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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——————

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

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

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

—————–

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

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

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

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

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

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

—————-

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

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

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

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

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

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

————-

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

- Outer Space

- The Open Sea

- The Cyber Space

- The Polar Ice Caps.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

———————

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

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

U.S.-China Spat Escalates Over Internet Freedom.

WASHINGTON, Jan 26 (IPS) – The stern warning given to China by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemning internet censorship and responding to allegations that Chinese hackers had accessed Google email addresses has received a pointed response from the Chinese government, raising questions over what the next move will be for Google, the United States, and U.S. firms that do business in China.

On Thursday, Clinton laid out the national security threat posed by cyber attacks and warned that attacks would not go unnoticed and would bring a response. “States, terrorist and those who would act as their proxies must know that the United States will protect our networks,” said Clinton. “Those who disrupt the free flow of information in our society or any other pose a threat to our economy, our government and our civil society,” she continued.

The Chinese response to Clinton’s remarks took sharply differing tones depending on which audience Beijing was addressing. On the foreign ministry website, the government responded on Friday with measured language, saying, “The U.S. attacks China’s internet policy, indicating that China has been restricting internet freedom. We resolutely oppose such remarks and practices that contravene facts and undermine China-U.S. relations,” and, “We urge the U.S. to respect facts and stop attacking China under the excuse of the so-called freedom of internet.”

But in state-controlled news outlets, primarily published for a domestic readership, the war of words was much more harshly framed. “Accusation that the Chinese government participated in cyber attacks, either in an explicit or inexplicit way, is groundless and aims to denigrate China. We are firmly opposed to that,” a spokesman of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology told Xinhua News Agency on Sunday.

The state-controlled newspaper, The Global Times, wrote, “China’s real stake in the ‘free flow of information’ is evident in its refusal to be victimised by information imperialism.” “With the Chinese-language media, there are two important themes to keep in mind. First, [the controversy over Google] is really not that big a deal. The Chinese Google saga is really more interesting to people in Washington than most average folks in Beijing or elsewhere,” Christina Larson, an expert on Chinese civil society and a Schwartz Fellow at the New America Foundation, told IPS. “The second thing is that it’s portrayed [in the Chinese media] as really this sense that foreign companies don’t really have the right to come in and dictate their terms to China,” Larson continued.

The war of words between Beijing and Washington was set off on Jan. 12 when Google announced its intention to cease the censorship of its search engine results in China and disclosed that a number of Google email accounts used by human rights advocates, diplomats and journalists had been breached by Chinese hackers. The accusations were followed by other rumours and allegations that Chinese hackers had stolen proprietary Google source code, and that cyber attacks and corporate espionage originating from China were becoming increasingly big concerns for the U.S. government and U.S. companies doing business in China.

The mixture of accusations coming from Google, and Clinton’s calls for a Chinese investigation into the allegations, have left a somewhat confusing message about what Google seeks from Beijing in the upcoming discussions over its refusal to continue censoring search results.

—————–

We actually sympathize with the idea that Media should not be monopolized by Big Business, but when private people in China, and even international Google,  tell us that the Chinese do not get full free flow of internet information we know China is not talking truth. We are also worried about China inpact on dissemination of information by multinational organizations like the UN where they insist on having a superviser appointment to be given to one of their nationals.

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

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

————-

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

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

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

————–

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

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

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

————-

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

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

—————

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

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

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

A certain raport evolved between him and Washingtonian Diringer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——-

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

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

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

——-

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

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

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

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

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

——————

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

www.ft.com/obamainasia 

www.ft.com/rachmanblog

The following are the top 28 finalists in the Official 2009 New 7 Wonders of Nature competition – nominated from among hundreds of sites around the world that have been proposed.

We found an excellent blog that specializes in the understanding of “de Facto States” in general, and in the GUAM states and their separatist outside backed generally unrecognized states.

 http://blogs.euobserver.com/popescu/ is manned by Nicu Popescu who is a research fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) in London, where he deals with the EU’s eastern neighborhood and Russia.

These days, with China ready to pour in $1 billion into Moldova, the East flank of the EU may become even more interesting, so good inside information will be important o Brussels and those that would like to see Europe hold together.

 Map of autonomous regions divisions in the People’s Republic of China

The New York Times

The second map shows clearly how Xinjiang Province of the Uighurs borders directly with Afghanistan and Pakistan. It also borders with three out of five of today’s Muslim Central Asian States – mainly Turkic – and this provides further visual evidence of the past attempts at the creation of an East Turkmenistan on Uighur arid land. Then we see borders with Russia and Mongolia.

Distribution: immediate – March 12, 2009, 3:50 pm
European Parliament adopts resolution on the anniversary of Tibetan uprising

In light of the 50th anniversary of the Dalai Lama’s flight from Tibet, the European Parliament adopted today (338 in favour, 131 against and 14 abstentions) a resolution that condemns all acts of violence, whether they are the work of demonstrators or disproportionate repression by the forces of law and order.

It requests urgently to Chinese authorities to reach meaningful and result-oriented negotiations without preconditions with the Dalai Lama.

Marco Cappato (Radical Party, Italy), one of the ALDE Resolution signatories, stated:

“There are two very different points of view. The Chinese regime’s opinion claims that the Dalai Lama is a violent person and the leader of a violent people who want the independence of their country from China. The Dalai Lama and exiled Tibetan authority on the other hand advocate only a non-violent policy in favour of genuine autonomy to keep their culture, their tradition, their language, their religion.”

Their principles are included in the Memorandum presented by envoys of the Dalai Lama to the Chinese Government.

“There is wide support for the proposals that I tabled with my colleagues. In the meantime I have to underline the inexplicable position of the socialist group who opposed having a resolution and voted against the joint text. The key point here is the freedom and democracy for a million Tibetan people,” Cappato concluded.

For more information, please contact:
Neil Corlett: +33-3-88 17 41 67 or +32-478-78 22 84
e-mail:  neil.corlett at europarl.europa.eu
Paolo Alberti: +33-3-88 16 40 82 or +32-476-95 51 44

The Japan Times online, Thursday, Jan. 8, 2009

Campbell picked for key Asia post.
WASHINGTON (Kyodo) –   U.S. Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton has asked former Defense Department official Kurt Campbell to become assistant secretary of state for East Asia and Pacific affairs, a U.S. source familiar with Japan-U.S. relations said Wednesday.

