With the announcement that President Obama postpones his trip to Jakarta till June 2010, Indonesia was left to decide on its candidate without the prodding presence of President Obama.

Having discussed with someone in the know of the four men and one woman on the Indonesian list we posted here, it seems that Mr. Hassan Wirajud who is now Member of the Advisory Council to President Yudhyono and was the Foreign Minister who led Indonesia’s delegation at the 2007 Bali conference, has the upper hand as he is considered to be a gifted diplomat and that is what Indonesia think it will be most appreciated in New York.

The other most prominent name is Mr. Rachmat Witoelar the continuing Environment minister who was the actual President of Bali’s Conference of the Parties (COP) 13 in 2007.

The strength of both these men is that they hark back to Bali – the pre-Poznan and pre-Copenhagen times – that is when in effect the last real UNFCCC document was forged. We still think that a Brazilian candidate could find much backing also. This could be seen on the other hand as disengagement from the Dutch leadership that was started with Ms. Joke Waller-Hunter, and the look for new ideas as we witnessed in Copenhagen.

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

Issue 132 – March 12 – Search Begins for New Climate Leader Monitor New York, March 12, 2010 - Following the news of Yvo de Boer’s imminent resignation as Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), two countries have put forth candidates for the post, and others have expressed interest. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will be responsible for finding a successor to de Boer, in consultation with the UNFCCC’s administrative bureau. At least three governments have nominated a candidate for the post or expressed interest in doing so. India has nominated Vijai Sharma, a member of its environmental ministry, while Indonesia voiced the intention to put forward a candidate. And on March 7, South Africa nominated its minister of tourism, Marthinus van Schalkwyk. Selection Process The selection of a new Executive Secretary for the UNFCCC reportedly has been initiated by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Ban is expected to consult with the UNFCCC Conference of Parties’ Bureau in identifying a successor. States that have signed the UNFCCC, an international treaty, are known collectively as the Conference of Parties (COP). The COP is supported by a Bureau, made up of delegates from 11 COP member countries, representing the five regions. The Bureau handles administrative and management issues of the negotiation process, advises the President of the COP, and serves to represent each regional bloc and other groupings for negotiation. The current members of the COP Bureau are: Australia, Bahamas, Denmark, South Korea, Mali, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Sudan and Russia. Ban is said to have written to the Bureau about the qualifications sought in candidates. The process will “take some months,” said Ban’s climate adviser Janos Pasztor, but would be completed by July. Qualifications Sought In identifying the qualities needed in a successor, many analysts pointed to de Boer’s strengths. For Greenpeace Denmark, “De Boer’s successor must be equally hard-working, committed and experienced and must be effective in rebuilding trust between countries. He or she must also ensure that the voices of the most vulnerable are not sidelined by the most powerful.” The skills to manage and leader the hundreds of staff of the UNFCCC, along with a collaborative approach, were the qualities stressed by Pasztor. Another UN official expanded on this profile, specifying that the person should be a “political leader with immense diplomatic skills.” Further, he or she needs to be able to move easily between the developed and developing worlds, given the “divide you saw in Copenhagen.” A candidate from a country that “felt excluded” at the December conference, i.e. from the Global South, may be preferable. None of the UNFCCC’s three Executive Secretaries has been from a developing country. The preference or expectation of a developing country candidate was echoed by the Philippines’ representative to the UN, an energy trader in Geneva, and a Canadian environmental spokesperson. An environmental official from Indonesia said, “It is time for developing countries to head the post to help break the deadlock on climate talks.” A climate expert from the non-profit sector in Indonesia echoed the sentiment: “The climate talks need a fresh breakthrough that could come from developing countries.” World Wildlife Fund-Indonesia adds: “It is about time that developing countries come forward and become leaders in this issue, because these countries will face the biggest challenges and impacts from climate change.” A climate news source noted other benefits to having an Executive Secretary from a developing country: “It will give the negotiations new life as developing countries might feel their interests will be given more priority.” Moreover, “Since most developing countries aren’t major sources of emissions, it’s possible that future climate negotiations could find more a balance between talk of adapting to climate and mitigating it. India stands at the nexus of all these issues and having a representative from the country leading the UNFCCC would hopefully shed more light on them.” De Boer himself has supported the idea of a successor from a developing country. However, some have emphasized the diversity within the so-called “developing world.” While the “BASIC” group of large developing countries with growing economies (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) was instrumental in the Copenhagen negotiations, their “hardline” approach reportedly alienated least developed countries – “who stand most to lose from climate change.” A candidate from a BASIC country may not have the full support of the rest of the developing world. Finally, an expert on gender and climate change called for Ban to appoint a woman as Executive Secretary: “If we want to overcome gender inequalities, we need to have women in the climate change decision-making process…. Women like Joke Waller-Hunter [de Boer's predecessor] have guided the process in many positive ways.” Nominations and Potential Candidates Two governments have nominated a candidate for the post, while a third intends to find a candidate. India Nominates Minister India’s environmental minister reportedly wrote to the UN on February 22 to nominate Vijai Sharma for Executive Secretary. Vijai Sharma is a Secretary in India’s Ministry of Environment and Forests. According to several sources, Minister Jairam Ramesh said, “Vijai Sharma is our official candidate for UNFCCC executive secretary. I have written to the United Nations Monday and have also written to BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India, China) countries seeking their support. We have got support from China already for his candidature and we will get support from other BASIC countries.” Ramesh added that Sharma’s appointment would reflect “India’s importance in climate change negotiations.” The candidate also would “provide a bridge between developing and developed worlds.” However, the United States reportedly “mistrusts” India and China following the Copenhagen Conference, a dynamic that could harm Sharma’s chances. India agreed this week to be listed as a party to the Copenhagen Accord, one of the last major emitters to make the commitment (China followed suit on March 11), although this status is not the same as full association with the Accord. South Africa Nominates Marthinus van Schalkwyk South Africa’s president, Jacob Zuma, nominated minister of tourism Marthinus van Schalkwyk on March 7. Van Schalkwyk was environment minister from 2004-2009. In that capacity he participated in several climate change negotiations leading up to the Copenhagen Conference. Succeeding F.W. de Klerk, South Africa’s leader during apartheid, van Schalkwyk led the New National Party until it dissolved, upon merging with the African National Congress in 2004. President Zuma said that van Schalkwyk had, “positioned South Africa as a true climate champion” during his time as Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. Further, “he commanded significant respect across the developing-developed country divide. This will count greatly in his favour of driving the global climate change negotiations. Given that South Africa will also be hosting the climate change negotiations next year, it would indeed be an honour and privilege for the country to have one of its own to head up this very important UN institution.” In the event that the 2010 conference in Mexico also ends without a legally binding agreement, attention would shift to the 2011 conference in South Africa. In that case, UNFCCC sources believe, “having a South African chief at the helm would give the conference major impetus.” The European Union’s Climate Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, said in Parliament this week, “remaining differences between parties may delay agreement on this until next year.” According to the UK’s Guardian, “All observers, including … de Boer, are now clear that no such deal will be signed in 2010, with a meeting in South Africa in December 2011 now seen as the earliest date.” Van Schalkwyk’s nomination met with varied reactions. A climate official from an unspecified government said that as a candidate, van Schalkwyk “would be acceptable to most people, so he should definitely be counted as a favourite.” Greenpeace Africa was “pleased to know Minister Van Schalkwyk is being considered and would be very confident that he would be equal to the task of replacing Mr. de Boer…. By all accounts, he has an excellent standing as a negotiator, and has earned a great deal of respect for being very engaged and informed.” Moreover, “if he is appointed, developing countries, in particular, will have better access to him because he’s coming from a developing country.” A very different perspective on van Schalkwyk has been expressed by others, including Patrick Bond of the Centre for Civil Society in South Africa: “The UNFCCC post must be headed by someone of integrity, and that’s not a characteristic associated with Van Schalkwyk, thanks to his chequered career as an apartheid student spy and a man who sold out his political party for a junior cabinet seat.” Bond also questioned the logic of the nomination: if Van Schalkwyk was a world-class climate diplomat, why did Zuma demote him by removing his environment duties last year?” Another article described him as “one of the most unpopular political figures in the new South Africa” and a “former apartheid operative who bartered his way into the black majority government by helping it smear its democratic opposition.” Earthlife Africa referred to van Schalkwyk’s tenure as environment minister, during which he “did not have a good record in cutting carbon emissions.” South Africa itself, though, has more ambitious emissions reduction plans than India or Indonesia, according to Reuters. While the U.S. is said to distrust India, South Africa is “seen as a bridge builder,” perhaps making its candidate more likely to be accepted. Indonesia Expresses Interest After expressing interest in the UNFCCC post during the UNEP meeting of ministers in Bali on February 24-26, the Indonesian foreign ministry said that it had “approached a number of countries to express our interest in the job. We have to come out with the right candidate.” On March 4, the website of the country’s embassy in Rome, Italy featured an article that reported former foreign minister Hassan Wirajuda as the government’s preferred candidate. Potential candidates reportedly include: Liana Bratasida: Assistant to Environment Minister (expert on global environmental affairs and international cooperation); Chair of Subsidiary Body for Implementation at Bonn (2009), which addressed emission-cut targets, financing, mitigation and technology transfers; Former member of the Clean Development Mechanism, approved carbon projects Agus Purnomo: Special Assistant on Climate Change to President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono; Secretary-General of National Council on Climate Change (DNPI) (which represents country at climate change negotiations; Headed 2007 national committee that organized Bali conference; Speculation as to Indonesia’s candidate “has centered around” Purnomo Emil Salim: Member of Advisory Council to President Yudhyono;         Former environment minister Hassan Wirajud: Member of Advisory Council to President Yudhyono;    Former Foreign Minister, led Indonesia’s delegation at the 2007 Bali conference, considered “mastermind behind the success” of that conference; Has “close relations” with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, as the two were foreign ministers of their countries during the same years Rachmat Witoelar: Environment minister; President of Bali’s Conference of the Parties (COP) 13 in 2007 According to an Indonesian politician on February 21, the country’s “experience in making the Bali climate change talks a success could be a significant asset in winning the post.” Moreover, “as a country vulnerable to climate change, Indonesia needs a breakthrough to resolve the problems and this can be achieved if Indonesia takes the lead in global talks on climate change.” Costa Rica’s Climate Negotiator is “carbon market’s favorite” Christiana Figueres of Costa Rica is “leading the pack” for potential candidates from the private sector, according to the website “Carbon Finance.” Figueres is Costa Rica’s climate change negotiator, with particular experience on the Clean Development Mechanism, on which she co-Chaired the negotiating group at the Copenhagen Conference. Figueres also advises several governments and private investment companies, and she founded the Center for Sustainable Development in the Americas. UNelections and Appointments in the News ——————————— The UNelections Campaign is a project of the World Federalist Movement – Institute for Global Policy (WFM-IGP), a global membership organisation with headquarters in New York City.  info at UNelections.org WFM-IGP is dedicated to bringing about a just world order through a strengthened and more democratized United Nations. Increasing the accountability and transparency in the leadership of the United Nations is a critical step toward this goal. ——— Other WFM-IGP projects include: Coalition for the International Criminal Court, www.iccnow.org Genocide Prevention Program, www.genocideinfo.org International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect, www.responsibilitytoprotect.org ReformtheUN.org, www.ReformtheUN.org Together for a Better Peace, www.betterpeace.org If you have questions, please contact the World Federalist Movement  at our International Secretariat in New York. Press Inquiries: WFM-IGP Executive Director, William Pace (646) 465 8531 General Inquiries: Program Officer, Faye Leone (646) 465 8523

