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

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.

In North Korea, UN Did Not Raise Press Freedom, Hires Staff from Gov’t Lists, UN’s “Comparative Advantage”?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 16 — How badly does the UN under Secretary General Ban Ki-moon want to be relevant in North Korea? His senior advisor Kim Won-soo and his Political Affairs chief Lynn Pascoe traveled to Pyongyang and did not even raise the issue of press freedom.

In response to questions from Inner City Press upon their return, Mr. Kim said that “things are moving forward,” while Mr. Pascoe claimed that the UN Development Program “hires its own employees now rather then take them through the government.” Video here, from Minute 12:52.

But Mr. Kim later clarified that UNDP staff will still be chosen from lists forwarded by the Kim Jong-Il government, only there will be “multiple” candidates. He acknowledged that the UN still has problems with “access and visas” but said there are at the “local level.” In the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, it all comes from the top: Kim Jong-Il, with whom the two did not even meet.

Earlier on Tuesday, the Committee to Protect Journalists has named North Korea as the most censored country on earth, and had called on Ban Ki-moon to speak out more forcefully on press freedom. Inner City Press asked Pascoe and Kim Won-soo about this. Pascoe said they hadn’t raised press freedom “per se.” Kim Won-soo, who was asked twice about press freedom, did not answer the question.

Most questions were about whether North Korea will rejoin the Six Party talks about its nuclear programs. That is up to the Six Parties, Pascoe and Kim Won-soo repeatedly said. The UN is a go between. For example, Pascoe said that his staffer Aleksandr Ilitchev is “going to Moscow tomorrow,” after along with Ban staff Lee Sang-Hwa being on the trip, presumably to brief on the Six Party talks.

On UNDP, Mr. Kim told Inner City Press, “You are right, UNDP’s program has been suspended for two and a half years. The Resident Coordinator [moved back] three months ago.” According to Mr. Kim, he’s had to focus on renovating the UN office and residence. “The building was empty, so we couldn’t see any safe there,” he said, referring to the safe in which counterfeit dollars were found, which UNDP never reported until a whistleblower raised it.

That whistleblower was something of an elephant in the briefing room on Tuesday, with Mr. Kim Won-soo assuring that all UN programs in North Korea will now be scrutinized. Ironically he mentioned a “geo-spacial” mapping project which was one of those that got the UNDP program into trouble two and a half years ago.

Background: Five months into Ban’s tenure atop the UN, in May 2007, he was angered by the leak to Inner City Press of a internal memo (“Korea Peninsula UN Policy and Strategy Submission to the Policy Committee”) proposing that the UN use its “comparative advantage” to make itself relevant on the North Korea issue.
Now, the competitive advantage is being used.

Back in 2007, Ban had been forced to order an audit of the UN Development Program’s North Korea practices, including funding project which it could neither visit nor oversee. UNDP’s program had been suspended.

The UN memo stated that “Unless [the suspension] is reversed, the UNDP program risks being terminated. Rather than being able to support the six-party talks process and international engagement with North Korea at this critical juncture, the UN will lose its unique comparative advantage in that area altogether.”

Recently, despite the continuing nuclear standoff and renewed firing across the border, as well as lack of movement on human rights, UNDP re-started its North Korea program. And now the Ban administration’s “comparative advantage” is back.

UN’s Ban, Mr. Kim and Lynn Pascoe, press freedom not in the picture.

After the February 16 briefing, Mr. Kim Won-soo stayed and answered further questions. He said there are 39 international staff from six UN agencies currently in North Korea. He said the programs there spend approximately $45 million a year; he pointed out that’s $2 a person. UNDP will come up with a five year plan by “sometime in March,” then seek approval from the UNDP board. Things are, he said, moving in the right direction. And on those who seek to leave the country? And on press freedom? Watch this site.

Footnote: this was Kim Won-soo’s first on the record briefing at the UN, following requests made based on the JoongAng Ilbo’s on the record quote about the trip attributed to Mr. Kim. Later, also on the record, Ban’s Associate Spokesperson Choi Soung-ah told Inner City Press that Mr. Kim “did not give an exclusive to JoongAng Ilbo.” But the UN never sought a retraction. Mr. Kim appeared on Tuesday, and Inner City Press asked him to return for another briefing about the Ban administration’s wider work. We’ll see.

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 congratulate Mr. Ban Ki-moon for finally taking this initiative as
his first term at the UN has entered its last year. We have advocated
this move from the first day he won the UN contest for the job he
holds. It was obvious to us that a success there, against the odds
that none of the powers involved likes to see a united Korea on their
global bloc – I mean the US, China, and Japan – this will cover for
all the other impossible jobs that were his lot. Compared to these
other topics, a well programmed approach by his right-hand man -
Ambassador Kim Won-soon – at a time North Korea is really down, has a
good chance of success, if he can just get full backing from his home
government in Seoul.

In the global economic conditions of today, building from scatch North
Korea could become the greatest thing for South Korea – and the united
Korea has the potential of being the united Germany of the Far East.
This requires the acceptance of North Korea leadership as part of the
United Korea leadership according to a Federal construct of the State.

In the process – a denuclearized Korean Peninsula can be established
and threats against China and Japan avoided.The Obama US
Administration, with its own economical problems today, has no reason
to insist on guarding the two Koreas from each other, while it could
be a clear winner when being able to pull the major part of the US
troops out of Korea. China, on its part, will be relieved of the
danger of an imploding nuclear Korea and the mass migration of Koreans
into China. The only remaining resistance might come from Japan that
might fear the economic competition from the United Korea. Even that
can be handled with economic agreements that will bind the two
countries by providing cheap labor also for Japanese industry that
moves into Korea.

Will now the Korean UNSG make this as the main topic to deal with in
the coming few months? Will the US President, he also seeking a
break-through this year, give him his blessing for going ahead with
this effort? It seems that such an agreement exists when judging the
composition of the three people group that will handle the approach to
North Korea. If on this team is also Mr. Lynn Pascoe is an american.
The third member seems to be the Chef de Cabinet – Mr. Vijay Nambiar -
an Indian.
 http://www.innercitypress.com/unban2kore…

As UN’s Ban Rolls Dice on N. Korea Trip, Kim Won-soo Is Asked to Brief Press.

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 3 — UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, returning from a brief trip during which protesters in South Sudan told him to “repent before judgment” while he was snubbed in Cyprus by four political parties, is said by close observers to be “rolling
the dice” on a trip to North Korea.

“Ban wants to be remembered as the S-G when the Koreas reunited,” the close insider said. “If it happens, all the other failures will be forgotten.”
The importance of the upcoming trip to Ban’s closest inner circle is reflected by on the record quotes that his main advisor Kim Won soo — Ban’s Karl Rove, as some put it — gave to the JoongAng Daily. Inner City Press asked Ban’s spokesman Martin Nesirky, with his own Korean connections, about the quote at Wednesday noon briefing, UN transcription here, video here:

Inner City Press… You said the other three members; who are the other three members of Mr. Pascoe’s team?

Spokesperson Nesirky: Kim Won-soo, the Deputy Chef de Cabinet is one of them, and two other members of staff.

Inner City Press: Of DPA or of the Executive Office of the Secretary General?

Spokesperson: One of each.

Inner City Press: Okay. I had asked earlier about when it was first announced that Kim Won-soo was quoted in Joong Ang Daily, describing the trip, saying it may have a nuclear component, as well as humanitarian. So, I was wondering, I mean, those are his quotes, right? That he spoke on the record Joong Ang?

Spokesperson: Well, you have to ask Kim Won-soo.

Inner City Press: That’s why I asked. When it first came up, I actually asked whether he could be a part of the briefing with Lynn Pascoe, since I don’t think he’s ever briefed the media on the record, but he seems to have a pretty important role within the Executive Office of the Secretariat, and obviously he is willing to speak on the record to at least some media. Is that possible to convey thatrequest?