It is unclear how Campbell, who is known to be well-versed in Japanese affairs, has responded but the source said he will accept the offer.

A State Department official said that if Campbell assumes the post, it would be favorable to Japan as he could serve as a counterweight to Clinton, who some in Japan fear would lead the United States to tilt toward China.

Campbell served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for Asia and Pacific affairs under the administration of former President Bill Clinton. In that capacity, he played a central role in redefining the Japan-U.S. alliance, including a review of the guidelines for bilateral defense cooperation.

Campbell would replace Christopher Hill, who has been the chief U.S. delegate to the six-party talks on ending North Korea’s nuclear drive. But the official said the transition team of President-elect Barack Obama plans to create a new post, possibly a coordinator or special envoy, to handle North Korean issues.

As a result, Campbell would probably not be greatly involved in the six-way negotiations but would rather focus on bilateral relations with Japan, China, South Korea, Taiwan and Myanmar, among others.

The person in charge of North Korean issues has yet to be determined, but there is speculation that Hill could continue as the U.S. point man.

Campbell is currently chief executive officer of the Center for a New American Security, a Washington think tank. He is also a member of the advisory board of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, another Washington think tank.

Tackling Tibet and Taiwan – Differently:   writes Antoaneta Bezlova for IPS from Beijing, November 9, 2008.

BEIJING, Nov 9 (IPS) – Chinese negotiators have, this week, discussed Tibet’s quest for genuine autonomy with the Dalai Lama’s representatives and also pushed forward the agenda to establish economic rapprochement with Taipei.

Beijing has been seeking reunification with Taiwan for as long as Tibet has pursued a promised right to self-determination. Tellingly, the two negotiations got very different treatments in the state-sanctioned Chinese press.

The Taiwan talks, which sought to build foundations for closer engagement over the Taiwan Strait, were covered extensively in the mainland media. Negotiators signed several agreements bringing the former arch-rivals — that fought a civil war in the 1940s — closer together by establishing direct air, postal and shipping links.

“China has been waiting for this moment for 60 years,” said the 21st Century Business Herald, terming the visit of China’s chief Taiwan negotiator Chen Yunlin to the island “a milestone”. “The future of the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait as one entity is bright,” it added. By contrast, talks with representatives of the Tibetan government-in exile went by unmentioned by any major media but the state news agency Xinhua.

When it did report on the visit of the Dalai Lama envoys and their dialogue with Chinese officials, the agency struck a harsh note, saying the Tibetan spiritual leader should “face reality”.

“It is impossible for Tibet to become independent, semi-independent, or independent in a disguised form,” the report said, citing remarks by Du Qinglin, head of a government department in charge of the negotiations. “The Dalai Lama should respect history, face reality, comply with the times and correct his political stance fundamentally.”

Du held the talks in Beijing with Lodi Gyari and Kelsan Gyalsten, two envoys of the Tibetan-government-in-exile in Dharamsala, India. They were taken to visit a model minority area in the Muslim-populated Ningxia Autonomous Region.

For the Tibetans, the stand-off over their right to self-determination has continued ever since the 15th Dalai Lama fled his homeland in 1951 for India and set up a government-in-exile in Dharamsala.

For more than 50 years the Dalai Lama, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, has toured world capitals, trying to promote the Tibetan cause and seeking negotiations with Beijing. He has championed a “middle path” policy, which advocates genuine Tibetan autonomy as opposed to political independence.

But China has repeatedly accused him of leading a campaign to split off the Himalayan region from the rest of the country. The two sides have held seven rounds of talks before the current one with little progress to show for it.

Relations soured this year when peaceful demonstrations against Chinese rule in Lhasa, in March, turned violent, leading to scores of casualties on both sides.

EU – save Ukraine from Russia, The European Foreign Policy Council (ECFR) NGO says.

Philippa Runner, from Brussels for the EUobserver, August 25, 2008.

The European Union should formally recognise Ukraine’s right to join the EU and offer it a “solidarity clause” to help prevent Russia from undermining Kiev’s pro-democratic government in the wake of the Georgia conflict, a European foreign affairs think-tank has said.

“The next focal point for security tensions – although not for war – might be Ukraine,” the European Foreign Policy Council (ECFR) warned in a flash report on Monday (25 August), urging Brussels to make a strong show of friendship with Ukraine at an EU foreign ministers’ meeting on 5 September and the EU-Ukraine summit on 9 September.

Russian cruiser – the Black Sea fleet has been stationed in Crimea since 1783.

In the “mid-term,” the ECFR advised the EU to make a political declaration endorsing Ukraine’s EU perspective, draft a road-map for a visa-free travel deal, and help Ukraine to ready itself for NATO membership and the ejection of Russia’s Black Sea fleet from its old home in Crimea.

 www.SustainabiliTank.info thinks this is a very raw idea – not even half backed. We have seen Sevastopol and neighboring towns and waters. They are filled with old and newer Russian warships and the people in the towns are mainly Russian. Talking of the people – also in the Eastern part of Ukraine most people are Russian transplants, they speak Russian and feel they want to be part of Russia. We said this many times – to save Ukraine from Russia, the solution is an amicable divorce – so the best the EU could do is to advise the Ukraine to go for their own good to a marriage/divorce councillor and promise them the EU membership if they agree to severance from some of the heavily Russian territories. Surely, the EU can say to the Russian Prime-Minister that moving in with force will be dealt with in economic terms, but we all know that if ,and when, these statements are put to test, the EU will not go to war because of the Ukraine. Further, in the Ukraine case there is not even an argument like we had for Ossetia, where we said that if one opts for independence – this should lead to an Ossetia State that includes both – South and North Ossetia. There is no similar condition in the case of The Ukraine.}
A new bilateral EU-Ukraine treaty – currently under negotiation – should also legally oblige the EU to “consult and assist Ukraine in case of challenges to the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine.”

The ECFR study sees Russia’s assault on Georgia as part of a wider plan to rebuild the old Soviet sphere of influence, noting that some pro-Kremlin analysts such as Sergei Markov recently floated the idea of a Russia-led “East European Union,” which would mimic EU integration and include countries such as Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Turkey.

“What matters here is Russia’s drive to become the centre (and the sheriff) of a pole of influence in a multi-polar world and a bipolar Europe,” the ECFR said.

