U.S. firm lays claim to ‘potentially vast’ Arctic oil resources - U.S. firm lays claim to nearly all of what it says will be 400 billion barrels - makes it known, Friday, March 21, 2008, Randy Boswell of the The Ottawa Citizen.
A U.S.-based company that has controversially laid claim to nearly all of the Arctic Ocean’s undersea oil said yesterday that new geological data suggest a “potentially vast” petroleum resource of 400 billion barrels. That figure is backed by a respected Canadian researcher who recently signed on as the firm’s chief scientific adviser.
Las Vegas-based Arctic Oil & Gas has raised eyebrows around the world with its roll-of-the-dice bid to lock up exclusive rights to extract oil and gas from rapidly melting areas of the central Arctic Ocean, currently beyond the territorial control of Canada, Russia and other polar nations.

The company, which counts retired B.C. (British Colombia, Canada) Senator Edward Lawson among its directors, has filed a claim with the United Nations to act as the sole “development agent” of Arctic seabed oil and gas.
The firm acknowledges that the Arctic’s petroleum deposits are the “common heritage of mankind,” but has argued that the polar region requires a private “lead manager” to organize a multinational consortium of oil companies to extract undersea resources responsibly and equitably.

The Canadian government has dismissed the company’s “alleged claim” over Arctic oil as having “no force in law,” but experts in polar issues have raised alarms about the firm’s actions, saying they could disrupt efforts to create an orderly regime for exploiting resources and protecting the Arctic environment under international law rather than a marketplace model.

In its latest statement about the polar seabed’s “enormous reserve potential” for petroleum deposits, Arctic Oil & Gas cites recent scientific evidence that huge, floating mats of azolla — a prehistoric fern believed to have covered much of the Arctic Ocean during a planetary hothouse era about 55 million years ago — decomposed soon after the age of the dinosaurs and exist today as “vast hydrocarbon resources” trapped in layers of rock below the polar ice cap.
Jonathan Bujak, a former geoscientist with the Geological Survey of Canada who now works as a private consultant in Canada and Britain, is described in the Arctic Oil & Gas statement as confirming the “highly probable validity” of recent research pointing to rock layers “extremely rich” in “hydrocarbon precursors” throughout the Arctic basin.
Mr. Bujak, who previously worked for PetroCanada as a petroleum geologist, co-authored a landmark 2006 study in the journal Nature that first detailed the ancient azolla explosion that shows up today in Arctic seabed core samples.
Neither Mr. Bujak nor Mr. Lawson could be reached for comment yesterday.
Scientists have predicted that global warming could leave the entire Arctic virtually ice-free for months at a time within 20 years. That prospect has hastened a scramble among nations with a polar coast — namely Canada, Russia, the U.S., Norway and Denmark, which controls Greenland — to try to strengthen their scientific claims under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea to extended territorial sovereignty over the Arctic Ocean floor.
A report issued last week by the European Union’s top two foreign policy officials also highlighted the looming international struggle over Arctic oil deposits. Authored by Javier Solana, the EU’s foreign policy chief, and Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Europe’s commissioner for external relations, the study pointed to “potential consequences for international stability and European security interests” as the retreat of Arctic ice makes shipping and oil and gas exploration a reality in the region.

Noting the “rapid melting of the polar ice caps,” the report noted that “the increased accessibility of the enormous hydrocarbon resources in the Arctic region is changing the geo-strategic dynamics of the region.”

Click to view the article that takes you to the interactive interactive display

Courtesy: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/natur…

Monday, March 3, 2008, The Japan Times online.

Oscar for patient diplomacy to US career Diplomat Christopher R. Hill for his work with North Korea - repesenting the US on the six parties talks.

By TOM PLATE, UCLA Professor — For much of the first few years of the new millennium, North Korea was viewed as the most probable nation-state aggressor in Asia.

The holed-up communist regime had precious little to show for its decades in power, apart from its notorious pileup of arms and soldiers, which it brandished in pathetic abundance. Its creepy isolation and penchant for primitive propaganda pronouncements made scenarios of aggression more sellable than silly.

In short, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was everything a paranoid anticommunist could hope for by way of a credible mean tangible villain.