UN’s Kim, at left, with UN’s Ban and Munoz, on glaciers

Spokesperson:
I will certainly convey it.
Hours later when Ban and his entourage, including Vijay Nambiar and Lynn Pascoe,
passed the Press at the Security Council stakeout, Kim Won-soo waved over. Correspondents recounted anecdotes from Ban’s trip last month to Haiti. There was general agreement: Mister Kim must brief the press, and on the record. We’ll see. Watch this site.
================

Monday February 8, 2010 UPDATE with information from the UN.

UN POLITICAL CHIEF HEADS TO DPR KOREA FOR TALKS WITH DPRK SENIOR OFFICIALS.

The top United Nations political official will arrive in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) tomorrow for talks with senior Government officials after wrapping up meetings in Beijing and Seoul.

As the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General, Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs B. Lynn Pascoe will depart the Chinese capital tomorrow morning to hold comprehensive talks on all issues of mutual interest and concern with the DPRK during his visit to Pyongyang, slated to run from today through Friday.

While in the DPRK, he also plans to meet with the UN country team and foreign diplomats, as well as visit several UN project sites.

Over the weekend in Seoul, Mr. Pascoe held talks with officials from the Republic of Korea – including Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan and the country’s chief negotiator to the Six-Party Talks, which also involve Japan, China, Russia and the United States – on its relationship with the UN as well as the DPRK, among other topics.

Mr. Pascoe also conferred with UN-related civil society leaders, including former prime minister Han Seung-soo, who is now president of the World Federation of UN Associations (WFUNA), before travelling to Beijing for talks with officials from that country.

In September, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon met with the DPRK’s Vice Foreign Minister Park Gil Yon at UN Headquarters in New York, where he discussed the country’s nuclear issue along with the humanitarian and human rights situations.

In a report to the General Assembly last year, Mr. Ban voiced concern over the impact of the humanitarian situation on human rights in the country, where more than one third of the nearly 24 million-strong population is in need of food assistance.

The Asian nation’s humanitarian problems – including food shortages, a crumbling health system and lack of access to safe drinking water – seriously “hamper the fulfilment of human rights of the population,” he wrote.

“THE WINTER OF THEIR DISCONTENT: PYONGYANG ATTACKS THE MARKET.”

That was the title of a lunch event at The Korea Society Forum on Wedneday, January 27, 2010, and the speaker was Mr. Marcus Noland, Deputy Director at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington DC, and  Senior Fellow at the East-West Institute.He has held academic positions at Yale, Johns Hopkins, USC, Tokyo U, Saitama U, The U. of Ghana, and the Korea Development Institute. He was also a senior economist at the Council of Economic Advisers to the President of the USA.

The event was chaired by Mr. Evans Revere, President and CEO of the Korea Society. Both of them also old hands of the US Department of State – former Ambassadors with deep knowledge of Korea.

The paper that was presented was co-authored by Mr. Noland with Stephan Haggard with whom he also co-authored a book titled:  “Famine in North Korea: Markets, Aid, and Reform.” Other books he wrote are “Pacific Basin Developing Countries: Prospects for the Future and Korea after Kim Jong-il,” and he edited “Economic Integration of the Korean Peninsula.” His book “Avoiding the Apocalypse: the future of the Two Koreas,” won the Ohira Memorial prize.

The reason for having this meeting was the North Korea’s recent currency reform of November 30, 2009, that literally threw North Korea back to Stalinistic Days of unbelievable economy these days of the 21st century.

North Korea also declared a ban on the use of foreign currencies on top of having declared useless their own National currency account. The net result was a clear blow o the market – so there is literally no market – thus no real economy – only a barter system.

History: In the last 15-20 years there was a bottom up marketization of the North Korean economy. It started with households and local government offices. It somehow evolved in the 1990s into a highly distorted market economy and the State was not comfortable with this because of the private origin of this up-swell – it was outside the State Control. There was also some intrusion of foreign companies – such as an Egyptian Telecoms that provided for individuals and businesses a cellphone network. The recent currency reform is simply the outcome – a clamp down on private initiative – and as there are no civil society institutions there is also no way to channel the peoples unhappiness. What we have now said Noland – is a revival of the Stalinist economy of the 1950s.

There have been conventional currency reforms in many countries – Turkey, Romania, Ghana … usually you cut off three zeros from the currency and you get it exchanged – but not in North Korea. Here, on November 30, 2009, North Korea announced a reform to replace all currency in circulation with new bills and coins. You had to declare all what you have and you could only exchange a small part of what you had – so the rest became useless paper. It was thus a confiscatory measure. Businesses operated in cash – so this destroyed the financial basis of the economy that operated outside the government controlled system. Call it the return to State socialism for those that tried to make a living for themselves. The Chinese never entered this North Korean world – they just do not operate in this sort of environment anymore.

The inflation was spiralling out of control before this sort of reform, now people did not even know how to price their products – it did not make sense to obtain this new currency – so how do you run a market under these conditions?

Things even sound worse when you realize that most North Koreans are government employees. – People join the government system so they can participate in the corruption cycle. If you ask in North Korea someone -Have you ever been detained? Most likely the answer will be yes. Even in this case – the currency exchange law – it was several days before it happened and you felt there was a dollarization of the system. Many knew it is coming and did buy dollars for their soon to be devalued money.

Some information became available when mid January a North Korean defected from the Embassy in Ethiopia.

Look at the difference between North Korea and Vietnam. Both were hit by withdrawal of Soviet assistance in the 1980s. While Vietnam changed and took off – North Korea stagnated and rolled back.

China started its reforms in the 1970s – Vietnam in the 1980s – both started from a high agriculture society. They had parades of improvement and everybody participated and took advantage of the changes. THey did freeze State Planning and people improved. Now North Korea did the opposite – they froze the market and demonetized the economy and the society. There is no lending – there is no banking – nothing. NORTH KOREA IS A FAILED STATE! What about the nukes? {as we shall see this was only the last question and came from a Japanese Government official.}

Before November 30, 2009, if you had some drive – you did push yourself up, or you left for China. What now? If there is no market you cannot sell even if you make something.

It amounts to a militarized workers party regime. Being a conscript in the lower ranks of the army is no big deal – but then the further down the ladder you go in North Korea – the more sensible the people are! The closer you are to Pyongyang – the more ideological and worse people get.

Interesting – the word nuclear was not uttered by the speaker or by people asking questions – this until the last question that came from a Japanese Consulate person. Mr. Noland pointed out that he was already hoping, against his expectations, that nobody will touch upon this. Then he stressed that development assistance is important – but you must make sure that like food assistance, it goes for good purpose to the right people. Such efforts are fungible and might produce no results if you are not careful.

———–

At the end of the Forum, I stayed around to discuss issues with some of the people present – it was a roomful – maybe 40 people. My cklear question was about reunification of the Koreas and I got quite a few skeptical answers. It is obvious they thought that a united Korea will be nuclear and the Japanese official just had no interest in this. Others just did not trust the North Korean leadership of being ready to give up the reins for an unsafe future – that is as if today their future is safe.

What about the real huge internal market that would open up by reunification? Why not do it in such a way that some leadership position is left in the hands of the present leaders of the North, in the hope that an Angela Merkel type will emerge from among them also? It will be no big thing to award penssions and guarantee the condition of those that will have to give up power? No tribunals please – just future well behavior can be the link. Part of this generation will be non-productive, but the young people from the North will show talents that can help all of Korea.

BAN KI-MOON
U.N. Looks for Diplomatic Breakthroughs: U.N. looks for diplomatic breakthroughs in 2010.
Posted By Colum Lynch   Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Ban Ki-moon and his diplomatic envoys have been scouring the globe this week in search of a promising peace settlement for 2010, pursuing talks with Kim Jong Il’s government in North Korea, Afghanistan’s Taliban, and Turkish and Greek Cypriot leaders.