***

Tensions flare:

Russia-Ukraine tensions flared in recent weeks after Moscow accused Kiev of supplying arms to Georgia, and Kiev tried to limit Russia’s use of its Crimea-stationed warships against Georgia.

Inside Ukraine, pro-western President Viktor Yushchenko’s senior aide, Andriy Kyslynskiy, last week accused Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko of striking a secret deal with the Kremlin in return for Russia’s support when she runs in the next Ukrainian presidential elections in 2010.

Mr Kyslynskiy also said political “interference” by pro-Kremlin elements in the Ukrainian establishment has reached levels unseen since the run-up to the 2004 Orange Revolution, adding that Russian intelligence is funding and steering Crimean separatist groups.

Some 60 percent of the 2 million people who live in Crimea are ethnically Russian, hundreds of thousands of whom secretly hold Russian passports, the ECFR says.

Crimea was historically Russian and has been home to the Black Sea fleet since 1783. It became part of Ukraine when Ukraine won independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, with the Russian fleet set to leave by 2017 under a bilateral deal.

In the wider Ukraine, about 25 percent of the 50 million-strong population are Russophone, most of whom live in the east of the country and many of whom oppose Ukraine’s integration with NATO and the EU.

***

Warning shots already fired:

On 22 August, some 2,500 people held an anti-Georgia rally in the eastern Ukrainian town of Donetsk. The same day, 50 people in Simferopol in Crimea called for the peninsula to rejoin Russia, with the crowd nonetheless gaining coverage in Russian state media.

In late July, anti-NATO protestors in Crimea threw stones at Ukrainian police, who fired warning shots in the air. A second group used small boats to try and block NATO warships leave the port of Odessa to take part in a naval drill.

“[Russia] is likely to play on deep rifts within Ukraine on the ‘Russia question’ to try and influence the country’s future,” the ECFR said. “[The EU] must demonstrate that an escalation of tensions in the post-Soviet space will be met with more, not less, engagement in the Eastern neighbourhood.”

——————–

Georgian rebels in Abkhazia seek greater EU recognition.
LEIGH PHILLIPS, 25.08.2008, EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS.

Sukhumi, the capital of Abkhazia, on the Black Sea – is a once a popular holiday spot for Russian elite.

The Georgian breakaway region of Abkhazia is keen to get EU recognition as an independent country, after the Russian parliament passed a resolution urging the Russian president to endorse Georgian rebels’ ambitions of statehood.

“We are not interested in only Russia recognising us,” Abkhaz deputy foreign minister, Maxim Gunjia, told EUobserver on Monday (25 August), adding that he expects Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to shortly back the pro-independence vote by Russian MPs.

“We want the European Union and all states to recognise our independence. This is a very positive moment for the EU – it could follow Russia’s example and also recognise Abkhazia. It is the only way to preserve stability and peace in the region.”

“We recognise that full recognition is a very big demand of Abkhazia for the EU at the moment,” Mr Gunja added, indicating that Abkhazia would also be interested in other ways of increasing its presence on the international stage.

“The EU could instead give a voice to Abkhazia in various European forums and institutions,” he said. “Only Georgia is invited to such forums while discussing the Caucasus, which is why the information the EU is receiving is biased, and why the conflict became possible.”

***

The lower house and the upper house of the Russian parliament on Monday both unanimously voted through a resolution urging Mr Medvedev to recognise Abkhazia and a second Georgian rebel territory, South Ossetia, as independent states.

The resolution has a largely symbolic value so far, as the legal decision resides solely with the Russian president, with some western experts doubting the Kremlin will follow through.

“The game is completely open, but it would be much more reasonable for Medvedev not to do so. If he doesn’t, he holds onto a very powerful bargaining chip with regards to the EU and US, and Georgia itself,” conflict prevention think-tank, the International Crisis Group (ICG), analyst, Alain Deletroz, said.

“If he wants to turn a military victory into a diplomatic victory, he will not recognise [the rebel enclaves], because it will then become extremely difficult for the EU to keep an open dialogue with Moscow,” Mr Deletroz explained. “What Russia wanted was a division within NATO. If they go too far, they will only achieve the opposite – a unification within the alliance.”

***

The China angle:

“Even for the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation [the China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan security alliance], recognition would create problems. For the same reasons that China was not happy with the West’s recognition of Kosovo, Beijing would also not be happy with Russian recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia,” the ICG expert added, pointing to China’s discomfort over its own separatist problems, such as Taiwan.

The European Commission was reluctant to issue any reaction to the Russian parliamentary vote ahead of next week’s extraordinary summit on EU-Russia relations, but the EU has repeatedly said it supports Georgia’s “territorial integrity.”

“The debate is ongoing in Russia, and we will not react as long as the debate is ongoing,” European Commission spokesperson, Ton Van Lierop, told reporters in Brussels.

Abkhazia and South Ossetia broke away from Tbilisi in civil wars in the 1990s, setting up de facto states with their own mini-parliaments and paramilitary forces within Georgia’s internationally-recognised borders during a tense, 15-year long ceasefire that erupted into open conflict on 7 August.

Tbilisi has accused Russia of giving the rebels financial and political backing, as well as arms, in order to keep NATO and EU-aspirant Georgia divided. It also accuses the separatist and Russian forces of “ethnic cleansing” in pushing out the last remaining ethnic Georgians from the two territories during the recent war.

———————-

UNDP Releases Information on a UN Angle:

Please see - http://www.innercitypress.com/undp1georg…

It seems that Inner City Press came up with information, acknowledged by UNDP, that together with the George Soros Open Society International, and the Swedish Government, there was a very modest supplemental funding of Georgian officials, including the President, to make it possible for them to run a rather non-corrupt government in the National interest of Georgia, and perhaps also in the interest of the oil buyers of the West.

Above link leads to an article that starts:

UN’s Engagement with Saakashvili Included $1500 a Month, Soros and Sweden Also Paid.

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis

UNITED NATIONS, August 25 — Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili was paid $1500 a month by the UN Development Program earlier this decade, on top of his official presidential salary, UNDP has told Inner City Press. UNDP says the goals of these payments, in which the Swedish government and financier George Soros joined, were to allow the Georgian “government to recruit the staff it needed and also to help remove incentives for corruption.”

