the Vatican’s relations with Muslims. Tauran said Pope Benedict XVI had expressed “a great interest” in the conference. “His Holiness is convinced that dialogue based on love and truth is the best way to contribute to harmony, happiness and peace for the people of the earth,” he told the closing session.

The cardinal said the conference had “stressed the main convictions that we have in common.”

The secretary general of the Muslim World League, Abdullah bin Abdulmuhsin Al Turki, said more such conferences are planned, including possibly one in Japan. The event took place against a backdrop of tensions between the Islamic world and the West since the September 11, 2001, attacks in the United States.

They range from restrictions on the use of the veil by Muslim women in some European countries to cartoons regarded as blasphemous by Muslims and the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Organisers had billed the conference as a chance for the different religions to “get to know each other.”

In that limited respect, observers said it had succeeded. It also demonstrated King Abdullah’s desire to restore the tarnished image of Islam in the West since 9/11.

“I expect some important Jewish leaders will be taking back positive reports about the opportunity to engage with Muslims,” said Walter Ruby, in charge of Muslim-Jewish relations at the New York-based Foundation for Ethnic Understanding.

He noted some prior resistance to the event among conservative Jewish elements in the US, “who are suspicious about Muslims and feel this is a PR thing… But I think it was a bold and important step. It was King Adbullah’s ‘Perestroika’ moment,” he said.

One leading Muslim participant reported a “very good feeling” during the three days of talks. “Nowadays, you have news about war everywhere, but there is no news about peace. At this conference, we sat down and had very good relations,” the secretary general of the Kuwait-based World Organisation of Pan-Islamic Jurisprudence, Al Seyed AbolGhasem Al Dibaji, said.

————————-

Rabbi aims to improve Muslim-Jewish ties
By BEN SALES ,   Jul 11, 2008
 http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c…

Rabbi David Rosen, who has been invited to an interfaith conference in Madrid hosted by Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah next week, said Thursday that he expects to make significant progress in Muslim-Jewish relations while there.

Rabbi David Rosen

Rosen is the only Israeli rabbi to be invited to the conference, which will host 200 spiritual leaders from July 16-18, including representatives from Iran, Lebanon and Syria. Several American rabbis from varying streams have also been invited.

Born in England, Rosen moved to Israel in 1967 and now serves as the president of the International Jewish Committee for Interreligious Consultation, based in Jerusalem. While he acknowledges the controversy surrounding the conference, Rosen sees attendance as an opportunity to bridge cultural barriers and bring about political reconciliation.

{ what this article forgot to mention is that Rabbi Rosen has also a British Passport – so he was not invited as Israeli but as British. No Israelis were invited period! For even handedness perhapse, also no Palestinians were invited. }

“This is just a first step in breaking stereotypes and increasing communication between the Jewish and Muslim worlds, even the Israeli and Arab worlds, and decreasing the violent abuse of religion,” Rosen told The Jerusalem Post. “I believe that we have everything to gain through encouraging this process and a great deal to lose if we turn our back on it.”

Even so, Rosen feels that Saudi Arabia has an ulterior motive in sponsoring the conference and that limited benefits will come out it.

“The primary motive is that the king of Saudi Arabia understands that the image of his land has a serious problem in the Western world and would like to demonstrate how it can be positively and constructively involved in confronting challenges,” he said. “Obviously, whatever the Saudis want to achieve, they feel that they have to do it step-by-step.”

Rosen’s main qualm with the conference is that it includes neither an official Israeli representative nor a Palestinian delegate. While he is an Israeli citizen, Rosen is not listed as such by the conference.

“One thing we’ll have to make clear is that the Jewish people sees Israel as central to its national identity,” he said. “Israel has been intensely discriminated against; so have the Palestinians. You cannot claim to have a full dialogue with the Jewish people if Israel is not officially represented.”

The Spanish government, however, feels that the conference is an important first step in dialogue.

“The Spanish government is part of the interfaith and intercultural movement,” said an official for the Spanish embassy. “Spain has its origins in the middle ages from the three monotheistic religions. That was a golden age for the coexistence of the three religions.”

While Rosen believes that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is central to these negotiations and plans to address it in private discussions at the conference, he does not plan to raise the issue publicly because of cultural understandings in Arab society.

“Anybody who has any experience with public encounters in the Arab world knows there’s a public choreography where you have to show loyalty to the cause,” he said. “The last thing the Saudis want is to lose any credibility as champions of the Muslim, Arab and Palestinian cause.”

Despite these challenges, Rosen feels that dialogue with hostile nations, however intolerant, is crucial to reaching an understanding.

“There are well known Israelis that say that Israel should only have contact with entities that are democratic,” he said. “If that’s the approach, Israel will wait a very long time and through lots of bloodshed. You should engage the most problematic of dictatorial regimes and through those negotiations have a salutary effect on those countries that will hope lead to a democratic regime.”

Representatives of one totalitarian regime with whom Rosen will be in contact are members of an Iranian delegation of ayatollahs to the conference. Rosen is not worried about the meeting, as he has met Iranian officials before.

“It would not be a problem to meet the ayatollahs whom I’ve met at different places,” he said. “By definition, those ayatollahs who go to these conferences aren’t the ones who call the shots, but you have no idea what impact changing their perspectives has.”

While some have criticized Rosen for his plans to attend the conference, he feels that he is doing the right thing. “There are those who accuse me of serving as a fig-leaf for the Saudis, playing into their legitimating,” he said. “Anyone who’s not criticized is not doing anything worth doing.”

Jul 11, 2008 13:32

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)