But nothing much happened. Save for a few missile tests that seem more scattershot than strategic, and the occasional minor naval dust-up at sea, North Korea stayed on its side of the Demilitarized Zone. In due course, in fact, the regime was even negotiating possible unilateral nuclear disarmament with its immediate neighbors (South Korea, Russia, Japan and China) as well as with the United States.

Why no war of any magnitude broke out cannot be attributed to any one factor or to any one country, much less to the inspired work of any one person. Even so, the other night at a fancy hotel in Los Angeles, a nonprofit named the Pacific Century Institute — a perennially valuable and effective local do-gooder — made a noteworthy statement on this theme. It presented its 2008 “Building Bridges” award (a sort of classy civic Oscar here) to an otherwise semi-anonymous U.S. bureaucrat.

But when the award was presented, the ballroom audience that included Korean-American businessmen and public figures as well as grateful Angelenos of all kinds rose almost as one to its feet in a boisterous standing ovation. And this was for a mere bureaucrat.

His name is Christopher R. Hill, a career U.S. foreign-service officer. Though his record of accomplishment is most impressive, he is anything but a brand name in America, and is best known to his State Department and other colleagues as a “diplomat’s diplomat.” He is the chief U.S. representative to the six-party talks on North Korea.

Sitting at the same table as Hill before the award presentation, I angled to sound him out about secret negotiations with North Korea. The U.S. assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific Affairs (his official title) was surprisingly unoffended by the blunt and direct question, and put forward an analysis of the North Korean negotiations that were so illuminating and intelligent that I urged him to offer the ballroom audience that night a generalized summary (as much as state secrecy would permit) of his thoughts. Here are some:

The six-party talks are golden even if they do not conclude in complete North Korean disarmament (”I can’t guarantee it,” admitted Hill). They have brought the region together and have served to remind the U.S. that it cannot solve the North Korean problem alone. Hill believes that, most importantly, the six-party talks have fostered a positive evolution in the U.S. bilateral relationships with China and South Korea (which inaugurates a new President.) “These relationships are so much better as a result of the talks,” he said.

Someone said: Sitting across the bargaining table from those cross and cold North Korean negotiators would surely try any normal person’s soul. Hill shrugged that off, adding it was essential to be “respectful of the other side’s problem. He [other side] does have a different point of view than yours. If it were the same as yours, then wouldn’t it be an easy negotiation? We could finish it in minutes.”

Negotiations of this sensitive kind, he continued, cannot succeed without deep mutual respect, especially when the substantive differences are huge, as with North Korea. “You have to proceed in small parts, very businesslike, step by step, carefully, respectfully.”

But surely, on occasion, even Mr. Cool-as-Cucumber Super-Negotiator wants to pull his hair and perhaps that of the North Korean delegation’s, right?”

“Sure, there are many things I might want to say to the North Koreans, perhaps not all of them totally polite,” he continued. “But at the same time it is in their interest to conclude this negotiation properly” — assuming, he suggests, that our side is patient, too.

Hill then smiled and jokingly mentioned his Chinese colleagues at the six-party talks. They have in his view been skillful and helpful. But it is in their cultural skin to be constantly urging Hill and the American delegation to be patient, don’t get irritated, keep negotiating.

Hill agrees wholeheartedly with that advice, but admits that sometimes he can’t help but offer his Chinese colleagues the same recommendation — on the tortured and ever-volatile issue of Taiwan. Just be more patient, he says, staring them in the face: Isn’t that the Chinese way?

But patience takes time, and time may be running out. Having refused to negotiate with North Korea for the first of its two terms, the Bush administration, with less than a slim year left in office, is now all but openly praying that their point man for North Korea gets the full job done soon. If anyone can do that, it is probably “bridge-builder” Hill.

UCLA professor Tom Plate, a member of the Burkle Center on International Policy, is the author of “Confessions of an American Media Man.”

Subject: Christmas Eve we saw at The Metropolitan Opera “UN BALLO IN MASCHERA” then on Christmas Day we saw the new movie “CHARLIE WILSON’S WAR” and believe it or not - we saw in those two masterpieces echoes of the day.

