UNITED NATIONS, ICP, August 11, 2010  — Starting with a 200 page book of “Conversations with Lee Kuan Yew,” the get-things-done founder of modern Singapore, American author Tom Plate is engaged in a Giants of Asia trilogy. The next in the series is Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia.

The third Giant of Asia, Plate said at a VIP book party on August 10, will be UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

Plate told an audience including the Permanent Representatives to the UN of Vietnam, Costa Rica, The Netherlands and of course Singapore, which hosted the event, that in his experience Asian leaders are more concerned about community rights than individual or human rights.

He asked rhetorically, do you want to solve the problem of drug gangs in Los Angeles? Give Lee Kuan Yew $10 billion, and look away for 18 months. Come back and it will be solved.

Some in the audience wondered what might happen during those 18 months, from the leader who instituted caning for the mis disposal or even chewing of gum. A professor in the audience asked about the balance between development and human rights.

Plate responded that while to the “Western” mind, publicly punishing the wrong person in order to send a message to others might violate due process, to Lee Kuan Yew and presumably the other Giants of Asia, the calculus is not so simple.

If the mis-punishment helps the community at large, it might on balance be a good thing, Plate said.

Inner City Press, invited without conditions to the event but then asked to not mention at least one of the attendees, asked Plate if he would consider interviewing some of the some openly authoritarian strong men of Asia, including Than Shwe of Myanmar and Kim Jong-Il of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Plate replied that if asked to go to Pyongyang and given access to Kim Jong-Il, he would be on the next plane. He said that he doubted Than Shwe, at 76, could endure the type of multi-day interview process which he engaged in with Lee Kuan Yew.

One wonders, then, how a sitting Secretary General, embroiled in a management scandal triggered most recently by the damning End of Assignment Report of outgoing lead UN investigator Inga Britt Ahlenius, will have time to sit for this Giants of Asia profile.

Without attributing the concerns, there seem to have been a belated request not to publicize the identity of Plate’s third Giant of Asia until after Mr. Ban’s second term is more secure.

But, one cynical in the audience asked, is the problem the publicity or the vanity book project itself?

UN’s Ban Depicted in Sri Lanka: Giant of Asia?

Inner City Press first heard of Plate’s book when a section about Sri Lanka was circulated, largely by the Tamil diaspora. Lee Kwan Yew is quoted on page 55 saying the -

“example is Sri Lanka. It is not a happy, united country. Yes, they [the majority Sinhalese government] have beaten the Tamil Tigers this time, but the Sinhalese who are less capable are putting down a minority of Jaffna Tamils who are more capable. They were squeezing them out. That’s why the Tamils rebelled. But I do not see them ethnic cleansing all two million plus Jaffna Tamils. The Jaffna Tamils have been in Sri Lanka as long as the Sinhalese…[referring to Sri Lanka's president Mahinda Rajapaksa] ‘I’ve read his speeches and I knew he was a Sinhalese extremist. I cannot change his mind.’”

Plate was asked about this section of the book, and said that it was difficult to keep it in. Afterward, Inner City Press asked Plate to explain: how had wanted the section to come out? Of all that he said Tuesday night, this was the only time that Plate asked to go off the record. We will respect that, just as we’ll respect the request to omit the presence of at least one individual and entourage.

Singapore’s Mission to the UN, its Permanent Representative Vanu Gopala Menon, his Deputy, wife and staff are to be commended for hosting such an eclectic crowd, and serving afterward such good food, including the Indian paratha break renamed roti — and tinged with coconut — when it arrived in Lee Kuan Yew’s giant laboratory in one of the smallest nation states.

There was Tamil advocates among the attendees, including the son of the plaintiff in a recent free speech case in the U.S. Supreme Court. Some wondered at the irony of Ban Ki-moon, who long delayed naming, and still has not begun, a panel about accountability for civilian deaths in Sri Lanka in 2009, choosing as his conversational biographer the writer who coaxed the above quoted analysis of ethnic cleansing and Sinhalese extremism in Sri Lanka, to the level of the president.

We will have more on this and on the rest of Plate’s illuminating talk, including his and Lee Kuan Yew’s views of the UN and the ways in which its Secretary General are elected and, at times, re-elected. The interplay of Ban’s drive for re-election and his participation at Plate’s third “Giant of Asia” will also be explored.

* * *

At UN, Ban’s Travails Trigger Candidacy Tales, De Mistura, Zeid, Kubis, Kerim or even Bachelet or Bill Clinton, Game On

UNITED NATIONS, August 9 — Alternate candidates to Ban Ki-moon are emerging before the next UN Secretary General term begins on January 1, 2012. Tellingly, even people given UN posts by Ban Ki-moon are among reported candidates.

Ban named Staffan de Mistura as his representative in Afghanistan, after de Mistura hired Ban’s son in law Siddarth Chatterjee as his chief of staff with the UN in Iraq. (Ban’s son in law has since been hired by Jan Mattsson as a high official of the UN Office of Project Services in Copenhagen).

But, people recruited to work for the UN in Afghanistan tell Inner City Press, de Mistura harbors the dream of swooping in as a dark horse candidate to replace Ban in late 2011.

There is “blood in the water,” these sources say, particularly following the damning End of Assignment report of Inga Britt Ahlenius. Ban’s “melt down” then retraction on August 9 about job promises made in the course of replacing Ahlenius won’t help either.

The problem for de Mistura and other non-Asian contenders is that the S-G position is said to belong to a regional group for at least 10 years.

When the U.S. vetoed Egypt’s Boutros Boutros Ghali in 2005, the post next went to another African. So it would be with Ban, the assumption goes, with China demanding equal treatment for Asia.

But, as Inner City Press reported some time ago, even Team Ban has a theory that the U.S. might trade its de facto ownership of the top World Bank post to China in exchange for the right to replace Ban with a S-G of its choice.

De Mistura, having served as U.S. ground cover and fig leaf in Iraq and then Afghanistan, feels he would have U.S. support. A long shot candidate mentioned is Bill Clinton. Others point to Jose Ramos Horta of Timor Leste, in the Asian group like another candidate, Zeid Bin Ra’ad of Jordan.

UN’s Ban and de Mistura: one bleary eyed with lack of sleep, the other looking long

Lula of Brazil would appear to have lost U.S. support, given his country’s vote against the recent sanctions on Iran. Shashi Tharoor appears to have shot himself in the foot with Cricket-gate.

More savvy, some say, is Michelle Bachelet. She is understood to have not leaped at the offer of the top UN Women post. Does this mean that, like with the UNICEF post given to Tony Lake, she is shooting higher?
From those heights, at UNDP, Helen Clark is often mentioned.

There are other plotters. Some point to the alliance between Ms. Ahlenius and Alicia Barcena, who left the top UN Management post when Ban came in and went to ECLAC in Santiago, Chile. She was in New York and dined with Ahlenius shortly before Ahlenius leaked her memo. Also involved, sources say, was Barcena’s Management predecessor Christopher Burnham.

Next in line, they argue, are the Eastern European states. From 2006, there is Vaira Vike-Freiberga. Jan Kubis is mentioned (Ban gave him a temporary post during the violence in Kyrgyzstan), along with former General Assembly president Srgjan Kerim, to whom Ban gave a Special Envoy on Climate Change UN post. Do you see a pattern here?

“There are candidates galore, and there is blood in the water,” as one source puts it. Let the games begin.

This all comes, as Inner City Press first reported, against the backdrop of ad hoc meetings to “revitalize the General Assembly” which are discussing requiring Ban Ki-moon to come before the GA to seek his second term, and not only the Security Council.

Specifically, under the heading “Selection of the Secretary General,” the draft “takes note of the views expressed at the Ad Hoc Working Group at the 64th session and bearing in mind the provisions of Article 97 of the Charter, emphasizes the need for the process of selection of the Secretary General to be inclusive of all Member States and to be made more transparent.. including through presentation of candidates for the position of the Secretary General in an informal plenary of the General Assembly.”

Interestingly, the marked up draft of this pending paragraph reads as follows:

“10. Affirms its commitment to continuing its consideration of the revitalization of the General Assembly’s role in the selection and appointment of the Secretary General, including through (encouraging (Algeria / NAM: delete and add ‘the’) Russian Federation: retain) presentation of candidates for the position of Secretary General in an informal plenary of the General Assembly before the Security Council considers the matter (Russian Federation); Russian Federation: bracket entire para.”

10 Alt. Also encourages formal presentation of candidatures for the position of the Secretary General in a manner than allows sufficient time for interaction with member states, and requests candidates to present their views to all Member States of the General Assembly (Belgium / EU, US & Russia) (Algeria / NAM supports Islamic Republic of Iran proposal of retaining as OP 10 bis).”

In the Security Council, placating or giving patronage to the five Permanent Members would be enough to gain the second term. But if the GA and regional grouping get involved, Ban’s snubs like that of Africa for the deputy post in the UN Development Program, and the devaluation of the Office of the Special Adviser on Africa, could come back to haunt Ban, along with his more recent appointment of Alvaro Uribe to his Gaza flotilla panel, over the objections of Venezuela which wil head the Group of 77 and China.

* * *

At UN, As Ban Denies Deals with Israel and for OIOS Posts, Doubts Raised About Both, What was US Told?

UNITED NATIONS, August 10 — Just as UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon stated on August 9 that he made no “agreement behind the scenes” that Israeli Defense Forces will not be interviewed by his Panel of Inquiry, he now maintains that no commitment of posts in the Office of Internal Oversight Services was made to gain support for his replacement candidate to head OIOS, Carman Lapoint-Young.

But questions arose on August 10 about discrepancies between the transcript of Ban’s August 9 remarks and the UN’s subsequent denial. Ban said

“he was one of the finalists, the South African whom you are talking about. If he [had been] willing to take the job, then I was okay [for him] to fill that post. There are certain cases when someone was applying for a certain post, and where she or he was not successful for that post, and because of the excellent quality of the candidate – we really wanted to keep certain candidates in our system – we offered a lower rank.”

But shortly after he said this — even the transcript is inaccurate — Ban’s Office said

“The Secretary-General wants to make it absolutely clear that the recruitment process for the Director of the Investigations Division will start only after the new Under-Secretary-General of the Office of Internal Oversight Services has taken up her post. This selection will be conducted strictly in accordance with the established rules and procedures. The assertion that a South African was offered the job is completely unfounded.”

Inner City Press on August 10 asked Ban’s spokesman Martin Nesirky had Ban had meant by “we offered a lower rank.” Nesirky resplied that Ban “was confused by what the question was,” and claimed that the comment was a “general statement of principle not related to OIOS.” Video here, from Minute 31:26.

It is not a general statement of principle to say ““he was one of the finalists, the South African.. we offered a lower rank.” It is a statement about a particular individual being made an offer.

Likewise, Israel’s Benyamin Netanyahu insisted on August 10 that despite Ban’s August 9 denials, Ban has made a “discrete” agreement that the panel would not interview IDF personnel. Ban had said he made no “agreement behind the scenes.”

At the end of his August 9 press conference, Ban urged journalists to focus on the “big issues” and not personnel (or “personal”) disputes. But if an answer about offering OIOS post(s) in order to gain support for a candidate for OIOS does not have credibility, how does an answer about a “discrete” agreement about the mandate of the UN Gaza flotilla panel?

