Why the world is not over the moon on Ban.

India suddenly remembered United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon when an uncharacteristically bold statement about the failed India-Pakistan talks attributed to him was e-mailed by his spokesman.

What surprised India [ Images ]n officials was the reference to the ‘composite dialogue,’ which is favoured by Pakistan, while India insists that the priority is dismantling of the terrorist outfits on Pakistan territory.

When India took up the matter with Ban’s office, it turned out that Ban had not issued any such statement. The right hand did not know what the left was doing.

This was within weeks of a devastating attack on the secretary general by the outgoing chief of the UN’s Oversight (audit and investigation) Division (OIOS), Inga-Britt Ahlenius for undermining her efforts to combat corruption and for leading the global institution into an era of decline.

Her 50-page, confidential, end of assignment report, which leaked to the press and published on several Web sites, characterises some of the secretary general’s as ‘not only deplorable, but seriously reprehensible.’

Ban Ki-moon is not credited with either charisma or global vision even by those who are responsible for projecting him in a favourable light. The best they say about him is that he is a man who attends to details and carries out instructions from the Security Council and the General Assembly, ‘a carpenter rather than an architect.’

But the truth of the matter is that his term as the secretary general has been colourless to the extent that member States do not criticise him for any acts of omission or commission. With the major powers resorting to other fora for resolving global issues, the UN itself has become less relevant to the world today.

Even before the Ahlenius report came out, it was no secret in New York that Ban depends more on a coterie of Korean advisers than on the established structure of the secretariat for advice and implementation of instructions.

Transparency, accountability and reform that Ban had promised on his assumption of office have been absent and a culture of secrecy has been cultivated in his office.

The Ahlenius report not only confirms these impressions, but also reveals a bewildering array of actions by Ban’s advisers to weaken institutions, particularly, the OIOS, which was created with an independent mandate to investigate corruption in the UN system.

Ahlenius catalogs a number of actions by Ban and his Korean advisers to stifle the OIOS and to deprive it of its integrity and independence. These may perhaps be seen as turf battles, to which departing officials refer in passing when they retire.

But the significance of her report is that it points out the larger issues of Ban’s role and the rot that has set in, which she considers difficult to rectify. She believes that the moral authority of the UN is being eroded in the process.

The thrust of the report is that Ban has tried relentlessly to take over the OIOS’s investigative functions for fear that an independent unit would bring out embarrassing truths.

The secretary general’s office, on the other hand, can resort to selective investigations and take selective action without being accountable to the General Assembly.

She expresses frustration over her efforts to appoint a certain individual as the Director of Investigations which met with either objection or silence several times.

Ahlenius, a Swedish national and undoubtedly an admirer of Dag Hammarskjold, finds Ban a weak secretary general compared to Hammarskjold and Boutros-Boutros Ghali and points out that a weak SG weakens the system and strengthens the influence of the permanent members. This was to be expected as the P-5 (five permanent members) did not opt for any of the other candidates, who were likely to be strong, independent or innovative.

The only SG, who was offered a third term by some of the P-5 was Kurt Waldheim, who was reputed to have had a ‘head waiter’ image. Hammarskjold and Boutros Ghali, on the other hand, did not survive for long at the helm of affairs.

Hammarskjold died in suspicious circumstances and Ghali was denied a second term. By not performing the political role of the SG, Ban is playing into the hands of the P-5 and weakening the role of the rest of the membership.

Another allegation is that the most senior advisers to the SG, the Under Secretaries General (USGs), have been reduced to a group to take instructions and to implement them rather than to advise the SG before decisions are taken.

Their performance is monitored by people junior to them in the SG’s office. No individual meetings are held by the SG with the USGs to discuss and follow up their spheres of activity.

This is indeed a sad state of affairs, particularly as most of them are people of his choice, many of whom he had known personally. She also alleges that, despite the air of secrecy, the SG’s office is ‘consumed by leaks’, which must be a matter of satisfaction for those who need to know the facts.

Reform of the UN, ranging from administration to the expansion of the Security Council, is something that every SG is committed to. Ban’s government is allergic to the expansion of the permanent membership of the Security Council, but he has stated that he will not be influenced by his national position.

But no one expects him to push for expansion. Even on administrative reform, he is said to have a narrow view. ‘We do not do management here and reform, that is done’, according to Won Soo Kim, a confidant of the SG.

Ahlenius has more to say about Ban’s management style. Having changed everyone except one from Kofi Annan’s executive office, he seeks comfort in the company of a small group around him.

‘Being surrounded by these staff members, some of whom you knew well even before joining the UN may certainly give you comfort and confidence, but rather of an illusory character’, she tells Ban.

Moreover, he lashes out openly against dissenting voices and dares those who do not like his style to leave. He has been giving only one year contracts to most senior colleagues to keep them on tenterhooks and, consequently, loyal.

Ahlenius is no ordinary official, who may be motivated by bureaucratic frustrations at the end of her tenure, but a highly respected individual, who is known for fairness and honesty. And that makes her criticism sharp and relevant.

She has also had sufficient experience of the UN system to qualify her to comment on the ills of the organisation.

The decline to irrelevance of the UN she refers to is not without a sense of its limitations and constraints as a world body.

Concern about the SG’s lack of charisma, declining moral authority and ineffective leadership is widely shared in the diplomatic corps and the journalists within the United Nations.

Inter Press Service has characterised Ban having been beleaguered by the torrential criticism against him, particularly after the revelations in the Ahlenius report. Now there is documentary evidence of what was merely speculation and rumours.

At least one commentator has suggested that Ban should be denied a second term because of the allegations raised against him. But as long as the P-5 are satisfied with his functioning, Ban will continue as the secretary general.

South Korea, a country with a sense of determination and pride, will find any suggestion of denial of a second term to Ban extremely offensive. Honour is more valuable than life itself there.

The cloud, therefore is likely to clear sooner or later. It suits the P-5 to have a SG who rocks no boats, moves no mountains and confines his domination to his hapless victims in the secretariat.

Ban has already defended himself with vigour. ‘If anybody or any member States within the UN system, or if any colleague of mine within the UN Secretariat, accuses me on the issue of accountability or ethics, then that’s something I regard as unfair,’ he said.

He added that he had personally ensured both accountability and ‘the highest standards of ethics by the UN’ and made ‘unprecedented progress’ on both fronts.’

India will get to know Ban closely when it enters the Security Council early next year. He has already shown that he does not want confrontation with India and we should be pleased.

As we grow stronger, we too will like a weak and inactive UN secretary general.

———————————
T P Sreenivasan is a former ambassador of India to the United Nations, Vienna, and a former Governor for India at the International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna. He is currently the Director General, Kerala [ Images ] International Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, and a Member of the National Security Advisory Board.

Russia’s new war anniversary.

President Obama was supposed to go to Jakarta, but first postponed, then canceled the trip. Whatever the official explanation – Jakarta responded and was a no-show at the Washington meeting of the large economies (in effect we did raise the question with the US Department of State and on the record – we did not get a satisfactory answer and reported accordingly).

We saw a series of missteps that eventually will have to be corrected. We wrote about that earlier and moved Indonesia into the front page of our website with the understanding that the largest Muslim country that is a democracy with a growing middle class, will eventually live up to its potential of being a world leader. The following article strengthens us in above belief.

We also expect Indonesia to move on issues of Sustainable Development and Climate Change as it stands only to gain by becoming home to clean technologies. Indonesian leaders understand that much of their recent environmental disasters are global warming related – they also can be counted upon in efforts to restrain the forces of aggressive extreme Islam.

———————————————————-

After Years of Inefficiency, Indonesia Emerges as an Economic Model.

Enny Nuraheni/Reuters

After years of being known for inefficiency, corruption and instability, Indonesia is becoming an economic powerhouse in Asia.

By AUBREY BELFORD, an Independent journalist based in Indonesia. //

JAKARTA — After years of being known for inefficiency, corruption and instability, Indonesia is emerging from the global financial crisis with a surprising new reputation — economic golden child.

Adi Weda/European Pressphoto Agency
In Jakarta, worsening traffic and a proliferation of megamalls are seen as signs of the growing strength of the middle class.

The country’s economy, the largest in Southeast Asia, grew at an annual rate of 6.2 percent in the second quarter of this year, data released Thursday showed. That is an acceleration from 2009, when gross domestic product expanded 4.5 percent.

The stock market hit a record high last week and has been among the best-performing equities markets in Asia this year, rising more than 20 percent since Jan. 1. The country’s currency, the rupiah, has appreciated nearly 5 percent this year against the dollar, among the strongest showings in Asia besides that of the yen.

Foreign direct investment, which was held in check for years after the 1997 economic crisis in Asia, is also returning. The country had 33.3 trillion rupiah, or $3.7 billion, in foreign direct investment in the second quarter of this year, a 51 percent rise from a year earlier, the Investment Coordinating Board in Indonesia said last week. The country is on track to attract more foreign investment this year than it did in 2008, when it lured in $14.87 billion.

Such statistics have some here cautiously saying that the country, a Muslim-majority democracy and one of the world’s most populous countries, could soon merit the kind of attention that investors now lavish on China and India.

“Indonesia is one of the most interesting, most attractive destinations in the world,” said Lanang Trihardian, an analyst at Syailendra Capital, a fund management firm based in Jakarta. “Foreign investors have been flowing to Indonesia from maybe around mid-2009. We are seeing a lot of liquidity coming into Indonesia, and it is mostly going to capital markets, to bonds, to stocks.”

Undoubtedly, significant obstacles to sustained growth remain. Despite progress on corruption, investors complain of confusing regulations and labor laws that make it difficult to dismiss employees. Little infrastructure has been built since the Asian economic crisis in 1997, and rolling blackouts have plagued the country for years. While the education system has been successful in fulfilling basic requirements like literacy, the universities and colleges in the country are widely considered archaic.

But more than a decade after the chaotic overthrow of the Suharto dictatorship in 1998 — and subsequent fears of disintegration at the hands of separatist groups, as well as the threat of Islamic militancy — the country seems to have stabilized. It is rich in natural resources like palm oil, copper and timber, commodities that are in great demand in China.