These latest diplomatic initiatives follow a year that brought few breakthroughs on the mediation front as the U.N. strained to advance democracy in Burma, head off mass rights abuses in Sri Lanka, and manage a crisis that threatens to trigger a resumption of civil war in Sudan.

U.N. officials say the proliferation of new initiatives is largely coincidental, the product of months, if not years, of preparation, but that it provides the U.N. with an opportunity to show that it can achieve some diplomatic wins. “There’s no grand strategy here,” said one official. Here’s a survey of key U.N. diplomatic initiatives for 2010 and their prospects for success {cynics at the UN say that this is propelled by the wish to secure a reappointment for a seconf term at the UN - www.SustainabiliTank.info editor}:

1. Cyprus. Ban traveled to Cyprus this weekend to nudge Demetris Christofias and Mehmet Ali Talat, the parties representing the ethnic Greek and Turkish sides of the island, into a breakthrough in a conflict that has lasted more than 35 years despite repeated efforts at mediation. Ban said that he is confident that a political settlement “is within reach.” But the two Cypriot leaders appeared more downbeat about the prospects for a deal. Cyprus has been split since 1974. Talks between the two sides during the past 17 months have produced some results, including an agreement to open a pedestrian crossing in Nicosia, the divided capital. But there is concern that April elections in the Turkish section may bring a hard-liner to power. “Time is not on the side of settlement,” the two leaders acknowledged in a joint statement Monday.

2. North Korea. Ban, a former South Korean diplomat, has been seeking a role in the North Korea crisis since he first took office in January 2007. A confidential U.N. policy paper, produced on April 25, 2007, called for “intensifying and expanding engagement” with Pyongyang, and possibly for the appointment a special North Korea coordinator. But initial attempts to start talks faltered after North Korea launched its missile test and detonated its second nuclear explosive last April and May. On Sunday, Ban announced that he would send his top political advisor, B. Lynn Pascoe, a former U.S. diplomat, to Pyongyang to restart high level U.N. talks later this month. He will be joined by Ban’s top Korean aide, Kim Won-soo. Can Ban be far behind?

3. Afghanistan. The U.N.’s outgoing special representative, Kai Eide, held secret talks with members of the Taliban sometime last year. Eide has been pursuing such contacts with the Taliban since he first started his job. U.N. sources described those talks as highly preliminary, and said that they do not have the approval of the Taliban leadership, which claims that its movement is not negotiating with the U.N. But an official close to the talks confirmed that they had in fact taken place and that Eide’s successor, Staffan di Mistura, would likely continue pursuing those contacts. While these discussions offer little hope of providing a breakthrough, they could provide a useful back channel over the long haul.

4. Sudan. The U.N. faces perhaps its greatest diplomatic challenge in Sudan, which is preparing for presidential elections this year and a referendum in 2011 that will determine whether the country remains unified or whether Sudan’s southerners decide to vote for independence. Ban has said Sudan will be one of his top priorities in 2010, and he has just assigned his two top Africa specialists, Ibrahim Gambari and Haile Menkerios, to manage U.N. operations on the ground. Success in Sudan will largely be measured by the U.N.’s ability to stop the referendum from triggering a renewed civil war. “Partitioning the country without violence: that will be a miracle,” said one Security Council diplomat. “I don’t know how they are going to do it.”

5. Burma. U.N. diplomatic efforts in Burma have pretty much run aground. Ban has reassigned his top Burma envoy, Gambari, to Sudan, and made his chief of staff, Vijay Nambiar of India, his temporary point man on Burma. The Burmese military junta recently rebuffed a U.N. request to invite Gambari back to the country for a final visit. U.N. diplomats say that Burma has little interest in meeting with the U.N.’s diplomatic placeholders, particularly now that the Americans are looking to engage the regime directly.

UN Stumbles by Degrees in Nopenhagen, Stealing the Deal?

By Matthew Russell Lee of the Inner City Press.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inner City Press: The same question.

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

On December 16, Ban’s spokesman Martin Nesirky answered

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

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

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

Inner City Press asked two more questions:

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

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

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

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

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

————————–

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

By Matthew Russell Lee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ADB is hosting a special high-level seminar featuring President Haruhiko Kuroda, ADB; Dr. R.K. Pachauri, IPCC & TERI; Tariq Banuri, UN-DESA, Professor Koike, University of Tokyo and Ambassador Rae Kwon Chung, Republic of Korea.

Time	Presentation
9:45 am	Welcome Coffee
10:00 -11:00 am	Climate Change Impacts on Asia-Pacific Coastal and Marine Peoples and Ecosystems Representative, Coral Triangle Initiative Regional Secretariat Organized in cooperation with the Indonesian Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources, and Indonesian National Council on Climate Change
11:00 – 11:30 am	Climate Change in Asia and the Pacific: Imperatives for Sustainable Development Welcome: Ursula Schaefer-Preuss, Vice President for Knowledge Management and Sustainable Development, ADB Climate Change Impacts and Responses in Asia and the Pacific, Robert J. Dobias, Senior Advisor, Climate Change Program, ADB Economics of Climate Change in Asia and the Pacific, Tae Y. Jung, Senior Climate Change Specialist, ADB
11:30 am-12:45 pm	Water Security in the Face of Climate Change Moderator: David McCauley, Principal Climate Change Specialist, ADB ADB Approach to Climate Change and Water Security: Projections Impact Assessment, Adaptive Strategies, Charles Rodgers, ADB Making Global Climate Projections Relevant for Development Planning: Tools and Techniques Professor Koike, Asia-Pacific Water Forum Glacial Melt and Downstream Impacts on Indus-dependent Water Resources and Energy, Dr. Chaudhry, Pakistan Meteorological Department
12:45 – 2:00 pm	Lunch
2:00 – 3:00p m	Changing Course: Building a Low-Carbon, Climate-Resilient Transport Sector Part I: A Seat at the Table: Transport as Part of the Solution Moderator: Robert Dobias, Senior Advisor, Climate Change Program, ADB Opening Remarks: Haruhiko Kuroda, President, ADB Panel Discussion: Rajendra Pachauri. Director General, TERI and Chairman, IPCC Tariq Banuri, Director, Division for Sustainable Development, UN-DESA Rae Kwon Chung, Climate Change Ambassador, Republic of Korea
3:15-3:30pm	Coffee Break
3:15-4:30pm	Changing Course: Building a Low-Carbon, Climate-Resilient Transport Sector Part II: Rethinking Transport: Mechanisms for Reducing Emissions Transport & Climate: The Problem-The Solution, Jamie Leather, ADB (moderator) ADB: Rethinking Transport and Climate Change, Sharad Saxena, ADB Carbon ‘Footprinting’ of Transport Investments, Michael Replogle, ITDP Applicability of Post-2012 Climate Instruments to the Transport Sector, Stefan Bakker, ECN Co-benefits of Sustainable Transport Projects, Jane Romero, IGES Financial Incentives for Sustainable, Low-Carbon Transport, Ko Sakamoto, TRL Partnership for Sustainable, Low-Carbon Transport (SLoCaT) in Developing Countries, Cornie Huizenga

Come, share your Sunday with us! Register by replying to Amelita de Dios adedios@adb.org.

Lauren N. Sorkin

Climate Change Coordination Unit

Regional and Sustainable Development Department
Tel No.+ 63 2 632 6539
www.adb.org/Climate-Change

 http://cleantech.com/cleantechforum/beij…

WE POSTED THIS ORIGINALLY ON NOVEMBER 6, 2009 AND POST THIS REMINDER BECAUSE OF THE GROWING IMPORTANCE OF CHINA’S PLACE AT THE NEGOTIATION’S TABLE IN COPENHAGEN.