UN’s Ban and Barak, discrete agreement not shown

A Security Council diplomat on August 10 approached Inner City Press with another connection between the August 9 OIOS questions and Ban’s panels on Gaza and Sri Lanka. If Ban was so rattled and pushed by a single journalist — even the “overgrown schoolboy” –imagine, the diplomat mused, what happens between Ban and Israel, or Sri Lanka.

As for the outgrown schoolboy, he points out: wasn’t it a schoolboy who said “the Emperor has no clothes”?  Indeed…

Footnote: further to US Ambassador Susan Rice’s statement that the UN’s Gaza flotilla panel is “not a substitute” for national proceedings, Inner City Press is that during the Security Council consultations on the press statement by which Council welcomed Ban’s panel, the U.S. opposed linking the panel to the Council’s own May 31 – April 1 President Statement calling for an investigation.

So what did Ban tell Susan Rice and the US about the panel and its scope? Or about post promises made to get Ms. Lapoint confirmed as head of OIOS?

* * *

At UN, Ban “Melts Down, Admits” Dealing An OIOS Post to a South African, Calls Ethics Questions Small, 2d Term in Play

UNITED NATIONS, August 9, updated – “I always do the right thing,” UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said Monday, faced with long pending questions about mis-management and undermining the independence of the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services.

But Ban appeared to admit violating a founding principle of OIOS, that the Secretary General not intrude and give out top OIOS jobs on a political basis.

He was asked repeatedly to confirm or deny that he promised the second level OIOS post to a South African, to gain support for his appointment of a Canadian, Ms. Lapointe Young, to replace outgoing Inga Britt Ahlenius. (Inner City Press was the first to report this deal, here.)

At first Ban suggested these questions be dealt with in a separate session. Then he portrayed them as “small” questions. Many reporters were unclear if they were being directed to not get into “personal” or “personnel” questions.

The latter seems difficult, since Ban ultimately said he had personally taken the personnel decision to give the second OIOS post, even before the ostensibly independent new director comes in, to a South African candidate.

Many correspondents were frustrated at how the press conference was run, with no questions taken on Sudan — which is threatening to throw the UN out, while starving the residents of the Kalma Camp — or the Rwanda election or the Ban administrations flip-flip on Kashmir.

But even those most focused on UN management and Ms. Ahlenius’ damning End of Assignment Report were dissatisfied by Ban’s answer that any questioning of his administration’s ethics is unfair. There are a range of questions, including about Ban’s most senior advisers. These, they say, will be coming out as a second term for Ban is considered.

UN’s Ban pre melt down, post deals not shown

Ban was asked about his Gaza flotilla panel — he said no side agreement was made with Israel not to interview its soldiers — but not about his stalled and even most constrained panel on Sri Lanka war crimes.

He was asked about appointing Alvaro Uribe to the Gaza panel, despite Venezuela’s recent complaints. Ban said he has known Uribe as Secretary General for a long time, and that Uribe has his “full confidence.” What will Venezuela, the next head of the Group of 77 and China, say?

As one snarky correspondent said after what he called Ban’s “melt down,” this politically is the time when alternate candidates to become Secretary General in 2012 will begin to appear, even before the upcoming General Debate in mid September. Watch this site.

Footnote: even on the ostensible topic of Ban’s first press conference since the Ahlenius memo, the High Level Panel on Global Sustainability, lack of candor became apparent. When, after his loss of power in Australia, Kevin Rudd flew to New York and met with Ban, Inner City Press attended the photo op, and noted that Ban’s climate advisor Janos Pasztor was in attendance, and that the meeting lasted a full 50 minutes.

Inner City Press asked Ban’s spokesperson if the meeting involved the offering of a UN position of any kind. It was just a courtesy call, Inner City Press was repeatedly told — even after Rudd, back in Australia, bragged through his spokesman about the offer of a post.

At the end of Ban’s press conference, Inner City Press asked Pasztor if in the meeting with Rudd, the supposed courtesy call, this post was discussed. Yes, Pasztor said. Some courtesy call. The same snarky reporter laughed at the inclusion of US Ambassador Susan Rice on the panel, calling it a craven attempt to nail down US support for a second term as Secretary General. We’ll see.

Update of 12:41 pm: after publication of the above, UN Spokesperson – Do Not Reply sent this:

Subject: UN Spokesperson’s clarification regarding the Office of Internal Oversight Services
Date: Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:34 PM

The Secretary-General wants to make it absolutely clear that the recruitment process for the Director of the Investigations Division will start only after the new Under-Secretary-General of the Office of Internal Oversight Services has taken up her post. This selection will be conducted strictly in accordance with the established rules and procedures. The assertion that a South African was offered the job is completely unfounded.

“If you say so.” Compare to video, here. And, there are two D-2 posts in OIOS…

• DEFENDING BAN
  The U.N.’s Response to Criticism
• FRESH EYES
  Canadian to Head U.N. Internal Oversight

 http://turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com/posts…

 http://www.smartbrief.com/servlet/encode…

A top former U.N. investigator who was passed over for the top job in the U.N.’s investigations division has filed a grievance before the U.N.’s personnel disputes tribunal accusing Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and his top advisors of discriminating against him because he is an American male, and demanding about $1.4 million in damages and wages, according to the complaint.

Robert Appleton, a former federal prosecutor in the United States who once headed a U.N. task force that probed about 300 cases of potential wrongdoing, claimed that Ban’s refusal to endorse his nomination for the senior U.N. anti-corruption job on two occasions, primarily on the basis of his gender and nationality, “constitutes a discriminatory practice, directly contrary to the Charter of the United Nations.”

The complaint, which was filed Monday in the U.N.’s administrative disputes tribunal, marks a deepening of a political crisis over Ban’s handling of the U.N.’s anti-corruption efforts. It will subject the case to a review by U.N. judges who have frequently clashed with the U.N. leadership over its treatment of staff. Last month, the tribunal awarded $700,000 to a former senior U.N. official who contested the U.N.’s refusal to promote him to a more senior job.

The administrative battle comes more than a week after the U.N.’s outgoing chief of internal oversight, Inga- Britt Ahlenius of Sweden, wrote a sharply worded end-of-assignment report that accused Ban of undercutting her independence and interfering with her effort to hire Appleton. The confidential report, which I reported on first for the Washington Post and Turtle Bay, accused Ban of “deplorable” and “reprehensible” behavior. She also accused Ban of leading the U.N. into an era of “irrelevance” and “decline.”

Today’s filing marks the first time Appleton has weighed in on the matter. Appleton headed the U.N. Procurement Task Force, which conducted a series of aggressive investigations into wrongdoing from 2006 through 2009.

The task force’s probes have resulted in 17 misconduct findings against U.N. staff and triggered several criminal investigations by federal prosecutors.

The task force also cooperated in a federal probe of Vladimir Kuznetzov, a Russian diplomat, who was convicted in 2007 of money laundering in connection with a kickback scheme.

The task force infuriated governments, including Singapore and Russia, whose nationals it targeted. In late 2008, Russia sought unsuccessfully to push for the adoption of a resolution that would have prevented the U.N. from hiring Appleton or any member of a white-collar criminal team.

The task force, which was intended to be temporary, was shut down at the end of 2008, but its expertise was supposed to be preserved in the U.N.’s investigations division.

Martin Nesirky, the U.N.’s chief spokesman, declined to comment on the Appleton case, saying “consistent with our practice, it would be inappropriate to comment on a case pending before the Dispute Tribunal.” A senior U.N. official, who recently briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity, said that no political pressure had been applied on Ban to block Appleton’s hiring. U.N. officials said the appointment was blocked because Ahlenius had manipulated the recruitment process so that Appleton would get the job.

Angela Kane, the U.N. under secretary-general for management, claimed last month that Ahlenius’s account contained “many inaccuracies, misrepresentations and distortions.” Ahlenius, she noted, “did not comply with established U.N. rules and policies” designed to ensure the integrity of the recruitment process. “The Secretary-General and his team consider these instruments key to building a modern U.N. that strives for excellence and reflects our diverse membership – including true gender balance.  Indeed, the Secretary-General has appointed more women to senior positions than ever before in the Organization’s history.”

But another senior U.N. official hinted that there might be other reasons for the U.N.’s decision to reject Appleton, and suggested that he had outlived his usefulness to the United Nations. “There is only one American in the whole wide world who can run the investigations division?” the official said in a recent interview. “I certainly don’t believe that.”

The U.N. Charter states that the “the paramount consideration in the employment of the staff and in the determination of the conditions of service shall be the necessity of securing the highest standards of efficiency, competence, and integrity. Due regard shall be paid to the importance of recruiting the staff on as wide a geographical basis as possible.” In practice, U.N. secretaries-general have always relied heavily on key member states to recommend candidates for top posts. Many of the top jobs, including the heads of the departments of peacekeeping and political affairs, are generally reserved for candidates from the United States, Britain and France.

The power struggle between Ban and Ahlenius has its roots in an ambiguous mandate that provided her office with “operational independence” but placed it under the authority of the secretary-general, and makes it dependent on the U.N. secretariat for funding. Ban’s advisors maintain that while Ahlenius had the authority to propose a shortlist of three candidates for the job, Ban had the ultimate authority to pick the winning candidate.

Appleton’s complaint cites administrative instructions that bolster Ahlenius’s claim that she had the sole authority to hire her own top advisors. David Walker, a former U.S. controller general who chairs the U.N.’s Independent Audit Advisory Committee, noted that her “operational independence” provides that “the Under Secretary General for Internal Oversight Services will have authority to appoint all staff members whose appointments are limited to service with the office up to the D-2 level.” Appleton’s post was a D-2 job.

Appleton argues that the U.N. leadership had an obligation under the U.N. Charter and various General Assembly resolutions and staff directives to give him “full and fair consideration” for the job. He cited a 2008 General Assembly resolution saying that employment “should be based on merit, and that no person should be refused employment based upon race or gender or any other impermissible purpose.” But Ban issued a bulletin imposing a rule that he be allowed to appoint senior staff in the investigation’s division in January 2009, after Ahlenius had selected Appleton for the job, according to Ban and Ahlenius.

“There is no such rule that women be considered for every D2 position…it is a singular effort to operate outside the rule of law for their own political purpose and even more incredibly to do so retroactively,” Appleton asserts. The process, according to Appleton’s claim, calls into question Ban’s top advisors’ respect “for the most basic principles of the organization, and the fundamental rule of law. They should be held accountable for these acts.”

Appleton also claims that a senior official in the U.N. Office of Human Resources Management made an “inappropriate attempt” to persuade Ahlenius to consider unqualified candidates for the job, including a U.N. staffer who was married to one of the senior official’s subordinates, implying a conflict of interest. U.N. official’s said that the candidate’s spouse was a personnel officer in the U.N. peacekeeping department, not in the Office of Human Resources, and that there was no conflict of interest.

Appleton writes that the protracted hiring process, which played out over more than two-and-a-half years, has caused him financial hardship and damaged his reputation. “The applicant has been subjected to the embarrassment of having his candidacy discussed by the organizations officials in the public media for a continuous and extended period of time, promoting the false perception that the process was not legitimate or transparent; thereby impugning his own character.”

Please follow me on Twitter @columlynch.

Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate Discusses Advancing Agreement at COP 16

	from:	Energy and Capital <eac-eletter@angelnexus.com>
subject:		I Got the Asian Itch.