The administration of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has won plaudits for reducing debt and has achieved some success fighting graft. Mr. Yudhoyono was resoundingly re-elected to a second five-year term in 2009, and changes aimed at introducing more democracy have seen power devolved to local governments, where elections have been largely peaceful, orderly affairs.

In one sense, Indonesia appears more attractive these days because much of the rest of the global marketplace looks so gloomy. Its low debt, high growth and a sense of optimism compare favorably with a mood of despondency in developed markets like the United States, Japan and Europe.

The huge consumer market in the country, accounting for more than two-thirds of G.D.P., has largely been credited for maintaining growth. Although the global economic crisis crimped confidence, Indonesia’s relatively young population of 240 million and government stimulus policies, as well as a popular program of direct cash transfers to the poor, have kept consumption humming.

In Jakarta, worsening traffic and a proliferation of megamalls are seen as signs of the growing strength of the middle class. At the center of the capital, the huge Grand Indonesia mall opened in 2007 and expanded during the global downturn, adding theme areas with mockups of New York, Japan, the Arabian Peninsula and Paris, complete with a miniature, spinning Moulin Rouge windmill.

“We’re selling international brands here so Indonesians don’t have to shop abroad for them,” said Teges Prita Soraya, a spokeswoman for the mall, adding that trade, largely in imported luxury brands, had surged ahead despite the global crisis.

The mall is home to the country’s first branch of Harvey Nichols, the upscale British department store, and has boutiques for luxury brands like Chanel, Armani and Dolce & Gabbana — which already have branches in other malls across the city.

Yet there is criticism that economic growth has had less effect than it should have for the majority. About 15 percent of the population lives below the country’s official poverty line of around $1 a day, but advocates for the poor say the percentage would be larger if Indonesia set the bar a little higher, say, at $1.25. Relatively sluggish growth in labor-intensive industries has meant slow progress in curbing unemployment, which is over 7 percent.

The New York Times

The government believes that one solution to moving to a higher level of sustained growth is foreign investment, particularly in industries like manufacturing. The government’s investment coordinating board, known as BKPM, is hoping to attract $30 billion to $40 billion in annual foreign investment by 2015 — three to four times as much as it achieved last year, said Gita Wirjawan, head of the agency.

In an economy currently worth $650 billion a year and expected to grow to $1 trillion in five years, that is not terribly much. But it is “optically” very important for establishing Indonesia as a serious investment destination, he said.

“It’s not a slam-dunk, but it’s achievable,” he said.

Indonesia gets the largest share of its foreign investment from within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, with non-Asean states like Japan and South Korea, as well as European countries, making up much of the rest.

Indonesia is working to change rules to make it easier to acquire land for infrastructure and is seeing interest in infrastructure investment, Mr. Wirjawan said.

The government recently eased investment rules in areas including health care, construction and electricity generation. At the same time, it is working to put the flow of “hot,” or speculative, money to better use, passing rules on government bonds requiring foreign investors to keep their money in the country for longer.

Such efforts seem to be paying off. The government announced this week that China’s sovereign fund, China Investment Corp., was hoping to invest $25 billion in infrastructure projects in Indonesia. Posco, the South Korean steel giant, signed a $6 billion deal on Wednesday to build a plant in Indonesia with the local producer Krakatau Steel.

While investment in manufacturing still lags behind other sectors, Mr. Wirjawan said that Indonesia, with its relatively low labor costs, was reaping the benefits of rising costs in regional competitors.

“We’re seeing an increasing relocation of factories by the Taiwanese, the Koreans and Japanese from Vietnam and China, given their rising labor costs and given the increased stability that people are seeing in Indonesia from an economic and political standpoint,” he said.

The Indonesian Footwear Association has said that major brands including Asics, Mizuno and New Balance have shifted part of their production to Indonesia this year because of rising costs elsewhere. Indonesia’s footwear industry employs 640,000 people and exported $1.8 billion worth of goods in 2009, said the association’s chairman, Eddy Widjanarko. Producers are hoping to increase that figure to $2 billion this year.

Katja Schreiber, a spokeswoman for Adidas — which has also been aggressively expanding production in Indonesia — said the country, its third-biggest supplier, offered “abundant labor availability, good quality, competitive prices and political stability.” Although production here is growing rapidly, she said, it is not happening at the expense of its top suppliers, China and Vietnam.

The local stock market has reflected the perceived strengths of the economy. Shares related to commodities, Indonesia’s main export sector, have been strong earners. Banking stocks have risen along with the generally upbeat mood on consumption and the relatively good health of the sector, which, for the most part, weathered the credit crisis reasonably well. Major consumer shares like Unilever Indonesia and the car distributor Astra International have been consistent leaders on the local index.

All this exuberance has raised some fears that inflation could become a big problem. The country’s central bank, Bank Indonesia, decided to hold its benchmark interest rate at 6.5 percent this week, despite a jump in annual inflation to 6.22 percent in July.

Regardless, many feel that Indonesia’s time has come again.

“In Asia there is a feeling that after you invest in China and after you invest in India, where are you going to invest? said Fauzi Ichsan, senior economist for Standard Chartered in Indonesia.

“It’ll have to be Indonesia. It’s a natural destination.”
 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/busine…

 http://www.koreadaynyc.org/

July 30 Korea Day at Central Park

Friday, July 30, 11 am~7 pm
Naumberg Bandshell in Central Park (Mid-Park from 66th to 72nd Streets)

The event will begin with the 60th anniversary of Korean War Commemoration to prompt visitors that South Korea has rapidly become fully developed.

Central Park has been arbitrarily picked for New Yorkers and tourists to reach without any difficulty, also gathered wide variety of plans to globalize Korean Culture with main stage and booth functions.

Our Strategy is to give out samples of food representing Korea such as Bibimbap, Bulgogi, Naengmyun (Korean style cold noodles), rice punch, cinnamon punch and so on.

Eye catching traditional performances will be showing off its talents conducted with Janggo and Buk including modern dance, electric violin, and jazz portraying modern culture.

Korea Day is sponsored by Korean Cultural Service NY, Agro-trade & Exhibition Center, Korea Tourism Organization and etc; with an accompaniment of Korean Cuisine Globalization Committee.

For more information call (212) 448-1080,

The facts as described in: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/07…

Canadian woman is next top UN internal watchdog.

By JOHN HEILPRIN
Associated Press Writer
Posted: Wednesday, Jul. 28, 2010

UNITED NATIONS The United Nations turned to a Canadian woman on Wednesday who was chief auditor for the World Bank as its choice for the next head of the U.N.’s internal watchdog agency.

Carman Lapointe-Young won approval from the General Assembly to become the undersecretary-general for oversight. She will be given the huge task of trying to quickly fix an agency that her predecessor says is in disarray.

She will start her job on Sept. 13, the U.N. announced. She will move to New York from Rome, where she has headed the oversight office of the U.N.’s fund for agricultural development since February 2009.

The Manitoba native was appointed to the non-renewable, five-year term as head of the U.N.’s Office of Internal Oversight Services by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, whose leadership was severely criticized in an end-of-assignment memo by outgoing OIOS head Inga-Britt Ahlenius of Sweden.

Ban said in a statement that Lapointe-Young has the “breadth and depth of experience and expertise required for this demanding position.” He said she will be expected to rebuild OIOS and fill its many vacancies as soon as possible.

Ban is reviewing Ahlenius’ memo and has ordered a review of the U.N.’s ability to investigate itself, his chief of staff, Vijay Nambiar, said last week.

Bea Edwards of the Government Accountability Project, a Washington-based nonprofit law firm, said Wednesday one of the key challenges Lapointe-Young will face is to redirect OIOS investigations onto cases of major financial fraud and corruption.

Her firm has represented at least one OIOS investigator who filed a whistleblower complaint against the division’s acting director.

“We would just hope that she would re-focus the attention of OIOS onto the more significant cases of fraud and corruption, and there would be less emphasis on these petty, internal investigations,” said Edwards, referring to internal probes that she said were focused on allegations such as improper travel expense claims and pornography on computers.

Over the past decade the U.N. has been rocked a series of corruption scandals in its multibillion-dollar spending. The best known resulted from a two-year investigation into the U.N.-run oil-for-food program for Iraq led by former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker.

Volcker’s inquiry culminated in an October 2005 report accusing more than 2,200 companies from some 40 countries of colluding with Saddam Hussein’s regime to bilk $1.8 billion from a program aimed at easing Iraqi suffering under U.N. sanctions.

As a result of the scandal, the U.N. created a special anti-corruption task force between 2006 and 2008 that found 20 significant corruption schemes. Its work led to sanctions against about 50 U.N. vendors, many of which were permanently debarred, and felony convictions against three U.N. officials, including two senior procurement officials.

Lapointe-Young won the nod despite some grumbling among diplomats from developing nations who said her appointment upset an informal understanding that the top accountability post should alternate between developing and rich Western nations.

At the General Assembly, several diplomats touched on the issue of geographical diversity. U.N. spokesman Martin Nesirky acknowledged the concerns of representatives of “regional groups” in the General Assembly who were consulted before Wednesday’s approval, but said Ban’s selection was based on “merit,” ultimately.

From 2004 to 2009, she was the auditor general of The World Bank Group. It was during that time that Paul Wolfowitz resigned as president of the World Bank amid controversy over a pay package for his girlfriend, a bank employee.

She succeeds Ahlenius, who left the OIOS post in mid-July after blaming Ban for blocking her attempt to hire a former U.S. federal prosecutor as permanent head of the investigation division and taking other measures that she said undermined the operational independence her office is supposed to have.

Ban and his senior advisers have quickly closed ranks and disputed many of the memo’s assertions while trying to put the dispute quickly behind them.

“Where there are lessons to be learned, we will draw them,” Angela Kane, the undersecretary-general for management, said in a statement Wednesday.

In a statement labeled “Accountability for a Stronger United Nations,” Kane said Lapointe-Young will inherit “an office with 76 vacant posts” because Ahlenius failed to fill them.

—————————-

AT THE FAREWELL PARTY GIVEN BY OUTGOING AMBASSADOR H. E. YUKIO TAKASU OF JAPAN, SEEMINGLY MR. BAN KI-MOON EXPRESSED SURPRISE AT REPORTS THAT SOUTH AFRICA WAS PROMISED A SENIOR POST AT OIOS IN EXCHANGE FOR NOT BLOCKING THE APPOINTMENT OF A CANADIAN. so, here we have his commitment to let the new OIOS Chief pick her own Deputy?