  While receiving these $1500 monthly payment, Saakashvili committed to increase tax collection in Georgia. Deals were signed with , among others, British Petroleum, for the Baku – Tbilisi – Ceyhan oil pipeline. UNDP, and presumably its two co-funders, applauded this development.

——-

This last article mentions also the old UNDP problem with having helped with injecting hard currency to North Korea that, as the claim goes, has helped them finance the acquisition of nuclear know-how. So, UNDP is a tool for covert actions and not just a victim of side effects in what they consider to be development work? In the tape attached to the article, Matthew Russell Lee points out at the unevenness of the way, North Korea, Sudan, and Zimbabwe were dealt with, and surfaces the idea that the treatment is in relation to the interest of internal politics in the US. So back to our posting, how will the UN be used in the case of the Ukraine – which is rather more of an EU then a US problem?

From:  media at avaaz.org
Subject: Release: global Olympic handshake to reach Beijing
Date: August 22, 2008

The August 23, 2008 – PRESS RELEASE – Will Appear In the International Herald Tribune and China’s Ming Pao, on the Day of The Beijing Olympics’ Closing. It Willl Say – Love China / Love Tibet / Love Burma / Love Darfur – and Will Promote Human Rights For China – a Hanshake to the World.

175,000 STRONG GLOBAL HANDSHAKE TO LAND IN BEIJING AHEAD OF OLYMPIC CLOSING CEREMONY see avaaz.org

A virtual global handshake will land in Beijing tomorrow ahead of the Olympic Closing Ceremony.

Since the beginning of the Olympics, Avaaz.org has taken actions worldwide to promote a dual message of friendship with China and the need for renewed dialogue and action on human rights post Olympics. Aside from the handshake website, they have launched a sister website in China www.onevoicechina.org, and have run an ad campaign which has made a splash in London, New York, Hong Kong, San Francisco and Sydney using print media, adwalkers, and mobile billboards to carry the message Love China / Love Tibet / Love Burma / Love Darfur. You can see images of these ads at avaaz.org

To culminate the campaign, this weekend, Avaaz.org has taken out an advertisement in Saturday’s International Herald Tribune and China’s Ming Pao to deliver the handshake to the world.

“Some in China have slandered human rights activism as violent and anti-Chinese. Our handshake campaign is an attempt to reach out to Chinese people and show that our call is for peaceful and respectful dialogue”, said Avaaz Executive Director Ricken Patel.

However, Avaaz is concerned that the end of the Olympics may herald an era of further oppression.

“People around the world are concerned that the Olympics are coming to a close without any changes in Chinese policy on Tibet, Burma or Darfur — will things get better or worse?” said Patel.

***

The global handshake petition reads:

“With this handshake, we reach out to one another as citizens round the world in the Olympic spirit of friendship and excellence, committing to hold all our governments to a higher standard of peace, justice and respect for human dignity wherever they fall short – be it in Tibet, Iraq, Burma or beyond. Dialogue is the best way forward, for China, and the world.”
For more information, see www.avaaz.org

***

AVAILABLE FOR INTERVIEW

Ricken Patel, Executive Director,  ricken at avaaz.org, +1 646 229 5416
Brett Solomon, Campaign Director,  brett at avaaz.org, +61 407 419 320

***
ABOUT AVAAZ:

Avaaz is a global web movement with over 3.3 million members worldwide, working to ensure that the views and values of people everywhere inform global decision-making. Avaaz means “voice” in many languages.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

China to meet Dalai Lama aide – writes Associated Press as per the official Xinhua News Agency from Beijing.
April 25, 2008.
The Chinese government plans to meet with a private representative of the Dalai Lama in the coming days, state-run media reported, after weeks of pressure from world leaders.

The official Xinhua News Agency said it had learned of the development “from official sources.” It quoted an unnamed official as saying there had been requests repeatedly made by “the Dalai side for resuming talks.”

China has faced repeated international calls, including from U.S. President George W. Bush and the European Union, to open a dialogue with the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader since anti-government riots rocked the Tibetan capital of Lhasa in mid-March.

The official said “the relevant department of the central government will have contact and consultation with Dalai’s private representative in the coming days.” No date was given, and it was unclear exactly which representative was expected to take part in the meeting.

In the meantime – Tibetan monks attend birthday celebrations for Gedhun Choekyi Nyima in New Delhi on Friday. Thousands of Tibetans exiles in India marched on Friday, demanding the release of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, who is recognized by Tibetan spiritual leader Dalai Lama as the 11th reincarnation of the Panchen Lama and who according to the exiles has been a prisoner in China since 1995.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry and the Communist leadership’s international affairs office said they did not know about the Xinhua report.

“The policy of the central government toward Dalai has been consistent and the door of dialogue has remained open,” the official was quoted as saying.

China says 22 people died in the Lhasa violence, while overseas Tibet supporters say many times that number have been killed in protests and the ensuing security crackdown across Tibetan regions of western China. The riots and government reaction have cast a shadow over preparations for the Beijing Olympics.

Between 2002 and 2006, China held six rounds of contacts with representatives of the Dalai Lama, who is also head of the Tibetan government-in-exile, with no apparent result. China has demanded he meet numerous preconditions before it will talk to him directly.

One of the preconditions is that he not seek independence for Tibet. The Nobel winner has repeatedly said he wants autonomy, not independence, but Beijing has expressed suspicion.

“It is hoped that through contact and consultation, the Dalai side will take credible moves to stop activities aimed at splitting China, stop plotting and inciting violence and stop disrupting and sabotaging the Beijing Olympic Games so as to create conditions for talks,” Xinhua quoted the official as saying.

Many Tibetans insist they were an independent nation before communist troops invaded in 1950, while China says Tibet has been part of its territory for centuries.

The Global Endorsement of Declarations for Human Rights of World Citizens and Peace consists of three very important declarations:

1. “Love of the World A Declaration of Peace” declared after the three massive earthquakes in 1999 ( Columbia , Turkey , and Taiwan ). Appeal to the world that we should respect life, we should protect nature, we should love ourselves and others, and we should love our own countries as well as other people’s countries.
2. “Peace Declaration” declared in the 2001 World Citizenship Assembly (WCA) by more than 600 delegates from over 50 countries.
3. “Declaration of Human Rights for World Citizens” declared in 2002. Peace originates from the harmonious coexistence between human and nature. Human rights originate from the mutual respect among people. We treat love as our momentums and culture exchanges as the power to unite people’s hearts. So we as world citizens can together enjoy freedoms, our human rights be protected, and peace be achieved.