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Tuesday announced a new head of the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF).

Ban told a press conference here that American foreign policy expert Anthony Lake, who was an adviser to U.S. President Barack Obama, will head the UN children’s agency.

“I am pleased to announce the appointment of Mr. Anthony Lake as the new executive director of UNICEF,” Ban said. “He brings with him a wealth of experience after a long and distinguished career with the United States government.”

Lake is to succeed Ann M. Veneman, who became UNICEF’s fifth Executive Director on May 1, 2005.

In late December last year, the secretary-general said Veneman would not seek a second term as the UNICEF head.

Veneman’s term expires on April 30, and Ban said that the appointment of Lake, 70, will take effect on May 1. Ban said that Lake will assume his responsibility in the first week of May.

“I thank Ms. Veneman for her immense dedication, energy and determination to improve the lives of children around the world,” Ban said. “She leaves behind an organization well-equipped for the enormous challenges ahead.”

Lake joined the U.S. Foreign Service in 1962, and in 1969 accompanied then-National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger on his first secret meeting with North Vietnamese negotiators in Paris.

Lake was one of Bill Clinton’s chief foreign policy advisers when he ran for U.S. president in 1992 and became his national security adviser when he won.

At present, Lake is a professor at School of Foreign Service of Georgetown University.

Source: Xinhua

It is neat press-release re-write!

Mr. Lake also was nine years on the board of the US Fund for UNICEF, including a stint as chair from 2004-2007.

President Obama did not suggest backing Ms. Veneman for a second term at UNICEF.

State of the Planet, March 25, 2010.

From The Earth Institute, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

Thursday, March 25, 2010 -  8:30am-5:30pm EDT

Beijing, London, Nairobi, New Delhi, New York, via live links/webcast

New York site: Lerner Hall, Columbia University, 115 St/Broadway

—————–

Webcast/event site: http://www.stateoftheplanet.org/

—————

The State of the Planet conference, held every two years, brings together insights on critical issues from the world’s most influential thinkers and leaders. This year, the Earth Institute, The Economist and Ericsson join forces to bring the conversation to the global community. With broadband access enabled by Ericsson, live events in five cities will be brought together in real time, moderated by Economist journalists. Viewers at home can participate via interactive online tools and discussion boards.

Four major topics are on the table: the science and politics of climate change; healing the world economy in an environmentally sustainable way; the ongoing challenge of ending extreme poverty; and how we can build and strengthen international systems able to deal with continuing crises that span borders.

Speakers include:  UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon; President Felipe Calderón Hinojosa of Mexico; Prince Albert II of Monaco; Sanjeev Chadha, CEO of Pepsico India; Achim Steiner, executive director of the UN Environment Programme; Xu Jintao, head of the environmental economics program, Peking University; and many others. Moderator: Al Jazeera journalist Riz Khan. Hosts of the event are: Earth Institute director Jeffrey D. Sachs; Ericsson president and CEO Hans Vestberg; and Matthew Bishop, American business editor and New York bureau chief of The Economist.

New York press registration/info: Kevin Krajick kkrajick@ei.columbia.edu 212-854-9729

Beijing: brookings@tsinghua.edu.cn

Nairobi: Nick Nuttall  nick.nuttall@unep.org

New Delhi: Abhijit Sinha  Abhijit.sinha@teri.res.in

———————————————————————————————————————————————–

DRAFT AGENDA –  New York, NY

March 25, 2010

8:30 a.m. EDT     Video Introduction

Welcome and Introduction by Event Hosts:

• Jeffrey D. Sachs, The Earth Institute
• Hans Vestberg, Ericsson
• Matthew Bishop, The Economist

Introduction of Global Sites:  Riz Khan, Al Jazeera English (Master of Ceremonies).

8:55 a.m. EDT SESSION I:  CLIMATE CHANGE – What Would It Take to Complete the Climate Deal?

In recent months, the world saw failed negotiations in Copenhagen, attacks on the validity of reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and calls from politicians to open criminal investigations into climate science.  In this context, discussion is likely to go beyond “completion” of a climate deal to delve into the true state of our knowledge; how the world perceives it; and whether, and how, the world can move forward toward real action on climate change.

New York

Event Site Host: The Earth Institute, Columbia University

Moderator: Matthew Bishop, American Business Editor and New York Bureau Chief, The Economist
Panelists:

• Wallace S. Broecker, Newberry Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University
• Mark Cane, G. Unger Vetlesen Professor of Earth and Climate Sciences and Professor of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics, Columbia University
• Johan Rockström, Executive Director, Stockholm Environment Institute and Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University

Beijing

Event Site Host: Brookings Institution, Tshingua University

Moderator: James Miles, China Correspondent, The Economist

Panelists:

• Xiao Geng, Director, Brookings Tsinghua Center for Public Policy; Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution (speaking from Beijing)
• Xu Jintao, Professor of Natural Resource Economics; Head of the Environmental Economics Program in China, Peking University
• Jiang Kejun, Research Professor and Director, Energy Systems Analysis and Market Analysis Division, Energy Research Institute, National Development and Reform Commission
• Qi Ye, Professor of Environmental Policy and Management; Director; Climate Policy Institute, Tsinghua University

Monaco – HSH Prince Albert II of Monaco

New Delhi – Event Site Host: The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI)

Moderator:  Simon Cox, Correspondent, The Economist

Panelist:

• Nitin Desai, Former UN Under-Secretary-General; Distinguished Fellow, The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) (TBC)

10:30 a.m. EDT   Break

——————-

10:45 a.m. EDT SESSION II:  POVERTY – How Do We Achieve the Millennium Development Goals?

Only five years remain until the 2015 deadline to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, the world’s agreed-upon targets to end extreme poverty and fight hunger and disease. This year is pivotal. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has called on world leaders to attend a summit in New York September 20-22, to boost progress toward the MDGs and agree on a plan of action to achieve them. The prospect of falling short of the goals due to lack of commitment is real, but achieving the MDGs remains feasible with adequate commitment, policies, resources and effort.

New York

Event Site Host: The Earth Institute, Columbia University

Moderator:  Matthew Bishop, American Business Editor and New York Bureau Chief, The Economist

Panelists:

• HRH Princess Máxima of the Netherlands, UN Secretary-General’s Special Advocate for Inclusive Finance for Development
• Glenn Denning, Professor of Professional Practice, Columbia University
• Hans Vestberg, President and CEO, Ericsson

Nairobi (Special Focus: Is Green Growth the Answer for Africa?)

Event Site Host: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

Moderator: Jonathan Ledgard, Correspondent, The Economist

Panelists:

• James Mwangi , Group Managing Director and CEO, Equity Bank
• Sylvia Mwichuli Mudasia, Director of Africa Communications, UN Millennium Campaign
• Achim Steiner, Executive Director, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP); UN Under-Secretary-General

——————

12:15 p.m. EDT  Lunch

1:30 p.m. EDT     Keynote Address

President Felipe Calderón Hinojosa, Mexico (speaking from Mexico City)

—————-

1:58 p.m. EDT     SESSION III:  ECONOMIC RECOVERY – What Does a Green Recovery Look Like?

This session will deal with two colliding questions. First: How do we haul the world out of the current economic recession? Second: Given that economic activity helps drive environmental degradation, how do we make a recovery environmentally sustainable? Discussion may start with shorter-term questions of money and finance, but will quickly move on to longer-term ones on how the world economy fits in with the usage or conservation of  natural resources; systems of energy generation, old and new; and the survival or fall of natural ecosystems.

New York

Event Site Host: The Earth Institute, Columbia University

Moderator: Riz Khan, Host of the Riz Khan Show, Al Jazeera English
Panelists:

• Sanjeev Chadha, Chairman and CEO, PepsiCo India
• Geoffrey Heal, Paul Garrett Professor of Public Policy and Business Responsibility and Professor of Economics and Finance, Columbia University
• Peter  Wierenga, Executive Vice President and CEO,  Philips Research

London

Event Site Host: The Economist

Moderator: John Micklethwait, Editor-in-Chief, The Economist, London

—————-

3:55 p.m. EDT     SESSION IV:  How Can an International System Be Built To Deal with Transnational Issues?