At UN, Farewell to Takasu Amid Echoes of OIOS, of Human Right to Water and Sushi

UNITED NATIONS, July 28 — Japan’s Yukio Takasu held a farewell to New York and the UN on Tuesday night at his country’s East Side townhouse.

Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was there — expressing surprise at reports that South Africa was promised a senior post at the Office of Internal Oversight Services in change for not blocking the top spot going to a Canadian - as well as his Under Secretaries General Lynn Pascoe, Kiyotaka Akasaka and Angela Kane.

After Mr. Ban and his well liked bride left, much talk turned to the controversy stirred by the damning End of Assignment Report of outgoing OIOS chief Inga Britt Ahlenius. While usually at the UN, the press asks Ambassadors for information and opinion, this time is was the reverse.

Several Ambassadors asked Inner City Press, What do you think this means for Ban getting or not getting a second term? Major Permanent Representatives had read the critical Press coverage. “This is not good,” they said. “But will Obama have the decisiveness to act?”

Susan Rice was asked and told the media as if by rote that the US supports Ban. Others in the Obama Administration are not saying the same thing.

Ban’s USGs worked the crowd. Angela Kane of Ban’s Department of Management bowed, Japanese style, with an outgoing members of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions from, where else, Japan.

Due to ACABQ’s penchant for anonymity, we will not name her but wish her well. As the UN’s envoy to Darfur said earlier at the stakeout, ACABQ recently visited El Fasher. She noted of Inner City Press, your coverage of ACABQ is always fair. Hey, it’s the only accountability mechanism in the UN, along with the press.

Kiyo Akasaka of Ban’s Department of Public Information was in his element, offering food recommendations and this new media news, that the UN is agreeing to a refer in their forthcoming guidelines to a willingness to accredit bloggers — and not only “journalists who write blogs” — although, strangely, confined to a footnote. We’ll see.

——————————-

The reality at the UN is that seemingly there is much financial interest by many countries and this includes covering of plain corruption – so – OIOS would have its hands full if it were to go after this plateful of problems.

Take for instance all those companies that bribed their way through the Iraqi “Oil for Food” project. Did anyone look at them, i.e. the French bank that was involved? Paul Volcker put it all in the open and the UN pushed it back under the rug by appointing OIOS. Will it finally be picked up?

Then, Ms. Alhenius also had a clear conflict. It is a Swedish company that got a non-competitive contract to redo the UN buildings. Some at he UN wanted to see this reviewed – clearly a matter for OIOS – but we heard no action on this. Only some members of the Press kept pointing at the problem.

So far we do not know of conflicts of interest involving Canada, will the new Chief start out with her right foot in staking her position – as controller – the buck stops here? Something like the US GAO – US Comptroller General?

In what regards her attitude when auditing the World Bank, we found an excellent interview with her:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4153/is_3_64/ai_n27504378/?tag=content;col1

that we highly recommend to our readers.

Making a difference: the World Bank Group’s Auditor General Carman Lapointe-Young says her team of auditors is playing its part in the organization’s fight to end poverty.

Internal Auditor, June, 2008 by Neil Baker

————————————

Further, we are gratified that our article was picked up byUNelections.org
 http://unelections.org/?q=node/2047

Canadian Woman is Next Top UN Internal Watchdog (Opinion) – July 28

We learn from the IPS article that even Korea, the Ban Ki-moon home country, is turning against him by saying at the fifth Committee – “ The organisation should no longer be a safety net for those who cannot show competency.”

The full truth is that under the Ban Ki-moon cabinet the UN was reduced to a House of Midgets (please excuse my incorrectness by saying this because I immediately recognize that midgets are full human beings). The UN Administration ends up reflecting into the pool of Ambassadorships and UN stuff. If nothing is done this is because many of the others at top chose to reflect the man on top and end up doing nothing more then back him and his system, and fight for chairs rather then any ideals of their mission at an institute that has lost its meaning.

Let us add here that we were shocked to find out that the new Prime Minister of the UK, Mr. David Cameron, in his two days trip to the US this week found time to visit with the UN Secretary-General, a fact that might be taken as meaning the backing of his position – or cynics may say – the campaigning for some more UK positions at this UN rather then any expression of criticism of where the UN is going. Which are the countries that speak up on the UN? The US did when standing up at ECOSOC on the Gay NGO, but will the US say that throwing money at this UN is no way to improve the World? Is Sweden going to come out and back Ms. Ahlhenius? Are the other small European States doing more then chase positions at the secretariat? Will Japan direct its UN people to stiffen up? The Department of Public Information nominally belongs to them – but did their man in charge, Mr. Kiyotaka Akasaka, clean his house?

———————————————————————————

FRIDAY, JULY 23, 2010
 http://ipsterraviva.net/UN/currentNew.as…

U.N. Chief Defends Himself Against Attack on Leadership.
by Thalif Deen

UNITED NATIONS, Jul 22 (IPS) – A sharp-witted newspaper columnist once remarked that in Washington DC the ship of state always leaks at the top.

The United Nations is perhaps no better — judging by the circumstances surrounding the leaking of a confidential 51-page document in which Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is politically crucified by one of his own senior officials.

Responding to the blistering attack by departing Under-Secretary-General Inga-Britt Ahlenius, Ban said he had always welcomed constructive criticism. “But as public servants, there are rules and procedures. In this case, a trust, a bond, had been broken”. Ban told a meeting of senior advisers Thursday it was regrettable that a confidential document had been leaked to the press.

The Washington Post broke the story Monday but ran only excerpts from the report in which Ahlenius, a former auditor-general of Sweden, challenged the very leadership of the secretary-general.

“There is no transparency (and) there is lack of accountability. Rather than supporting the internal oversight which is the sign of strong leadership and good governance, you have strived to control it which is to undermine its position. I do not see any signs of reform in the Organisation,” Ahlenius wrote in her “End of Assignment Report’.

After spending seven years with the United Nations, Ahlenius served the last five as head of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), the investigative arm of the world body.

The attacks by Ahlenius were fast and furious:

– “It will take time to see the harm caused by the weak secretary-general because the process of decay and weakening of the Organisation and the Secretariat is a stealthy process”;

– “Absence of strategic guidance and leadership manifests itself not only through failure to bring about change and reform of the Organisation; it also manifests itself as a sort of an “adhocracy”; disintegrated and ill thought through “reforms” are launched without adequate analysis and with lack of understanding and a holisitc view”;

– “You are undermining the authority of your senior advisers both by affording them short — one year — mandates and also by exercising your direct authority over the appointments of their staff”;

– “Senior positions politicized, a culture that will filter down in the organisation, compromising the merit-based recruitment, undermining excellence and lowering the moral; (and) the health and capacity of the secretariat will be ignored”;

– “However, you yourself, the deputy secretary-general, the chef de cabinet and the deputy chef de cabinet have not been available for any interviews. The Risk Assessment is carried out in your interest and we had expected that you and your closest staff would have taken interest in and contributed to its conclusions. However, in spite of a number of reminders, we have not been able to access you and your closest staff and we will therefore conclude our Risk Assessment — short of your crucial contribution– and submit it to you for a follow up discussion“.

“I regret this lack of interest from your side in contributing to this process established in your interest and in the interest of the Organisation.”

The report cites at least one delegate who complained in the Fifth Committee that “the overall culture in the secretariat has not shown much improvement in terms of accountability… The organisation should no longer be a safety net for those who cannot show competency.”

And this, the report says, comes ironically from a delegate from Korea, home country of the secretary-general.

The report also points out that the culture of the Organisation is traditionally one of secrecy.

“Such secretiveness serves us poorly, it only serves to feed rumours, gossip and finally distrust within the organisation and between the organisation and its external stake holders, including the media.”

In the information vacuum created by secretiveness, the public and the media are very much left to information from informal sources, well or ill-intentioned “leaks”.

“Regrettably, these leaks in the secretariat are rather seen as an argument to further restrict information and to investigate the leaks, than as an argument for increased transparency. Your own Executive Office is rather described to be “consumed by leaks.”

“Transparency serves in the long run to improve the organisation and to establish the culture of responsibility and accountability that you say you envisage.”

“I see no visible effort to deliver on your stated commitment to increased transparency.”

Ahlenius also implicitly portrays Ban in poor light compared to three former secretaries-general.

She says Boutros Boutros-Ghali established the intellectual leadership of the secretariat. Kofi Annan reconfirmed the role of the secretary-general as both the “norm-entrepreneur” of the world and his role as the pre-eminent diplomat and chief negotiator;

Dag Hammarskjold was the one who defined the role of the secretary-general and pronounced himself often on the two roles; he maintained that the “Charter gives the secretary-general an explicit political role. His active and successful intervention in international crises was the demonstration of his conviction;

But where does Ban stand?

“I regret to say the (U.N.) Secretariat now is in a process of decay. It is not only falling apart into silos – the Secretariat is drifting, to use the words of one of my senior colleagues,” Ahlenius said.

“I am concerned that we are in a process of decline and reduced relevance of the Organisation. In short, we seem to be seen less and less as a relevant partner in the resolution of world problems”.

This, she points out, inevitably risks weakening the United Nations’ possibilities to fulfill its mandate.

“Ultimately, that is to the detriment of peace and stability in the world. This is as sad as it is serious.”

The detailed 51-page report follows: Report

——————————————————–

We have covered this issue earlier.

Please see:  http://www.sustainabilitank.info/?s=Ahle…

and more specifically: http://www.sustainabilitank.info/2010/07…

“An Explosion at the UN – the departing Swedish head of the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), in a 50 page memo, makes it clear that this UN Administration has failed to clean up the UN and actually actively insisted on making things worse – we observed this a couple of years ago. It is time to look for a Can-Do UN Secretary General as we have observed earlier this year. The article echoed in Vienna also.”

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 20th, 2010
by Pincas Jawetz ( PJ at SustainabiliTank.com)

Much of the UN rebuttal is mush and we will report on how this unfolds.

Much of the UN rebuttal is mush and we will report on how this unfolds.