These three declarations result in profound and tremendous influence on human history. In light of the importance, UN/NGO Association of World Citizens, the Federation of World Peace and Love, and the Tai Ji Men Qigong Academy have invited friends from all walks of life to endorse the declarations by signing their names and nationalities, and making a wish for love and peace. About two million people from 158 countries have endorsed the declarations in 2004.

During the 57th Annual DPI/NGO Conference in 2004 , in a presenting ceremony held at the Millennium UN Plaza Hotel, Dr. Hong, Tao-Tze, Honorary Vice President and member of Advisory Board of Association of World Citizens UN/NGO/DPI/ECOSOC, presented an endorsement CD of 2 million signatures to Joan Levy, Chair, NGO/DPI Executive Committee , and Joan Kirby, Chair, 57th Annual DPI/NGO Conference, to refer to Kofi Annan, General Secretary of the UN, to voice out people’s wish for love and peace.

The campaign of the Global Endorsement of Declarations for Human Rights of World Citizens and Peace is in full swing on March 29 th to further extend the achievements made in 2004 and motivate the idea of “How One Good Thought Can Improve the World.” A change starts from oneself and to practice love and peace in daily lives. If people can always have good thoughts, the destiny of this world will differ and move toward a brighter future.

Please log on to the Tai Ji Men website to watch the movie “How One Good Thought Can Improve the World.” To learn how world leaders, including President Wade of Senegal, President Fradique de Menezes of Sao Tome and Principe, and President Leonel Fernandez of the Dominican Republic, turn the symbolic key of the world and put their words into actions for world peace.

Welcome to visit Tai Ji Men Qigong Academy website at www.taijimen.org. Click for a look and to acquire immediately the wisdoms that will influence your whole life.
As we were inducted by FOWPAL to their campaign, and we had the honor to ring the organization’s Peace Bell, as Pope John Paul II, many Presidents and Nobel Prize Winners, and NGO leaders did. We signed onto their previous campaigns, and now I was invited to their 04.04.08 Manhattan launching of the 2008 campaign – this past Friday – at a hotel near the UN.

For Dr. Hong spoke Rick Ulfik from “We The World” that tries to move the world “from the path of capacity to the path of sustainability, peace and transformation.” Dr. Hong’s concept of INTERDEPENDENCE – “we or all of us are in it together – when the least of us is hurt – we are all diminished.” Speaking of FOWPAL, Rick said that – ” working with Oliver, Julie, and others in FOWPAL, we get that this transformation has to start with PERSONAL TRANSFORMATION   – INSPIRE, INFORM, and INVOLVE. That is what Rick’s organization does, and that is what FOWPAL does. People are inspired to get to a better level that leads to taking action.

Since my last visit with FOWPAL, the organization has developed an interesting symbolism that uses both hands to describe a heart, then people link in a chain using those same heart finger-touch, and eventually fluter away as   free spirits, but then the right hand returns with strength to declare ENERGY, ENERGY, ENERGY!

This is a depiction of spiritual energy – but to me this translated also as their basic concept of sustainability – which ends with the call ENERGY – which is to all of us the base for sustainability. Fowpal does not just preach appeasement, it rather includes the call to action embodied in these cries of energy.

From the FOWPAL Press release following the 04.04.08 evening:

The Libyan Permanent Ambassador to the UN is the second man from left, next to him is the Chairman of the Global Systems Analysis and Simulation Association in the US.

Now one last word – the evening was specially interesting when I realized that I was there of a sudden in the company of the man who represented Libya in its leadership month – the Presidency of the UN Security Council – and you know what?     He was there to cut the ribbon for starting the campaign for human rights and sustainability embodied in that cry of ENERGY, ENERGY, ENERGY! Only at the outskirts of the UN, this becomes an actuality!

The First Event:

The volume was published by Blackwell   www.BlackwellPublishing.com, March 2008.

The Rule of Law is rhetoric. The legal idea is that law is pure (In the sense of being blind), without relation to society, and this leads to plunder. The facts are that the Chinese started to develop in recent years without what was considered in the west as rule of law. They are changing now. Law brought to the underdeveloped countries the privatization of water and land in order to get access to financial markets – the result is that villages that were left intact even in colonial times, were destroyed, using laws, and people left for urban slams. In the case of Mexico, they cross the border to the US.

Ugo Mattei, the lawyer, states that we refuse to see that underdevelopment is a direct result of our own development – and today we keep ahead because we keep down the underdeveloped world.
Laura Nader, the anthropologist says that in the 19th century we spoke of primitives, now it is underdevelopment. Then the US was an island, China was an island – then we started filling up and spread our laws. With NAFTA the autonomous villages in mexico and Canada started to disappear. When people cannot grow corn they come to the US. The enhanced agriculture had to get them out of the way.

That is a question of Foreign Policy and spreading our laws. In effect Iraq did not lack laws – they had plenty and a variety – National law, Islamic la, and Decentralized law. We said we wanted them to get one set of laws – like our laws that we do not implement here either. Here we heard something I found intriguing – THE EARTH BELONGS TO MANKIND – but we have the concept – “The Land Without People Belongs to The People Without Land.” So land was taken from the local people and given to mining companies as property rights. In Oaxaca the locals had plenty of computers and fought back the Canadian Companies that came to mine.

Ugo Mattei does not believe that anything good comes out from “universalism.” If you are an economist – all economists – wherever they are – think the same way. They think of how markets work – and indeed markets work the same way all over. But this has nothing to do with people reality. HUMAN RIGHTS ARE JUST ANOTHER INDUSTRY – universalizing human rights also does not lead to good results because humans are different.

“PLUNDER” DEALS IN INJUSTICE starting with justice. What the people want is water (that is when the water is given to a company and the people are deprived of the access to water that they used to have for millennia. In Bolivia they were made to pay for water to drink. Then PLUNDER SAYS THAT THERE IS NO RULE OF LAW THERE OR HERE – THIS BECAUSE WITH CASH YOU BUY THE VICTORY IN COURT.

The real issue is – WE HAVE TO WORK ON DISTRIBUTION RATHE THEN GROWTH!