4:00 p.m. EDT     Keynote Address

Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary-General

The challenges of sustainable development—whether heading off climate change, fighting extreme poverty, stabilizing populations, or ensuring adequate water supplies for human use and crops—must all harness actions from a wide array of institutions. Gaining cooperation among the many stakeholders involved is the toughest challenge of all. In the countdown to achieving the MDGs by 2015, and in the midst of a global economic crisis, the need to strengthen global cooperation has become an emergency rather than simply a matter of urgency. Strengthening global partnerships in the areas of aid, trade, debt relief, and access to affordable medicines and new technologies is critical to prevent a decline in development.

New York

Event Site Host: The Earth Institute, Columbia University

Moderator: Riz Khan, Host of the Riz Khan Show, Al Jazeera English

Panelists:

• Matthew Bishop, American Business Editor and New York Bureau Chief, The Economist, New York
• Jeffrey D. Sachs, Director, The Earth Institute, Columbia University
• Rajiv Shah, Administrator, United States Agency for International Development (USAID) (TBC)
• Ann Veneman, Executive Director, United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)

——————-

5:17 p.m. EDT     Wrap-Up: Jeffrey D. Sachs, Hans Vestberg and Matthew Bishop

———————————————————————————————————————————————–

MORE INFORMATION:

Kevin Krajick, The Earth Institute
212-854-9729
kkrajick@ei.columbia.edu

Dayna De Simone, The Economist

Daynadesimone@economist.com

Ericsson Corporate Public & Media Relations

Phone: +46 10 719 69 92

The Earth Institute, Columbia University mobilizes the sciences, education and public policy to achieve a sustainable earth. Through interdisciplinary research among more than 500 scientists in diverse fields, the Institute is adding to the knowledge necessary for addressing the challenges of the 21st century and beyond. With over two dozen associated degree curricula and a vibrant fellowship program, the Earth Institute is educating new leaders to become professionals and scholars in the growing field of sustainable development. We work alongside governments, businesses, nonprofit organizations and individuals to devise innovative strategies to protect the future of our planet.

The Economist, edited in London since 1843, is a weekly international news and business publication offering clear reporting, commentary and analysis on world politics, business, finance, science, technology, culture, society, media and the arts.  The Economist has a North American circulation of 813,000, a global circulation of more than 1.4 million and 4 million monthly unique visitors at The Economist online.  Because of its international editorial perspective, it is read by more of the world’s political and business leaders than any other magazine.

Ericsson is a world-leading provider of telecommunications equipment and related services to mobile and fixed network operators globally. Over 1,000 networks in more than 175 countries utilize its network equipment, and 40 percent of all mobile calls are made through its systems. It is one of the few companies worldwide that can offer end-to-end solutions for all major mobile communication standards. Ericsson is advancing its vision of being the “prime driver in an all-communicating world” through innovation, technology and sustainable business solutions. More than 80,000 employees around the world generated revenue of SEK 206.5 billion (USD 27.1 billion) in 2009. Founded in 1876, with the headquarters in Stockholm, Sweden, Ericsson is listed on OMX NASDAQ, Stockholm and NASD

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Dalai Lama voices support for Uighurs

Posted by World Watch.

————

Had China accepted the reality that it needs to allow more self-government to its ethnic and politically different component  regions – there would be no problem with the reintegration of Taiwan as part of a confederation of friendly states and cities.     We say this all the time on this website and we think it would be in China’s interest.

###

“Giving Iran Seat on U.N. Rights Council Would Legitimize Its Brutality,” Says Boyfriend of Killed Protest Icon

Patrick Goodenough
March 10, 2010

An Iranian whose fiancée’s death by gunfire became a symbol of opposition to the regime during post-election protests last year made an impassioned appeal Tuesday for Tehran to be denied a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council in elections this spring.

Caspian Makan addresses the Geneva Summit for Human Rights, Tolerance and Democracy, co-organized by UN Watch and 24 other human rights NGOs, Tuesday, March 9, 2010. Click here for full transcript of his remarks Click here to watch video

Addressing a gathering of dissidents and human rights advocates in Geneva, Caspian Makan, a photojournalist who fled Iran late last year after being detained for more than 60 days, said Iranian membership in the U.N.’s top human rights body would be a “slap in the face” of other members.

It would encourage other countries that have a tendency to flout human rights and undermine the credibility of the U.N. and the council, he said, according to a translation provided by event organizers.

“I feel furthermore that if the Iranian regime became a member, that would legitimize the inhuman and cruel acts the regime has perpetuated against its population,” Makan added. “Giving it legitimacy would encourage them to go further still.”

The U.N. has confirmed that Iran has submitted in writing its candidacy to become a member of the HRC.

On May 13, the General Assembly will vote by secret ballot to fill 14 of the Geneva-based council’s 47 seats. Iran and four other countries – Thailand, Qatar, Malaysia and the Maldives – will compete to fill four available seats set aside for the Asian regional group.

Makan was speaking Tuesday at the Geneva Summit for Human Rights, Tolerance and Democracy, a two-day event that brought together some 500 people from more than 60 countries, to discuss issues organizers say are mostly neglected by the HRC.

He told the gathering about Neda Agha Soltan, the 26-year old “deep thinker” and “artist at heart” with whom he had fallen in love after meeting her on a trip.

Makan, 38, said they had tended in the past not to vote in elections because they were seen as a charade, and taking part would be seen as “participating in the regime to some extent.”

But the 2009 election had seemed to offer in the shape of opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi a “lesser evil” for young Iranians who “above all else wanted to get rid of Mr. [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad.”

Once it became clear that the election was rigged in favor of the incumbent, he said, Soltan had joined the protests.

Makan said that while trying to do his job he was an eyewitness to the violent clampdown by “the mercenaries of the regime” and “saw firsthand that the army of the revolution was shooting and killing the demonstrators from a helicopter.”

Four days before she died, he had urged Soltan to keep away from the demonstrations. “She said, ‘You know Caspian, I love you, I love being with you, but what is most important to me is the freedom of our people.”

On June 20, Soltan was shot in the chest on a Tehran street, apparently by a Basij militia sniper. Amateur video footage capturing the moments after the shooting was posted online and seen around the world.

“We have seen many people who have been wounded and killed, but this struck the world particularly hard,” Makan said of his fiancee’s death.

“We were able to see in the footage how good and kind she was and admire her attitude when faced with death, to admire her courage as a symbol of liberty, as she died hoping for a better life for the millions of Iranians who remained behind.”

Human rights researchers say at least 40 Iranians died during June and that the number more than doubled in the months that followed. The official figure stands at 44.

Last month, Mahmoud Abbaszadeh Meshkini, director-general of Iran’s Interior Ministry – whose functions including policing and overseeing elections – told the HRC that the June 2009 presidential election had been “an exemplary exhibition of democracy and freedom.”

The suggestion of Mr. Marthinus van Schalkwyk presents some very interesting dilemmas:

- first, it proposes an African for the position and we believe this is a bit like putting the carriage before the horse. Indeed, we say all the time that Africa is suffering because of the sins of others, so Africa and the Island States have most reasons to see a Climate  agreement become reality, but then it is not the sufferers, but the sinners, that will have to sign up to an enforceable  agreement, and those are mainly China and the US. Here indeed South Africa is one of the additional three IBSA states that participated in the formulation of the Copenhagen notice. If one where to try to pick a lead country from among the IBSA – we suggested it be Brazil as it would have the least conflicts of interest from among the three.

- then, the appointment of Mr. van Schalwyk, a South African, would also mean that there will be the third Dutch person on that job in a row, albeit, this Dutchman comes from South Africa and not from the Netherlands, but nevertheless the subject will come up.

- also, as we know the 2010 meeting of the UNFCCC, or COP 16, will be held in Mexico, while the following one, the 2011 COP 17 is intended for South Africa. An appointment of a South African to head the UNFCCC at this time would mean that the Mexico meeting that is limping anyway – as we just posted an hour ago – will become completely useless. Some, like the Latin American States, will find this objectionable. This one point leaves us perplexed if we sense that Cancun is just one more UN ritual led so that it has beforehand no chance to succeed – who knows – maybe the appointment of Mr. van Schlkwyk could actually result in annulment of a UN scheduled event. That could then be the first emissions saving UN led activity.

- the last point has to do with the backing of Mugabe’s Zimbabwe from South Africa in the leadership of The UN Commission on Sustainable Development. The facts are that the CSD was destroyed because of that backing by South Africa, and the CSD is needed if one wants to find a base for climate activities at the UN. That past experience might have left, and who knows, perhapse still creates, a sour taste when looking at South Africa’s place in UN leadership. Will we do away also with the CSD and base climate on the Committee of 19 Wise Men that the UN Secretary-General just established?

Without taking a stand on the candidate himself, nevertheless the first three points we raised will probably have to be weighed against the attributes that might be proposed when other names become available.

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

from: BuaNews (Tshwane)
South Africa: Zuma Nominates Van Schalkwyk for Top UN Job.

8 March 2010, Pretoria — President Jacob Zuma has nominated Tourism Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk for the post of the United Nations’ new climate chief.

Van Schalkwyk has been tipped as a strong contender to take over from Yvo De Boer who headed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC). De Boer announced his resignation last month.

“The South African government will consequently forward the name of Minister Van Schalkwyk to the Secretary General for his further consideration,” the Presidency said on Monday.

Zuma and the minister met on Sunday to discuss this issue as well as South Africa’s global positioning, the Presidency said.

“The final decision on the appointment rests with the Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr Ban Ki Moon.”

Van Schalkwyk was deeply involved in climate change issues during his tenure as minister of environmental affairs and tourism.