——————————

Departing U.N. official calls Ban’s leadership ‘deplorable’ in 50-page memo.

Inga-Britt Ahlenius wrote a 50-page memo upon the end of her term as head of the U.N. Office of Internal Oversight Services. (2008 Photo By Mark Garten/Associated Press)

By Colum Lynch

Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 20, 2010

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/19/AR2010071904734.html?referrer=emailarticle

UNITED NATIONS — The outgoing chief of a U.N. office charged with combating corruption at the United Nations has issued a stinging rebuke of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, accusing him of undermining her efforts and leading the global institution into an era of decline, according to a confidential end-of-assignment report.

The memo by Inga-Britt Ahlenius, a Swedish auditor who stepped down Friday as undersecretary general of the Office of Internal Oversight Services, represents an extraordinary personal attack on Ban from a senior U.N. official. The memo also marks a challenge to Ban’s studiously cultivated image as a champion of accountability.

Shortly after taking office in 2007, Ban committed himself to restoring the United Nations’ reputation, which had been sullied by revelations of corruption in the agency’s oil-for-food program in Iraq.

But Ahlenius says that, rather than being an advocate for accountability, Ban, along with his top advisers, has systematically sought to undercut the independence of her office, initially by trying to set up a competing investigations unit under his control and then by thwarting her efforts to hire her own staff.

“Your actions are not only deplorable, but seriously reprehensible. . . . Your action is without precedent and in my opinion seriously embarrassing for yourself,” Ahlenius wrote in the 50-page memo to Ban, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post. “I regret to say that the secretariat now is in a process of decay.”

Ban’s top advisers said that Ahlenius’s memo constituted a deeply unbalanced account of their differences and that her criticism of Ban’s stewardship of the United Nations was patently unfair.

“A look at his record shows that Secretary General Ban has provided genuine visionary leadership on important issues from climate change to development to women’s empowerment. He has promoted the cause of gender balance in general as well as within the organization. He has led from the front on important political issues from Gaza to Haiti to Sudan,” Ban’s chief of staff, Vijay Nambiar, wrote in a response.

“It is regrettable to note,” Nambiar added, “that many pertinent facts were overlooked or misrepresented” in Ahlenius’s memo.

The departure of Ahlenius, 72, coincides with a period of crisis in the United Nations’ internal investigations division. During the past two years, the world body has shed some of its top investigators. It has also failed to fill dozens of vacancies, including that of the chief of the investigations division in the Office of Internal Oversight Services. That post has been vacant since 2006, leaving a void in the United Nations’ ability to police itself, diplomats say.

“We are disappointed with the recent performance of [the U.N.'s] investigations division,” said Mark Kornblau, spokesman for the U.S. mission to the United Nations. “The coming change in . . . leadership is an opportunity to bring about a significant improvement in its performance to increase oversight and transparency throughout the organization.”

The U.N. General Assembly established the Office of Internal Oversight Services in 1994 to conduct management audits of the United Nations’ principal departments and to conduct investigations into corruption and misconduct. The founding resolution granted the office “operational independence” but placed it under the authority of the secretary general and made it dependent on the U.N. departments it policed for much of its funding and administrative support.

The dispute between Ahlenius and Ban has underscored some of the resulting tensions and exposed a protracted and acrimonious struggle for power over the course of U.N. investigations.

While Ahlenius cited Ban’s move to set up a new investigations unit as a sign that he was seeking to undermine her independence, Nambiar said that it was intended to strengthen the United Nations’ ability to fight corruption.

Ahlenius also clashed with Ban over her efforts to hire a former federal prosecutor, Robert Appleton, who headed the U.N. Procurement Task Force, a temporary white-collar crime unit that carried out aggressive investigations into corruption in U.N. peacekeeping missions from 2006 to last year. The unit’s investigations led to an unprecedented number of misconduct findings by U.N. officials and prompted federal probes into corruption.

Ban’s advisers said they blocked Appleton’s appointment on the grounds that female candidates had not been properly considered and said that the final selection should have been made by Ban, not Ahlenius.

“The secretary general fully recognizes the operational independence of OIOS,” Nambiar said. But that, he said, “does not excuse her from applying the standard rules of recruitment.”

—————————————-

The above story, as per – http://www.orf.at/#/stories/2004590/ - also echoed in Vienna.

Scheidende UNO-Diplomatin rechnet mit Ban ab.

Die scheidende Chefkontrolleurin der Vereinten Nationen geht laut Medienberichten mit Generalsekretär Ban Ki Moon hart ins Gericht. Ban habe ihre Arbeit als oberste Korruptionsbekämpferin unterlaufen und die UNO in eine Ära des Niedergangs geführt, schrieb Inga-Britt Ahlenius laut einem Bericht der „Washington Post“ gestern in einem vertraulichen Memorandum.

Entgegen seinen Ankündigungen zum Amtsantritt 2007 habe Ban die durch mehrere Affären angeschlagene Reputation der Vereinten Nationen nicht mit allen Mitteln geschützt.

——————————
„Verwerflich“

Vielmehr habe er ihr Amt der Chefrevisorin mehr und mehr geschwächt, schreibe Ahlenius in dem 50-Seiten-Papier an Ban: „Ihr Handeln ist nicht nur bedauerlich, sondern sogar verwerflich.“ Es sei beispiellos und „meiner Meinung nach für Sie selbst beschämend“. Das Blatt zitierte: „Ich bedaure es, sagen zu müssen, dass das Sekretariat in einem Zerfallsprozess ist.“

Kritiker werfen Ban seit langem vor, die UNO nur zu verwalten und vor wirksamen politischen Initiativen zurückzuschrecken. UNO-Mitarbeiter wiesen die Vorwürfe in der „Washington Post“ als „unfair“ zurück. Ban habe mehrere politische Schwerpunkte gesetzt, etwa beim Klimaschutz und bei der Gleichstellung der Frau. Die Abrechnung der scheidenden Schwedin sei ein „höchst unausgewogener Ausdruck ihrer Differenzen“ mit Ban.,

from The Korea Society <The_Korea_Society@mail.vresp.com>

Like everyone else we try to understand the sense in the sinking of the South Korean (the Republic of Korea ROK) ship and we were glad to have the chance to listen to the official ROK version, this after we were familiar with a Japan Times article that mentioned two South Korean professors living in the US that expressed serious doubt about this version. We are trained to discredit the North Korea version because we have indeed little belief in anything this only remainig Stalinist regime puts forward. So this is not our problem. Our problem is rather that we sense here a difference of points of view betwen ROK and the US and this could sign in new times of danger in the Far East.

What does this have to do with Sustainable Development? It does. We wrote several times in the past of the terrific internal market a re-united Korea would have, so its future could be as bright as that of the re-united Germany. The placing of a Germany of the East in the middle of the China – Japan – India triangle could help push forward the whole region and help with the new economy of the 21st century.

South Korea wants to be granted an image of stability and stable management of the Peninsula. After analyzing the Security Council resolution on the Cheonan incident, it looks like one-sided and strengthening the US-ROK relations with a strong feeling of recomitment in the US. Was this the objective of an exercise?

On the North Korean side they clearly would like to stabilize the economy. They do not come out with large provocative acts but continue since Cheonan with a string of small provocations and it is remembered that they have some 30-40 kilo of Plutonium.

Politically the language is strange.

The ROK speaks of PEACE, ECONOMY, HAPPY COMMUNITY on the peninsula, while the North wants to talk via the 6-Party dialogue intermediary route.

Now to the ROK Cheonan: “It was an underwater explosion of a CHT -02D torpedo that created a shock wave and bubble effect that broke the ship in half.” This is backed by an international group of experts that was organized by South Korea. But then, as we will see from the article in the Japan Times, there seem to be signs that the old ship had structural problems, the Aluminum was being attacked – some white powder was found and perhaps it was just a plain accident that was indeed not caused by the North Koreans. But that does not mean anyway that they are angels.

The Vice Minister points out that the US has returned to Korea 47 out of the 80 bases it had and the USFK relocation project concentrates the forces to two hubs.

With all of this Moody’s ratings went up and there is hope a US-Korea Free Trade Agreement will be ratified.

——————

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/mail/nn20100710b2.html

Saturday, July 10, 2010

Scholars doubt Cheonan finding
Staff report, The Japan Times

Two visiting U.S.-based experts called Friday in Tokyo for a
reinvestigation into the sinking of a South Korean warship allegedly
by a North Korean submarine, arguing a multinational probe and report
on the incident had many inconsistencies and flaws.

The report, released in May, was based on a probe by the Joint
Civilian-Military Investigation Group (JIG) to look into the March
sinking of the Cheonan and the loss of 46 South Korean sailors.

Jae Jung Suh, an associate professor of international politics at
Johns Hopkins University in Washington D.C., and Seung Hun Lee, a
professor of physics at the University of Virginia, claimed the
condition of the salvaged Cheonan is inconsistent with the JIG
conclusion that the sinking was due to a shock wave and a bubble
effect and that the blue ink marking on the torpedo reading “No. 1″ in
Hangul would have been burned off in a detonation.

They also said the “white compounds” found on both the recovered ship
and torpedo were not substances resulting from an explosion but are
most likely “rusted” aluminum exposed to moisture or water for a long
time.”

“We do not know (what happened to the Cheonan), and nobody knows at
the moment,” Suh said Friday at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of
Japan in Tokyo’s Chiyoda Ward.

————————————

THE UPDATE IS THAT WEDNESDAY JULY 22, 2010, US Secretary of State Ms. Hillary Clinton and US Secretary of Defense Mr. Robert Gates, will be in Seoul to discuss security issues and the continuing tension with North Korea.

Verónica Michelle Bachelet Jeria (Spanish pronunciation: [mi?t?el ?at?e?let]; born September 29, 1951) is a moderate socialist politician who was President of Chile from 11 March 2006 to 11 March 2010—the first woman president in the country’s history.

She won the 2006 presidential election in a runoff, beating center-right US dollar billionaire businessman and former senator Sebastián Piñera with 53.5% of the vote.

She campaigned on a platform of continuing Chile’s free-market policies, while increasing social benefits to help reduce the gap between rich and poor, one of the largest in the world.