Cleantech Forum Beijing.

The size of China’s green stimulus program is historically unprecedented at about 38% of the over $200 billion announced, and underpinning the country’s rise as the largest emerging cleantech market. And, China is positioned to benefit from receiving capital and support for technology transfer and cooperation at the Copenhagen climate negotiations.

The race to reinvent the world starts and ends in China

As its solar industry’s breathtaking growth indicates the Middle Kingdom is arriving as an incubator of worldclass cleantech companies, the scale of China’s energy and environmental challenges, combined with its deep financial resources, creates a unique opportunity to shape and accelerate market adoption of cleantech innovation globally.

The 3rd annual China Cleantech Forum at the Grand Hyatt Beijing will convene up to 500 Chinese and international policy, corporate, investment, technology and entrepreneurial leaders at a unique, timely and dynamic moment.

Entrepreneurs, corporations, investors, innovators and economic development agencies agree that:

• The China job market and trade opportunities are becoming more competitive
• Copenhagen signals a new era and style of political engagement, with China leading and collaborating
• China will produce home-grown technology ventures
• China is a critical end-market for western-based companies to hit a J-curve, as their own economies adjust to a period of benign growth

Come to Cleantech Forum XXV to harness the opportunities and take on the challenges that the Chinese cleantech initiatives represent. As the world needs to engage with Chinese innovators and investors, China has no choice but to collaborate with the global cleantech sector because:

• China is the largest emitter of carbon in the world and the fasting growing developing economy in the world,
• China makes more investments in wind, solar & nuclear than the rest of the world combined, and
• China is fundamentally re-conceptualizing human transportation

The Chinese cleantech sector is a test-case for policy, capital and technology transfer successfully coming together, and a lynch-pin to the global climate change agreement.

Over 2 days Cleantech Forum XXV will explore:

• The macro-factors impacting China and global cleantech – Copenhagen and technology transfer/cooperation
• International viewpoints on China – hear from non-Chinese companies, large and small, to whom China is strategically important
• What can the rest of the world offer Chinese companies’ growth strategies?
• The growth of local entrepreneurism – meet some of the hottest local ventures looking for capital.

New Report Reveals Asian Nations to Dominate Clean Energy Race.
By Brigid Darragh | Friday, November 27th, 2009
The Breakthrough Institute and the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation released a new report that details energy competitiveness and government investments in four nations: China, Japan, South Korea, and the United States.

The report, entitled “Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant,” examines how each of the four nations is positioned in core clean energy technologies: wind, solar, nuclear, carbon capture and storage, electric-hybrid vehicles, batteries, and high-speed rail. It also takes into account each government’s plans to strengthen their position in the increasingly competitive global cleantech sector.

This report is the first to comprehensively benchmark clean energy technology in these countries and compare them to one another. According to its findings, the Asian nations have already surpassed the United States in the production of nearly all clean technologies, and their governments will out-invest the States three-to-one over the next five years.

In terms of investment strategy, Asia shadows the United States literally by billions of dollars. The governments of China, Japan, and South Korea will invest $519 billion in cleantech between 2009 and 2013, compared to $172 billion by the U.S. government. China alone will spend $440 billion to $660 billion over the next ten years on cleantech.

Climate and energy legislation, which passed the House in June, would contribute $28.7 billion of the $172 billion five year total.

The Breakthrough Institute and the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (both American policy institutes) explained the nature of the United States approach to clean energy technology strategy as “sporadic and regulatory,” versus the “direct, immediate, and coordinated nature of Asian government investments.”

And more than investment dollars, the three Asian nations profiled in the report seem to offer a better business and investment climate for the cleantech sector than Uncle Sam — both for private and public investors.

The United States captured $52 billion in private capital for renewables between 2000 and 2008, while China fetched $41 billion. But just last year, China secured more private capital dollars in renewables and energy efficiency investments than the U.S. This was the first time the Red Dragon surpassed the U.S. in private capital for this sector… but it certainly won’t be the last…

In fact, Deutsche Bank summed up why investors see Asia as a friendlier climate in which to invest dollars for green technology by pointing out the following: The incentives offered by China and Japan create a low-risk environment for investors, stimulating high levels of private investment in clean energy because those nations rely on a “comprehensive and integrated government plan, supported by strong incentives.” In contrast, Deutsche Bank says, the United States is a “moderate-risk” country. America relies on “a more volatile market incentive approach and has suffered from a start-stop approach in some areas.”

The report elaborates, “While some U.S. firms will benefit from the establishment of joint ventures overseas, the jobs, tax revenues, and other benefits of clean tech growth will overwhelmingly accrue to Asian nations.”

And the report goes on to warn that the investment gap’s persistence could eventually lead to the U.S. importing the overwhelming majority of clean energy technologies it deploys.

China already sits atop the solar throne, home to one-third of global solar manufacturing capacity. Just two years ago, Japan ranked first in solar photovoltaic cell manufacturing, but has since been shadowed by China.

China’s wind capacity has gone from zero to 70 turbine manufactures in just five years’ time, and Chinese battery and automobile companies are surging in the world of electric and hybrids as we speak.

By 2012, China, Japan, and South Korea are expected to produce 1.6 million hybrid gas-electric or electric vehicles per year, compared to North America’s projected production of less than 300,000.

South Korea also boasts fast-growing solar and wind manufacturing sectors.

So where does this leave the “Sleeping Giant?”

Obviously, the report comes at a time where tensions and anxiety over the rising unemployment rate and about the way stimulus dollars are being spent are running high. The U.S. already faces a growing debt to China and even our efficiency regulations and climate pollution regulations will not be enough to close the increasing investment gap with our Eastern counterparts.

The report outlines the need for new transmission lines in solar and wind, smart grid infrastructure, and corporate responsibility for carbon emissions, if the U.S. plans to tread water in the global clean technology competition. According to the report:

Small, indirect and uncoordinated incentives are not sufficient to outcompete Asia’s clean tech tigers…to regain economic leadership in the global clean energy industry, U.S. energy policy must include large, direct, and coordinated investments in clean technology R&D, manufacturing, deployment, and infrastructure.

The full report can be downloaded here.

The Stanford Review sees the report as illustrating “the accelerating shift of global power from American to Asia, caused in large part by the serious mismanagement of U.S. economic policy…this shift in power is not a zero-sum game, nor should it be: the U.S. and Asia should avoid trade wars at all costs, and we should seize opportunities for partnership on a range of issues, from climate change to nuclear proliferation.”

I think this is an attitude we must adopt in order to combine realism and optimism and revamp our efforts in an all-too-easy-to-be-down-about-things climate. Rather than look at this report as a doom-and-gloom example of figures and facts that show our country — a leader in technology and economic strategy since its inception — as being outpaced by nations that some deem our biggest threats… why not see it as motivation by competition, with the ultimate goal being partnership?

We are not too far gone. We have the ability, the brain power, resources, and track record to surge ahead in the competition for global clean energy technology and policy.

I think we need to refocus our lenses in terms of what we are trying to achieve. The United States and the countries of Asia and Europe, for that matter, are of course interested in leading the others in prowess — in economy, technology, and environmental policy.

But those are not necessarily mutually exclusive entities, nor do they have to be. Seizing ‘opportunities for partnership on a range of issues’ and resources and technology, as well, will be the best way to ensure environmental and economic stability, world-wide.

A [global] chain is only as strong as its weakest link, after all.

————-

Editor’s Note: Our country’s current administration is aware of the preparation needed in the present to dominate the fields of energy science and engineering in the soon-coming Energy Generation, in which jobs, education, and social sectors will be defined by energy use, innovation, technology, and efficiency.