He built a strong profile for himself during the UN climate treaty negotiations leading up to the Copenhagen summit late last year.

“During this period he commanded significant respect across the developing-developed country divide. This will stand him in good stead in this critical phase of driving the global climate change negotiations to conclusion,” said the Presidency.

Given that South Africa will also be hosting and presiding over the climate change negotiations next year, the Presidency said it would be an “honour for the country to have one of its own to head up this very important UN institution”.

If appointed, Van Schalkwyk will oversee one of the most important treaties of the 21st century – the 2012 treaty on climate change. The treaty is aimed at mitigating the causes and effects of climate change and shape the way countries power their economies.

——————-
And from NASTASYA TAY (AP):  South African minister is nominated for UN post.

JOHANNESBURG — The South African president’s office announced the nomination of its tourism minister for the United Nations’ top climate post on Monday.

The office said in a press release that Marthinus van Schalkwyk is a candidate to direct the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. The current leader of the post, Yvo de Boer, announced his resignation in February and will step down July 1.
Van Schalkwyk was South Africa’s former minister for environmental affairs and tourism and is well-regarded in climate change circles. He has a reputation as an effective bridge-builder in a process that often pits developing against industrially advanced countries.

“We are pleased to know Minister Van Schalkwyk is being considered and would be very confident that he would be equal to the task of replacing Mr. de Boer,” said Themba Linden, Political Advisor at Greenpeace Africa. “By all accounts, he has an excellent standing as a negotiator, and has earned a great deal of respect for being very engaged and informed.”

Van Schalkwyk’s chances of being appointed are bolstered by the high likelihood that South Africa will host the U.N.’s climate change negotiations in 2011.

South Africa along with the U.S., India, Brazil and China drafted the climate change agreement reached in Denmark in December. The compromise calls for reducing emissions to keep temperatures from rising more than 2 C (3.6 F) above preindustrial levels. The nonbinding agreement also calls on rich nations to spend billions to help poor nations deal with drought and other impacts of climate change, and to develop clean energy.

Even though it helped draft the accord, South Africa joined a chorus of critics, expressing disappointment at not reaching a legally binding climate change agreement.

—————–
 http://www.businessgreen.com/business-gr…

Could it be that his oponent will be an Indian backed by China? The guesing game may just go wild from now on:

There have also been reports in India that environment minister Jairam Ramesh has nominated Indian environment secretary Vijai Sharma for the role, and his nomination is believed to be supported by China.

However, an Indian or Chinese nomination is likely to be opposed by the US and EU, which remain angry at both country’s negotiating tactics during the final days of the Copenhagen Summit.

As such, Van Schalkwyk is likely to be regarded as a potential conciliatory candidate, securing the support of the many Africa countries that will be most directly affected by climate change and providing a potential link between the US and Europe and the so-called BASIC group of emerging economies, of which South Africa is a member alongside Brazil, India and China.

His nomination chances will be further bolstered by the likelihood that South Africa will host next year’s main UN climate change summit where diplomats still hope an international treaty agreed later this year in Mexico can be formally adopted.

EU Climate Chief delivers Treaty blow.

by Fiona Harvey, Environment Correspondent
8th March 2010
 http://crazationsice.blogspot.com/2010/0…

The world will almost certainly fail to draw up a new treaty on climate change this year, the minister in charge of last year’s Copenhagen summit has admitted, delivering a heavy blow to the barely flickering hopes for a swift global settlement.

Connie Hedegaard, the Danish minister who masterminded the summit of world leaders on global warming last year and is now the European commissioner for climate change, told the Financial Times negotiations were not progressing fast enough for a treaty to be signed soon.

She also gave warning that pushing too hard for a treaty this year could be counterproductive.

“To get every detail set in the next nine months looks very difficult,” she said. “Europe would love that to happen, and I would love that to happen . . . but my feeling is that it is going to be very difficult to get a treaty.”

Her pessimism echoed that of the outgoing United Nations climate change chief, Yvo de Boer. He told the FT as he resigned last month after four years of seeking an agreement that he could not see a treaty being signed this year.

The admission also comes against the backdrop of a resurgence of climate change scepticism, fuelled by a series of mistakes made by scientists that have encouraged many politicians to oppose emissions regulation.

Governments had been hoping to forge a final treaty at a global conference this December in Mexico, after failing to do so in Copenhagen.

However, Ms Hedegaard said this was more likely to happen at a follow-up meeting next year in South Africa.

That would still allow governments to meet their self-imposed deadline of forging a new agreement before the end of 2012, when the current provisions of the world’s only existing treaty on greenhouse gas emissions, the 1997 Kyoto protocol, expire.

Ms Hedegaard robustly defended the Copenhagen summit, which attracted loud criticism, especially for the chaotic way in which it finished.

She said that calling world leaders to the long-running negotiations had ensured rapid progress towards the end, when for the first time developed and developing countries mutually agreed limits on their emissions.

But she said there would not be another Copenhagen-style summit. “You can do such a thing one time,” she said.

The price of failure, if diplomats attempted to force an agreement this year, was too high, Ms Hedegaard said.

“People would say let’s skip that idea, let’s skip the UN thing,” she said.

She also defended climate scientists, saying the handful of flaws in the 2007 report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the e-mails in which scientists talked of concealing data did not affect the large body of scientific evidence amassed over decades.

The UN climate talks have been going on since 1992, when world governments signed the first legally binding treaty aimed at avoiding dangerous levels of climate change. The Kyoto protocol failed because it did not impose obligations on developing countries and was rejected by the US.

——————-

Connie Hedegaard: Statement of CONNIE HEDEGAARD, European Commissioner for Climate Action, on the creation of the Directorate-General CLIMATE “The DG CLIMATE has been created …
ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/hedegaard/index_en.htm

Last night, March 8, 2010, three month since Copenhagen, I learned from someone that was among the creators of the US Carbon Market that this market is practically dead. Anything new on climate? No – nothing! Is there hope? Only if you are a continuous optimist!

That exchange brought me to post the following as a reminder of the post-Copenhagen spirit. Further, we are still that optimist that believes with a US health-care bill pushed through there may be a renewed US-China joint effort on climate. Further, we also follow with interest Brazil reasserting itself by putting its foot down on conditions of trade with the US. This push by Brazil may remind the US that it is hard to handle wars in Asia without house cleaning in its attitude in the Western Hemisphere. Brazil and the Latins must become US partners also on Climate and they are right to claim a more open door to US markets.

—————————

Letter to Grist from Europe

Copenhagen blame game is obstacle to 2010 climate deal.

Sunday, Feb. 28, 2010, Kyodo News of Japan:

Six-party talks up to North: Bosworth.

U.S. special envoy to North Korea Stephen Bosworth said Saturday in Tokyo he hopes to see “fairly soon” the resumption of the stalled six-party talks on Pyongyang’s nuclear programs, but added whether that is realized depends on the North.

“Five of the six parties are prepared to move very quickly. And we would hope that the sixth, that is to say the DPRK, will also decide to move ahead very quickly,” Bosworth told reporters, referring to North Korea by its official name of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

But the U.S. point man for North Korea policy also said, “In the end, of course, the decision as to whether they are going to come back and when, it is up to the DPRK.”

While admitting that there is no agreement yet on when to resume the multilateral talks involving North and South Korea, China, Japan, Russia and the United States, Bosworth said, “I hope that, in the not too distant future, but fairly soon, we will see a resumption of the talks.”

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

UN-North Korea talks hint at a peace treaty on the Korean Peninsula
Source: Global Times ,  February 21 2010
By Ronda Hauben also of www.taz.de/blogs/netizenblog

This June 25 marks the 60th anniversary of the beginning of the Korean War in 1950. Only an armistice and a temporary agreement, not a peace treaty, are in place to help prevent a renewed outbreak of hostilities.

A four-person delegation from the office of the UN Secretary-General which included B. Lynn Pascoe and Kim Won-soo recently returned to the UN after their visit to North Korea, between February 9 and 12, 2010.

This was the first delegation to establish official relations between North Korea and the UN Secretariat since Maurice Strong acted as an envoy of Kofi Annan to North Korea in 2004.

At the press conference at the UN, held on the return of the UN delegation, only minimal information was provided about the issues that North Korea raised.

In his brief presentation, Pascoe, Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, mentioned some of the issues discussed, including a statement that there had been back-and-forth talks about a peace treaty.

Pascoe said, however, that he was not going to get into details. A little later in the press conference, a question was asked about what issues North Korea had brought up. Pascoe’s response included that North Korea did talk about a peace treaty and why they saw it as an important way to build trust.

Much of the press conference, focused on questions about North Korea returning to the Six-Party Talks.

A purpose of the UN secretariat trip was to convey messages from other parties of the Six-Party Talks to North Korea, and to convey the Secretary- General’s view that talks need to begin without preconditions.

At the end of WWII, Korea was artificially divided into two separate entities: the Republic of Korea in the south, or South Korea, and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in the north, or North Korea. This division was initially regarded as temporary. Instead, it was maintained and reinforced by various actions of the UN. Then during the Korean War, the United Nations flag and name were used.

North Korea sees the need for a peace treaty to help calm the tension that exists because currently there is only the temporary armistice agreement.

North Korea proposes that three parties to the armistice, the US (for the UN command), North Korea, and China (the Chinese People’s Volunteer Army) to negotiate for the peace treaty. It also proposes to include South Korea.

This is proposed as the means to build confidence among these four parties so as to be able to return to the Six- Party Talks with experience to make possible reaching an agreement on the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

The actual denuclearization will be a task that will involve both North Korea giving up its nuclear weapon capability and South Korea giving up the protection that the US offers it by including it under the US’s nuclear umbrella.

The press conference at the UN, however, didn’t discuss the issue of the peace treaty or the need to consider the denuclearization of both nations on the Korean Peninsula.