Bachelet, a pediatrician and epidemiologist with studies in military strategy, served as Health Minister and Defense Minister under President Ricardo Lagos.

Bachelet is the second child of archaeologist Ángela Jeria Gómez and Air Force Brigadier General Alberto Bachelet Martínez.

Facing growing food shortages, the government of Salvador Allende placed Bachelet’s father in charge of the Food Distribution Office. When General Augusto Pinochet came to power in the September 11, 1973 coup, General Bachelet, refusing exile, was detained at the Air War Academy under charges of treason. Following months of daily torture at Santiago’s Public Prison, on March 12, 1974, he suffered a cardiac arrest that resulted in his death. On January 10, 1975, Bachelet and her mother were detained at their apartment by two DINA agents, who blindfolded them and drove them to Villa Grimaldi, a notorious secret detention center in Santiago, where they were separated and submitted to interrogation and torture.^[13] Some days later they were transferred to Cuatro Álamos (“Four Poplars”) detention center, where they were held until the end of January. Later in 1975, thanks to sympathetic connections in the military, both were exiled to Australia, where Bachelet’s older brother Alberto had moved in 1969.

Her paternal great-great-grandfather, Louis-Joseph Bachelet Lapierre, was a French wine merchant from Chassagne-Montrachet who emigrated to Chile with his Parisian wife, Françoise Jeanne Beault, in 1860 hired as a wine-making expert by the Subercaseaux vineyards in southern Santiago.

In February 1979, Bachelet returned to Santiago, Chile from East Germany. Her medical school credits from the GDR were not transferred, forcing her to resume her studies from where she had left off before fleeing the country. ^{[citation needed]} She graduated as M.D. on January 7, 1983^. She wished to work in the public sector wherever attention was most needed, applying for a position as general practitioner; her petition was, however, rejected by the military government on “political grounds.” Instead, because of her academic performance and published papers, she earned a scholarship to specialize in pediatrics and public health at Roberto del Río Children’s Hospital (1983–1986). During this time she also worked at PIDEE (Protection of Children Injured by States of Emergency Foundation), a non-governmental organization helping children of the tortured and missing in Santiago and Chillán. She was head of the foundation’s Medical Department between 1986 and 1990. Some time after her second child with Dávalos, Francisca Valentina, was born in February 1984, she and her husband legally separated. She is a separated mother of three and describes herself as an agnostic.

In 1990, after democracy was restored in Chile, Bachelet worked for the Ministry of Health’s West Santiago Health Service and was a consultant for the Pan-American Health Organization, the World Health Organization and the German Corporation for Technical Cooperation.

Driven by an interest in civil-military relations, in 1996 Bachelet began studies in military strategy at the National Academy for Strategic and Policy Studies (Anepe) in Chile, obtaining first place in her class.^[2] Her student achievement earned her a presidential scholarship, permitting her to continue her studies in the United States at the Inter-American Defense College in Washington, D.C., completing a Continental Defense Course in 1998. That same year she returned to Chile to work for the Defense Ministry as Senior Assistant to the Defense Minister. She subsequently graduated from a Master’s program in military science at the Chilean Army‘s War Academy.

In 1996 Bachelet ran against future presidential adversary Joaquín Lavín for the mayorship of Las Condes, a wealthy Santiago suburb and a right-wing stronghold. Lavín won the 22-candidate election with nearly 78% of the vote, while she finished fourth at 2.35%. At the 1999 presidential primary of Coalition of Parties for Democracy (CPD), Chile’s governing coalition since 1990, she worked for Ricardo Lagos’s nomination, heading the Santiago electoral zone.

On March 11, 2000 Bachelet—virtually unknown at the time—was appointed Minister of Health by President Ricardo Lagos. She began an in-depth study of the public health-care system that led to the AUGE plan a few years later. She was also given the task of eliminating waiting lists in the saturated public hospital system within the first 100 days of Lagos’s government. She reduced waiting lists by 90%, but was unable to eliminate them completely and offered her resignation, which was promptly rejected by the President.  Controversially,  she allowed free distribution of the morning-after pill for victims of sexual abuse.

On January 7, 2002 Bachelet was appointed Defense Minister, becoming the first woman to hold this post in a Latin American country and one of the few in the world. While Minister of Defense she promoted reconciliatory gestures between the military and victims of the dictatorship, culminating in the historic 2003 declaration by General Juan Emilio Cheyre, head of the army, that “never again” would the military subvert democracy in Chile.  She also oversaw a reform of the military pension system and continued with the process of modernization of the Chilean armed forces with the purchasing of new military equipment, while engaging in international peace operations.

A moment which has been cited as key to Bachelet’s chances to the presidency came during a flood in northern Santiago where she, as Defense Minister, led a rescue operation on top of an amphibious tank, wearing a cloak and military cap.

In late 2004, following a surge of her popularity in opinion polls, Bachelet was established as the only CPD figure able to defeat Lavín, and she was asked to become the Socialists’ candidate for the presidency.

According to The Economist magazine the government of Bachelet opted to make social protection and the promotion of equality of opportunity her main priority. Since becoming President, her government built 3,500 crèches daycare for poorer children. It introduced a universal minimum state pension and extended free health care to cover many serious conditions.
A new housing policy aimed at abolishing the last remaining shanty-towns in Chile by 2010 featured grants to the poorest families. Some of them had to pay just US$400 for a house costing about US$20,000.

In October 2009 Ms Bachelet’s popularity peaked at 80 percent according to a public opinion poll by conservative polling institute Adimark GfK., and in March 2010 she showed an approval rating of 84%, and in terms of specific characteristics attributed to Chile’s president, ‘loved by Chileans’ reached a record 96%.

The Chilean Constitution does not allow a president to serve two consecutive terms, so Bachelet left office in March 2010.

Chile’s October 16, 2006 vote in the United Nations Security Council election—with Venezuela and Guatemala deadlocked in a bid for the two-year, non-permanent Latin American and Caribbean seat on the Security Council — developed into a major ideological issue in the country, and was seen as a test for Bachelet. The governing coalition was divided between the Socialists, who supported a vote for Venezuela, and the Christian Democrats, who strongly opposed it. The day before the vote the president announced (through her spokesman) that Chile would abstain, citing as reason a lack of regional consensus over a single candidate, ending months of speculation.

Continuing the coalition’s free-trade strategy, in August 2006 Bachelet promulgated a free trade agreement with the People’s Republic of China (signed under the previous administration of Ricardo Lagos), the first Chinese free-trade agreement with a Latin American nation; similar deals with Japan and India were promulgated in August 2007. In October 2006, Bachelet promulgated a multilateral trade deal with New Zealand, Singapore and Brunei, the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership (P4),  also signed under Lagos’ presidency.  She also held free-trade talks with other countries, including Australia, Vietnam,  Turkey and Malaysia. Regionally, she signed bilateral free trade agreements with Panama, Peru and Colombia.

At the beginning of 2010 Chile became the OECD’s 31st member, and its first in South America. This acceptance for OECD membership marked international recognition of nearly two decades of democratic reform and sound economic policies; for the OECD, Chile’s membership was a major milestone in its mission to build a stronger, cleaner and fairer global economy

She speaks Spanish (her native language), English, German, Portuguese and French.

In 2009 Forbes magazine ranked her as the 22nd in the list of the 100 most powerful women in the world (she was #25 in 2008, #27 in 2007, and #17 in 2006). In 2008, TIME magazine ranked her 15 on its list of the world’s 100 most influential people.

Eleanor Clift wrote on politicsdaily.com on June 10, 2010 that Michelle Bachelet moved the Chilean Government from Macho – to – Maternal. She was clearly the best qualified person to establish and head the new UN institution that was baptized with the terrible name UNWOMEN. And you know what, letting into the UN building a highly qualified person may endanger the minions working there. That, is what doomed on me today, this because I also learned an additional fact about Bachellet’s Chile, and that is why I write this UPDATE.
 http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06/10/…

The additional fact I learned today came from reading material that will appear in an Energy Management Magazine Published in India. The article is by – Ms. Jimena Bronfman, Vice Minister of Energy, Chile , and it deals with Chile moving into leadership position on energy issues – and you guessed right if you said that Dr. Bachelet started this. In effect the Ministry of Energy – which for Chile is a Ministry of Energy Efficiency – was set up at the end of her days in the Presidential Office. We are sure that this was not an easy task to fulfill – but we are sure that it will be one of her most important legacies. We know that Energy Efficiency is not a top priority of the G77 real on-going leadership and this, more then anything else, explains the diatribe we described in our original posting which we updated now.

The creation of the Ministry of Energy in February 1^st 2010 is an important milestone in this process. The law that is the basis for Chile’s current institutional framework also includes the creation of the Chilean Energy Efficiency Agency, a public private entity that will implement the public policies designed by the Energy Efficiency Division of the Ministry.

Energy Efficiency is one of the main goals of Chile’s national energy policy, families are changing their habits and industries, corporations and local governments are trying to reduce their energy consumption by adopting energy-efficient measures. This fostering environment was recently faced by the February 27^th earthquake and tsunami that devastated several regions of our country. We have taken this catastrophe as an opportunity and a challenge to rebuild our towns and cities using energy efficiency and renewable energy.

The Ministry of Energy is working with other ministries, such as the Ministry of Housing, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education to include energy efficiency measures and non-conventional renewable energies in the reconstruction of health and education infrastructure and emergency housing. We are also developing a pilot project to rebuild a town with the leading best practices in sustainability and energy consumption, so it can be replicated in other parts of the region and world.

Energy Efficiency is key to Chile’s competitiveness and economic growth. According to studies carried out before the earthquake, energy efficiency measures could help reduce Chile’s energy demand by around 14% by 2020. This would have a positive financial impact in the reconstruction process, as public funds saved by reduction of energy consumption can be reallocated to other priorities of the rebuilding program.

Energy Efficiency will also help Chile, whose economy is based on exports, to reduce its carbon footprint and be competitive in a world that is increasingly carbon-conscious. Although Chile’s contribution to global greenhouse emissions is low compared to many other nations, our wines, copper, fruits, fish and wood products are sold in developed markets that will require sustainable production processes.