In April, President Obama proposed an important initiative to inspire the next generation of clean energy innovators. Obama’s proposed program RE-ENERGYSE (Regaining our Energy Science and Engineering Edge) would prepare thousands of engineers and scientists for clean energy fields through early education in K-12 schools, through technical colleges and universities. By 2020, RE-ENERGYSE would educate and adequately prepare more than 15,000 professionals for this field.

This program and others like it will be critical for reclaiming American leadership in clean energy technology. Congress denied funding for RE-ENERGYSE for 2010, but the Obama Administration is steadfast in its efforts for this flagship program, and is hoping to drum up more support, especially among college students nationwide, for the program’s passing by Congress in 2011.

Asia benefited most from fall of Berlin Wall.

By BRAHMA CHELLANEY
Tuesday, Nov. 17, 2009 – NEW DELHI — By marking the Cold War’s end and the looming collapse of the Soviet Union, the fall of the Berlin Wall 20 years ago transformed global geopolitics. But no continent benefited more than Asia, whose dramatic economic rise since 1989 has occurred at a speed and scale without parallel in world history. For Asia, the most important consequence of the fall of the Berlin Wall was that the collapse of communism produced a shift from the primacy of military power to economic power in shaping the international order.

If not for the Cold War’s end, the West would not have let China off the hook over the Tiananmen Square killings in 1989. Instead, the West adopted a pragmatic approach, shunning trade sanctions and helping to integrate China into the global economy and international institutions through the liberalizing influence of foreign investment and trade.

Had the United States and its allies pursued an approach centered on punitive sanctions, the result would have been a less prosperous, less open, and potentially destabilizing China.

Indeed, China’s phenomenal economic success — illustrated by its world-beating trade surplus, world’s largest foreign-currency reserves, and highest steel production — owes a lot to the West’s decision not to sustain trade sanctions after the Tiananmen Square massacre. Having become the world’s biggest exporter, China is now set to displace Japan as the world’s second-largest economy.

India’s rise as an economic giant is also linked to the post-1989 events. India was heavily involved in barter trade with the Soviet Union and its communist allies in Eastern Europe. When the East Bloc unraveled, India had to start paying for imports in hard cash. That rapidly depleted its modest foreign-exchange reserves, triggering a severe financial crisis in 1991, which in turn compelled India to embark on radical economic reforms.

More broadly, the emblematic defeat of Marxism in 1989 allowed Asian countries, including China and India, to pursue capitalist policies overtly. Although China’s economic renaissance had already begun under Deng Xiaoping, the Chinese Communist Party, after 1989, was able publicly to subordinate ideology to wealth creation. That example, in turn, had a constructive influence on surviving communist parties in Asia and beyond.

The Soviet Union’s sudden collapse was a strategic boon to Asia, eliminating a menacing empire and opening the way for China rapidly to pursue its interests globally. Russia’s decline in the 1990s became China’s gain.

For India, the end of the Cold War triggered a foreign-policy crisis by eliminating the country’s most reliable partner, the Soviet Union. As with its 1991 financial crisis, India was able to emerge with a revamped foreign policy — one that abandoned the country’s quixotic traditions and embraced greater realism and pragmatism. Post-Cold War India began pursuing mutually beneficial strategic partnerships with other key players in Asia and the wider world. The new “global strategic partnership” with the U.S. — a defining feature of this decade — was made possible by the post-1989 shifts in Indian policy thinking.

Of course, not all post-1989 developments were positive. The phenomenon of failing states, which has affected Asian security the most, is a direct consequence of the Cold War’s end. When the Cold War raged, one bloc or the other propped up weak states. When the Soviet Union disappeared, the U.S. abandoned that game.

As a result, dysfunctional or failing states suddenly emerged in the 1990s, constituting a threat to regional and international security by becoming home to transnational pirates (Somalia) or transnational terrorists (Pakistan and Afghanistan), or by their defiance of global norms (North Korea and Iran). Asia has suffered more casualties from the rise of international terrorism than any other region.

Moreover, two decades after the Berlin Wall fell, the spread of democracy has stalled. Between 1988 and 1990, as the Cold War was winding down, prodemocracy protests erupted far from Eastern Europe, overturning dictatorships in countries as different as Indonesia, South Korea, Taiwan and Chile. After the Soviet disintegration, even Russia emerged as a credible candidate for democratic reform.

Not all the prodemocracy movements succeeded. The subsequent “color revolutions” in places like Ukraine only instilled greater caution among the surviving authoritarian regimes, prompting them to implement measures to counter foreign-inspired democratization initiatives.

Aside from the retreat of democracy in Russia, China — now the world’s oldest autocracy — is demonstrating that when authoritarianism is entrenched, a marketplace of goods and services can stymie the marketplace of political ideas. Twenty years after communism’s fall, authoritarian capitalism has emerged as the leading challenger to the spread of democratic values.

Brahma Chellaney is professor of strategic studies at the Center for Policy Research in New Delhi and author of “Asian Juggernaut: The Rise of China, India and Japan.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 2009  – information from IPS reporting from Washington.

U.S. President Barack Obama arrives in Tokyo Thursday for the first stop of his four-nation trip to Asia, but an ongoing disagreement over realignment of U.S. forces in Japan, new roadblocks towards a free trade agreement (FTA) with South Korea, and continuing tussles over climate change, trade and currency issues with China have led the White House to downplay goals for the northeast Asian legs of trip.

The four-day visit to China, next week, will require  diplomacy as Obama seeks to find new areas for U.S.-Chinese cooperation, especially in the light of the recent global financial crisis.

While the White House has attempted to coax China to consume more domestically and allow its currency to strengthen, it seems unlikely that Washington will push Beijing – currently the biggest U.S. creditor – for serious concession during the visit.

In an interview with Reuters, Obama did say, “Currency, along with a host of other issues, will come up,” during his trip to China and in talks with Chinese President Hu Jintao.

Among those issues will certainly be climate change, where the U.S. and China – clearly the absolute two world’s largest carbon emitters – will need to cooperate in order to bring about a meaningful global climate change agreement in Copenhagen in December.

The trip to China will allow Obama and his team to gain exposure to the myriad of voices in Shanghai and Beijing who represent both the current and future Chinese leadership.

Further – “China is in the midst of a significant political transition, and President Obama should make sure to stop by for a chat with the next generation of Chinese leaders – Li Keqiang, Li Yuanchao, and Xi Jinping,” wrote the Council on Foreign Relations’ director of Asian Studies, Elizabeth C. Economy. “In just two-and-half years, they will be the ones President Obama faces across the dinner table.”

——————

In  a communication from Andrea Brown – of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) we learn that while President Obama is in China, the Business Council will have two workshops on Green House Gasses. Is this a mere coincidence?

Nov 9, 2009

Following the success of the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard and Project Protocol, the WRI/WBCSD GHG Protocol Initiative is developing two new standards for product and supply chain greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting and reporting.

To develop the new standards, the GHG Protocol Initiative is following the same broad, multi-stakeholder process used to develop previous standards, with participation from businesses, policy-makers, NGOs, academics and other experts and stakeholders from around the world.

The new GHG Protocol standards will provide a standardized method to inventory the emissions associated with individual products across their full life cycles and of corporate value chains, taking into account impacts both upstream and downstream of the company’s operations. By taking a comprehensive approach to GHG measurement and management, businesses and policymakers can focus attention on the greatest opportunities to reduce emissions within the full value chain, leading to more sustainable decisions about the products we buy, sell, and produce.

In this context, the World Resources Institute (WRI) and World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) have just added an additional Stakeholder Workshop in Berlin on November 17th to get stakeholder feedback on the Scope 3 and Product Standard drafts, both of which will be released for stakeholder comment prior to the workshop.

For further information or to sign up to participate in the Berlin Workshop, please click on: http://www.ghgprotocol.org/stakeholder-r…

Other workshop dates and locations that are at capacity include:
- Guangzhou, China (17 November) (now full);
- Beijing, China (19 November) (now full);
- London, UK (20 November)(now full);
- and, Washington, DC, USA (1 December) (now full).