Instead, the majority of questions concerned whether North Korea would return to the Six-Party Talks.

North Korea has criticized the talks as not helpful to solving the disputes that continue to breed hostility in the region. Recent talks have focused on removing the nuclear capability of North Korea, rather than similarly considering North Korea’s claim that it needs its nuclear capability as a security measure as long as hostile actions continue by other members of the Six-Party process.

In previous talks between North Korea and the US, one of the negotiators explained the most difficult part of the negotiations was determining how to phrase the issue of the talks so that it recognized the interests of different parties to the controversy. He said that North Korea made the reasonable request that the issue be phrased in a way satisfactory to both North Korea and the US.

One would expect a similar problem will need to be solved to facilitate discussion among the parties to the Six-Party Talks, or to facilitate negotiations toward a peace treaty to end the Korean War.

After the press conference, Kim Won-soo, Deputy Chef de Cabinet of the UN, said the dispute over how to get back to negotiations could be seen as a difference over what sequencing was acceptable.

What order of actions would the parties agree to with regard to discussing a peace treaty, ending the UN sanctions, or returning to the Six-Party Talks process, could be considered an issue to be discussed, rather than phrasing the problem in terms favorable to one side or the other. This is the basis for further discussion and negotiation among North Korea and the other countries.

The UN is technically still at war with North Korea. These current developments raise the question of whether Ban Ki-moon is willing to use the good offices of his position as Secretary-General to offer what help he can to facilitate a peace treaty to end the Korean War.

Even this first step of an official visit by the four-member UN Secretariat delegation and the mere mention that the North Korea referred to the desire for a peace treaty can be seen as a step forward.

The Secretary-General is endeavoring to help solve the stalemate among the parties regarding the continuing tension on the Korean Peninsula.

————–
The author is an award-winning US journalist covering the United Nations.  netizenblog at gmail.com
 http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/commentary…

————–

Global Times appears in English and originates from Beijing.

Contact the Global Times (GT) newspaper:
Add.  7/F Topnew Tower, 15 Guanghua Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, CHINA PC:100026
Tel.+86-10-52937565
Fax.+86-10-52937584
Email:  editor at globaltimes.com.cn

George Soros will appear on CNN’s GPS with Fareed Zakaria this Sunday morning, February 28th at 10am ET (rebroadcast at 1pm ET).

In the interview George discusses a variety of topics, from the state of the U.S. economy to relations with China.

With best regards,

Michael Vachon

It is funny how the Chinese cannot take responsibility when they do something right, and the Americans cannot take responsibility when they do something wrong.

Washington bailed out GM rather then making sure first they change products and Beijing stopped companies from buying into the GM misfits but find ways to explain this without harming the feelings of GM. Good riddance to the Hummer monster – specially to the yellow one that used to cruise the New York Mid-town East Side and driven by some chief from the Department of Sanitation.

CHINA INSISTS A FLAWED APPROACH HURT GM DEAL
By Patti Waldmeir in Shanghai 2010-02-26, The Financial Times.

The collapse of General Motors’ plan to sell Hummer to a Chinese buyer reflects flaws in the deal rather than any reluctance by Beijing to sanction cross-border transactions, say Chinese government officials.

GM announced late on Wednesday that it had given up on efforts to sell its troubled Hummer operations to Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery, after nearly nine months of trying.

The Detroit carmaker said it would now wind down production of the heavy sports utility vehicle.

The collapse marks another difficult sales process for GM since it began to downsize its operations more than a year ago. The carmaker backed out of plans to sell its Opel business last year, while a deal to offload its Saturn brand fell apart.

But it this week succeeded in selling Saab, its Swedish marque, to Spyker, the Dutch boutique sports car maker.

Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery, which had never produced a passenger car, said the deal collapsed because it was “unable to obtain clearance [for] the transaction from the Chinese regulators within the proposed deal timeframe”.

The deal’s deadline had already been extended by a month while Tengzhong made a last-ditch effort to obtain Beijing’s blessing.

Analysts said yesterday that Beijing’s refusal to sanction the deal was scarcely surprising, given the central government’s recent strong emphasis on encouraging Chinese consumers to buy smaller, fuel-efficient cars.

To produce the hulking Hummer, with its image of wasteful excess, could hardly be less consistent with Beijing’s pro-green automotive policies, said Mike Dunne of Dunne & Co, an Asia-based automotive consultancy: “For them to approve the Hummer deal would be a big contradiction.”

A ministry of commerce spokesman said Tengzhong failed to provide a sound purchase plan. He reiterated China’s policy of encouraging development of a renewable, green and environmentally friendly economy.

The ministry has previously insisted it never received an application by Sichuan Tengzhong – but the company repeatedly denied it.

Yale Zhang, of CSM Automotive in Shanghai, said the deal violated not only Beijing’s environmental goals but also Chinese insistence on consolidation in the auto industry, which has about 50-100 carmakers.

“This was just the wrong group making the wrong purchase in the wrong way,” said an industry insider, noting Tengzhong did not obtain provisional clearance before announcing the deal.

Beijing is thought willing to sanction the much bigger $1bn acquisition of Volvo by Geely, the big private Chinese automaker. That deal is expected to be finalised by March’s end.

Last year BAIC, the Beijing automaker, acquired some assets of Saab from GM, with central government approval.

—————

NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL

Goodbye, Hummer
Published: February 25, 2010

The world might be saved: It looks as if the Hummer is destined for the junkyard. The plan by General Motors to sell the muscular brand to a Chinese company went up in a puff of exhaust smoke on Wednesday after government officials in China said that they had never received the necessary application for approval and thus couldn’t grant it.

We suspect the deal collapsed because the Chinese Communist Party — which rarely shows much shame — is worried about China’s image as the most polluting nation on the planet. If true, that is good news.

There may be other good news. While some policy analysts have called — sensibly, in our opinion — for steeper gasoline taxes to encourage American drivers to embrace fuel efficiency, some economists have been skeptical. They acknowledge that drivers might decide to drive less and take public transportation more. But they warn that most could not afford to quickly dump their gas guzzlers for more fuel-efficient cars.

Yet given time, it seems, people change their ways. Americans drove 3.4 percent fewer miles in 2008 — when gas prices shot up to a peak of $4 a gallon nationally — than in 2007. And many who had bought the Hummer when a gallon of gas cost $2 decided that they couldn’t afford to tool around town in a small tank that would run, on average, around 10 miles on a gallon.

By last year, even as gas prices drifted downward, only about 9,000 Hummers were sold in the United States. That was a steep drop from 71,000 in 2006. In the spring of 2008, G.M. announced that it could not keep the sinking brand. The company is weighing two long-shot bids, but it is more than likely to wind down the brand.

Gasoline is back around $2.50 a gallon, and Americans are falling back on some of their old bad habits. Still, the Hummer’s tale is a vivid example of the power of gas prices to change Americans’ ways. It also suggests that, given the proper incentives and disincentives, all the world’s nations can embrace a greener future.

Mongolia is an unassuming country, sandwiched in between Russia and China and has sworn to stay nuclear free and made known it is no danger to anyone. This is Mongolia’s highest contribution to its region and it could be an example to North Korea when that State decides to attempt change. Mongolia can smooth the way to the six parties talks.

Mongolia is the 19th largest and the most sparsely populated independent country in the world, with a population of about three million people. It is also the world’s second-largest landlocked country after Kazakhstan. The country contains very little arable land, as much of its area is covered by steppes, with mountains to the north and west, and the Gobi Desert to the south. Approximately 30% of the population are nomadic or semi-nomadic. The predominant religion in Mongolia is Tibetan Buddhism, and the majority of the state’s citizens are of the Mongol ethnicity, though Kazakhs, Tuvans, and other minorities also live in the country, especially in the west. About 20% of the population live on less than US$1.25 per day. Global warming has had a serious impact on Mongolia and its land became even drier with very active further desertification; but Mongolia is rich in minerals and exporting minerals such as Coal, Uranium, Lithium, Copper, Molybdenum, Tin, Tungsten, Gold and oil provide it with cash flow. Companies and Financing from China, Japan, South Korea, Germany, Russia, Canada are active in Mongolia.

In Mongolia during the 1920s, approximately one third of the male population were monks. By the beginning of the 20th century about 750 monasteries were functioning in Mongolia. The Stalinist purges in Mongolia beginning in 1937, affected the Republic as it left more than 30,000 people dead. Japanese imperialism became even more alarming after the invasion of neighboring Manchuria in 1931. The Soviet threat of seizing parts of Inner Mongolia induced China to recognize Outer Mongolia’s independence. So – the mutual distrust between China and the Soviets allowed for an independent Mongolia.

The introduction of perestroika and glasnost in the USSR by Mikhail Gorbachev strongly influenced Mongolian politics leading to the peaceful Democratic Revolution, and the introduction of a multi-party system and market economy. A new constitution was introduced in 1992, and the “People’s Republic” was dropped from the country’s name. The transition to market economy was often rocky, the early 1990s saw high inflation and food shortages. The first election wins for non-communist parties came in 1993 (presidential elections) and 1996 (parliamentary elections). So, Mongolia, an ex-communist country moved to a market economy.

The evolution of Mongolia is now of special interest to those that would like to see movement in efforts to solve the Korean peninsula schism. Mongolia could be an example for North Korea if it becomes interested in dropping its attachment to the former Soviet way of managing a country – and that is what brought a high level Mongolian group to The Korea Society in New York City, for breakfast, today, February 23, 2010.

The speaker was H.E. Damdin Tsogtbaatar, State Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Next to him sat the Mongolian Permanent Representative to the UN H.E. Enkhtsetseg Ochir. Also present was the Deputy Permanent Representative Sodnom Gankhuyag.