I’ve got the Asian itch, and it won’t be hard to see why…

I’ve got this itch because the region’s economies continue to grow while economic tremors continue to rock Europe and the United States.

I’ve got this itch because Asia’s investment in cleantech continues to grow while it shrinks in other areas:

.

I’ve got this itch because Asian governments turned to cleantech as the obvious choice for financial stimulus — with China, South Korea, and Japan allocating $20 billion more to the sector than the United States:

.

I’ve got this itch because China out-invested us 2:1 last year in new energy technologies:

.

Which makes their long-term cleantech investment curve look like this:

.

While ours looks like this:

Scratching the itch…

With a financial investment edge like that, you can bet Asia’s — particularly China’s — dedication is translating to wins in the public markets as well.

Five years ago, you’d be hard-pressed to find more than one or two Chinese companies on global top ten lists…

Now, they’ve taken three of the top 10 global wind spots and six in the solar race:

And not only are they whooping us in investment and production capacity; European and U.S. companies look silly next to Chinese stars:

That’s why 19 of the last 60 or so winners I’ve closed in the Alternative Energy Speculator have been China-based.

But my itch isn’t satisfied yet…

You see, only Asia’s dominance of the solar market has been thoroughly established in U.S. markets, where Chinese ADRs are common.

And while their dominance of wind and smart grid industries is definitely being plotted and executed, there’s been no way to play it in domestic markets — until now.

Sinovel (the #3 company in the table above) has announced ambitions to be the world wind leader in the next five years. I’m guessing this company, along with a few other Chinese entrants, will go the initial public offering route.

And if you think there’s work to be done on our grid, you should have a look at Asia where, in some places, there is no grid at all.

In fact it’s being built from scratch.

Just last week, Bloomberg broke news that “smart grid technology will be one of the key industries for research and development support in China’s upcoming 12th Five Year development plan, due to be enacted at the beginning of 2011.”

China’s largest grid operator, the State Grid Corp., has already said it will invest $37 billion this year alone to build a nationwide smart grid network.

So to recap…

China has leveraged its massive economy to become world leaders in solar and wind technology, outinvesting other nations by far.

Now they’re turning to the smart grid, which we’ll be necessary if they’re ever to harness that solar and wind potential effectively.

And make no mistake — only the Chinese survive in China. They take care of and nurture their own.

Like the Chinese solar companies now sharply outperforming their foreign competitors, I’ve found the one company about to become a global smart grid and electric car juggernaut.

As you can tell from all the data above, China is betting on a clean energy future.

And it’s winning.

While the U.S. continues to lag behind, you can satisfy your Asian itch by following China’s lead.

Call it like you see it.
Nick

P.S. China’s thirst for energy is incomparable. And it’s not just clean energy they’re after… My friend Christian DeHaemer is fresh off a trip to Mongolia, where he cozied up with a tiny company sitting on $51 billion worth of crude. And China wants it — bad.

He’s going to release a full report on the company and its massive find tomorrow. But because you’re a loyal reader of Energy & Capital, I figured I’d give you early access to it today.

———————–

China’s Next Cleantech Takeover: World’s Largest Automaker!

It was just a tiny, $10 battery company…

But right now, as part of China’s rapid cleantech mission, this little gem is rapidly on the verge of becoming the world’s largest automaker!

Click here for your free report.

Ethical and Sharia-compliant Investing Takes Off.

as per: http://english.alrroya.com/node/47032

Monday, 28 June 2010  at  09:26, By Ron Robins, Founder & Analyst – Investing for the Soul.

from: Prof. Jinyue Yan

The International Conference on Applied Energy (ICAE) looks set to become a truly integrated forum on research, development and application of energy technology and policy. ICAE2010 aims to facilitate debate on a wide range of topics under the theme, “Energy Solutions for a Sustainable World”. Besides the usual technical presentations and posters, the Conference will feature a number of keynote lectures and special focused sessions incorporating panel discussions and Q and A sessions.

We invite specialists from all over the world to come and share experiences and contribute towards building the framework for sustainable development in the 21st century.

As authors proceed to develop the full papers for the conference, I wish to inform all that a selection of the papers presented at ICAE2010 will be reviewed for publication in a special issue of Applied Energy and a number of other international peer-reviewed journals. In addition, best paper awards will be presented at the Conference.

International Conference on Applied Energy, April 21-23, 2010, Singapore

CONFERENCE TOPICS

Renewable and Green Energy Resources and Technologies
-Biomass, wind and solar energy resources and technologies
-Alternative fuels
- Fuel cells and hydrogen energy
- Energy storage technologies
- Biomass Gasification

Energy Conservation in Buildings
-Green and “zero energy” buildings
- Green building envelopes
- Energy efficient heating and cooling systems
- Heat pump, thermal storage and energy recovery systems

Advanced Energy Technologies
- Micro- and nano-technology applied to energy systems
- Carbon capture and storage systems
- Combustion and engine technology
- Novel and advanced energy conversion systems

Energy Systems for Power Generation
- Energy efficiency and management
- Energy process and system modeling and optimization
- Advanced power generation, transmission and automation
- Distributed energy systems
- Poly-generation systems

Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development
- Greenhouse gas and climate change mitigation
- Pollutant emission control and abatement
- Energy efficiency in transportation
- Energy Efficiency in water production
- Energy and sustainable development
- Energy policy, economics, and planning
- Low Carbon Society and Sustainable Cities

Please visit at www.icae2010.org for your registration to attend the conference.

Professor J. Yan
Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) and Malardalen University (MDU), Sweden

Editor-in-Chief of Elsevier Int. Journal, Applied Energy
 http://ees.elsevier.com/apen/

Applied Energy 35th Anniversary
 http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/P08.cws…

International Conference on Applied Energy, Singapore April 21-23, 2010
  Permalink | |  Email This Article
Posted in Archives, Copenhagen COP15, Future Events, Singapore, United Kingdom

Discuss this article

Singapore Pares Emission Cut Plans After Copenhagen.

Reuters,  12-Jan-10.
Author: Nopporn Wong-Anan

SINGAPORE – Singapore said on Monday it will go ahead with existing plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but further pledged reductions will depend on a successful agreement in global climate talks.

Environment Minister Yaacob Ibrahim told parliament Singapore would start implementing energy efficiency measures announced last year that would cut emissions by 7-11 percent on business as usual levels by 2020.

This would be below a 16 percent cut that Singapore pledged just ahead of U.N. climate talks in Copenhagen last month, which aimed to agree on a global pact but instead ended with a non-binding accord far short of its original goals.

“When a global agreement on climate change is reached we will implement the additional measures to achieve the full 16 percent reduction below business as usual in 2020,” he said.

Environmentalists said they hoped countries would not lower voluntary targets to cut back emissions given the absence of a global accord, which negotiators are still aiming to reach in another round of talks scheduled for November 2010 in Mexico.

“We find it disappointing that countries are going to step back and lower their ambition,” WWF project coordinator Diane McFadzien told Reuters.

“I haven’t seen evidence of it becoming a trend yet, but I hope it will not become a trend.”

Wealthy city-state Singapore, with one of the world’s best living standards in terms of GDP per capita, has come under fire from environmentalists who point to its energy-intensive economy and high per-capita emissions.

Singapore aims to spur economic growth by increasing its population and attracting further manufacturing investment, which will make cutting absolute emissions difficult, a problem faced by many developing nations unwilling to sign up to legally binding cuts.

As part of the Copenhagen accord, developing nations need to put their voluntary national pledges on a global list by the end of January.

UN Stumbles by Degrees in Nopenhagen, Stealing the Deal?

By Matthew Russell Lee of the Inner City Press.

UNITED NATIONS, December 17 — In the months leading to the Copenhagen climate talks, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon veered back and forth between reading out specific statements on how the deal should be sealed and saying it is up to member states, the UN is just the venue.

Then he and his advisors including Janos Pasztor and top humanitarian John Holmes announced that $10 billion for adaptation — or reparations — to developing countries would be enough, or “a good start.”

Inner City Press asked each of these three about the African Union’s much higher figure and threat to walk out. Each was to varying degrees dismissive.

Now with the Danish police pepper spraying demonstrators in the street, along with a crowd of UN accredited but excluded reporters, representatives of non governmental organizations and even some UN personnel, the mainstream media coverage turns negative and Ban urges poor countries to stop pointing fingers.

He also, at least according to them, has inappropriately accepted not only the developed countries’ $10 billion figure, but now their two degree Celsius temperature rise cap, versus the 1.5 degree figure.

UN’s Ban at Bella Center, excluded and pepper spray and 0.5 degrees not shown

In New York, Inner City Press has asked Ban’s spokesman about each of these. On December 15, Inner City Press asked

Inner City Press: I just want to follow up on Copenhagen. Do you have any, a large number of us have received the complaints of people who were there, who went yesterday and were unable, both journalists and NGOs [non-governmental organizations] and even some UN staff, were unable to get into the building. And they seemed to say that the UN accredited 45,000 people, even though only 15,000 could fit in the building. If that’s true, why would the UN have done that?

Spokesperson Nesirky: Two things, the figure I’ve heard is not 45,000 but 34,000. That’s still a lot of people, absolutely.

Inner City Press: The same question.

Spokesperson: Yes, the same question. As I understand it, and as we’ve heard from Copenhagen, they have a system to try to rotate the number of people going into the building, because, obviously, they’re over capacity. Part of it is also, it’s not just NGOs, it’s journalists as well. There are large numbers. And as I’ve said here before, it clearly demonstrates the considerable interest there is in this event and in having access to this event. As for why there was an over-accreditation, I would refer you to the organizers, actually the UNFCCC [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change], who are actually on the ground organizing this, and they have a media team there who I’m sure could help you with that.

On December 16, Ban’s spokesman Martin Nesirky answered

I was asked yesterday about the delays in accessing the Bella Centre in Copenhagen, that’s obviously where the UN Conference on Climate Change is taking place. The United Nations regrets the long delays today for people wishing to gain access or pick up accreditation, and is doing all it can to alleviate further delays.

And more than 45,000 people did indeed apply to attend the Conference. And an overwhelming number of those who applied actually arrived on Monday. This is what caused the congestion in the area outside the UN venue, which is under the control of the Danish police, and also long delays at the UN accreditation counters.

The access to the venue for NGOs will continue to be controlled by the quota system that I mentioned to allow balanced access by various NGO groups. And the NGO representatives are given over half of the capacity of the Bella Centre, and that’s more than ever for a climate change conference. As of tomorrow, only NGO organizations that have the secondary badges will be able to enter the Bella Centre. And the Danish Government and the Danish NGO Network are organizing an alternative venue for NGOs who can’t get into the Bella Centre over the next two days.

Inner City Press asked two more questions:

Inner City Press: I want to ask you about two things that the Secretary-General said in Copenhagen; maybe you can clarify them. One was, he said that the goal is to cap temperature rise at 2° C, and small island States and other participants, Member States of the United Nations, had set their goal at 1.5° C. So, I guess they’re wondering where he came up with the 2° C number. Maybe you can clarify if that really is what he thinks should happen? And also he was quoted as saying that Kenya should lobby to make UNEP [the United Nations Environment Programme] in Nairobi the global environmental agency. You, know, France has a separate proposal that created a new agency. I’m wondering, does that indicate that he doesn’t support France’s proposal or what does it indicate?