In order to achieve our goals we are currently developing the Energy Efficiency Strategy for 2020. At the moment a draft proposal is being reviewed by key actors from the private and the public sectors who will be involved in the actual implementation of the strategy. The main objective of this process is to promote a broad discussion of the specific proposals, introduce appropriate improvements and gain comprehensive support for the energy saving goals contemplated in the strategy.  The official version of the E3 will be published after completion of this discussion period, hopefully by the end of November 2010.

Other challenges for this year include the implementation of the rest of our institutional framework, which will be completed by the creation of the Chilean Energy Efficiency Agency, a public-private non-profit entity that will implement the Ministry’s public policies. It will be funded mainly through public funds but will include private sector representatives in its board. The focus of the Agency’s work will be guided by the E3 strategy; however, we shall also aim at developing other important projects such as education. We strongly believe that a crucial driver for change in these matters is highly-skilled human resources. Therefore, education in schools, undergraduate and post-graduate education is needed to introduce strong energy efficiency programs. Other important aspects of energy efficiency lie in smart-grid and net-metering programs.

Another main priority for 2010 is the development of energy efficiency labelling for cars, new houses and domestic appliances. Labelling is currently mandatory for refrigerators and light bulbs, and we aim to expand this initiative so consumers have all the information available to make the right decisions.

We also want to continue growing our international alliances and cooperation. We have already executed collaboration agreements with several countries and organizations worldwide, and we will work to strengthen and deepen those relationships. Energy Efficiency is a global effort that can be fostered by exchanging best practices that will benefit consumers, industries and countries all over the world.

—————————–

The China and Developing States, the full name of the G77 that purports speaking for 130 out of the 192 UN Member States, is a UN charade – simply, because there never was a common interest among all these various States Now, with China becoming at least a G2 with the United States, if not the straight Global Economic Super power, for her to use the leadership of this rag-tag bunch and push into leadership positions at the UN – Libya, Zimbabwe, Sudan etc. resulted in turning the whole UN into a laughable enterprise. Bravo to little Palau that walked out on this continuous obstructionist committee circuit that calls for time-out whenever the UN tries to reach some decision. We watched them at climate Change meetings where Saudi Arabia is their representative.

Perhaps there was once s difference between the industrialized European  – North American countries plus Japan, and the rest of the world – this when the UN was created and the decolonizing process was giving birth to many new UN Member States – in effect multiplying by three the total number of global independent States, but since then much has changed.

The Latin ABC, Mexico, Korea, Turkey, India, Indonesia, South Africa have all knocked successfully at the corporate doors of development and entered the G20. The OECD club includes most of these G20 plus most EU States and Israel that is a perpetual  G77 pariah. They have now real interests to defend and not much time for posturing – so we will see slowly a realignment also at the UN. OK, China and South Africa will not want to give up their positions as leaders of the 130. It keeps some of their diplomats in the circuit and the UN will continue the fiction, but how long hence that the AOSIS/SIDS will still play this game? When will they see that Palau was indeed a trailblazer? Will the lack of action on Climate Change by some of the major OECD members who effectively joined the Saudis in opposing real action on climate, push these States back into the G77 arms?

—————————————-

THURSDAY, JULY 08, 2010
Chile Threatens to Split South Unity in World Body.
Thalif Deen
 http://ipsterraviva.net/UN/currentNew.as…

UNITED NATIONS, Jul 7 (IPS) – The Group of 77 (G77) has historically maintained a united front, vociferously protecting the economic interests of developing countries at the United Nations. But its longstanding solidarity is now being threatened by the continued presence of a single Latin American country which recently joined the ranks of a rich elitist group.

Chile, which was formally inducted last May into the 30-member Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), described as an exclusive club of industrial nations, has given no indications of leaving the G77, thereby triggering a sharp division of opinion among its 130 members. “Chile wants to have it both ways,” one G77 member told IPS, speaking on condition of anonymity. “It wants to have one foot in the OECD and another in the G77. But this is unacceptable to some of us.”

When Mexico and South Korea broke ranks with the developing world and joined the Paris-based OECD back in 1994 and 1996, respectively, both countries quit the G77, the largest single coalition of developing countries at the United Nations.

Chakravarti Raghavan, editor emeritus of the Geneva-based South-North Development Monitor published by the Third World Network, told IPS if Chile does not voluntarily quit the G77, the group must find a way around its longstanding convention of consensus decisions, and “politely but firmly throw Chile out”.

“This will be in line with the spirit and the intentions behind the formation of the Group of 77 and its functioning over all these years,” he added.

“It is probably about time that the G77 being an informal grouping expel Chile – on the simple ground that you can’t belong to two different groupings,” said Raghavan, who is considered a foremost authority on the G77, and who has written extensively about the Group since its inception in June 1964.

“It is my impression that Mexico, when it joined OECD, initially wanted to be in both camps, but was told it was not possible,” he added.

On North-South economic issues at the United Nations, the G77 and the OECD hold diametrically opposite views – most or all of the time.

The OECD is home to some of the world’s major economic powers, including the United States, Britain, Germany, France and Japan. Most of the emerging economic powers, including Brazil, India, China and South Africa, are longstanding members of the G77 and not members of the OECD.

But according to the OECD, it is planning to have discussions with Brazil, China, India, Indonesia and South Africa – all active members of the G77 – “with a view to possible membership”.

The G77 has lost four other members over the years: Cyprus and Malta (both in May 1994) and Romania (January 2007) when they joined the European Union.

A fourth country, Palau, a small island developing nation in the Pacific, withdrew from the G77 in June 2006, ostensibly for financial reasons.

Besides Chile, Mexico and South Korea, the OECD has also added three other non-G77 members into its ranks: Estonia, Slovenia and Israel.

Speaking off-the-record, a diplomat from a G77 country expressed a dissenting point of view when he told IPS: “There is nothing in the G77 rules or guidelines stating that an OECD member has to quit the G77.”

He said Chile is well within its rights to remain a member of the G77.

“And, while there may be a few in G77 who may not be pleased about Chile remaining in the G77, there are no serious moves afoot to push them out of the grouping,” he said. “Most of us, support Chile remaining in the G77. There will be strong resistance from a number of us if anyone tries to eject Chile from the G77.”

And as an after-thought, he added: “The OECD had made leaving the G77 a condition for Mexico’s entry into the OECD. However, when Chile was applying to the OECD, there was no such condition.”

Moreover, he said, Mexico stated that leaving the G77 should not be a condition for Chile’s entry.

Another G77 delegate told IPS that if Chile does not voluntarily leave the Group, as Mexico and South Korea did in previous years, a divided G77 may be forced to take a decision either way.

Meanwhile the former G8 – the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Canada and Russia – has been expanded into the G20 to include seven developing nations (besides Australia, Mexico, South Korea, Turkey and the European Union).

The seven developing countries – Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and South Africa – are still members of the G77.

Chile has argued that G77 members that belong to the G20 should be considered in the same light as G77 members belonging to the OECD. But the G20 is not considered a formal body like the OECD, which is treaty-based and whose decisions are binding on all its members.

According to an OECD statement, the invitation to Chile to become the Organisation’s 31st member came at a time when the OECD is expanding its relations with the region.

As an OECD member, Chile will participate in all areas of the OECD’s work, from economic and financial policy to education, employment and social affairs. It will also join with other OECD countries to share experiences and best practices, setting new standards and developing new governance mechanisms for its economy and society more broadly.

The statement said that during two years of accession negotiations, Chile was reviewed by some 20 OECD committees with respect to OECD instruments, standards and benchmarks.

The invitation to take up membership confirms that Chile is taking appropriate steps to reform its economy including in the areas of corporate governance, anti-corruption, and environmental protection, the statement said.

At UN, N. Korea Ambassador Declares Victory, Came Late to Dark Press Area.
By Matthew Russell Lee, Inner City Press.
UNITED NATIONS, July 9 — North Korea’s Ambassador Sin Son Ho came late to the UN press area, 20 minutes after Susan Rice of the U.S. and her Japanese and South Korean counterparts had spoken and left.
He sat with Inner City Press, asking where the other reporters were. They had left, but following tweets from InnerCityPress and others, some returned. But there was no UNTV crew, and therefore no sound.

Sin Son Ho sat in the penned in press area, sweating. Inner City Press offered him a fan, one handed out in June at a largely Japanese march from Times Square to the UN. “NO! Nuclear Weapons” were the words on fan. Sin Son Ho declined.
Inner City Press asked him if he has seen the photo exhibit in the UN’s entrance about the De-Militarized Zone. He nodded. “My country very beautiful,” he said. “Very beautiful.”

Why did he come so late to the stakeout, after Ambassadors Rice, Takasu and Park had already spoken. He didn’t want to mixed with them, was the answer.

Other reporters began to arrive. Some wondered how the UN Secretariat could be treating North Korea and its Ambassador this way. The emphasis, however, was on getting him to speak and take questions before he left. Inner City Press plugged the lights in. The microphone stand was tilted.

Finally the UNTV crew arrived, and Sin Son Ho began. He denounced the Security Council, which he said “failed to bring the correct judgment or conclusion to this case.” He said the Peninsula was now at a “trigger point” and could “explode at any moment.”

The first question was in Korean, but Sin Son Ho answered in English. This was, he said, a great diplomatic victory. Inner City Press began asking about his statement, in an earlier press conference, that he would lose his job if the Council took action.
A reporter shouted, “Will North Korea take military action?” Sin Son Ho replied, “Thank you for coming,” and walked away from the microphone.

A swarm of TV camera people, mostly from Japanese media, ran after him and up the stairs. A long time UN Security officer tried to stop the camera people, who surrounded Sin Son Ho as he passed through the turnstile. And then he was gone.

* * *

At UN, Korean Ship Attack But Not Attacker Condemned, Faster Action on Lebanese Rock Throwing.

By Matthew Russell Lee, Inner City Press.

UNITED NATIONS, July 8 — At the UN Security Council, it’s hurry up and wait. The sinking of the Cheonan ship was suddenly put on the agenda for consultations Thursday afternoon at 4:30. Some media reported that a statement condemning the sinking, and presumably North Korea, would be issued that same afternoon.