The presentation started with the geopolitics and the paradox that both neighbors – China and Russia – are conservative cultures but when changing they are revolutionary. Being enclosed in that sandwich, the Mongolian Foreign Policy has to be an open policy and with both neighbors nuclear  – it had to mean for Mongolia that it can only be free of nuclear weapons. From here he looked at the other two countries that started out in similar conditions like Mongolia – Cuba and North Korea. While Mongolia developed a democracy romanticism – this was not the case with the other two. In effect North Korea looked down at Mongolia and closed its embassy in 1999 and used the excuse that they do so because of economy conditions. Mongolia watched the South Korean Sunshine Policy towards North Korea and as regional Mongolian expats live in South Korea, and Mongolia’s interest to help stabilize the region in its own interest, they started to get more and more interested in what goes on on the Korean Peninsula and in Japan. For one thing – North Korea was interested in Petroleum. North Korea is isolated by its own choice – but someone must get interested in North Korea. In fact in the 1970’s North Korea was ahead of South Korea – more developed – but se now. During the Korean War – only the Russian and Mongolian Ambassadors were left in North Korea. Mongolia also helped by taking in the N. Korean orphans and returned them when hostilities stopped.

Mongolia does not think that the North Koreans are totally irrational, even though he told of some instances that you real wonder – one such was the idea of developing an ostrich farm in N. Korea. Mongolia initiated cultural exchanges that include also Japanese groups. The idea is that Mongolia can try to prepare the ground on which the meetings of the six parties could be restarted.

Mongolia does not believe that sanctions will work – they only punish the people who then clam up and there is no progress. That is when I noted that the two Mongolian men in the room both had purple ties, and I wandered if this is an effort not to look blue or red? Further – Acquiring nuclear technology is not the end – he said – see Kazakhstan and the Ukraine – they had nuclear and gave them up – eventually comes a government and changes of a sudden are possible.

North Korea – the transition of power is supposed to happen in 2012, but considering the health of the leader it could happen earlier. About money reform -That had an impact only on those that had money. It affected people in the cities – not the countryside.

John Delury, an Associate Director at the Asia Society Center on US-China Relations, said that when he spoke to North Koreans when asked why they do not evolve according to the China model, they answered that they are on the China track. See, China first got nuclear, then only formalized relations with the US after they became nuclear. Only then kicked in stage three that was economical.

The answer was – That it is so – Mao Tse-Tung got nuclear first, on account of Stalin. Mongolia does not want to be any-body’s model – “we avoid the word.”

Mongolia was able to put at one table North Korea and Japan but to bring together both Koreas is more difficult. First, with President Lee the Sunshine policy was ended, and a strong anti-North Korean approach was established. The feeling is that the South Koreans, like any democracy, became tired to wait. The situation is now such that both Koreas say – we know what to do – thanks – no – thanks.

Mongolia does no believe in treaties and going to court like lawyers when you deal with nuclear weapons. One can push the button and it is over – but then he said earlier that the belief is there that eventually people are rational – so what is it? Do we must be careful to avoid such situation by stopping a country like Iran from getting nuclear, in order to avoid later dilemmas? Anyway – Iran was not the Issue here but North Korea – so let us say that Mongolia can nevertheless provide an example to North Korea, even if not a model – that changing from threat to agreement could help economically. In effect the day before, the Mongolian envoy had an hour-long meeting with UNSG Ban Ki-moon.

The first wave of reporting was only  a rewrite of the UNFCCC Press release. Then came some further wording from an AP interview. Now we see the start of thinking journalism.

The bottom line seems to be: “Bickering at Copenhagen convinced many countries that the UN negotiating process must be reformed, and that agreement might be sought in other forums.” So, here goes that proverbial 192 UN Member States list or the 193 figure that appears when the UNFCCC is mentioned. We never understood why that discrepancy and assumed the fault is with us for not knowing where to put the EU, Taiwan, the Vatican, Puerto Rico, Palestine … and some other such preferred UN preoccupations.

Fiona Harvey of the Financial Times quotes an official of a developed country: "You have to wonder whether you could get moremovement by working in smaller groups." If you want to get results indeed – you must bring together the World’s biggest GHG emitters.

The New York City newspapers – The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal went over to the UN and got hold of Janos Pasztor, the potentially homeless head of the “in-Headquarter-house” climate-change team-head for UNSG Ban Ki-moon.

{On “homeless” – As we reported earlier: “The UN’s and Ban’s climate unit under Janos Pasztor, which was told there was no room for it in the UN’s Temporary North Lawn Conference Building where Ban has his office, is now looking at space in the Alcoa Building on 48th Street, Inner City Press is told. For now, they are left behind in the nearly empty UN skyscraper where asbestos removal has already begun.”}

According to the WSJ – Janos Pasztor said: “It does not matter what a senior UN civil servant does, ultimately – if governments are not ready to sign off on an agreement, then they will not sign off on an agreement;” Mr. Pasztor said that Mr. de Boer called Mr. Ban “two days ago;” to inform him of the decision. Mr. de Boer’s four-years appointment was going till September and he could have asked Mr. Ban to appoint him for another term, but we never came to that point, he said. Asked whether Mr. Ban would have reappointed Mr. de Boer, Mr. Pasztor said: ‘That we don’t know.”

Mr. Pasztor said further that Mr. Ban will begin looking for a successor for Mr. de Boer “extremely quickly;” he does not know who might be considered.

Neil MacFarquhar and John M. Broder ot the NYT did some further inquiries outside the UN.

Mark Kenber, the policy director for the Climate Group, an international organization involving industry that wants to see a climate agreement, said that it is probably the right time to get a fresh face in. It was a grueling two years of negotiations and a new face would re-spark the process.

Michael A. Levi, the climate change expert at the Council on Foreign Relations said that Yvo de Boer has put in a lot of time towards a very well-defined end, and the fact he resigns means that he did not see potential success on the horizon of COP 16, this year. Had he seen the possibility that there might be a positive outcome before the end of the year, he would have stuck with it so he would get credit for his work.

Others faulted the UN team for not having moved faster to find areas where agreement among those 190+ participating member states at Copenhagen, such as the preservation of rainforests, could have been agreed upon in smaller fora first. Another such topic could have been the taxing of livestock emissions that is being described in today’s FT that says FAO is ready to help review the meat industry.

So, after 48 hours since Yvo de Boer’s resignation, provided that the UN does not rush in with a Ban Ki-moon new appointment, but is ready to listen to possible new opportunities, this might turn out as a blessing in disguise – an opening for change – an actual new opportunity.

Some question the UNFCCC process itself – but we think that this is rather too much. It does not remember that the UNFCCC was born in Rio de Janeiro in the 1992 UNCED Conference – just because there was no agreement to have a full convention like it was the case with Biodiversity and in regard to Arid and Semi-Arid lands and Desertification.

Decreasing the size of the negotiation table, by bringing the number of participants down to those that are the most serious polluters, with delegations present from groups most seriously affected, could be more fit to help bring about the needed agreements.

————-

And From Canada – the host for the 2010 meetings of the G8 and G20:

from Shawn McCarthy, Ottawa — From Friday’s Globe and Mail reporting.
Published on Thursday, Feb. 18, 2010
Mr. de Boer – who had worked tirelessly to reach a consensus at Copenhagen – said he was depressed for weeks after the summit ended with a vague, non-binding agreement among major emitters known as the Copenhagen Accord. Angry recriminations resulted from Copenhagen’s failure to produce a more substantial document, and the refusal of the participants to unanimously endorse even the more modest pact.

Mr. de Boer’s successor – to be appointed by UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon – will not only have to reinvigorate the effort to achieve a treaty, he will need to revisit the UN process itself. The requirement for consensus may make it impossible to reach an accord in Mexico, even in the unlikely event that an agreement can be achieved among major emitters. Some critics suggest Mr. de Boer was part of the problem – bringing a rigid, bureaucratic approach to the international talks.

“I never had the sense that we were dealing with a person of vision, a person who could see the changes that were necessary in the international system to get a climate-change agreement,” said Robert Page, chairman of Canada’s National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.

Mr. Robert Page suggested the new UNFCCC executive director will likely have to come from a major developing country – such as Brazil – and be committed to reforming the UN process.

In Denmark, a small group of countries blocked the conference as a whole from adopting the Copenhagen Accord, which had been brokered at the 11th hour by U.S. President Barack Obama.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon is urging a reform that would see agreement based on a 75-per-cent majority, rather than unanimity. The Catch-22: The UN requires consensus to change the voting rules.

“As far as the process goes, we’re in a lot of trouble,” said John Drexhage, climate-change director for the Winnipeg-based International Institute for Sustainable Development and former Canadian negotiator.

“We need to have very realistic expectations for Mexico. I think it would be a mistake to push for a legally binding comprehensive agreement by Mexico. That’s just not going to happen with the current state of affairs.”

Indeed, Mr. Drexhage said Mr. de Boer’s successor faces a convergence of factors that will make it extremely difficult to regain momentum for the international talks.

Public skepticism about the dangers posed by climate change has risen, fuelled by incidents in which a few researchers manipulated data to get desired results, and the inclusion of non-scientific information in the report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Emerging economies like Brazil, South Africa, India and China – the so-called BASIC group – have made clear they will not subject their emission-reduction policies to international verification. Any commitments they have made are conditional on the developed world – notably the United States – taking strong action, and delivering promised financing to the developing world.

Mr. Obama faces major hurdles in getting a climate bill passed in Congress this year, raising questions about his administration’s commitment to reduce emissions by 17 per cent from 2005 levels by 2020. And as the United States goes, so goes Canada.

World leaders have a couple of opportunities to advance the broad commitments of the Copenhagen Accord into a more robust agreement, including a May meeting in Bonn, Germany, and the Group of Eight/Group of 20 summits to be hosted by Prime Minister Stephen Harper this summer.