Spokesperson Nesirky: Okay, on the first one, on the temperature rise, he’s made public comments on this, which we distributed this morning. The bottom line is that he has said if it’s possible to get to 1.5° C, that’s great. But if it’s not, then it’s important to have a deal that everybody can sign up to. That’s what he’s said. But I would refer you to his remarks so that you could read them in detail. On the UNEP idea, I will need to follow up on that.

Inner City Press: Just one follow-up on that, because in his press conference before he went on the trip, I think he was asked, somebody said, “What ideas are you taking to Copenhagen?” And he said that’s not his role. It’s up to the Member States to negotiate. So, I’m just wondering, I think that’s why people have this question about coming out with a 2° C number. It seems like more than leaving it up to Member States. Do you see what I’m saying? That seems to be inconsistent with what he said before he left.

Spokesperson: I don’t see any inconsistency there. He’s been consistent in saying that, yes, he has an honest broker role, but he also has firm convictions, strong convictions, about what is happening with climate change and his role in ensuring that everybody can come to the table and sign a deal. I would refer you to the remarks he made this morning, which are fairly explicit about the numbers.

And and Ban’s number is now two degrees Celsius, a figure never agreed to by developing countries. They think the UN is or is supposed to be their venue. But not anymore, it seems.

————————–

As UN Flies 700 Staff to Copenhagen, Coup Leader Set to Speak, Major Emitter Excluded.

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 10 — In the run up to the Copenhagen climate change conference, Inner City Press on December 4 asked UN climateer Janos Pasztor how many UN system staff, officials and consultants would be traveling to Denmark, with what carbon footprint. Pasztor said it wouldn’t be known until the conference began.

On December 10, UN spokesman Martin Nesirky finally answered the question, or part of it. He said that the Copenhagen conference has among its participants 477 people from the UN Secretariat and 309 from 19 specialized agencies and related organizations. That is, 786 people from the UN. But does this include consultants? And what is the carbon footprint and will it be offset?

Nesirky did however answer two questions Inner City Press asked on December 10, after an ill attended noon briefing held at the same time as a media stakeout by U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice. Inner City Press asked if Ban Ki-moon is aware of the request that the coup leader of Madagascar not be allowed to participate in the Copenhagen conference, just as he was barred from speaking before the General Assembly in September.

Nesirky answered, “As for Madagascar, it is scheduled to speak on next Wednesday 16 December, sometime after 6 p.m., so they seem to have been invited.” But what about the request that, as at the UN General Debate in September, they be disinvited?

On December 8, Inner City Press asked Ban Ki-moon

Inner City Press: Has Ethiopia’s Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, has he indicated to you – we’ve heard that you’ve spoken to him weekly by videoconference – he represents the African Union. Is the $10 billion enough? They threatened to walk out if not sufficient funds were committed. What’s you stance on how that issue’s going to play out?

SG: As you know I, together with Prime Minister [Lars Løkke] Rasmussen [of Denmark], have been engaging in weekly videoconferences with major stakeholders on climate change – particularly the representatives of the most vulnerable countries, including the African Union and small island developing countries. We are going to continue to do that, as we did in Trinidad and Tobago. Now the idea of short-term fast-track financial support is supported by developing countries. We had a very in-depth discussion on this issue during our Commonwealth summit meeting in Trinidad and Tobago. As you know the 53-Member State Commonwealth adopted a consensus declaration where this financial support – fast-track support – was agreed by all the Member States, including a provision that 10% of this $10 billion will be provided to small island developing countries.

So the Commonweath agreed — but has the African Union? Inner City Press asked Ban’s top humanitarian John Holmes on December 10, but he said he hadn’t been involved in setting the $10 billion figure. So who was?

UN’s Ban pre-signs Deal, coup leader coming, major emitter not shown

Inner City Press also asking about the block on participation by Taiwan, which is a major industrial emitter. Nesirky answered only that “Taiwan is not a party to the UNFCCC.” But why not? Would the UN want a major source of emission like Taiwan to participate?

The answer, of course, in China, a senior diplomat of which told Inner City Press a good joke on Thursday. He noted that U.S.’ Susan Rice had been harsh against Iran in that morning’s Council meeting. She has to play to the electorate, he said, just as Iran’s teetered regime tries to strengthen its power by being ever more hard-line. The Chinese diplomat said, “This is the problem with democracy.” And then he laughed.

South East Asia and climate change.
Climate change is a critical and pressing issue we are faced with today. In Southeast Asia we are increasingly exposed to the results of climate change, such as the latest typhoons and floods in the region, causing loss of lives and damage to property as well as displacing familes and increasing the spread of tropical diseases.

Simon Tay, Chairman, Singapore Institute of International Affairs (SIIA) and former chairman of Singapore National Energy Agency
26/11/2009
 http://en.cop15.dk/blogs/view+blog?blogi…

There is also the risk of rising sea level and increasing temperatures. A recently released report from the Asian Developing Bank (ADB) shows that South East Asia is likely to suffer more from climate change than elsewhere in the world. There will be considerable economic costs too, with a projected 7-8 per cent lost in GDP, unless climate change is addressed.

It is an issue, on which developed and developing countries should come together. Yet differences and suspicions remain.

The date for COP15 in Copenhagen is rapidly approaching and nations worldwide are going to great lengths to reach a consensus on a new climate agreement. However, after the Barcelona meetings earlier this month, it seems that the negotiations have not progressed so far that a new legal framework will be ready for Copenhagen. A realistic outcome will probably be a political framework which can form the basis for future negotiations on the post-Kyoto treaty.

South East Asian countries, including Singapore, need to think about their position on the international stage. We all see the need to bring together the US, India, China and south-east Asia, and mediators can help bring these nations together. Singapore and other countries in the region could very well play that role. South East Asia and Singapore should engage and have an active role.

If we do not, we risk having larger and more powerful countries coming to agreements alone and the decisions risk being made without our full attention and participation.

Singapore, along with the rest of the world is also looking at alternative sources of energy. It is clear that some countries are more able and capable to deploy energy saving mechanisms such as windmills and water/tidal turbines. Solar energy, though a good solution, is still very expensive and presently is not optimal for Singapore due to our small land size and cloud cover. But we can participate in helping develop the technology and know how and benefit.

Singapore drew up a sustainable blueprint earlier this year which stressed issues such as increasing energy efficiency. Singapore also has an excellent past record in many areas of environmental proection as a green city. But we, and all other nations, should also be committed to the global effort to address climate change.

Singapore has good engineering and technology and export environmental services like water treatment and recycling. We pride ourselves on our development despite the lack of natural resources. We should regard carbon emissions as a constraint, like the shortage of water, land and clean air. By doing this, we would find innovative ways to minimise such emissions. The world is moving towards being carbon neutral. Carbon markets are thriving in places like London and China. Singapore should have a slice of the cake too. Singapore is after all an energy hub and one of the world’s leading future trading hubs.

Without the big nations on board, it may be understandable that other nations approach Copenhagen cautiously. A solitary commitment by any single nation cannot solve this global challenge.

But I hope that all governments will leave Copenhagen energized and with greater political commitment. In the post-Copenhagen scenario, many Singaporeans will hope and expect Singapore to play its role.

Hatoyama outlines East Asia bloc -  key concepts include regional prosperity, environmental cooperation.

SINGAPORE (Kyodo) Monday, Nov. 16, 2009, Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama on Sunday highlighted four key areas of cooperation in his concept for an East Asian community — regional prosperity, the environment, protecting human life and maritime safety.

Hatoyama indicated the U.S. is a potential member of his envisaged regional grouping, saying in a speech in Singapore, “The presence of the United States has been playing and will continue to play an important role in ensuring the peace and prosperity of Asia, including Japan.”

Hatoyama said Japan will speed up negotiations for economic partnership agreements with South Korea, India and Australia, and study the possibilities of talks with other countries as a means to pursuing prosperity in the region.

Hatoyama proposed expanding maritime cooperation in Southeast Asia, such as anti-piracy operations in the Strait of Malacca, to other regions as part of efforts to build a “sea of ‘yu-ai’ (fraternity),” noting that “most regional commerce depends on sea routes.”

“The concept behind my initiative for an East Asian community stems from the philosophy of yu-ai,” he said. “Within yu-ai, people respect the freedom and human dignity of others just as they respect their own freedom and human dignity. In other words, yu-ai means not only the independence of people but also their coexistence.

“I set this goal because reconciliation in the real sense of the word is not necessarily believed to have been achieved in the region,” said Hatoyama, whose two-month-old government attaches great importance to Asian diplomacy.

“This is the current situation, although more than 60 years have passed since Japan caused tremendous damage and suffering to the people of many countries, particularly on the people of Asian nations.”

Hatoyama expressed hope that developing countries will take advantage of advanced energy-saving technologies, water purification techniques and other environment-focused technologies owned by Japanese companies as they aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissionswhile pursuing sustainable growth to achieve a “green Asia.”

He stressed that countries need to ensure the success of the key U.N. climate change meeting next month in Copenhagen, where the world will try to strike a deal on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol.

Hatoyama said Japan will make a “proactive contribution” to encourage governments and other institutions to register their human and material assets for disaster relief, which would allow the region to conduct more prompt and effective rescue and relief activities in response to disasters.

Along with the four areas, Hatoyama cited nuclear disarmament, nuclear nonproliferation, urban issues, social security and cultural exchange as potential fields of regional cooperation.

“There may also be an opportunity for us to discuss possible political cooperation in the future,” he said.

“It may be possible that countries with the will and the capabilities to cooperate in a particular field may choose to participate in projects initially, and as their efforts bear fruit, other countries could join later.”

While welcoming Washington’s commitment to Asia as stated in President Barack Obama’s speech in Tokyo on Saturday, Hatoyama carefully avoided speaking about Washington becoming a member of his envisaged East Asian community.

As a framework of future regional cooperation, China envisions a grouping of 13 countries — Japan, China and South Korea plus the 10 Association of Southeast Asian Nations members of Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.

Japan envisages a wider grouping including Australia, India, New Zealand and possibly the United States.

No to two-isle plan
SINGAPORE (Kyodo) Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama told Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev on Sunday that he will not accept the idea of settling the sovereignty dispute over four Russian-controlled islands off Hokkaido by settling for the return of the two smaller islands.

“The (Japanese) public and us (the government) cannot understand (the idea of) returning two islands. I would like you to show a nonstereotypical approach that goes beyond such an idea,” Hatoyama quoted himself as saying at the meeting the Russian president in Singapore.

Medvedev told Hatoyama that Russia truly hopes to advance negotiations on the territorial row while Hatoyama is in office, a Japanese delegation source said.

Hatoyama quoted Medvedev as telling him that Moscow wants to seek a “pragmatic” solution to the dispute without employing an approach based on the thinking of the Cold War era.

THE NYT FRONT PAGE ARTICLES DEEMED BY THE PAPER AS TOP STORIES.

————–

“High Costs Weigh on Troop Debate for Afghan War.”
By CHRISTOPHER DREW
The budget implications of President Obama’s decision about sending more troops to Afghanistan are adding pressure to limit the commitment, senior administration officials say.
 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us/pol…

—-

“Tangle of Clues on Fort Hood Suspect.”
From Washington DC – By SCOTT SHANE and JAMES DAO

Investigators are trying to determine whether Maj. Nidal
Malik Hasan was a terrorist driven by extremism, a troubled
loner, or both.
 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us/15h…

—-

“China’s Role as U.S. Lender Alters Dynamics for Obama.”
Finalized In-House in New York City and signed  by HELENE COOPER, MICHAEL WINES and DAVID E. SANGER – “President Obama will likely spend more time reassuring Beijing than pushing reform.”
 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/world/…

————————————————–

FRONT PAGE, NOT INCLUDED IN TOP STORIES, AUTHORED AWAY FROM NEW YORK, BUT USED AS QUOTE OF THE DAY.