Listening to the above – to the Q&A – I got more and more intrigued about the negation of universalism as in globalization, though I saw most of the arguments, but wondered what does that mean to a planetary look if this is substituted for the UN kind of internationalism which is at the basis not just of bilateralism, but also of the UN taunted multi-lateralism. So I dared to ask:

“I realize the concept of ‘Plunder’ and I understand that internationalism is at the basis of the universalism that you describe here – but what about the present situation of our need to tackle such issues as Global Warming/Climate Change? Here we have planetary problems that perhaps can indeed not be handled in our international way with National laws transposed and then arbitrated by the various States. Let us say that one owns a car that pollutes, this is a case of property rights, but also a case of his human rights or freedom to pollute. It is also a problem of International law because by our insisting on the application of our laws, we just forget the rights of someone in a different part of the planet being hit by our impact on the planet – this impact being outside the range of our laws, and Phelps of little interest to his judicial system, even though he is our victim. Do you not have to extend the scope of the work into the future from the evaluation of the past that is clearly riddled by all those problems that you so correctly described.   Professor Mattei said that he is not dealing just with the past but with the present – to which I commented that Present is Past – the problems are the Future. Professor Nader answered that the problems of the future will be solved with new technologies – but this sounded to me more Washington then Plunder.

At the end I congratulated Professor Mattei for a very interesting presentation but also asked if he is ready to think over the question I posed – this in order to shed some light in the direction of our readers interested in Sustainable Development.

Going to the second event -

Professor Andrew Nathan is   Chair of the Department of Political Science at Columbia and has co-edited The Tiananmen Papers, wrote many papers on China, and was chair of the Advisory Committee of Human Rights Watch, Asia, 1995-2000, and continues to serve on this committee and on the board of Human Rights in China. www.columbia.edu

Professor Murray Rubinstein is with the Department of History at Weissman School of Arts &Sciences, Baruch College, City University of New York (CUNY) –     a specialist in modern East Asia. He writes on the sociopolitical development of Taiwan/the Republic of China and Fujian/ The Peoples Republic of China. His monographs include The Protestant Community on Modern Taiwan, and The Origins of the Anglo-American Missionary Enterprise in China, 1807-1840. He has edited The Other Taiwan and Taiwan, 1600-1996. He has also written over thirty articles in books and scholarly journals.

Professor Rubinstein was the Taiwan specialist in the debate, and he analyzed how the Kuomintang Party (KMT – the National People’s Party – founded in 1913 by Sun Yat-sen, still honored by all Chinese).   Chiang Kai-check – the military leader that retreated from the mainland to the island of Taiwan organized there the hold-out against Mao’s China, was with the Kuomintang. The KMT got eventually to lose the elections of 2000, leading to 8 years of rule by the DPP (The Democratic Progressive Party). In effect, democracy aside, that party got voted out now returning the KMT which was favored by the Mainland China. In effect, the KMT can now bridge over some of the differences with China, that does not want the DPP. China wants the investments that reach China via Taiwan.

Taiwan has nuclear capability, and if it does not have it on the island, can get it in no time. Professor Rubinstein even named the partners from the nuclear world that worked with Taiwan. Now that foreign power still works with Taiwan on military issues, though working also with China on questions of Islamic Terrorism, of interest to those countries. He does not believe that there will be any power play between China and Taiwan – the economic situation is such that both sides benefit from the present arrangements.

I brought up the question if it would not make sense for China to release a little the reins on Tibet in order to create international good will that could be reinforced then by offering to both – Taiwan and Tibet – a Hong Kong type of arrangement that allows for practical high degree of autonomy, while solving the in-limbo international situation of Taiwan? Professor Nathan did not think that this is something he would expect China to do. Professor Rubinstein followed up by saying Buddhist Tibet will not get this sort of release of reins from China because of the cultural differences with the Buddhist Tibet. On the other hand there are no such problems with Taiwan, as the culture is the same – but he thinks that China will rather leave the situation unchanged – this further in order not to get into problems with other regions like Muslims of Xinjiang Uygur.

Thinking about development strategy, Rubinstein mentioned economic development with a Green Vision. China is finding out now that there is cost for economic development.

The Session was Chaired by Geofrey Carr, the Science Editor for The Economist. He specializes since 1995 in topics covering disease, climate science, evolution, genetics, neuroeconomics, neuroscience, and synthetic biology.

The panel included:

Ken Drinkwater of the University of Bergen, Senior Scientist at the Centre for Climate Research. He worked on marine-ecosystems for over 35 years. His recent research has focused on the Barents and Norwegian Seas as part of the ongoing 2007-2008 International Polar Year (IPY);

Grete K. Hovelsrud, Senior Research Fellow, Center for International Climate and Environmental Research, Oslo. She works now on impact, adaptation and vulnerability to climate change developing theoretical and methodological frameworks for multi-factor interdisciplinary studies;

Eystein Jansen, Professor, Dept. of Geology and Director, Bjerkness Centre for Climate Research, University of Bergen works now on defining water mass structures, rates of change, and variability of the climate system with different natural forcings;

Peter Schlosser, Professor, Columbia University, with Earth and Environmental Engineering, Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science , Associate Director and Director of Research, The Earth Institute. His interests are in aqueous geochemistry, physical oceanography, climate and contaminant transport.

Daniel M. White, Director, Institute of Northern Engineering (INE), Civil and Environmental Engineering, U of Alaska at Fairbanks. He works on Climate Change impacts in the Arctic on Drinking Water and Water Resources.

We are posting the above as we were intrigued by the heavy Norwegian involvement which makes sense in the light of Norway’s direct interest in the changes of the Arctic geography, but as we did not get to listen to the discussions we will have to come back after we obtain transcripts.

Further, the first “after lunch” speaker was Mr. Jonas Gahr Store, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Norway.

The Keynote Speaker of Session 2 was Mr Jan Egeland of Norway, now Director of te Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, and Special Assistant to the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, former USG under the Previous UNSG Kofi Annan.

—————–

State of the Planet is a bi-annual event – so next one will be in 2010. By definition these meetings are intended as multi-disciplinary bringing in thinkers to assess the state of natural and human systems with the goal being SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT.

The other three Sessions at this two-day Conference, March 27 and 28, 2008, were:

Session 1: Eradicating Poverty As The poor population Expands;

Session 2: Addressing Areas of Conflict in our Changing World;

Session 3: identifying Energy Solutions for Sustainable Development.