The G8 and G20 can deliver progress – especially the G20, which includes China, India, Brazil and Mexico. But it remains unclear whether Mr. Harper, who is hosting the meetings and influences the agendas, will make climate change a priority.

———–
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20…

Yvo de Boer’s successor has big footprints to fill: The former head of the UN’s climate body commanded great respect in a near-impossible job, but in the end, he failed. His successor must not.

Because De Boer took over from another Dutchman in 2006, there will be strong pressure on the UN to choose his successor from a developing country. “I would like to see someone from a developing country who can negotiate with those countries,” Seb Walhain, the head of environmental markets at Fortis Netherlands, told Reuters. Because so much is at stake and the talks are at such an advanced stage, the appointment is likely to be fiercely contested.

Countries will want an early decision, but the UN’s selection process is laborious. A successor is likely to be chosen from within the UN system, though there will be few people considered diplomatically acceptable or authoritative enough to resist world leaders and muscle though an agreement acceptable to all.

De Boer’s successor’s first tasks will be to keep the US aboard the negotiations and to clear up the vexed question of the legal status of the Copenhagen accord, the deal struck at Copenhagen by a small group but not endorsed by a majority of countries.

Get it right, and the new head of the UNFCCC will be celebrated as the man or woman who steered the whole world to a historic agreement that could save the planet from calamitous climate change. Get it wrong, and negotiations could be set back a decade.

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

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

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

——–

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

By Matthew Russell Lee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spokesperson: IPCC regrets, Matthew, IPCC regrets.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Matthew Russell Lee

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

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

Spokesperson Nesirky: Last question, Matthew.

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

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

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

Spokesperson: IPCC regrets, Matthew, IPCC regrets.

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer leaves United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat.
We knew Yvo since his work for the Dutch government and held him in high esteem. The problem with Yvo was that he fell in for the nothingness of the UN and was not ready to stand up and fight for his subject in face of that nothingness. The UN is nothing more then the lowest common denominator of its member states and on climate it was the oil industry of the major industrial states and the monarchs of the oil exporting states that colluded in holding the subject under the table. The Rio UNCED ghost of Maurice Strong was still around and pushing for the importance of the conventions signed at the 1992 UN meeting on Environment and Development, so the subject could not be killed, but then most countries were ready to push it under the table. The US did not ratify any of those conventions anyway. Morris Strong is now active in China – we saw him last December in Copenhagen outside the UNFCCC compound.

When Yvo de Boer – the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, headquartered in Bonn, thanks to a wish of the  German government to find some use for that city after moving its capital back to Berlin, a UN body run by delegates of UN Member States that was located in Bonn together with the Secretariats of the other Rio Conventions Secretariats, according to UN rules set up in New York, came for the first time to New York as a UN official, back in 2006, when I was still  an official  member of the UN Press Corps, I fought for having UN Department of Public Information set up a Press Conference with the head of this important new UN body. He was given about 10 minutes in the Press briefing-room – that infamous S-226. I organized a few correspondents to demand more time with him, and we did have the chance to talk with him, officially,  further using the UNCA room (UN Correspondents Association) as a venue. The Pakistani head of UNCA did not like it. Neither  The New York Times nor the CNN came. Their correspondents at the time did not believe yet in climate change – actually very few – but the best journalists came – those that were the budding internet breed. Just four years ago – the UN was still considered as the place where one should be able to explain the global aspects of CO2 emissions. The problems with not being able to do so were palpable. I thought then that Yvo understood where his main opposition will be – in this  New York spirit of the UN – and thanks to his EU base Yvo de Boer will be ready to fight for the cause and not be just another UN bureaucrat.

But I was disappointed. He did become a UN bureaucrat and smiled – ear to ear – along with UNSG Ban Ki-moon in that “SEAL THE DEAL” – when there was no deal – CHARADE. The following press release that is being released by the official UNFCCC Press officers that worked along his side all those years, shows that Yvo de Boer understood the reality of the situation all along – but does not explain why he did not try to manage the subject with personal pride in what he was doing there. Though personal, but this is nevertheless something that throws a shadow on Mr. de Boer, is the fact that when under the new UN Secretary General, Mr. Ahmad Fawzi managed finally the feat to declare our website as non-UN-Press under his rules, something he fought for but was rejected by Mr. Sashi Tharoor, the Under Secretary General under UNSG Kofi Annan, Yvo de Boer bowed to the decision – though he knew well that our website is fighting for what should have been his cause in his job. Yvo de Boer ran an organization that was lacking positive press because he bowed to those in New York that did not want climate change positive press. It is as simple as that – so he is responsible for failures by not having fought strong enough for success.

Yes, we knew all the time that it will eventually be the industry and business that will, come the day, move on climate change work. We knew all the time that China is in the lead despite everything that they were saying in public – climate change does work well for innovative business and that is why it will win in the end. We knew that the meeting in Poznan is a waste of time and there is no deal for Copenhagen. We had misgivings about going to Bali, and when I came to Vienna to participate at a pre-Bali meeting Mr. De Boer bowed to a note from Mr. Ahmad Fawzi and was not ready to let me in as Press. Had he been ready to show backbone for the subject he was in charge off – he could have found ways to resolve the conflict by granting limited accreditation – for God’s sake – he knew me, knew what I was doing, knew the problems, where was his fighting spirit?

Yes, we think that Yvo de Boer will be a good addition to the climate consultancy business, and lobby within the States that can start implement such programs internally, and within business relationships, in context of more limited groupings – like a G2 – a possible G5 or G7 – a United EU, etc. They need the experience he has accumulated, and we hope that in these contexts he will indeed develop his career and find himself as well. KPMG is a good outfit for this. Work with Universities is good as well, and personally would love to see him involved at the Earth Institute at Columbia University where he could still be around at the UN periphery and finally not be hindered from speaking  truth.

Also, let me repeat once more – Copenhagen was not the disaster as the UN contends. It was thanks to President Obama’s trip to Beijing that it has become the start to moves in the real world – with China and The White House officially on board. Will the new Secretary General of the UNFCCC be chosen so that he leads within the context of the reality that is now open for all to see? Pitty that Mr. Yvo de Boer did burn himself out by putting himself too much in those losing dancing shoes – though we see now that the dance was not unknown to him.

——————–

A UNFCCC PRESS RELEASE

Executive Secretary leaves United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat

<http://unfccc.int/press/press_releases_advisories/items/4712.php>

(Bonn, 18 February 2010) – Mr. Yvo de Boer has announced today that he will
resign his position as Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change as of 1 July 2010. Mr. de Boer will be joining
the consultancy group KPMG as Global Adviser on Climate and Sustainability,
as well as working with a number of universities.

“Working with my colleagues at the UNFCCC Secretariat in support of the
climate change negotiations has been a tremendous experience”, said Mr. de
Boer who has led the organisation since September 2006. “It was a difficult
decision to make, but I believe the time is ripe for me to take on a new
challenge, working on climate and sustainability with the private sector
and academia,” he explained.

“I have always maintained that while governments provide the necessary
policy framework, the real solutions must come from business,” said Yvo de
Boer. “Copenhagen did not provide us with a clear agreement in legal terms,
but the political commitment and sense of direction toward a low-emissions
world are overwhelming. This calls for new partnerships with the business
sector and I now have the chance to help make this happen”, he added.

Mr. de Boer will remain in his current position until 1st July and help
negotiations move forward ahead of the Climate Change Conference in Mexico
in November this year. “Countries responsible for 80% of energy related CO2
emissions have submitted national plans and targets to address the climate
change. This underlines their commitment to meet the challenge of climate
change and work towards an agreed outcome in Cancun”, he said.

Mr. de Boer (1954) was appointed Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC in
September 2006. Before that he was extensively involved in European Union
environmental policy as deputy Director General of the Dutch Environment
Ministry.  Mr. de Boer has also served as Vice-chair of the U.N. Commission
on Sustainable Development, acted as an advisor to the Government of China
and the World Bank and worked closely with the World Business Council on
Sustainable Development.

About the UNFCCC

With 194 Parties, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) has near universal membership and is the parent treaty of the 1997
Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol has been ratified by 190 of the UNFCCC
Parties. Under the Protocol, 37 States, consisting of highly industrialized
countries and countries undergoing the process of transition to a market
economy, have legally binding emission limitation and reduction
commitments. The ultimate objective of both treaties is to stabilize
greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will
prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system.

For further information, please contact:

Mr. Eric Hall, Spokesperson/Manager of Communications and Media
Tel.: (+49-228) 815-1398; mobile: (+49-172) 259-0443; e-mail: ehall
(at)unfccc.int

Mr. John Hay, Media Information Officer
Tel.: (+49-228) 815-1404; mobile: (+49-172) 258-6944; e-mail: jhay
(at)unfccc.int

Morrison & Foerster Seminar.
Cleantech Forum XXVI

Thursday, February 25, 2010

At The Palace Hotel
2 New Montgomery St.
San Francisco, California, 94105

Program:    11:30 AM – 12:30 PM
For more information and to register for the Cleantech Forum XXVI, please visit the Cleantech Forum website.

—————

Morrison & Foerster is a sponsor of the Cleantech Forum XXVI “Taking Cleantech to Scale” in San Francisco February 24-26th, 2010 at The Palace Hotel.

As a sponsor, we will present the following break-out panel discussion on Thursday, February 25 from 11:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.:

China/U.S. Cross-Border Investment in Cleantech.

China’s ambitious renewable energy goals, national incentive programs, and aggressive fuel economy standards will enable the growth of a domestic Cleantech industry that some have predicted could reach $1 trillion, or 15% of China’s GDP, by 2013. At the same time, the U.S. is increasing its focus on retrofitting existing infrastructure for efficiency. This panel will discuss differences in Cleantech investment priorities between the U.S. and China, their implications and key issues for cross-border Cleantech deals between the U.S. and China.