—–
 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us/pol…

Robert Pear – from Washington DC – “In House Record, Many Spoke With One Voice: The Lobbyists.”

A terrific article about how US Congress works.

- QUOTATION OF THE DAY -

“We were approached by the lobbyist, who asked if we would be willing to enter a statement in the Congressional Record. I asked him for a draft. I tweaked a couple of words. There’s not much reason to reinvent the wheel on a Congressional Record entry.”
- STANLEY V. WHITE, chief of staff for Representative Robert A. Brady of Pennsylvania, one of dozens of lawmakers who used speeches ghostwritten by a biotechnology company during the health-care debate in the House.

—–

FRONT PAGE, NOT INCLUDED IN TOP STORIES, AUTHORED AWAY FROM NEW YORK.
 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us/15k…

Mark Mazzetti – from Washington DC – “Portrait of 9/11 ‘Jackal’ Emerges As He Awaits Stage in New York.”

Not long after he was rousted from bed and seized in a predawn raid in Pakistan in March 2003, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed gave his captors two demands: He wanted a lawyer, and he wanted to be taken to New York. So, he will get his wish.

——————————-

Page 6 of the paper – first page INTERNATIONAL – WORLD on the web:

—

“Leaders Agree to Delay a Deal on Climate Change.”
From Singapore – By HELENE COOPER
“President Obama and other world leaders have decided to put off the difficult task of reaching a climate change agreement at a global climate conference scheduled for next month.”
 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/world/…

…

“Forest People May Lose Home in Kenyan Plan.”
From Marashoni, Kenya – By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN
Officials are gearing up to evict tens of thousands from the Mau Forest, in a government conservation effort that has raised suspicion about less-altruistic motives.
 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/world/…

…

“Broaching Birth Control With Afghan Mullahs.”
From Mazar – I – Sharif, Afghanistan – By SABRINA TAVERNISE
Afghan religious leaders attended a workshop on birth
control, birth spacing and breast-feeding last month.
 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/world/…

………………

NOT ON “WORLD” LIST and on page 8 of The New York Times:

Isabel Kirschner from Jerusalem – “Unusual Partners Study Divisive Jerusalem Site.”
 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/world/…

The article ends with: “Mr. Nusseibeh, the president of Al-Quds University, takes an equally unconventional stance. He speaks of mutual denial, including Israeli-led archaeological excavations near the mount that threaten Muslim relics, practices, he said, that ‘totally flout what is divine!’
But he goes on to ask, ‘Can we still not entertain the hope that the holy precinct — what it is and what it symbolizes — will nonetheless one day succeed to inspire people who believe in the one God themselves to become united in their faith?’

Then, to the chagrin of some of his Israeli colleagues, he signs off, ‘East Jerusalem, Palestine.’”

—————————————

FROM THE WEEK IN REVIEW – THE WORLD SECTION:
 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekin…

David Barboza – “China’s Sprint for the Gold.”

In 2009 it still has only 79 billionaires as compared to the US having 359 while the GDP of China is now $4.3 trillion as compared to the US of $14.2 trillions – whatever those figures are measuring. Yes – but don’t forget the trends! Then see the following ending paragraph:

“But even leading economists confess to difficulty at fully understanding the role of a nation dominated by state-owned companies.

For instance, while some argue that China’s low-cost manufacturing hurts America by draining away American jobs, other economists say that exporting those jobs to China allows companies to become more profitable in America, and expand their better-paying advertising, service and development departments at home. They also point out that Chinese factories hold down the price of everyday goods for Americans. One study, cited in “China: The Balance Sheet” (Public Affairs, 2006), said that, on average, America is about $70 billion a year richer because of trade with China.

Through all the arguments and counterarguments, one thing seems clear: China’s momentous shift is creating the need for armies of analysts, economists and experts to explain and forecast how China’s rise will remake the world, and the lives of ordinary Americans.”

—————————-

FROM THE SUNDAY BUSINESS SECTION WE PICK THE FOLLOWING:

From page 1 – “At Bloomberg, A Modest Strategy to Rule The World (as in “we want to be the World’s most influential news organization.” by Stephanie Clifford and Juli Creswall.
 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/busine…

———-

and from page 7 – SOAP BOX:

By Harry Hurt III – Off – the – shelf: “Can Public Aid Really Help Business?”
 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/busine…

and BACKDROP (City Photos)  also in the SOAP BOX section under multimedia:

The astonishing – “MICROLENDING FROM BANGLADESH TO THE BOROUGHS.” This is about the Grameen Bank established in Bangladesh to help poor women in developing countries – helping right here in New York City immigrant women with average loans of $1,625. NOW THIS IS JUST AS REVEALING OF THE STATE OF THE UNION IN THE US AS ANY ARTICLE ABOUT THE RISE OF CHINA. WE ASK – WHY WAS THIS ARTICLE NOT INCLUDED AMONG THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DAY?

Aha! Let us rethink the stimulus  to the big banks idea – perhaps by bringing Professor Yunus in as advisor to the White House? This is actually our idea of the day!
 http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/11…

Obama arrived at Tokyo’s Haneda airport aboard Air Force One earlier in the day on his first official trip to Japan. He will depart Saturday for Singapore to attend the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum summit.

“I began my trip here in Tokyo because the alliance between the United States and Japan is a foundation for security and prosperity not just for our two countries but for the Asia-Pacific region,” Obama said.

With the 50th anniversary of the revision of the Japan-U.S. security treaty coming up next year, the two leaders promised to strengthen the bilateral ties to aim for a “world without nuclear weapons.”

“I told Obama that the Japan-U.S. alliance is the foundation of everything in regards to Japan’s diplomacy,” Hatoyama said. “But the times and the situation of the world have changed and I suggested to further advance and develop the alliance, to create a constructive and future-oriented new Japan-U.S. alliance.”

During the evening talks at the Prime Minister’s Official Residence, Hatoyama and Obama issued a joint statement, pledging the two governments to work closely toward nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation. Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize last month for his vision of a nuclear-free world.

And On Climate Change according to Kyodo News:

80% cut in CO2 by ’50 reaffirmed.

Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama and U.S. President Barack Obamareaffirmed at their summit Friday the shared goal of achieving an 80 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and supporting efforts by “the poor and most vulnerable” nations to combat climate change.

Also – Hatoyama and Obama endorsed a pledge by the Group of Eight major economies in July in L’Aquila, Italy, to halve global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. However, they did not touch on an emissions reduction goal by developed countries by 2020, as it is the focal point of the current U.N. climate negotiations.

Hatoyama hopes to achieve a 25 percent cut in the nation’s heat-trapping gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2020.

Shifting to low-carbon growth is indispensable to the health of the planet and will play a central role in reviving the global economy, Obama and Hatoyama agreed.

They urged all major economies to “take ambitious concrete actions” on setting emission reduction targets and be “subject to a robust regime of reporting and international review.” {this was in effect the language for Japan only we heard earlier at the meeting at the Japan Society in New York}

—————-

In Japan, Obama stresses Asia’s role in U.S. economy

President Obama embarks on a nine-day tour of Asian countries, including Japan, Singapore, China and South Korea.

Obama is expected to address topics such as security, environment, the economy and U.S.-Asia relations.

Event: Obama speaks at Suntory Hall in Tokyo about American engagement in Asia.

Meeting: Meets with emperor and empress of Japan.

Travel: Leaves for Singapore.

By Anne E. Kornblut and Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, November 14, 2009

TOKYO — Declaring himself “America’s first Pacific president,” President Obama opened his trip to the region Saturday by asserting that the future of the U.S. economy depends more than ever on Asia — and by pledging that China’s growth will not come at the expense of its neighbors.

In speaking to an invited audience at Tokyo’s Santory Hall, Obama offered only cursory remarks on human rights, an issue that will grow more prominent this weekend as he crosses paths in Singapore with the leader of the Burmese military junta and then heads to China. As a sign of how exhausting his trip has already been, Obama briefly stumbled over the name of the Burmese opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi.

Unlike in earlier speeches in Cairo and Berlin, Obama did not seem to be trying to shift a global dynamic. But in the only major address he plans to give during this trip, he brought the force of his personal story to bear, invoking memories of a childhood visit to Japan and, in praising Asians as part of the immigrant experience in the United States, relating that experience to his own.

“I am an American president who was born in Hawaii and lived in Indonesia as a boy,” Obama said, mentioning his sister, Maya, who was born in Jakarta, and his mother’s years in Southeast Asia. “So the Pacific Rim has helped shape my view of the world.”

He mentioned his love for Japanese ice cream, thanking Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama for serving his favored childhood treat at a dinner Friday night. He even offered “greetings and gratitude to the citizens of Obama, Japan.”

The speech was notably short on new initiatives toward Asia. Instead, the president emphasized that the future of U.S. prosperity is irreversibly tied to the dynamic economies of the region. “The fortunes of America and the Asia Pacific have become more closely linked than ever before,” Obama said. “So I want every American to know that we have a stake in the future of this region, because what happens here has a direct effect on our lives at home.”

Obama singled out China as a primary engine for sustaining the world’s economic recovery, saying the United States welcomes Beijing’s greater role on the world stage and intends to “pursue pragmatic cooperation with China on issues of mutual concern.”

“So the United States does not seek to contain China, nor does a deeper relationship with China mean a weakening of our bilateral alliances,” Obama said. “On the contrary, the rise of a strong, prosperous China can be a source of strength for the community of nations.”

Obama said the United States and China “will not agree on every issue” — he mentioned religious freedom and human rights — but added that the two countries should move “forward in a spirit of partnership rather than rancor.”

To keep the nascent economic recovery going, Obama said the United States and the countries of East Asia need to make fundamental changes in their respective economies — with Americans saving more, spending less and increasing exports, while Asians spend more on housing and infrastructure and also increase their standard of living.

“We have now reached one of those rare inflection points in history where we have the opportunity to take a different path,” Obama said. “One of the important lessons this recession has taught us is the limits of depending primarily on American consumers and Asian exports to drive growth.”

In an earlier news conference, Obama addressed what has become a serious sticking point in U.S.-Japanese relations, saying he expects Tokyo to implement its 2006 agreement to allow a U.S. Marine air station in Okinawa to be relocated on the island.

Hatoyama, who took office in September, has suggested that Futenma Air Station be moved off Okinawa or even outside the country. Hatoyama’s position was bluntly rejected last month by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.

The two countries agreed earlier in the week to form a high-level working group on the air station.

Obama said the two governments shared a common goal of providing for “the defense of Japan with minimal intrusion on the lives of the people who share this space.”

But a White House official traveling with the president emphasized that the working group would not reopen or renegotiate the three-year-old deal on restructuring U.S. forces in Japan.

——

The Chinese are ‘changing us’
Rising global power is reshaping the way Americans do business and live their lives.

By John Pomfret
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 14, 2009

WAUSAU, WIS. — In a cavernous warehouse amid rolling hills and dairy farms, a group of farmers recently gathered around a buyer in a conversation heralding a sea change in the United States.