First The UN BALLO - we saw there a United Nations on stage. Oscar - the king’s page - was a small but great lady from Korea; the king himself - King Gustavo III of Sweden - was an Italian-Swiss from neutral Bern, Switzerland - very good choices. The Viking looking Fortune Teller, Ulrica, was from unheard of Mongaup, New York State - some local caves seemingly; the honest Amelia was an American of color with a French name, was from Quincy, Illinois on the Mississippi: her husband, Captain Renato Anckarstroem, was obviously from Krasnoyarsk, Mid-Siberia, Russia; and her servant remained a secret in the “Program Notes” - so were the Chief Justice, and the two main rebel-Counts (Samuel and Tom) - all four of whom had tantalizing names seeming to originate from further corners of the world. We decided that the unknown might be more interesting then the known - so - as we are not going to be kept in the dark by lack of official information on four of the ten listed soloists, we looked up Google and found that:

Charles Anthony, playing Amelia’s servant, is a honorary member of Theatrical Stage Employees IATSE Local One in New York City, and is a Metropolitan Opera singer since 1954. Anthony has performed at the Met for 55 consecutive seasons, a record unparalleled in the annals of the company. He was born in New Orleans, Louisiana, as Charles Anthony Caruso, the child of immigrants from Sicily. Sir Rudolf Bing convinced him to drop his surname, saying that it would invite comparisons with Enrico Caruso.

The Judge is American on the Metropolitan Opera’s Roster - so you could say Mark Schowalter was sort of a host here, but additional two Baso counts are a Chinese, Hao Jiang Tian - at the Met, he was General Wang in Tan Dun’s world premiere of The First Emperor, opposite Placido Domingo in the title role, and Andrew Gangestad, born in South Korea, he was orphaned as a young child. “I was told that I was found in a city south of Seoul, then put in an orphanage,” he recalls. After stints in foster homes, Andrew was adopted at two years of age by an American couple living in Two Harbors, Minnesota, and given his name. The adoption was complicated by the fact that Andrew had tuberculosis. “I was taking medications for a year before I was allowed into the U.S.” Being Asian-born in a small Minnesota town “was extraordinary,” Gange-stad admits. But he quickly made friends and found his niche.

The BALLO plays out in Sweden and is based on a historical event - the king Gustavus III (the correct Swedish name) met his death at the hands of a political enemy during a masked ball at the Stockholm Opera House in 1792 - and even today, when visiting Stockholm, you are shown the location of the crime - it was not forgotten or forgiven. In 1833, the French dramatist Eugene Scribe wrote it up as a basis for a French Opera by Francois Auber, and then Giuseppe Verdi picked up the libretto and had Italian Antonio Somma adjust it so that it includes a love triangle. It had then its 1859 premiere at the Teatro Apollo in Rome.

The point of the opera as we saw it is that a best friend of the king is the one who kills the king because he believes that the king mislead his wife, Amelia, then to find out too late, that the king and Amelia were actually not guilty of deeds, but only harbored love in their hearts. in effect the king was just about to try to make good on the whole misunderstanding - but it did not work out.

Now, the king was not really bright and did not even learn from the predictions of the good witch Ulrica. He also did not remove from his court the two scheming counts that held grudges against him. The king thought he understands everything - so does he make you think of a today’s king that gets entangled with witches and the wrong courtiers, then ends up being perhaps a wrong victim?

Simply put - his affront was that he was too late understanding that perceptions become reality if you do not pursue an open course. Then, on Christmas eve it sounds like dispensing late love - though it was love nevertheless.

On Christmas Day we went to see CHARLIE WILSON’S WAR that is no less then the US covert involvement in Afghanistan that eased out the Soviets, and helped build the Taliban, that will then try to ease out the Americans from wherever they are. Now, this seems complicated, but like the BALLO - it is not all fiction - and it has its own reflection on the meaning of love and peace.

Congressman Charles Wilson, a Democrat, was representing in US Congress the 2nd District of Texas, 1973-1997, during the Reagan Republican years. That was the time of the Cold War, and the US was very careful not to turn it into a “Hot War.” Wilson first entered politics as a teenager by running for office in his home town of Trinity. He lived next door to city official Charles Hazard. When Charlie Wilson was thirteen, his dog, Teddy, got into his neighbor’s yard. Hazard retaliated by mixing crushed glass into the dog’s food, causing fatal internal bleeding. This led Wilson to decide to run for office against his neighbor in the next election. Being a farmer’s son, he was able to get a driving permit at thirteen, which enabled him to drive 96 voters from poor neighborhoods to the polls. That included black voters that never voted before. As they left the car, he told each of them that incumbent Hazard killed his dog. After winning by a margin of sixteen votes, Charlie went to his neighbor’s house to inform him of his victory and to tell him he shouldn’t poison any more dogs.