But Council sources told the Press that the meeting was only for the purpose of finally distributing the draft Presidential Statement to the other members of the Council, beyond the P-5 Plus Two. At least for appearance’s sake, the pretense of non P-5 agreement must be kept up. Therefore no statement will issue until Friday.

And when it does, it will not squarely blame North Korea-see below “the Security Council condemns the attack which led to the sinking”

Also slated for Friday is a “quick and dirty” press statement in support of France’s peacekeepers, heroically fighting rock throwers in South Lebanon. France has drafted what it wants, and thinks it will get agreement.

Even though UN staff were barricaded into their offices in Sri Lanka by a mob led by a government minister, and Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who was burned in effigy, belatedly blamed it on the government, the Security Council has not, and in all probability will not, take up the issue. Until a ship gets sunk. And yet then…. Watch this site.

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

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

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

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

While ours looks like this:

Scratching the itch…

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

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

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

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

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

But my itch isn’t satisfied yet…

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

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

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

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

In fact it’s being built from scratch.

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

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

So to recap…

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

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

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

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

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

And it’s winning.

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

Call it like you see it.
Nick

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

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

———————–

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

It was just a tiny, $10 battery company…

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

Click here for your free report.

Greece Seeks Regional Deal To Aid UN Climate Talks.

from: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/08d6fc3a-8600-…

we learned the following – “Argentina in Cup dilemma.”

From the reporting by IPS/TerraViva.   http://ipsterraviva.net/UN/currentNew.as…
The final communiques of the G8 and G20 did little to assuage the central grievances that were expressed before the events in Huntsville and Toronto, during the ‘People’s Summit’ held by activists Jun. 18-20, in Toronto, or in the many peaceful demonstrations held prior to and during the summits.

The major issues being protested – lack of commitment regarding climate change and clean energy, the mounting concerns regarding the development of the Albertan tar sands, ongoing wars and foreign occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the imposition of fiscal austerity measures on member states despite continuing fallout from the global economic crisis which began in 2008 – were not resolved.

And perhaps the core concern – that a select, if somewhat broadened, group of elites are making decisions that concern all peoples around the globe largely in secret – appeared to be flaunted by members of the corporate elite, dubbed the ‘B20′ (Business 20), who were on hand.

During the summit, several dozen of the globe’s most powerful CEOs were given exclusive, off-the-record meetings with the G20′s finance ministers and Prime Minister Harper.

The G20 includes the “world’s most industrialised nations” (which also comprise the G8): Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, Britain and the United States.

Its other members are Australia, Mexico, Turkey and South Korea, Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and South Africa, plus the 27-member European Union.

In concert with the eventual announcement by the G20 that they would seek to halve deficits by 2013 (with the exception of Japan), one business leader projected, “Stimulus is winding down and the private sector is going to have to come in and pick up the slack.”

Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty praised the corporate leaders, saying “The advice we get from you is invaluable in terms of our deliberations and the deliberations of our leaders.”

Offering an indication of the B20′s influence, South Korean Finance Minister Jeung-Hyun Yoon told Toronto’s Globe and Mail, “I sincerely hope the business summit can serve as a platform for public-private collaboration and the starting point of the new normal in the global economic architecture.”

As the effects of the latest policy pronouncements begin to be felt, many fear that Toronto will become known also as the staging ground for the security model that will be deployed to protect this new architecture. {The B2o that is!}

After the completion of the third round we know now that the 16 are made up from 6 Latin American teams, 6 EU teams, two teams from Asia, just one from Africa, and the US.

The six Latin American teams are all five teams of the Southern cone – the ABC and Uruguay and Paraguay, wth the addition of Mexico.

The six EU teams are the two Iberian countries, England, Netherlands, Germany, and Slovakia.

The two Asians are South Korea and Japan.

And then is Ghana, the only African State to make it, and the US. These two teams will meet immediately in the first round of the elimination games – thus making it clear that the upcoming eight eight might not include any African team, or it will miss the US.

The conclusion so far is that when one speaks soccer, the kings are again from the Latin cone and the Iberian Peninsula, with this year the addition of The Netherlands and Germany. The only teams that came out the full amount of 9 points – that is three wins – are The Netherlands and Argentina. The prizes for elimination-with-shame go to France and Italy. North Korea’s participation was a fluke. In their last game they lost to The Ivory Coast at 0:3.

Comparing with our interim article, we seem vindicated by what we wrote about these games and this week-end’s Toronto G-20.

————————-

After the completion of just two rounds of the pre-elimination stage in the World Cap games it is clear that Argentina, Brazil and Chile (the Latin ABC) and The Netherlands, will be among the competing golden 16. But Portugal wins our laurels. They shut out North Korea with a stunning 7:0, while Brazil played them only to a diplomatic 2:1 that allowed North Korea to crow that their Stalinism is succeeding.

On the other hand – it took just two rounds to show it clearly that Europe is in deep crisis.

France is in complete disintegration, England is preoccupied with the BP oilspill and even though they played an equalizer 1:1 with the US but it just does not cover the economic disaster of one of their top corporations and  economically they are sinking together with the US. Soccer-wise they also played an 1:1 game with Nigeria’s oil and may be left out like France from the golden 16. This is shocking indeed in both cases but quite obvious for someone who analyses Europe at large. Personally – for transparency – I have to confess that I did bet on the Nigeria draw and am making some money of the English disaster.

Then Italy and Germany and Spain – they may not make it either. Italy managed just two draws one with our favorite country – New Zealand (that is favorite in general but not in soccer).  Germany, having lost to Serbia is not assured either of a spot among the 16 (For transparency – I was not as bold as thinking they will lose, I only bet on a draw but they ended worse then our prediction).
Spain lost to Switzerland – right there at starting game?

Could anyone imagine a World Cup 16 without France, England, Germany, Italy …?  All of them having their independent seats at Toronto’s G-20 table? Can I say once more that there is not an EU Half-life Crisis – face up to it – it is rather that the rest of the world is moving up and Europe must Unite in order to have future value. This World Cup Chaos is a bellweather! The United Siates might make it into the circle of the 16 – in soccer of all things – because it is now more united then the EU. That is even stranger.

Thanks Portugal – you were the only ones to show there is still life left in Europe.

Date:      Mon, 21 Jun 2010
From:    “[EUC-KR] ???” <hstrip@pspd.org>
Subject: [PSPD] Urgent Letter to Friends, Human Rights Defenders and Peace  Activities.

Urgent Letter to Friends, Human Rights Defenders and Peace Activities.

Dear Friends, Human Rights Defenders and Peace Activities

People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD), a watchdog NGO in
South Korea established in 1994, urgently appeals to the international
community for support and solidarity. PSPD has been oppressed and threatened
by the Lee Myung-bak government.

PSPD sent a report ‘PSPD’s Stance on the Final Investigation Report on the
Cheonan’ to the members of the UN Security Council on June 11, 2010. The
report raised questions, which still need answers and clarifications, on the
government investigation result and called upon the UN Security Council to
make a decision heavily prioritizing peace on the Korean Peninsula.

As all of you are well aware, NGOs’ consultation and communication with the
UN is a right stated in the UN Charter, and NGOs like everyone are granted
to exert fundamental rights such as the freedom of opinion and expression.
However, the Lee Myung-bak government is accusing PSPD as unpatriotic and
PSPD’s report as ‘against national interest and security.’ It is also
arguing that PSPD’s letter to the UN Security Council is benefiting the
enemy, North Korea, which denies its involvement in the Cheonan incident. In
addition, it fallaciously asserts that it is out of the ordinary that an NGO
holds a position contrary to its government.

Right after official accusations from the government, on June 16, 2010, the
Prosecutor’s Office initiated an investigation on whether PSPD violated the
National Security Law, of which the UN recommended its abolition and whether
sending a report to the UN Security Council is defamation under the Korean
criminal law. Accordingly, the Prosecutor’s Office plans interrogations of
PSPD staff members.

The Blue House (the presidential house of the ROK), the Prime Minister, and
the Grand National Party’s (the current ruling party of the ROK) floor
leader, among others, officially denounced PSPD as below.

On June 15, 2010, the Grand National Party, Spokesperson, Hae Jin Cho stated
that “PSPD’s behavior is a typical enemy-benefiting behavior… Harsh
constitutional measures must be imposed on those who try to sell/betray the
country while hiding behind the freedom and democracy.”

On June 15, 2010, the Grand National Party’s floor leader, Moo Sung Kim
stated that “I think that (such behavior) is enemy-benefiting behavior that
threatens the identity of the Republic of Korea and injures our national
security… Even though South Korea is a democratic country guaranteeing
freedom of expression, I cannot tolerate such irresponsible, pro-DPRK
conduct benefiting the enemy… PSPD should voluntarily dissolve… (PSPD) must
pay price.”

On June 14, 2010, the spokesperson of the Blue House stated that “this is a
shameful and worrisome situation… I really want to ask PSPD their underlying
purpose in engaging in such behavior.”

On June 14, 2010, the Prime Minister Un-Chan Chung stated that “I wonder of
what nationality they (PSPD) are. Such actions are against national
interest. It (PSPD’s actions) dishonored and shamed our country.”

On June 15, 2010, the 2nd Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Chun,
Yung-woo replied for the question “Are there any cases that a NGO sends a
contrast position paper against the government on the security issue”, “ I
have never heard of that there are such NGOs, and document sent by a NGO
cannot be a UNSC document.”

PSPD believes that diplomacy and security policy should be under the
citizenry’s watch and democratic control. National Security and diplomatic
policy should not be monopolized by military and diplomatic authorities. As
a member of the international society, PSPD will continuously make every
effort to advance the universal goals of democracy and peace through its
activities as a political watchdog.

Sincerely Yours

Jong-Dae Lim
Representative
People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy
———————————

Enclosure
1. [PSPD Statement] PSPD’s Stance on the Disputes over its Letter on the
Cheonan Incident to the UN Security Council
2. Official Accusation Remarks from the Lee Myung-bak Government on PSPD
3. [PSPD Report] PSPD’s Stance on the Final Investigation Report on the
Cheonan
4. Brochure for PSPD Introduction

–
??? ???? ?????? ??
T.02-723-4250  HP.010-3274-7755
110-043 ??? ??? ??? 132 ???? 4?
www.peoplepower21.org

Sunday, June 20, 2010

APEC to pursue low-carbon technologies: Nuke power to be promoted as low-emission energy source;
new plant construction urged.
FUKUI (Kyodo) Energy ministers from Pacific Rim economies agreed Saturday to embark on a project to create low-carbon model cities using energy-efficient technologies and urged the promotion of nuclear power as an environmentally friendly energy source.