Moderator:
Charles Comey, Managing Partner of the Shanghai Office, Morrison & Foerster

Panel:
Raj Atluru, Managing Director, Draper Fisher Jurvetson
Ken DeWoskin, Senior Director, Deloitte China
David Yarnold, Executive Director, Environmental Defense Fund
Honghui Yu, Vice President, China Energy Conservation Investment Co.

The Cleantech Forum will bring together 1,000 industry leaders ushering in new forms of financing for scale and innovation, for a broader set of global demands and new business models. Attend Cleantech Forum and gain a competitive advantage as large corporate incumbents and governments worldwide play an increasing role in financing and scaling Cleantech. Learn about the new business models and markets that a maturing Cleantech sector is creating. Attendees have access to first-hand accounts from the new companies appearing, the new funds investing, and corporations looking for partners.

For more information and to register for the Cleantech Forum XXVI, please visit the Cleantech Forum website.

Morrison & Foerster’s global Cleantech Practice is dedicated to representing clients that are bringing innovative, sustainable products, services, and processes to the marketplace. The firm is the largest U.S. law firm in Asia and has over 75 lawyers working on the ground in China across three well-developed offices in Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong. Morrison & Foerster is pleased to have served as sole international counsel to the Beijing Olympic Organizing Committee for the 2008 Summer Olympic Games.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insisting on Compliance

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

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

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

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

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

No Constitution

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

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

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

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

Not Allowed for Arabs

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

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

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

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

Then He Shoots

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

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

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

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

‘Illegal to Attack the Courts’

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

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

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

We believe that America was not created by God and that Theocrats have no place among its bureaucrats. America was incorporated by groups of free people – not Peoples – but men and women.

We believe that the EU should take the America as intended – as its example; and we believe that the UN will eventually also be replaced by this sort of incorporation that is based on the concept that all people were created with the intention to live as equals.

——————–

The New York Society for Ethical Culture Believes in Secular Humanism as the driving Force In The American Constitution.

Sunday Meeting, February 21, 2010
Sunday Meeting – 11:15 a.m. – Auditorium

“One Nation Under the Constitution: Moral Values through Humanistic Government”
Sean Faircloth, Executive Director of Secular Coalition for America
The Secular Coalition for America is a leader of what The Nation magazine recently called the newly “visible, assertive, and respected” secular movement. Executive Director Sean Faircloth, will discuss how the values of our nation’s founders directly connect to the values of the secular movement.

Faircloth served for 10 years in the Maine legislature, and was elected to the post of Majority Whip of the Maine House of Representatives by his colleagues. An attorney whose duties include lobbying in Washington on behalf of the Secular Coalition’s 10 member organizations, he will show how injustices in American law based on religion are not a historical artifact but a stark current reality. He argues that all Americans have a moral obligation to address these injustices through rejuvenation of our government’s secular heritage and legal system. Faircloth is a strong advocate of the separation of church and state and has received many awards for his work, including the 2006 Legislator of the Year Award from the Maine People’s Alliance.

If not for Stepping up as Guardians of Human Rights – What Else Is The UN There For?

Human Rights Watch at the UN – HRW Press

UN: Council Review Highlights Iran’s Poor Record – Members Should Recommend Reforms for Tehran.

(New York, February 16, 2010) – The Iranian government’s dismissal of international criticism of its human rights record underscores the need for the UN Human Rights Council to closely monitor Iran, Human Rights Watch said today. On February 15, 2010, council members in Geneva considered Iran’s record during the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of human rights to which all UN members are subject.

Human Rights Watch pointed to numerous recommendations made by other states during the review, many of which addressed the Iranian government’s crackdown against peaceful protesters and members of Iran’s civil society following the country’s disputed June 12 presidential elections. Human Rights Watch called on Iranian officials to immediately accept these recommendations to end the current human rights crisis.

“The Human Rights Council should insist that Tehran tells us what actually happened during and after the crackdown,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “How many people were killed or arrested, what are their names, and where are the detainees? The council should demand the government holds officials to account for their abuses instead of just denying everything.”

During the UPR, council members raised numerous concerns regarding the Iranian authorities’ violent and systematic attacks against demonstrators and opposition members during the past eight months, including the lack of accountability for abuses. In response, an Iranian government representative said that “all cases were duly addressed in competent courts openly and the defendants had access to their chosen lawyers,” and claimed that the Iranian Judiciary “meticulously examined all allegations pertaining to the breach of citizenry rights and most scrupulously heard the complaints lodged with them for even the alleged minor illegal treatments against the detainees.”

In fact, these statements are wholly inconsistent with evidence of thousands of arbitrary arrests, prolonged detentions, torture of detainees, and mass show trials conducted by the Iranian Judiciary during the past eight months. These have resulted in little or no official investigations or accountability for the alleged abuses. The remarks were made days after security forces violently suppressed peaceful demonstrators on February 11, the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution in Iran.

Despite numerous warnings by high-ranking members of Iran’s military and security forces designed to intimidate citizens and discourage them from joining street protests, thousands of Iranians participated last week in largely peaceful demonstrations in Tehran, Esfahan, Shiraz, Ahvaz, and other urban centers. Numerous media reports indicate that demonstrators were met by anti-riot police using tear gas, clubs, and other hand-held weapons used to attack and disperse crowds. Media reports also indicate that many peaceful demonstrators have been arrested.

“Tehran’s response to the UPR session contradicts the reality facing thousands of Iranians wishing to exercise their fundamental rights,” said Whitson. “The government’s denials show that without strong international pressure on Tehran, human rights abuses will continue.”

On February 17, the Human Rights Council’s UPR Working Group will submit its report to Iran, including a list of recommendations put forth by various delegations during the February 15 plenary session. The Iranian government will have an opportunity to accept or reject some or all of the recommendations submitted by the UPR Working Group, or offer to provide an answer before the council’s general session in June.

Human Rights Watch, which submitted a report on Iran to the UPR process, urged the council to call on the government to conduct an impartial, transparent, and comprehensive investigation into the killings, arrests, and detentions of thousands of demonstrators and civil society advocates affected by the post-election crisis in Iran; to investigate, prosecute, and punish government officials involved in the unlawful killing, arrest, detention, and abuse of thousands of demonstrators, opposition members, and civil society advocates; and to provide due process protections, including prompt charge under the law, access to a lawyer, and a hearing before a judge, for all detained individuals.

Human Rights Watch also called on Tehran to immediately accept these recommendations instead of waiting to respond to them before the June session.

Background
The UPR Review of Iran’s human rights record during the past four years comes only days after security forces violently suppressed peaceful demonstrators on February 11, the 31st anniversary of Iran’s Islamic Revolution. According to media reports, leading opposition figures and presidential candidates Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karrubi were among those attacked by pro-government forces and prevented from joining demonstrators in Tehran. Zahra Rahnavard, Mousavi’s wife, also sustained injuries as a result of an attack by pro-government militia, and one of Karrubi’s sons was arrested and taken to an unknown location. He was released a day later, with his body showing signs of physical abuse at the hands of pro-government forces. Former President Mohamed Khatami’s convoy was similarly attacked, and his brother, and sister-in-law were briefly detained by security forces before being released later in the day.

On February 14, Ali Karrubi’s mother, Fatemeh Karrubi, published an open letter to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei requesting that he order an end to physical and psychological abuses carried out against those detained by Iran’s security forces during the past eight months.

The government’s February 11 crackdown follows weeks of devastating raids, many of them conducted at night, targeting journalists, human rights defenders, students, and political dissidents. This month, the Committee to Protect Journalists announced that Iran had detained 47 journalists since June 2009, more than any other country. Security forces have supplemented their campaign of arrests with cyber attacks on news and information websites, stepped up blocking of email accounts, and slowed internet access. These measures are designed to stifle the free flow of information and block the few remaining channels of communication available to the Iranian people.

To read a June 19 press release about the government crackdown on protesters in Iran, please visit:
 http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/06/19/ir…

For more Human Rights Watch reporting on Iran, please visit:
 http://www.hrw.org/en/middle-eastn-afric…

For more information, please contact:
In New York, Sarah Leah Whitson (English): +1-718-362-0172 (mobile)
In Washington D.C., Joe Stork (English): +1-202-209-2945 (mobile)
In New York, Faraz Sanei (English, Farsi): +1-212-216-1290

from    f.urban@ids.ac.uk
Monday, Feb 15, 2010
subject   Launch of the China Low Carbon Platform.

The China Low Carbon Platform (CLCP) has been launched by the Climate Change and Development Centre at the Institute of Development Studies IDS. CLCP is a new knowledge-sharing platform for low carbon energy and low carbon development for China. The aim of CLCP is to disseminate and share information in Chinese and English on low carbon energy systems and low carbon development strategies that reduce poverty and tackle climate change in China. A specific focus of the platform is on Chinese communities.

The platform provides the following services:
- Free download of resources on renewable energy, other low carbon energy and low carbon development
- Free upload of own resources by platform users
- Blogs, chat rooms and a discussion forum to share experience and resources
- Regular news on low carbon energy and low carbon development

The platform is open to practitioners, researchers, policy-makers, businesses and everyone who is interested in energy and low carbon development in China.

The platform can be found within the Eldis Community at http://community.eldis.org/china .

Members are encouraged to contribute to the platform by posting blog items, participating in discussions and uploading their own publications in English and/or Chinese.

The platform has been developed by the Climate Change and Development Centre at the Institute of Development Studies (IDS). Partners are Reegle, Tsinghua University and the Koru Foundation.

———-

Dr Frauke Urban
Research Fellow
Climate Change and Development Centre
Institute of Development Studies IDS
Brighton BN1 9RE, UK
Email:  f.urban at ids.ac.uk
Tel. +44 (0)1273 915850
Fax: +44 (0)1273 621202
Website: www.ids.ac.uk/climatechange