As an adult he joined the navy, and stayed out of politics until he was moved to volunteer for the John F. Kennedy presidential campaign. In 1960 he took a 30 days’ leave from the Navy, and entered his name into the race for Texas state representative from his home district. This action was against the regulations of the Navy, as service members are prohibited from holding a public office while on active duty. While back on duty, his family and friends went door to door campaigning. In 1961, at age 27, he was sworn into office in Austin, Texas.

For the next 12 years, Wilson made his reputation in the Texas legislature as the “liberal from Lufkin,” viewed with suspicion by business interests. He battled for the regulation of utilities, fought for Medicaid, tax exemptions for the elderly, the Equal Rights Amendment and a minimum wage bill. He was also one of the few prominent Texas politicians to be pro-choice on abortion. Wilson was also notorious for his personal life, particularly drinking, picking up the nickname “Good Time Charlie.”

In 1972, Wilson was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from the Second District of Texas, taking office the following January. He was re-elected 11 times, but was not a candidate for reelection to the 105th Congress, and resigned October 8, 1996 - that is before the election that made George Bush, the father, the 41st US President.

Charlie Wilson was a playboy, and lots of spicy stories were hanging around his neck - some had to do with corruption, and one strange topic was derived from his backing of the Somoza government in Nicaragua. One such chain of events included Wilson arranging a meeting between Somoza and Ed Wilson of the CIA. Ed Wilson offered to form a 1000-man force of ex-CIA operatives to fight on Somoza’s behalf. The meeting broke down when Somoza fondled Tina Simons, Charlie Wilson’s girlfriend at the time. The deal also proved impossible because Ed Wilson asked Somoza for $100 million to pay for the force.

But Charlie had also the reputation of being a straight shooter, and of keeping his promises - so unleashing bright and pretty females against him could lead to action on the two very important committees he chaired in the Democratic Congress, at the time of a Republican President, on foreign relations and on military affairs. This clearly included his in with the CIA. This kind of reality makes for good cinematic background - but today I prefer to remember that it also can lead to a soft and kind heart when having to take decisions after seeing real misery.

On an official US Government site we found the following: “In the early summer of 1980, Wilson read an Associated Press dispatch on the congressional wires that described hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing Afghanistan. Few, however, were paying attention, even in the American government. According to his biographer, George Crile, Wilson placed a call to a member of the US Congressional Appropriations Committee who dealt with ‘black appropriations’ (CIA funds) and ordered a twofold increase in the appropriation for Afghanistan. {we found that this was the peanuts contribution of $10 million increased from $5 million} Wilson had just been named to the Defense Appropriations subcommittee, part of a small group of 12 people in the House responsible for funding CIA operations, and thus had the authority to make such an order.

This would not be the last time for Wilson to greatly increase the CIA budget for its Afghan operation. In 1983, he won the approval of $40 million more, with $17 million especially earmarked for anti-aircraft weapons that could take down Soviet Mil Mi-24 helicopters, known as the “Hind,” that caused heavy damage and casualties to the Afghan Mujahideen. The following year, Wilson was approached directly by CIA officer Gust Avrakotos, who, breaking the CIA’s rule against lobbying Congress for money, asked Wilson for $50 million more. Wilson agreed to the increase and convinced his colleagues in Congress by saying that “The U.S. had nothing whatsoever to do with these people’s decision to fight … But we’ll be damned by history if we let them fight with stones.” Wilson later succeeded in moving $300 million of unused Pentagon funds into the Afghan operation right before the end of the fiscal year. In this way, Wilson had a significant influence on the level of support the Afghan Mujahideen received from the United States.”

In the movie, it is the involvement of a rich and pretty Houston Billionaire Socialite and Republican powerhouse, Joanne Herring, later a sharp talk show hostess in real life, who brought to Houston President Zia of Pakistan and arranged for Charlie to go by himself to Pakistan and with the help of President Zia, he was then exposed to the misery of Afghan refugee streaming into the Northwest Tribal areas of Pakistan - this while the Republican Presidency had no interest whatsoever in recognizing this human misery. As we said - see not, hear not, talk not was the norm. Keep the Cold War cold by not having any US involvement was the key. The movie wants us to believe that it was nothing else but human compassion that drove Charlie to action - Ok, but this is really irrelevant - also the women around him had feelings of compassion and he had interest in them.