—————-

The Keynote Speaker, after the opening remarks, March 27, 2008, was Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

Mr. Kofi Annan serves now as President of the Geneva based, UK backed, Global Humanitarian Forum launched on June 30, 2007,

and chairs – The Africa Progress Panel (APP) launched in Berlin on April 24, 2007 including Peter Eigen of Transparency International, Bob Geldorf, Graca Machel, Michel Camdessus, Robert Rubin, and Muhammad Yunus, funded by Bill Gates it will demand accountability on promises made on supporting development and fight poverty in Africa;

also The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), established by The Rockefeller Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in September 2006 ;

and The Prize Committee of the Mo Ibrahim Foundation – an African initiative that has been established to “Stimulate debate on good governance across sub-Saharan Africa and the world” – the first award was given to former President of Mozambique, Joaquim Chissano, on 22nd October 2007, he was awarded US$5 million over 10 years and US$200,000 annually for life thereafter, plus up to US$200,000 a year for 10 years towards the winner’s public interest activities and good causes, and this is the largest monetary award in existence.

—————-

Session 1 included Mr. Kemal Dervis, the Administrator of UNDP, as its Keynote Speaker.

Session 2, besides Jan Egeland of Norway, who was under UNSG Kofi Annan the Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, appointed in 2003 to succeed Kenzo Oshima of Japan, included from the UN also the USG for Peacekeeping Operations, Jean-Marie Guehenno, of France.

Session 3 included as Keynote Speaker Paula Di Perna, Executive VP, Corporate recruitment and Public Policy, Chicago Climate Exchange.

————-

After Session 4, we listened to Professor Jeffrey D. Sachs summarize the two days of the conference:

“We saw that the challenges are now global and interconnected. With a world Economy growing at 5%/year – the World Production doubles in 40 years. The stress on the planet is unmanageable and growing. Without global action we will have very large problems” he said.

The scientists are absolutely vital. The mechanisms of change require most ingenuous analysis. Sometimes we encounter problems that we do not understand to the last moment – this was the case of ozone layer depletion. We could not have imagine that the inert refrigerant could do it. Linking the science to what has to happen requires Government leadership and Civil Society involvement. Nobody is in charge because we do not have a global government. Property rights incentives and the markets. Much of what is discussed here does not lend itself to privatization. You cannot privatize water ….

America is based on “You don’t have to like your neighbor,” but these problems involves us and the neighbor.

The Earth Institute found that “we need to create a new Climate Center to include it all – water, Climate Change Science, Engineering, Food Production.” Minister Roberto Rodrigues (Former Brazilian Minister of Agriculture, now Coordinator of the Getulio Vargas Foundation Agrobusiness Center, President of the Superior Agriculture Council of Sao Paulo’s Federation of Industries and Co-Chairman, Interamerican Ethanol Commission) who spoke in Session 3 – spoke on biofuels – human land use – the changes will be highest in the global food production. Rodrigues saw an intensification of the agriculture.

Professor Sachs told the audience that the Earth Institute has initiated a global classroom with 15 campuses simultaneously participating. He expects by 2010, next State of the Planet Conference, that the Conference could also become a global event with participants in many places in the world.

——————

Also, on Thursday night, March 27, 2008, there was a special “Economist Debate.” Moderator was Vijay Vaitheeswarran, Global Correspondent of the Economist.

The Topic was “The United States and Climate CHange.” The Proposition for the Debate was: “THE UNITED STATES WILL SOLVE THE CLIMATE CHANGE PROBLEM.”

The United States is the world’s largest consumer of oil and largest producer of greenhouse gases. Its consumption of resources is unmatched, even in nations with quadruple the population. And despite a broad international consensus about climate change, the US has refused to adopt serious domestic emission’s-control measures or to support international efforts to curb climate change such as the Kyoto Protocol. Will this stance continue when President George Bush leaves office? Will the bipartisan addiction to oil in the Us prove impossible to cure? Will the US continue to be a bigger part of the problem than the solution? Or will technological innovation and entrepreneurship change the dynamics of this issue?

It was announced that Vijay Vaitheeswarran will monitor a debate about leadership on climate change, and will have two teams, of two experts each, that will participate in an Oxford-style debate on the proposition – “The United States Will Solve The Climate Change Problem.”

IN FAVOR of the Proposition:

David Victor, Professor of Law at Stanford Law School and Director of the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development at Stanford University’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI).

Vinod Khosla, formerly a General Partner at Kleiner Perkins and Founder of Sun Microsystems, founded the Khosla Ventures in 2004.

AGAINST the Proposition:

Daniel Esty, Hillhouse Professorof Environmental Law and Policy, Yale Law School and Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. He is also the Director of the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy.

Michael Grubb, Chief Economist at UK Carbon Trust and Senior Research Associate in the Cambridge University Faculty of Economics. He is a leading international researcher on economic, technology and policy aspects of climate change and related energy issues.

The Moderator – Vijay Vaitheeswarran is an MIT-trained engineer who spent ten years covering energy and environment issues for the Economist. he is the author of “Power to the People: How the Coming Energy Revolution Will Transform an Industry, Change our Lives and maybe Even Save the Planet” from Farrar, Straus & Giroux . Also, “Zoom: the Global Race to Fuel thye Car of the Future.”

Again, we are sorry for only posting now the outline of an event. It sounded interesting and we will fill in when further information becomes available.

—————-

Also, for the sake of the interest in the arctic – something we just picked up from www.DotEarth.com -

March 29, 2008, 10:27 pm The New York Times Blog on Climate Science Touched the Arctic from an original angle:
 http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/0…

March 30, 2008, 1:27 am

Polar Cities a Haven in Warming World?

By Andrew C. Revkin

One vision of a “polar city” in an overheated world. (Illustration by Deng Cheng-hong)

Danny Bloom, a freelance writer, translator and editor living in Taiwan, is on a one-man campaign to get people to seriously consider a worst-case prediction of the British chemist and inventor James Lovelock: life in “polar cities” arrayed around the shores of an ice-free Arctic Ocean in a greenhouse-warmed world.

Dr. Lovelock, who in 1972 conceived of Earth’s crust, climate and veneer of life as a unified self-sustaining entity, Gaia, foresees humanity in full pole-bound retreat within a century as areas around the tropics roast — a scenario far outside even the worst-case projections of climate scientists.