Please visit the GHG Protocol website for additional information on the Initiative at www.ghgprotocol.com.

Thank you,

Andrea Brown
World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)

Analysis of national climate action plans of emerging economies – Proposals for quantifiable emission reduction contributions of emerging economies.

Side Event at the UNFCCC Barcelona Climate Talks:

Tuesday, November 3rd 2009 
7.45 – 9.15 pm, Room LENTISCO

 

In this side event Ecofys and the Wuppertal-Institute, two German independent consultants, will present results of a recent analysis of national climate action plans of emerging economies (Brazil, China, India, Mexico, South Africa, South Korea) in regard to mitigation of GHG emissions.

The study includes an update of an ealier sector-based assessment of mitigation potential in 2008. Based on these results the presenters will introduce a preliminary assessment of options on how to integrate national appropriate mitigation actions in particular countries .

This study was commissioned by the Federal Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt, UBA), an independant scientific body of the Federal Environment Ministry, based in Dessau, Germany.

 

————-

Dr. Guido Knoche
Federal Environment Agency
- Climate Change Division -
D-06844 Dessau-Rosslau
eMail: guido.knoche[at]uba.de

  

 

ALL ABOARD THE UN KYOTO-COPENHAGEN EXPRESS FOR CLIMATE CHANGE. 

A one-time train link between Kyoto and Copenhagen opens up next week – a United Nations-sponsored one-month, 9,000-kilometre journey symbolically joining the site of the last global warming pact with what is hoped to be the birthplace of the next major, and stricter, treaty to combat climate change. 

Launched by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), the International Union of Railways (UIC) and the global conservation organization WWF, the Train to Copenhagen – in fact a carriage – will roll across the globe through the vast wilds of Russian Siberia and into Europe as part of the UN Seal the Deal! campaign to galvanize political will and public support for reaching a comprehensive global climate agreement in December. 

Train operators from around the world will participate in the Train to Copenhagen, raising awareness of the impact of the transport sector, which already accounts for over one fifth of global CO2 greenhouse emissions. These emissions are projected to double within only 40 years and railways are crucial in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and developing sustainable transport systems. 

“We are on the road to nowhere if existing policies and economic models prevail with their over-emphasis on private cars and on shifting shipments of goods to the roads,” UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner said. “The Train to Copenhagen project is a showcase of sustainable transport solutions that will be part and parcel of a resource-efficient, low-carbon Green Economy of the 21st Century. 

“By Sealing the Deal on an ambitious climate agreement in Copenhagen, governments will get into gear to propel the world to a low-carbon future so that societies may also finally embark on a journey to more sustainable transport.” 

During the journey, environmental experts and climate change campaigners will send eye-witness accounts of global warming signs under way. Siberia is a global climate change hotspot, where thawing permafrost and melting peat bogs could slowly release billions of tons of methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere over coming years. 

The Train will roll out of Kyoto station on 5 November – leaving behind the Japanese city where the Kyoto Protocol that sets binding greenhouse gas reduction targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European Union (EU) was adopted on 11 December 1997 – and make its way by ferry to Daejeon, Republic of Korea (ROK). 

There it will board another ferry for Vladivostok in Russia’s Far East for that vast transcontinental journey to drum up support for a new compact with much stronger cuts to replace the Protocol on the expiration of the first commitment period at the end of 2012. 

Rumbling across Siberia, it will be hauled along the famous Trans-Siberian Railway and go by ferry across Lake Baikal, the most voluminous freshwater lake in the world, and stop in Moscow, the Polish city of Poznan and then Berlin before arriving on 5 December in Brussels, where it will join the Climate Express, which will be powered by 100 per cent renewable energy. 

This Express will take on board more than 400 climate change negotiators, campaigners and other high-profile personalities going to Copenhagen, for a 12-hour on-track conference focusing on how to solve the challenges posed by the transport sector with regard to global warming.  

On arrival, the Climate Express will remain at Copenhagen Central Station throughout the two-week conference, serving as a mobile exhibition open to the public about low-carbon transport solutions.  

“It is clear that business as usual is not an option if we want to reverse current trends and prevent catastrophic climate change,” UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said. “If we can really integrate the costs of pollution into the price of transportation, rail will be a big winner.” 

 

* * * 

BAN VOICES CAUTIOUS OPTIMISM AHEAD OF COPENHAGEN CLIMATE CONFERENCE 

Although much work remains to be done ahead of December’s climate change conference in Copenhagen, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today said he is optimistic that world leaders will reach an ambitious agreement in the Danish capital. 

Provided that four key benchmarks are decided upon, the gathering will be a success, Mr. Ban told reporters today during his monthly press conference. 

Those four criteria, he said, are: emissions reductions targets by developed countries and enhanced mitigation actions by developing nations; adaptation measures; the provision of financing and technology for poorer nations; and the creation of an equitable global governance structure. 

“We are not lowering expectations” ahead of the Copenhagen meeting, the Secretary-General stressed, noting that he has been working closely with Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen, who is holding discussions with governments on the substance and form of an agreement that could emerge from the summit. 

“There is a long way to go still,” he said, with only five weeks to go before that meeting. 

Post-Copenhagen, Mr. Ban emphasized to reporters that countries must endeavour to ensure that any agreements reached during the technical negotiations in Denmark can be built upon to become legally binding. 

Negotiators are set to meet next week in Barcelona, Spain, for the last round of negotiations before the two-week Copenhagen gathering kicks off on 7 December. 

In an opinion article published earlier this week in the New York Times, Mr. Ban wrote that despite the gridlock at the last round of climate negotiations held in Bangkok, Thailand, in early October, “the elements of a deal are on the table.” 

All that is needed to put them in place is political will, he said. “We need to step back from narrow national interest and engage in frank and constructive discussion in a spirit of global common cause.” 

The leadership of the United States in this endeavour, the Secretary-General said, is vital, noting that he is encouraged by last week’s bipartisan initiative in the US Senate. 

“We cannot afford another period where the United States stands on the sidelines,” he emphasized, adding that an “indecisive or insufficiently engaged” US will result in unnecessary and unaffordable delays in tackling global warming. 

UNITED NATIONS, The Inner City Press, Matthew Russell Lee, August 28 — The UN’s airbrushed versions of its history and present were on display Friday as Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, on his way to Norway, stopped in Vienna to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Vienna International Center there. When it was opened in August 1979, the ribbon was cut by then Secretary General Kurt Waldheim, an Austrian exposed for a Nazi past. At Friday’s ceremony the film screened for Ban and local elected officials, “VIC-30 The Practice of Peace,” notably had no footage of Waldheim. Who else could be erased?

Vienna sources of Inner City Press say that no questions were allowed about the devastating negative review of Ban’s performance by Mona Juul, the deputy ambassador to the UN of Norway, Ban’s next stop. Rather, a question about criticisms the UN is more comfortable with, those from “some in the United States,” by implication on the right, were responded to. It seems impossible, thought, that Ban can avoid questions about the criticisms made from the left in the Juul memo — of his performance in Myanmar, Sri Lanka, even on climate change — when he arrives in Norway.

UN Office in Vienna, Kurt Waldheim not shown

On climate change, Inner City Press is informed that staff of the UN’s spokesperson in Vienna participated in the singing of “Come On – Seal the Deal,” a reference to December’s climate talks in Copenhagen. On the UN’s internal web site, staff are being urged to dress in green. Take that, Mona Juul!