“I don’t think you Americans get it,” said the buyer, dressed casually in designer brands and sporting a watch worth as much as the mud-splattered GM trucks in the parking lot outside. “We need quality. We demand quality. Top quality. If you work with me, we can win together. But if you don’t, there’s nothing I can do.”

Being harangued by a pharmaceutical company executive from China was new for these burly farmers, but no one complained. These tough men from the American Midwest treated their Chinese guest as a savior of sorts, in an important economic and cultural reality that will confront President Obama on his first visit to China, starting Sunday.

On visits to Shanghai and Beijing, Obama will encounter not simply a rising global power but a nation that is transforming and challenging the way Americans live overseas and at home, from college classrooms to real estate offices to the ginseng farms of central Wisconsin.

Americans have been selling Panax quinquefolius to China since 1784 when the first China-bound trading ship sailed from New York to Canton, today’s Guangzhou, weighed down with 30 tons of the root, prized in Asia for medicinal properties. But today the U.S. ginseng industry, centered here in Wisconsin, is on its back, kicked down by bogus imitations from Chinese competitors and state-subsidized crops from Canada.

Twenty years ago, 1,500 farmers grew ginseng in Wisconsin for the China market; now the number is down to 150. Prices have dropped from $60 a pound to $24. The farmers around the ginseng barrels on this rainy fall night looked for an answer from Chun Yu, a Chinese businessman dangling his company’s chain of 1,000 retail stores throughout China as the ultimate prize.

“Years ago, it didn’t matter what we grew. They bought everything we had,” said Randy Ross, a 54-year-old former dairy farmer who has been growing ginseng since 1978. “Now we’ve got to learn how to satisfy them. They are changing us.”

Catching China fever:

While it’s not exactly the People’s Republic of Wisconsin, this state has been seized with a China fever of sorts. Throughout the United States, old notions of China have been replaced with a deeper understanding that China is a force that must be reckoned with. Hate it or love it, China is a major player in American life.

China is now Wisconsin’s (and the country’s) third-biggest export market, buying more American soybeans, oil seeds, hides and animal skins, raw cotton, copper, nonferrous metals, wood pulp, semiconductors and miscellaneous chicken parts (a.k.a. chicken feet) than anyone else.

At the University of Wisconsin, as at college campuses across the United States, mainland Chinese dominate the study of science and technology and form the backbone of the engineering, chemistry and pharmacy departments. They receive twice as many doctorates in this country as students from India, the next-closest foreign competitor. And among foreigners, they register by far the most patents in the United States.

Chinese investors have snapped up pieces of distressed real estate in Milwaukee, as they have in other crumbling Midwestern industrial cities, not to mention in Florida, California and Arizona. Last year, a group from Germantown, Md., and China bought an empty mall on Milwaukee’s depressed northwest side for $6 million, down from its $8 million list price. In July, a Chinese steelmaker bought 54 acres in an industrial park off Interstate 94 between Milwaukee and Chicago.

A team of Midwestern businessmen, including the former CIA station chief in Beijing, has recently established, in cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security, a special zone in Wisconsin that would grant U.S. citizenship in exchange for a $1 million investment.

Meanwhile, in a state that has lost more than 160,000 (or one-third) of its manufacturing jobs in a decade, local newspapers have been running editorials praising the People’s Republic and blasting those who oppose closer trade ties or Chinese investment. “China is a friend to Wisconsin and its businesses, not an enemy in a trade war,” the Wisconsin State Journal said in an editorial.

Seeking out business:

Wisconsin’s governor, Jim Doyle (D), has been to China to promote Wisconsin three times since he took office in 2003. When he first went, he said, fellow governors in other states worried about the appearance of an American governor going to China seeking business. Now, it’s commonplace. More than 14 of his counterparts have visited China in the past two years.

“China is incredibly important to us,” he said in an interview. “Even in these difficult times, some of the industries getting by are the ones selling to China. If we didn’t have the Chinese, we would have been in much, much tougher shape.”

One of those firms is Bucyrus International, based in South Milwaukee, which has exported coal-mining equipment to China since trade relations were opened in the 1970s. In the past three years, it has doubled its workforce, in part because of the China trade.

“We were still skeptical seven or eight years ago that these guys were for real,” said Bucyrus chief executive Tim Sullivan. “Now we know.”

The boosterism about China sometimes reaches a fever pitch. One of the businessmen who helped set up the special investment zone, Robert Kraft, said China in the future will do what the Germans did for Milwaukee in the past. “The Chinese are coming,” Kraft said in a telephone interview from China, where he was scouting for Chinese investors. “We’re just trying to get a piece of it for Wisconsin.”

“The Chinese Are Coming” was the title of a session in late September in Baltimore at the annual meeting of the National Association for College Admission Counseling. There educators spoke about skyrocketing numbers of Chinese high school graduates applying for admission at U.S. colleges. That’s new. For the last 20 years, Chinese have been at or near the top of the number of foreign students in the United States — but most were in grad school. In all, about 89,000 are currently in the United States, according the Chinese Embassy.

China has also helped establish 61 Confucius Institutes across the United States, including one in Wisconsin, to teach Chinese and undertake “cultural dialogues,” the embassy said.

At the University of Wisconsin in Madison, Chinese undergraduates now account for more than half of the 1,109 Chinese students there. That increase is another sign that China is coming because Wisconsin, like many state schools, doesn’t provide scholarships for international undergrads. Last year, Chinese students paid out $2 billion in tuition nationwide. “That money is keeping some American colleges alive,” said Laurie Cox, who runs the international student center at the Madison campus.

“Every time I turn around, another campus has signed a memorandum of understanding with another Chinese university,” said Kevin Reilly, the president of the university’s 26 campuses. Reilly recently joined Doyle on a trip to China. “I came away thinking, if the 20th century was the American century . . . you have to believe that the 21st century will be the Chinese century.”

Difficulties and disputes:

Wisconsin is not immune to troubles with China. For years, until they were stopped in 2004, two Chinese nationals used Milwaukee as a base from which they exported restricted electronics and computer chips to Chinese institutes that make missiles.

Quality problems with China’s imports have also bedeviled Wisconsin firms — as they have American consumers who purchased deadly pet food, lead-laden toys, and defective drywall that is believed to have rendered thousands of homes in the South almost uninhabitable.

One Wisconsin company, Scientific Protein Laboratories, was in the center of a supply chain making the blood-thinner heparin.

Hundreds of allergic reactions to the drug, including 81 reported deaths, led to a nationwide recall that was linked to tainted raw materials from China in 2007 and 2008.

These days Wisconsin is at the center of a new trade dispute with China. Appleton Coated of Kimberly was one of three paper companies to join with the United Steelworkers to file a petition with the government alleging that China was dumping certain types of paper products in the U.S. market. On Nov. 6, the U.S. International Trade Commission decided to investigate allegations of unfair subsidies.

Jon Geenan, international vice president for the United Steelworkers, grew up near the Kimberly plant. He estimates that Chinese and Indonesian imports have cost the state more than 5,000 jobs in its paper mills. That means dozens of foreclosed homes and hundreds of people who are behind on their property taxes. “Even the churches say that donations are down,” he said. “They are definitely challenging the way we live.”

In Marathon County, where the glaciated soil makes for a bitter ginseng, the way many Chinese like it, Yu, the ginseng buyer, appears content with his new role as big shot. He recently met Gov. Doyle and signed a deal to become China’s exclusive importer of Wisconsin’s prized root. “But only if the quality is good,” he said. “The student has become the teacher!”

Close to the departure of President Obama on his all-important trip to Asia with stops in Tokyo November 12th, Singapore November 13-15, Shanghai November 15th, Beijing November 16-18, and Seoul November 18-19, the Japan Society has planned co-incidentally the event we are reporting about here.

Japan is the only original OECD member in Asia, as such Japan clearly feels justifiably it is a US prime partner in Asia. It also was clearly instrumental in nailing down the 1987 Kyoto Protocol to The Framework Convention on Climate Change, and hopes that this material will continue to be the base for future climate negotiations. That was the basis for having co-organized and hosted  the following meeting – November 10th.

————-

Copenhagen & Beyond: A Multilateral Debate about Climate Change Policy.
Green Japan Series
Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at the Japan Society, New York.

The positions and participation of Japan, China and the United States in any successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol will help determine its success or failure. In a Tuesday November 10, 2009 panel, at the Japan Society, New York, Masayoshi Arai, Director, JETRO New York, Special Advisor, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI); The Honorable Zhenmin Liu, Ambassador Extraordinary and Deputy Permanent Representative of China to the United Nations; Elliot Diringer, Vice President, International Strategies, Pew Center on Global Climate Change; and Takao Shibata, chair of the working group that drafted the Kyoto Protocol, debated the direction of international climate change policy.

It was Moderated by Jim Efstathiou, Correspondent, Bloomberg News, and co-organized by the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs

————–

Takao Shibata, who is now a Chancellor Lecturer at the University of Kansas and Japan Consul General in Kansas City,mentioed that Japan is ready to commit to a 2020 reduction of 25% in emissions provided that there is FAIR and EFFECTIVE agreement with a VIGUROUS COMPLIANCE agreement as part of it. He stressed that the problem with Kyoto was that there was no compliance paragraph in the Protocol. All it said was that we postpone decision.

The OBJECTIVE must be: THE STABILIZATION OF CO2 CONCENTRATION IN THE ATMOSPHERE rather then fighting over figures of temperature increase or concentrations in parts per milion numbers. We have already a Framework he said – the Copenhagen process should be about STABILIZATION. Later he added that we must at least agree to a 2050 position.

Mr. Masayoshi Arai, who is in New York since June 2009, with The Japaese External Trade Organization (JETRO), after having held 16 positions within Japan Government, includingthe Prime Minister’s task force that created the Japan Consumer Protection Agency, and with The Fair Trade Commission and Agency for Natural Resouces and Energy and its Research Institute, Supervised manufacturing industries in their CO2 emissions reduction, and has also an MBA from Wharton, probably because of his present government trade position, was rather careful in what he said. He said that we ned something “meaningful”  for global warming  and left the Japanese point of view to Professor Shibata.

————-

Eliot Diringer whose organization, the Washington based Pew Center, is a link between Environmentalism, industry and government made it clear that what is lacking is a legal architecture in place to deal with the problems created by climate change to which now Professor Shibata answered on the spot that the history is such that already in Berlin, later in Kyoto, the US was against a legal concept – that is a clear 15 year old problem. In Kyoto, the US Vice President came to seal the Protocol in full knowledge that it is unratifiable in Washington. Shibata does not want a repeat of this with a US that is in no position to ratify an agreement.

Diringer came back with the suggestion that he can see that Developing countries will accept self prescribed domestic reductions and will request an agreement that makes this possible for them to do so. That means a new FRAMEWORK that is more flexible then the original.

—————

Ambassador Zhenmin Liu, Deputy Permanent Representative of China to the UN in New York since 2006, in charge of China’s participation on the Second Committee at the UN, with prior experience at the UN in Geneva and as Director-General of the Treaty and Law Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been involved in Climate Change negotiations for China. He was actually the only member of the panel entitled to express a national negotiating position, and he did indeed come through.