After reading a newspaper column in which Dr. Lovelock predicted disastrous warming, Mr. Bloom (a frequent comment poster on Dot Earth these days) teamed up with Deng Cheng-hong, a Taiwanese artist, and set up Web sites showing designs for self-sufficient Arctic communities.

Mr. Bloom told me his intent was to conduct a thought experiment that might prod people out of their comfort zone on climate — which remains, for many, a someday, somewhere issue.

I interviewed Dr. Lovelock two years ago on his dire climate forecast and prescriptions — and also his ultimately optimistic view that humans will muddle through, albeit with a greatly reduced population. There’s a video of my chat with Dr. Lovelock here.

“At six going on eight billion people,” Dr. Lovelock told me, “the idea of any further development is almost obscene. We’ve got to learn how to retreat from the world that we’re in. Planning a good retreat is always a good measure of generalship.”

The retreat, he insists, will be toward the poles.

It’s a dubious scenario, particularly on time scales shorter than centuries. But — as we’ve written extensively in recent years — there is already an intensifying push to develop Arctic resources and test shipping routes that could soon become practical should the floating sea ice in the Arctic routinely vanish in summers.

Sensing the shift, the Coast Guard has proposed establishing its first permanent Arctic presence, a helicopter station in Barrow, Alaska, the northernmost town in the United States.

It’s not a stretch to think of Barrow as a hub for expanding commercial fishing and trade through the Bering Strait.

The strategic significance of an opening Arctic recently made the pages of Foreign Affairs magazine, in an article by one of my longtime sources on this issue, Scott Borgerson, a former Coast Guard officer who is now a scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations.

“It is no longer a matter of if, but when, the Arctic Ocean will open to regular marine transportation and exploration of its lucrative natural-resource deposits,” he wrote.

So even if humanity isn’t driven to Arctic shores by climate calamity at lower latitudes, it’s a sure bet that the far north will be an ever busier place. Urban planners, get out your mukluks.

In the meantime, scientists, marathon runners, and others are already making the North Pole a busy place.

An Editorial of The Japan Times, March 29, 2008: Taiwan takes a new approach.
The election of Mr. Ma Ying-Jeou, the Nationalist (KMT) candidate, in Taiwan’s presidential campaign last weekend could herald a diminution of tensions in the Taiwan Strait, one of the remaining legacies of the Cold War and a potential nuclear flash point.

Mr. Ma has called for closer relations with the mainland. More importantly, he pledged that his administration would emphasize economics, rather than the political identity of Taiwan, a marked departure from the approach of the incumbent president, Mr. Chen Shui-bian.

This return to pragmatism in Taipei is welcome.

Mr. Chen’s eight-year tenure was a combative term. He was elected on a platform that stressed Taiwan’s identity, and he vowed to win international recognition for Taiwan’s political and economic achievements and greater diplomatic space. That pledge enraged Beijing, which considers Taiwan a “renegade province,” and earned Mr. Chen its eternal enmity. Both sides’ determination eliminated any maneuvering room for either government and ensured that cross-strait relations remained tense.

Mr. Chen made little progress on his Taiwan identity agenda. He did manage to alienate close friends in Washington, however. Even though U.S. President George W. Bush took office believing that China was a strategic competitor with the U.S., midway through his first term Mr. Bush was prepared to rebuke Mr. Chen for causing tensions in Asia, a view widely shared in the region.

More troubling for the Taiwanese was a sense that identity politics were hurting Taiwan’s image and undermining its economy. Even though the economy grew 5.7 percent in 2007, most Taiwanese felt that they were not benefiting from growth. Many blamed the government’s restriction on investment on the mainland — Taiwanese companies are not allowed to put more than 40 percent of their net value into China — which grew out of a concern that Taiwan was becoming too dependent on China’s economy.

In his campaign, Mr. Ma, a former mayor of Taipei, vowed to focus on the economy. That won over most voters, who elected him over Mr. Frank Hsieh of the president’s Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), by a 58 to 42 percent margin. The results were expected. The KMT and two small affiliates claimed three-quarters of the seats in parliamentary elections in January and the KMT runs 15 of Taiwan’s 25 largest cities. In fact, the prospect of KMT domination of both the executive and legislative branches was one of the most important influences on voter thinking in last weekend’s ballot.

Not even the Chinese government’s crackdown on Tibetan protests — and dire warnings from Mr. Hsieh that closer relations with the mainland would herald a similar fate for the island — stemmed the tide of support for Mr. Ma. Taiwanese voters know better. So does Mr. Ma. Closer relations with the mainland do not mean that reunification is around the corner. Most Taiwanese want independence, but they recognize what is not within their grasp. They seek pragmatic accommodation that allows them to prosper while protecting their hard-won democratic freedoms.

Even while pushing for better relations with the mainland, Mr. Ma ruled out any discussion of political reunification. He has attended annual vigils for the victims of the 1989 Tiananmen killings and denounced other forms of repression. The new president is not naive.

After winning the vote, Mr. Ma explained that his first priority “is normalization of (economic) relations, and then a peace agreement.”

The biggest concern now is Beijing’s understanding of Taiwanese politics. It has wooed KMT leaders for several years and they have reciprocated. But if Beijing expects the new president to sharply alter course, then it is sure to be disappointed. Mr. Ma has said that “before we can talk about peace, we need to remove the threat,” a reference to the 1,000 missiles reportedly arrayed against Taiwan. Mr. Ma has also promised to increase defense spending to about 3 percent of GDP. That does not sound like a man ready for unification. Fortunately, with the Olympics on the horizon, China will have little appetite for tension.
Mr. Ma also reportedly wants to elevate relations with Japan. Japan overtook the U.S. in 2006 as Taiwan’s second-largest trading partner: Two-way trade nearly reached $63 billion, and 2.3 million tourists were exchanged. While the KMT has traditionally been cool on relations with Tokyo, Mr. Ma is said to want to launch negotiations on a free-trade agreement. Those talks will be tricky: China is sure to take offense at any deal that appears to prevent reunification.

Mr. Ma has his work cut out for him. But the scale of his victory should provide a solid foundation for his administration. Taiwan’s voters appear to understand his priorities and appear ready to back a pragmatic agenda. Most significantly, the alternation of power — from KMT to DPP and back to KMT — is powerful reassurance about the state of democracy in Taiwan.