Reflecting on Waldheim and the UN Office in Vienna, and in light of the recent opening of UN offices in South Korea, some now envision that during Ban Ki-moon’s tenure, whether it be one or two terms, a UN Office in Seoul will emerge. And in thirty years time…

* * *

As UN’s Ban to Norway, Juul Memo Spun, Opposition to be Met, Press Browbeaten

UNITED NATIONS, August 27 — As the UN’s Ban Ki-moon crosses the Atlantic toward Norway, his staff is belatedly trying to spin the leaked and damning memo by Norway’s Deputy Ambassador to the UN Mona Juul. Always on background and without fingerprints, they have tried to blame the leak on internal Norwegian and even U.S. Democratic politics. Meanwhile in Norway, Ban will meet with the opposition Progress Party on August 31. While Inner City Press has this from the party’s foreign policy spokesman, when it put the question to Ban’s Spokesperson, this was the response:

“the SG will be meeting with political parties that are represented in the Norwegian parliament (Members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, representatives for IPU and parliamentarians attending the 64th session of the GA). We are still awaiting confirmation of the full list When he travels he often meets with different political parties including opposition parties. They are usually selected by the UN (our political staff and the UN country team on the ground).”

But in Sri Lanka, for example, where Mona Juul wrote that Ban showed no moral authority, Ban left major opposition figures excluded. So, some wonder, is the meeting with Norwegian opposition some passive-aggressive form of fight back?

In the run-up to Ban’s trip, Team Ban was more focused on speculating who leaked the Juul memo than on responding to its contents. Even one who accompanied U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice to meet Ban on August 26 was accused, although no motive was proffered.

UN’s Ban and Norway’s FM Store: look in the mirror

Meanwhile Team Ban’s ham-handed approach to media continues. On Ban’s visit to Myanmar’s Than Shwe, alsocriticized by Juul, Team Ban chose not only which media organizations but even which individual reporters would document his ultimately failed trip. Ban’s Spokesperson answered questions about the failure to inform other, more critical reporters of the chance to cover the trip by promising pool coverage which never came.

This time for Norway, the Norwegian government invited a particular wire service. Even so, the UN contacted the reporter and demanded that he provide written pool. The Norwegian government disagreed: it’s their trip, their choice. For Team Ban, the hits just keep on coming. Watch this site.

From yesterday: on August 26 moments before the noon briefing was to begin, reporters were ordered out of the room. A bomb sniffing dog entered. The word went out: Ban Ki-moon will speak! More journalists than usual subsequently came downstairs. Bets were taken: was it going to be a unilateral statement about Ted Kennedy, with no questions [about the Mona Juul memo or the trip] taken? Some bet no, pointing at a lectern sometimes used by Ms. Montas while choosing whom to allow to question Mr. Ban.

Ms Montas became reading off notices and press releases, including about the dead American civilian employ of the UN in Monrovia and that he was under investigation. Suddenly Mr. Ban came in. Ms. Montas asked him if he wanted to use the lectern or her seat on the podium. Ban took the lectern, and the gamblers in the room concluded there would be no Q&A.

Ban rambled on about Ted visiting him “in UNDP” on December 17, 2006, bringing him a photograph with John F. Kennedy from August 1962. JFK and JFK, he said, noting that he has a degree from the JFK School of Government. When he finished, he pauses and a question was shouted out that many surmised had been planted, about climate change.

Ban answered it, then as he left several reporters asked about the Mona Juul memo, full text here. Ban was prepared for that too, saying that he welcomes constructive criticism, including from the press. Then he left…

At UN, Norway’s Trashing of Ban Stirs Rumors of Endgame: Full Text

UNITED NATIONS, August 20 — The indictment of the administration of the UN by Ban Ki-moon signed by Norway’s deputy ambassador Mona Juul [full text below] gathered strength and supporters on Thursday. Inner City Press asked Ban’s deputy spokesperson Marie Okabe on August 19 for Ban’s view of Juul’s memo and “how does it impact his planned trip to Norway at the end of this month?”

Ms. Okabe answered that “We do not know the veracity of the reports to which you refer… we have not announced the Secretary-General’s next travel plans.” Transcript here.

Thursday it emerged that the plan had been to announced Ban’s Norway trip on August 19, but that the announcement was pulled back in the face of news of and questions about the Juul memo. Inner City Press has interviewed two senior Ban administration officials, both of whom acknowledge that Juul’s critique is devastating, even debilitating.

Norway is a big donor, one of them said, noting that Sudan, on the other end of the spectrum, has also protested Ban. “Who will stand up for him?” the other official asked rhetorically. Of the reheated rumors in the memo, including that top humanitarian John Holmes might replace Vijay Nambiar as Ban’s chief of staff, as Inner City Press has previously predicted, the official said that Holmes might do a better job. But India, then, would need another post.

The Ban administration officials both said that a new communications strategy is needed. They speculated who will takeover as spokesperson in November. While one has been predicting another outsider from Newsweek, the better placed official now predicts a French speaker from within the Outreach Division of the Department of Public Information. It’s been a disaster, both conceded, of recent and reduced UN noon briefings.

Things are actually worse that Juul presents them, in that her memo does not touch on the brewing nepotism and corruption scandals at the UN.

Several under-reported aspect of Juul’s memo are eye catching: her description of Deputy Secretary General Migiro’s limited scope of responsibility, her diplomatic dismissal of Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann as a “rather special President of the General Assembly.” She hits Ban even on his signature issue, climate change. Juul describes “a culture of decision-making which is marked by information both up and down the system being filtered by the omnipresent assistant chief of cabinet Kim” Won-soo.

Self- (or Norway-) servingly, Juul wrote that “Ban has consistently chosen special representatives and leaders in the Secretariat who don’t distinguish themselves, except for the case of Afghanistan” — the SRSG is Norwegian, Kai Eide. One wonders why Juul didn’t in the memo praise her husband, USG Terje Roed Larsen.

Also ill-informed was Juul’s quip that “As a woman from that part of the world, [UNDP's Helen ] Clark could quickly become a competitor for Ban’s second period.” New Zealand may geographically be in Asia, but politically at the UN it is part of the WEOG (Western European and Other Group). More likely is the scenario first laid out by Inner City Press, that China in exchange for getting to head the World Bank in 2012 allows another group — possible WEOG or an Eastern European — to take over the UN Secretary General’s post. Click here for that Inner City Press exclusive; see below for full text of Juul. Watch this site.

Team Ban on 38 last month, Mona Juul not shown

The Juul memo, translated by the “Group of Friend on Inner City Press,” is below:

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moons fruitless visit to Burma at the beginning of July was emblematic of a Secretary-General and an organization that is struggling to show leadership. At a time where the UN and the need for multilateral solutions to global crises is more necessary than ever, Ban and the UN are conspicuous by their absence. In the last half-year, follow-up to the many crises that dominated last fall’s General Assembly should have brought the Secretary-General and the UN fully into the fray, but the opposite seems to have occurred.

In relation to the financial crisis, neither the Secretary-General nor the General Assembly – despite the major meeting on the financial crisis at the end of June – have distinguished themselves as the most important arena for discussion, and the vacuum has been filled by the G-20 and other actors. Ban’s voice on behalf of the G-192 and the poor has hardly [there’s a misspelling in the original; “kapt” is not a word but “knapt” means “hardly”] registered. An at times invisible Secretary-General in combination with a rather special President of the General Assembly has gone far to sideline the UN, and the organization hasn’t realized its limits. On the environment/energy area the UN is also struggling to be relevant, despite the planned high-level meeting on climate change at the opening of the General Assembly this fall. Even though the Secretary-General to the point of boredom repeats that Copenhagen is supposed to “seal the deal,” there is widespread worry that the UN-high-level meeting won’t contribute notably to the process leading up to Copenhagen.