Ambassador Liu said that he cannot have now a document to replace Kyoto – this lines him up with what might be a Japanese interest, but clearly is no answer to the problems that were pointed out at why Kyoto was a failure.

But then he also said that you need a GLOBAL CAP for the GHG emissions that must then take into account, when talking about individual nations, their level of industrialization.

A certain raport evolved between him and Washingtonian Diringer.

It was agreed that there is the need for Technology Innovation, Technology Cooperation, and Technology Transfer.

Diringer said that China is very well positioning itself for the green technology economy. People in the US start to understand that the US will lose the competition for future technology and there must be a start for support in US Congress for energy action right now.

These exchanges gave me an opening to ask mty question about what goes on right now – the days that President Obama plans for his trip to Asia with a long stopover in China.

I started my question to ambassador Liu by saying that on the internet there is a lot of talk about a G-2 US-China agreement needed to jump start the Copenhagen negotiations, and I saw visually the Ambassador cringe.  to this idea of a G-2. I continued by asking that what can we expect as an outcome from the meetings in Beijing if there is anything he could tell us as we believe that some concluding material was negotiated prior to the deision for this trip considering tha this is in effect the second meeting between the leaders?

I was honored with a long answer that included several main points.

The first point is that the US has accepted Kyoto and I guess China does not want to renegotiate Kyoto.

Then, China has 20% of the world population the US only 5%, but China has only a fraction of the GDP per capita then the US, so there is no G-2 situation here. That must have been the reason for the cringing – China does not want to lose its place as leader of the underdeveloped nations.

Secondly – this is not a US – China negotiation but a negotiation for all groups.

Thirdly, there is place for clean energy cooperation, bilateral programs and projects – to jointly use clean technology.

——-

Professor Shibata added that we talk of the atmosphere where there are no national boundaries. We talk of sovereign areas only on the surface of the earth – and we must realize that the effects turn up in the air and we have no national control of the air.

Further, he said that in the west when something bad happens, the first thing we do is we sue the polluter – ask him to pay. He continued saying “I would encourage everyone to think about that.”

Mr. Diringer added that the CDM was introduced to harness market forces to get reduction of CO2 emissions at lowes cost.

——-

To summarize – it was nice for Japan to try to host a US-China debate before moves that will inevitably have to bring the US and China closer together. To follow up – let us look at President Obama’s itinerary to get further in depth to what a reorientation of the US towards Asia could mean.

Japan, South Korea, and China are trying to form an East Asia Trilateral grouping with a Free Trade Agreement among the three countries. Obviously, this will open the Chinese market to Japan and Korea and there is no way for the US, with its own effective NAFTA agreement with Canada and Mexico. Japan wants thus perhaps more then just be a pivot in US – Chiba negotiations, it rather has also to make sure that it can hold on to its own agreements with both main countries. President Obama has thus quite a few non-climate topics to talk about in his Yokyo and Seoul stops.

The second big stop is in Singapore where he will meet the 21 members of APEC: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, China, Hong Kong (part of China), Indonesia, Japan,  Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Peru, The Philippines, Russia, Singapore, Chinese Taipei (Taiwan), Thailand, The United States, and Viet Nam. This will be the reintroduction of the US to the Pacific region in general – an area that the locals contend was totally neglected by the US in the eight years of the Bush administration. A main point in this meeting will be to help redirect the participating economies from export to the US to supply to their local populations – this so that they help both areas – their own and the US economy as well.

Will they also consult on whom to back for the job of UN Secretary-General in 2010? That is about the time to start this sort of negotiations, and Singapore seems to be the right place to look for the best viable candidate.

Eventually, the Third leg of the trip – the stops  in China – will have to be the clear main target of the trip – as said here by Ambassador Liu, the business deals in clean energy that can underpin both economies  (US and China) so they become an example for cooperation on climate change that presents direct benefits to economies looking for sustainable growth, that is a match to the needs of the people and the climate as well -  this is what we call Sustainable Development that is mutual – for the newly industrializing nation and for the phasing out of the old polluting industries of the past.

——————

for information from President Obama’s Asian trip we recommend:

www.ft.com/obamainasia 

www.ft.com/rachmanblog

Some of the World Environment News – September 15, 2009 – from Planet Ark of Reuters:
———————————————————————————————————————————-

DENMARK
Europe Wind Power Body Sees Big Offshore Potential
 http://planetark.org/wen/54659

GERMANY
EU Delays Van Emissions Clampdown
 http://planetark.org/wen/54657

NEW ZEALAND
New Zealand To Revise Emissions Scheme
 http://planetark.org/wen/54660

NORWAY
Clean Energy To Create More Jobs Than Coal
 http://planetark.org/wen/54661

SINGAPORE
Scientists Find CO2 Link To Antarctic Ice Cap Origin
 http://planetark.org/wen/54655

UK
Many Climate Change Costs Seen Avoidable
 http://planetark.org/wen/54658

Bangladesh Institute of Peace and Security Studies (BIPSS) and Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS, Singapore) are jointly organizing the first BIPSS-ISAS Roundtable dialogue on Singapore-Bangladesh Relations on 25 May 2009 in Singapore.

A four member delegation from Bangladesh led by President BIPSS, Major General ANM Muniruzzaman (Retd.), will arrive in Singapore on 24 May, 2009. The roundtable agenda encompasses a wide range of issues that are of interest for both the countries; Singapore and Bangladesh.   Both the institutes will present papers (each institute will present 4 papers) on domestic economic developments (of respective countries), regional security architecture, evolving regional relations in South and Southeast Asia and future of regional groupings in South and Southeast Asia (i.e. SAARC and ASEAN). The Roundtable will also review past and existing relations between Bangladesh and Singapore.

The roundtable dialogue will essentially play a major role in strengthening Singapore-Bangladesh relations and furthering regional cooperation. This will be a yearly event at Track II level, and the 2nd Singapore-Bangladesh Roundtable will be hosted in Bangladesh in 2010.

Tentative Programme

SUNDAY, 24 MAY 2009

Arrival of Bangladesh Delegation to Singapore

MONDAY, 25 MAY 2009

8.30am                      
Arrival of Delegates and Tea / Coffee
9.00am
WELCOME ADDRESS

Professor Tan Tai Yong
Co-Chair, First Roundtable on Singapore-Bangladesh Relations, and
Director, Institute of South Asian Studies, Singapore

Major General Muniruzzaman
Co-Chair, First Roundtable on Singapore-Bangladesh Relations, and
President, Bangladesh Institute of Peace and Security Studies

9.15am
SESSION ONE
Singapore and Bangladesh: Understanding Domestic Socio- economic and Political Environments

Moderator
Dr Amitendu Palit
Visiting Research Fellow
Institute of South Asian Studies

Presentations

Key Socio-economic and Political Developments in Bangladesh
Dr. S Mahmud Ali, Senior Editorial Coordinator – Asia-Pacific, at the BBC World Service, London and a member of the BIPSS International Advisory Board.
Key Socio-economic and Political Developments in Singapore
Dr Gillian Koh, Senior Research Fellow, Institute of Policy Studies Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, NUS.
Discussions

10.45am
SESSION TWO
Bangladesh-Singapore Relations

Moderator
Dr. S Mahmud Ali,
Senior Editorial Coordinator – Asia-Pacific, at the BBC World Service, London and a member of the BIPSS International Advisory Board.

Presentations

Relations between Singapore and Bangladesh – The Bangladesh Perspective Khaled Iqbal Chowdhury, Research Associate, BIPSS
Relations between Singapore and Bangladesh – The Singapore Perspective Mr M. Shahidul Islam, Research Associate, Institute of South Asian Studies

12.15pm                

Lunch

1.30pm
SESSION THREE
Singapore and Bangladesh: The Regional Security Architecture

Moderator
Professor S. D. Muni
Visiting Senior Research Fellow
Institute of South Asian Studies

Presentations

Major Security Challenges facing South Asia
Major General ANM Muniruzzaman (Retd.),
President BIPSS.
Major Security Challenges facing Southeast Asia
Mr Daljit Singh
Visiting Senior Research Fellow
Institute of Southeast Asian Studies
Discussions

3.00pm
Tea / Coffee

3.15pm
SESSION FOUR
Singapore and Bangladesh: Regionalism and the Future of
Regional Groupings in South and Southeast Asia

Moderator
Major General ANM Muniruzzaman (Retd.),
President BIPSS.

Presentations

Bangladesh, the South Asian Region and SAARC
Shafqat Munir, Research Analyst, BIPSS.
Singapore, the Southeast Asian Region and ASEAN
Ambassador See Chak Mun
Senior FellowInstitute of South Asian Studies
Discussions

4.45pm
CLOSING REMARKS

Professor Tan Tai Yong
Co-Chair, First Roundtable on Singapore-Bangladesh Relations, and
Director, Institute of South Asian Studies, Singapore

Major General Muniruzzaman
Co-Chair, First Roundtable on Singapore-Bangladesh Relations, and
President, Bangladesh Institute of Peace and Security Studies

5.00pm
End of Roundtable

6.30pm
Cocktails followed by Dinner hosted by ISAS

9.00pm
End of Dinner

APEC – the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation – was a Bush generated organization. Can the Obama Administration work with them?

We just got a heavily symbols-larded e-mail announcing their March 24-25, 2009 Workshop on Policies to Promote Energy Efficiency in Transport – but we were unable to open their Draft Agenda. Nevertheless, we spotted some IEA related names in the heavily designed cover letter as supposed stars of the event. We doubt that this is an environment fit for the new Washington White House.

Further, the so called “Alliance to Save Energy” was nothing more then a pre-Bush nuclear energy Washington Lobby – are they supposed to lead the new US effort?

In short – what is the US going to do with this organization? Is it worth the effort to restructure it in order to save the names mentioned in the press announcement? Can this be done without a complete revolution of the staff? Is this the platform for a US-China collaboration in the Obama era? We would love to get answers from the organizers so we can post them for our readers. We are for negotiations with anyone, but then some fora may just be a waste of time.

The APEC Workshop on Policies to Promote Energy Efficiency in Transport

On 24 and 25 March 2009, the APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation) Secretariat in Singapore will host the APEC Workshop on Policies that Promote Energy Efficiency in Transport (WPPEET). Policy makers and experts within the transportation, environment, energy and related fields from the 21 APEC member economies are invited to attend. Please register by 6 March 2009; there is no cost for registration.

The workshop will bring together APEC economy policymakers and international experts to discuss best practices and lessons learned in all APEC economies, with the aim of informing future policy for promoting energy-efficient and sustainable transport throughout the APEC region.   The intended outcomes of the workshop include an expansion of a 2008 survey of APEC transportation policies to incorporate the best practices and case studies discussed during the workshop, and a draft action plan for APEC economies.

The attached draft agenda shows the main topics to be discussed during the workshop, all of which will touch on the themes that will be established by the Plenary panel:

·                 Challenges in Transport and Climate Change (Lee Schipper, Precourt Institute for Energy Efficiency).
·                 Addressing Climate Change in the Transport Sector through the Avoid-Shift-Improve approach (Jamie Leather, Asian Development Bank)
·                 Action Plan on Transport and Climate Change for the International Community (Cornie Huizenga, Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia) Center)

We hope you will join your peers from a wide range of APEC economies at this timely and important event.     We look forward to your positive response and to seeing you at WPPEET in March! Please contact me at  slarsen at ase.org or at +1 (202) 530-2227 if you have any questions about the workshop.