The one-day meeting of the 21-member Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in the city of Fukui was hosted by Japan, this year’s APEC chair. At the meeting, which focused on energy security and other matters, participants also concurred that fossil fuels will continue to play a key role in the region, which includes such emerging economies as China, and attached importance to enhancing preparedness for oil supply disruption such as by collaborating with the International Energy Agency over energy response workshops and exercises.

The model cities would likely feature a “smart grid” advanced power transmission network or buildings with facilities for renewable energy generation.

Smart grid, which uses information technology, is an efficient power transmission network that is expected to encourage the use of renewable energy such as solar and wind, because it can give stability to the output of electricity supplied by the fluctuating power sources.

Meanwhile, the declaration stipulated that the deployment of renewable energy, nuclear energy, and power generation involving carbon capture and storage technology should be “promoted,” calling these three “low emission” power sources.

Noting that a growing number of interested economies are using nuclear power to diversify their energy mix and limit carbon emissions, the declaration also referred to the need to assess the emissions reduction potential of nuclear power in APEC.

Toward new nuclear power plant construction, the declaration also said “solid financial frameworks, as well as cooperation among member economies and with relevant multilateral organizations” could be of help.

It is the first time for APEC to clearly stipulate the promotion of building new nuclear power plants, according to the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry.

fromMRM <moothedathramanathan@gmail.com>

“Conserving energy is cheaper and smarter than building power plants” (Dr. Arthur Rosenfeld).

The watt. The volt. The ohm. All electrical terms are named after famous engineers and physicists from the 18th and 19th century. Now, an acclaimed 20th century scientist is lending his name to a new unit of energy savings – the ‘Rosenfeld.’

The proposed term – a ‘Rosenfeld’ – would represent the electricity savings of 3 billion kilowatt-hours per year — the annual output of an existing 500 megawatt coal-fired power plant – and avoid generating three million metric tons of CO2 emissions. The new energy-savings measurement term was authored by 54 scientists from 26 research institutions and announced in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Research Letters.

For your leisure time reading – a clean energy monthly E-zine from India          E_mag_June_2010.pdf

MRM says:  We shall be pleased if you could send us your views/comments/suggestions to make our publication more informative and useful.

——————–

“The Rosenfeld” Named After California’s Godfather of Energy Efficiency.

With a decades-long career in energy analysis and standards, Rosenfeld is often credited with being personally responsible for billions of dollars in energy savings.

How to cut energy use, carbon? Do it – One “Rosenfeld” at a time.

Arthur Rosenfeld, who recently retired at the age of 83 after two five-year terms on the California Energy Commission, led the way in helping the state set its first-ever energy standards for household appliances and buildings. His mission as an energy-efficiency evangelist was launched in 1973 during the OPEC oil embargo … rather than rail on the oil producers, he reasoned, wouldn’t it be better if the US could find ways to stop wasting so much energy?

His impact on California’s per capita electricity consumption, which has remained flat since the mid-’70s, has long been dubbed the “Rosenfeld effect.” And he himself coined “Rosenfeld’s Law,” which asserts that the amount of energy required to produce one dollar of economic output has decreased by about 1 per cent per year since 1845.

Eighty Year Old Saved Us $800 Billion - 

Ode to Arthur H. Rosenfeld, Doctor Efficiency - 

Arthur H. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. was originally appointed to the California Energy Commission by Governor Gray Davis in April 2000. The Commissioner was reappointed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger January 26, 2005. The five members of the Energy Commission are appointed by the Governor to staggered five-year terms and requires Senate confirmation. By law, four of the five members of the Energy Commission have professional training in specific areas – engineering or physical science, environmental protection, economics, law, and one commissioner from the public-at-large. Commissioner Rosenfeld filled the physical science position until his retirement in January 2010.

Commissioner Rosenfeld was presiding member of the Research, Development and Demonstration Committee and the Dynamic Pricing Committee (Ad Hoc Committee); and was the second member of the Energy Efficiency Committee.

Art Rosenfeld received his Ph.D. in Physics in 1954 at the University of Chicago under Nobel Laureate Enrico Fermi, and then joined the Department of Physics at the University of California at Berkeley. There he joined, and eventually oversaw, the Nobel prize-winning particle physics group of Luis Alvarez at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) until 1974. At that time, he changed his research focus to the efficient use of energy, formed the Center for Building Science at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and led it until 1994.
 http://newscenter.lbl.gov/feature-storie…

 http://www.energy.ca.gov/commissioners/r…

 http://www.greenbang.com/how-to-cut-ener…

 http://earth2tech.com/2010/03/15/how-do-…

We found it out at a meeting on ethics at the UN. While among the G-20 there are 7 European States, the presence of the EU is intended to bring in the remaining 20 States – so the EU can speak directly for those 20 States. This might be a case of political overkill, and if the EU representative were to speak out differently then the German, French, British delegates, this would be a further setback for the effort to create a world leadership group. Whatever, we see there in the room therefore 40 countries and it includes among the group all truly relevant actors, and more – extending the group from the five – G-2 + IBSA -  to those our website includes in the second row Canada, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, Turkey, as well as  the Europeans, Saudi Arabia, Argentina, and Australia. (We thought that a neat 15 would have been even better – a G-3, IBSA, our seven, Australia, and Saudi Arabia would have been just right.)

Sure, above list excludes 150 UN member States – nobody from AOSIS, ALBA, the usual front spokesmen in the name of G-77, and most others who in economic terms are mostly in the receiving line, but when it comes to discussions at the UN they rather harm any attempt at coming up with an effective resolution. Sure, we think that the fate of the SIDS must be dealt with, and the effects of climate change center stage, but this will be better done in Toronto by the large economies who truthfully are also the largest losers in a world that is out of control – just look at the face of US in these days of the Gulf Deepwater oil-geyser.

Please see our previous posting: http://www.sustainabilitank.info/2010/03/27/climate-change-negotiations-will-move-beyond-the-un-we-believe-it-will-be-a-network-of-bilaterals-but-un-connected-earth-institute-of-columbia-university-in-its-excellent-state-of-the-planet-2010/

——-

Having said what we just said, we find it to be a move forward if attempt is to be made to reach new global financial, economic, environmental, energy and political policy-balances outside the UN system. The G-20 composition is a wide and varied enough platform to be able to reach out for multilateral solutions without stepping into the UN quagmires. In these conditions, this UN Secretary-General is really nothing more then a well traveled ornament. We complained earlier that the unattained EU is an impediment, and we would have rather hoped for a G-3 situation and a more effective, even smaller, set-up.

Richard Attias (born 1959 in Morocc) – he is a  global events producer. As chairman of PublicisLive Attias was the producer of the World Economic Forum in Davos for over fifteen years. His personal history and the history of the organizations he was involved with are plainly fascinating and we write this longer posting because we feel that he is embarking now upon even a greater voyage with his new NEW YORK FORUM, then in his previous activities.

The World Economic Forum (WEF) is a Geneva-based non-profit foundation best known for its annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, which brings together top business leaders, international political leaders, selected intellectuals and journalists to discuss the most pressing issues facing the world, including health and the environment. Beside meetings, the WEF produces a series of research reports, and engages its members in sector specific initiatives. WEF also organizes the “Annual Meeting of the New Champions” in China, and a series of regional meetings throughout the year. In 2008 those regional meetings included meetings on Europe and Central Asia, East Asia, the Russia CEO Roundtable, Africa, the Middle East, and the World Economic Forum on Latin America. In 2008 it launched the “Summit on the Global Agenda” in Dubai.

The WEF was founded in 1971 by Klaus Martin Schwab, a German-born business professor at the University of Geneva. Originally named the European Management Forum, it changed its name to the World Economic Forum in 1987 and sought to broaden its vision further to include providing a platform for resolving international conflicts.

In the summer of 1971 Schwab invited 444 executives from Western European firms to the first European Management Symposium held in the Davos Congress Centre, under the patronage of the European Commission and European industrial associations, where Schwab sought to introduce European firms to US management practices. He then founded the WEF as a non-profit organization based in Cologny, Geneva, and drew European business leaders to Davos for their annual meetings each January.

Schwab developed the “stakeholder” management approach which based corporate success on managers taking account of all interests: not merely shareholders, clients and customers, but employees and the communities within which the firm is situated, and governments. Events in 1973 including the collapse of the Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate mechanism, and the Arab-Israeli War, saw the annual meeting expand its focus from management to economic and social issues, and political leaders were invited for the first time to Davos in January 1974.

As the years went by, political leaders began to use Davos as a neutral platform to resolve their differences. The Davos Declaration was signed in 1988 by Greece and Turkey, helping them turn back from the brink of war. In 1992 South African President F. W. de Klerk met with Nelson Mandela and Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi at the Annual Meeting, their first joint appearance outside South Africa. At the 1994 Annual Meeting, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat reached a draft agreement on Gaza and Jericho. In 2008 Bill Gates gave a keynote speech on Creative Capitalism, a form of capitalism that works both to generate profits and solve the world’s inequities, using market forces to better address the needs of the poor.

Frederik de Klerk and Nelson Mandela shake hands at the Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum held in Davos in January 1992.

———————-

For The New York Forum

Contact:         Rubenstein Communications, Inc.

Iva Benson (212) 843-8271,  ibenson at rubenstein.com

Thomas Chiodo (212) 843-8289,  tchiodo at rubenstein.com

——————–

  Permalink | |  Email This Article
Posted in Africa, Arabized Africa, Archives, Art Performance reviews, Austria and Central Europe, Canada, China, Egypt, El Salvador, Future Events, Futurism, Greece, India, Israel, Japan, Kenya, Korea, Maghreb, Malaysia, Myanmar/Burma, New York, Obama Styling, Policy Lessons from Mad Cow Disease, Real World's News, Reporting From the UN Headquarters in New York, Reporting from Washington DC, Scandinavia, South Africa

Discuss this article