In the many political/security crises around the world, the Secretary-General’s leadership and ability to deliver on behalf of the UN is still being sought. Burma is a shining example of this. There was no lack of warning that the Secretary-General shouldn’t go at this time. The Americans were among the most doubtful to his trip, but the British thought he should go. Special Representative Gambari was initially also doubtful, but Ban insisted. Gambari pointed to the fact that recent negative press coverage (headlines like “Whereabouts unknown in The Times and “Nowwhere Man [sic]” in Foreign Policy) had made Ban even more set on visiting Burma. After an apparently fruitless visit by the Secretary-General, the UN’s “good offices” will become even more problematic. Special Representative Gambari will have big problems continuing after “the top man” has failed and the generals in Yangoon [sic] no longer want to meet him.

Another example of weak handling from the Secretary-General’s side is the war in Sri Lanka. The Secretary-General was a powerless observer to civilians in their thousands losing their lives and being driven from their homes. The authorities in Colombo refused to receive the Secretary-General while the war was going on, but he was an honored guest — and he accepted the invitation — once the war had been “won.” Even though the UN’s humanitarian effort had been active and honorable enough, the Secretary-General’s moral voice and authority have been absent.

Also in other “crisis areas,” for example Darfur, Somalia, Pakistan, Zimbabwe and not least Congo, the Secretary-General’s passive and not very committed appeals seem to fall on deaf ears. Many would also claim that the handling of the inquiry commission after the war in Gaza ended up with an unsteady and too-careful follow-up.

More surprisingly, and therefore more disappointingly, Ban Ki-moon has been almost absent on the disarmament and non-proliferation area. This was a field he himself presented as one of his priority areas before he started his post. The reorganization of the department of disarmament to an office directly answerable to the Secretary-General, led by a High Representative indicated a big stake in this area, also given the Secretary-General’s own background on the Korean peninsula. With a new nonproliferation treaty review in 2010 and an American administration which has put the team much higher on the agenda, it’s cause for concern that the Secretary-General isn’t more committed.

The common thread in all these cases is that an unclear Secretary-General with a lack of charisma is not compensated for by high-profile and visible colleagues. Ban has consistently chosen special representatives and leaders in the Secretariat who don’t distinguish themselves, except for the case of Afghanistan. Furthermore, he seems to prefer to be in the center himself, without competition from his colleagues, and lets it shine through pretty clearly that commenting to the media is a privilege belonging to himself. The result is that the UN becomes a less visible and relevant player in areas where it would have been natural and necessary for an active UN-engagement. A notable exception is the selection of Helen Clark as the new leader for UNDP. She has in her short time on the job shown promise. It will be interesting to follow if she is given room to distinguish the UN’s development side. As a woman from that part of the world, Clark could quickly become a competitor for Ban’s second period.

It was common knowledge that it was a conscious choice [NB! The Norwegian word “bevist” which is written here means “proven,” but in this context it appears to be a misspelling of the word “bevisst” meaning “conscious.”] from the then-current American administration that an activist Secretary-General was not wanted. The new American administration hasn’t yet signaled any change in their attitude to Ban, even though there are rumors that some people in Washington are now referring to Ban as “a one-term SG”. It’s said that the people around both Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton are very negative to Ban, but the two are yet to speak on the matter. China is probably pretty happy with him and it’s primarily China which holds the key to whether Ban will be renewed for a second term. Russia has for a long time been dissatisfied with the Secretary-General both in terms of his handling of Kosovo and Georgia, but also because of a lack of recruitment of Russians to important positions. At the same time, Russia is well served by a Secretary-General who isn’t too interventionist.

Among the remainder of the member states one notices that the perception of Ban at the midway point is growing steadily more negative. Among the many who thought he should be given some more time, that everything would get better once he warmed up, and that the comparison to his predecessor’s charisma was unfair, the tune is now that the beginner’s goodwill [direct translation: “learning potential”] appears to be spent and that a lack of charisma is actually a problem. The Secretary-General seems to function well enough when he sticks to the script, and shows up to a lot of meetings and other events. The problem arises when he’s “on his own” where he can’t manage to set the agenda, create enthusiasm and show leadership – not internally either. Ban’s lack of engagement and lack of interest in mastering the issues means that he doesn’t become an effective player or negotiator in the many conflict situations he is expected to handle.

The mood at “the house” is still characterized as not very motivated, with a culture of decision-making which is marked by information both up and down the system being filtered by the omnipresent assistant chief of cabinet Kim. After recent negative media stories about the Secretary-General, the mood on the 38th floor is said to be pretty tense. Ban has constant temper tantrums [direct translation: outbreaks of rage] which even levelheaded [the Norwegian word “sindig” is untranslatable and describes a quality of being capable and calm as well as having common sense] and experienced colleagues have trouble handling. The relationship with next-in-command Migiro is as strained and her sphere of action appears to have shrunk even further. There are constant rumors of replacements and switch-overs. In addition to rumors that Migiro is on her way out, it’s rumored that OCHA-boss Holms [sic], who is roundly praised, is taking over as Chef de Cabinet, and that Nambiar is quitting. The same is said about the head of the political department, Pascoe, and that Holms [sic] is also a candidate to taking over his job. The British are probably still very concerned about getting that post back. These are, however, only rumors and most probably, Ban will continue with the same crew – at least ‘till the end of this year. If that’s good enough for a second term only time will tell.

Excerpts from a communication , August 25, 209, from Jay Hauben:

I join with many good people of the world in mourning the loss of Kim Dae Jung who died on Monday August 18 at age 82.

Kim Dae Jung was President of South Korea from 1998-2002. He is given credit for developing the Sunshine Policy toward gradual and peaceful reconciliation of the Korean people and reunification of the Korean Peninsula.

Kim Dae Jung did what few politicians even attempt to do. He broke the long time prevailing mantra of anti-communism that had kept the people of South Korea doubtful about the prospects of peaceful reunification.

He had bravely struggled for 40 years for a democratic South Korea. He ran for President 3 times before succeeding in 1997. And when he then had the chance, he changed the equation on the Korean Peninsula. He proposed a concrete formula for a path toward Korean reunification and reconciliation, wrote a book to argue the case and created the conditions for all Koreans to again see themselves as one nation artificially torn apart. For many South Koreans, no longer was North Korea an evil enemy. Rather Korean division was now seen as the enemy.

Although many commentators say Kim Dae Jung’s policies are gone and have failed. Any setback of his vision can only be temporary. As it is said, the genie of one Korea is out of the bottle.

///////**//////

This is a very hard time for Korea – he continues. In less than 100 days, S. Korea lost two symbols of Korean democratization and the Sunshine Policy, Roh Moo Hyun and Kim Dae Jung. Since January 2008, the reactionary policies of South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, have caused North-South tensions to increase. And the world economic crisis increases the uncertainty.

Great strength is needed to carry on and he wonders if this is now possible in the present political climate.

Hauben and us at SustainabiliTank.info end with our wish of strength and renewed vigor to all those working for reunification on the Korean Peninsula.

 

 

 

OSLO (Reuters) August 23, 2009, from a dispatch from India:

Norway’s foreign minister said on Sunday he regretted that criticism of the United Nations secretary-general by Oslo’s ambassador had been leaked days before a visit from the U.N. chief.

Ambassador Mona Juul accused Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon of weak, ineffective and at times counterproductive leadership, the daily Aftenposten had reported on Wednesday.

The newspaper published what it said was a letter from Juul to the foreign ministry in which she said Ban was late in handling challenges and his abrasive style irked diplomats.

“I regret that it happened, but let me stress that this is a report to the Norwegian Foreign Ministry, it was not a statement by the Norwegian government,” Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere told reporters.

Stoere said Norway continued to be a strong supporter of the United Nations and its South Korean chief.

“This is not the time to waste resources on commenting on job performance, this is a time of renewing our support to the U.N. and thereby the support to the current Secretary-General, whom I have experienced as very hard-working and dedicated,” Stoere said.

He said Ban was “heartily welcome” to Norway in one week, for talks with Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg and himself in Oslo and a visit to Arctic archipelago Svalbard.