Thank you,

Sally Larsen
Policy and Research Associate
The Alliance to Save Energy
(202) 530-2227

IOM Press Briefing Notes
Friday 5 September 2008

INDONESIA – Religious Teachers Carry Ramadan Message of Community Policing to Aceh – IOM is working with the Ar-Raniry State Islamic Institute and the Aceh Provincial Police (Polda NAD) through the Holy month of Ramadhan to promote community policing in the Indonesia’s northernmost province through the use of Islamic cultural values unique to the area.

The 15-day Safari Kemitraan Ramadhan (Ramadhan Partnership Road show), which kicks off today, is funded by the European Commission and the Royal Netherlands Embassy, and aims to inform villagers about the value of community policing using religious messages.

IOM is providing logistical support, transport and printed materials for the team of religious teachers from the Institute and police officers implementing the scheme.

“Communities in Aceh will benefit from all the positive values embodied in community policing. The roadshow will help to endorse the program and will be an effective tool to build partnerships with Acehnese across the province,” says Dr. Abdul Rani, Msi, a professor of Ar-Raniry.

Located at the northernmost tip of the island of Sumatra, Aceh is also known colloquially as Mecca’s Veranda. For hundreds of years it served as the final port of call for pilgrims making the long sea voyage from Indonesia, the most populous Moslem nation on earth, to Mecca. It is the most devout area in Indonesia, and proud of its Islamic heritage.

Aceh Senior Police Commissioner Setyanto says he supports the use of a culturally sensitive approach to informing a public that is deeply suspicious of the police. Aceh was the scene of a violent, decades-long separatist conflict that drew to a close in 2005, with the signing of a peace agreement between rebels and the central government.

{As it happens, Aceh is also home of large oil fields with international oil companies having had involvement here. Aceh once was sponsored from the outside in its attempt of becoming independent from Indonesia – thus the announcement and the backing are quite interesting.}

IOM is in the midst of a two year programme to training more than 7,200 of the roughly 9,200 police officers in Aceh in community policing and human rights. The trainings aim to reduce conflict and underpin a return to peace and security in the province.

For further information, please contact Jihan Labetubun at IOM Jakarta. Tel. +62 8111907028. Email:  jlabetubun at iom.int

World Economic Forum: “Dire Situations Call for Bold Measures.”

The World Economic Forum on East Asia wrapped up this week with Ahn Ho-Young, South Korea’s Deput   Minister for Trade, saying it was dominated by “the three F’s”: food, fuel and finance.

A forum survey of the 55 business leaders who attended the two-day meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, showed that an overwhelming 81% voted for “addressing growing global concern over environmental challenges such as climate change and water” as the top issue facing Asia.

Also of concern were “preventing political and economic instability linked to rising food and energy prices” and “managing the social, environmental and infrastructural implications of rapid urbanization.”
The survey also revealed that the price of rice had more than tripled in Thailand since January. During the same time, diesel prices have risen over 26% in Vietnam.
Water is another issue rising to the fore, with Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, Chairman of the Board, Nestle, Switzerland, repeating his dire warning: “We will be running out of water long before we run out of oil.”

He lamented that more of the world’s GDP was not being allocated to water: “One out of every five children is dying every 20 seconds because we haven’t been able to solve the problem of clean water today.”

Mr. Ho-Young (South Korea)   urged Asia to do three things: “First, it is important for Asian countries to maintain their open market policies which will enable us to maintain the momentum of economic growth,” he said. Second, he urged Asian countries to pay more attention to the economic and social impacts imposed by the global economic uncertainties. Third, “Asian countries should and must play a more active role in solving global issues,” he said (Xinhua).
In his opening remarks, Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah bin Ahmad Badawi referred to fundamental questions, primary assumptions, and revered assumptions, that had to be reviewed and re-evaluated. “Unless we are prepared to address these questions sincerely and take necessary remedial measures,” he said, “our economies and the livelihood of hundreds of millions of people will continue to be vulnerable. Dire situations call for bold measures” (The Toronto Star).

East Asia (generally consisting of Japan, North and South Korea, China, Taiwan, with Vietnam and Singapore) has come to the realization that it is now in a position to react positively, with the best interests of the region in mind, to the world’s economic challenges.

Melaka’s modern history began in 1403 with the arrival of Parameswara, an exiled Hindu Prince from the Kingdom of Sri Vijaya on Sumatra Island.
He embraced Islam under the title Raja Iskandar and started the Sultanate of Melaka that evolved into a vibrant maritime trading center.

The Portuguese, led by Alfonso d’Albuquerque conquered Melaka in 1511 and held it for 130 years until it was taken over by the Dutch in 1641 who ruled
for 154 years until 1824 when it was taken over by the British.   Malaysia’s independence in was 1957. The Japanese ruled during the 1942 – 1945 years.

In addition to the obvious Portuguese, Dutch, and British influences, actually the main influence was that of the Chinese and Indians who ran the economy of Melaka.

Here we will deal with the so called “Straits Chinese” or “Pernakan.”   They are the “Baba-Nyonyas.” There are no Babas and Nyonyas, though a myth is being created
that made outsiders believe that the babas are the males and the nyonyas the females, while others think it the other way. In short – we were surprised to find that even
part of the publicity for the UN Delegates’ Dining Room special two weeks, included this inaccuracy.

The straits of Melaka, between the Malay Peninsula and the long Sumatra Island is one of the busiest sea lanes through which today pass oil tankers, but even now, the straights are infested by pirates.
The Melaka city was thus an important fort in the colonial days, and still an important commercial center run in major part by the Nyonyas of today. Part of the Nyonyas and the Indians left Malaysia at a
time the Mahatir government took highly Malay ethnic nationalistic stand and tried to displace the Chinese and Indians from their positions. A Pernakan community exists now in New York and some
from that community came to eat at the UN. Three ladies sat at a neighboring table.

As the event was basically a really high caliber culinary event, I enjoyed immensely Chef Ismail Muhammad, who is something of a celebrity chef in Kuala Lumpur, run me through the ethnic background
of the food. I am thus happy to report that I ate spicy Malay meet, Portuguese inspired fish and Indian inspired curry-chicken, also a Chinese excellent vegetarian dish. There were terrific noodle dishes
and a desert   table that had sweets and not-so sweet works of art.

Now, what did I celebrate there personally – this is simple. I was in Melaka twice, in two separate visits to Malaysia. The fist time it was in 1987 when I went to investigate the smoke that was supposed
to have been caused by the Indonesian fires on Borneo island. I went then to see by myself the situation in Melaka and was convinced, that though highly polluted from the motor vehicular transportation,
Melaka suffered much less then Kuala Lumpur – this because the winds from the sea were able to dissipate some of the pollution – so I knew that the haze was not of Sumatra origin. In effect, probably,
Sumatra was getting Malaysian pollution and not the other way around.

Anson Chan joined Hong Kong civil service in 1962, and advanced within the system until nominated as Chief Secretary for Administration of the Hong Kong Special Administrative region from 1997 to 2001 – First as Deputy to the last British Governor, Chris Patten, and then to Beijing-appointed chief executive Tung Chee-hwa. I happened to be in Hong Kong in 1997, and am aware of the mixed feelings at the time, as people saw in her the China-plant in the British Administration. But now I think that it is agreed that Hon. Anson Chan was rather the person that managed to help smooth the transition of Hong Kong – from a British Colony to an affiliate of China.

She is seen now as the person that while dealing with the mechanics oof government, she also oversaw an orderly transition to a more democratic system – something that Hong Kong did not have under the British either! Hong Kong under China was given an agreed upon “Basic Law” that allows for sort of a mini-constitution; under this law she was pushing through the slow democratizing process. In 2006 she sat up a Core Group to promote democracy and universal suffrage. On that platform she was elected to the Hong Kong Legislative Council in December 2007, and looks forward to pursue that special goal which she keeps defining as UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE.

Friday, May 9, 2008, Hon. Anson Chan came for a breakfast meeting/discussion with the Asia Society President Dr. Vishaka N. Desai. The topic was: THE FUTURE OF DEMOCRACY IN HONG KONG.

She started out by telling us that until the 1980s there was no attempt under the British to establish a representative government in Hong Kong. The first election was held in 1985. By 1991 there were 10 members elected on the basis of one man – one vote. And there was also the corporate identity that created a Functional Constituency that takes part in the elections. She expressed the obvious that these Functional Constituencies can not be part of the universal suffrage idea.

We regard that time in China as Oppressive – she said, and by the time the British made some moves to have representative government it was already too late. The first real sign of progress was thus the election of December 2007 – and this is with Hong Kong as part of China.

Even Bhutan has now elections – so why does Hong Kong have to wait? – she asked. But still – Hong Kong will have complete personal elections only by 2020. There is an intermediary stage set for 2012, but she hopes that within 4 years, the Central Government (that is Beijing) may get the trust of the people – as the people in Hong Kong are loyal to China, and know that HK is part of China. So, there will be no reason not to have every person in have the right to vote and to stand for election. This second part is important in democracy and this is not yet the case in HK. A nominating Committee should not be a filtering sieve to eliminate those you do not want to stand for the election she explained.

Further she explained of a system of four sectors in the election comittee. She hoped that in stages there will be an increase in elected officials 2012 – 2016 – 2020. Having served for 39 years in HK government , her “passion” is now to get fair government for Hong Kong, she said.

Dr. Desai asked her – after 39 years in government, how is this that you decided now to move over to the elected branch? (or in her actual words – “to the other side”)

Anson explained that she created a group of like-minded people to put forward ideas that the government ignored. The situation was – “put-up or shut-up.” So she decided to run for elections. Quite a few people, even high-school students, went to Taiwan to observe elections. This is very good she said – specially for the young – it will be for them.

WE LOOK FORWARD TO ESTABLISH A RELATIONSHIP TO TAIWAN, a government-to-government relationship, she said.

Q. What role can the International Community play to help on this path? This because of the strong international presence – it is Asia’s International City?

A. there are ex-pats living in HK, so there is concern. At the moment it is air quality! Not just politics! It is important that HK remains GHG Green. This is not interference by the International Community.

Q. From someone who lived in Singapore and wanted to know if the elections could lead to a situation like in Singapore?

A. “I hope it will not be the model for HK – think there will be a genuine choice for Singapore. We have a number of social problems, health care, how to educate, how to teach skills..”

She further expressed her concern with what happens with the civil service as a whole. She was not able to back some of the appointments that were made without the necessary checks and balances. Her opponent was appointed from one of the “friendly parties.”

Now I had my chance, and asked Ms. Chang if she sees a possibility for China evolving into a Federal government situation that could then allow for diversity. I did add perhaps a possibility to have such entities like Macao, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Tibet among the units. I got in reply forthcoming information that was, honestly, even more then I hoped for.

Ms. Chan mentioned the Economic Zones that have their separate governing systems. She also mentioned the Autonomous Regions – so in principle the diversity is possible, and it is not set in stone because of existing present lines of demarcation that separate different administrative units. So, what I understand is that the whole Chinese central government is evolving – so that the state is ready to allow functional entities to evolve in different ways – as ingredients of a China that does figure to be a multi-system state – rather then a tightly centralized state. This gives us the justification that the system of buttons we introduced on www.SustainabiliTank.info, as part of our China button, is indeed the way of the future. We may thus enlarge our present selection by including buttons, as needed, for the Special Economic Zones.