Now appears Gust Avrokotos who was twenty years earlier CIA station chief in Greece and vanquished the communist uprising there. Since then he was kept on ice in Virginia - he wanted relevance again. He was a rough guy and they did not put him into the diplomatic service. He and Wilson managed together to engineer the covert activities in Afghanistan - run by the CIA and out of Wilson’s committees. The Afghans were ready to fight the Soviets, what they needed were the weapons. Those weapons could not be American by White House rules, so the best would be Russian weapons that can be obtained if a covert alliance between the CIA, Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan can be concocted. So, with all sides holding their noses and hiding the actions from becoming public, the Russian tanks and helicopters were blown up with Russian stingers. And you guessed it - that was all organized and funded with Charlie’s help.

Now why does this make a Christmas story?

(1) First, there was in it at the beginning a line of humanity - don’t let the Cold War kill! Just think of Darfur of today - nothing was learned - we again see a US that refuses to get involved and we see no indication that there is an embedded Charlie at work there. The US Presidential envoy in charge of Darfur has just resigned this week and was replaced by a political insider.

(2) There is a story in the movie towards the end - Avrakotos tells Charlie about an Afghan village that was given a beautiful horse. One good looking lad gets the horse. One man says - look what a nice horse and see that nice lad. The other says - We shall see! Then, days later the lad falls of the horse and breaks a leg. The first man says - what a pity! The Second and seemingly wiser man says - we shall see!

Next there is warfare in the area and all healthy men go to fight and get killed - the first man says what a pity! The second man says - we shall see! The lesson is that like it - the Afghan story has not ended there.

(3) Avrokotos predicts - Afghanistan was left full with young people - when they get back to the destroyed villages they are full with hatred. They know now how to fight - they do not know that the US tried to help them - they turn their anger on the US.

(4) Charlie may have been a lout - but he had heart - he played no games. So what if he was a women’s man?

How do we try now to extricate the US from a miserable situation?

What is the meaning of morality?

What is the real love for country and humanity?

How do you channel energy to come to some results?

What did you do for the holiday?

What did the UN do lately?

———————

tagged as: UN, US, Ban Ki-moon, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Billary, Reagan.

Railway links two Koreas.
From Andrew Buncombe, Asia Correspondent, The Independent, December 12, 2007.
The joke doing the rounds was of the longest train delay in history, but for the first time in more than 50 years a regular train service yesterday crossed the between North and South Korea - a symbol of the slow but steady reconciliation between the two nations.

The 12-car freight train carrying left from South Korea carrying construction materials for a North Korean border station and then returned carrying shoes and underwear produced at an industrial complex operated by both countries in the northern city of Kaesong.

The two countries are some way before they will agree to a cross-border passenger service but yesterday represented another step forward as the two countries attempt a better relationship. The cargo train was apparently the result of a summit between North Korea’s leader Kim Jong Il and South Korea’s president Roh Moo-hyun that focused on a series of possible joint projects.

“The service will further speed up inter-Korean economic projects… and contribute to the establishment of a joint economic community,” said South Korean Unification Minister Lee Jae-joung.

The freight service, which will make the 10-mile journey every weekday, will likely boost the Kaesong complex which brings together something both sides have in plenty - technology from South Korea and cheap labour supplied by its neighbour. Already, more than 64 South Korean companies operate factories at the site, producing watches clothes and shoes and employing more than 20,000 North Korean workers. “The service will revitalise the Kaesong industrial project… and greatly help forge a common prosperity and reconciliation,” said Kwon Ho Ung, the North Korean Unification Minister.

South Korea hopes the inter-Korean railway will eventually pass through North Korea and link to the Trans-Siberian railroad through Russia. Doing so would provide an efficient an overland route connecting the Korean peninsula to Europe and significantly cut down on delivery times for freight that currently is sent by sea.

Lee Chul, president of Korea Railroad, told reporters: “Though we start with a cargo train, it will lead to a passenger train service and will soon be linked to the continental trains. The economic benefits are countless.”

The rail link between the two countries were severed shortly after the outbreak of the Korean War in 1953. The conflict, ended in a 1953 ceasefire agreement that has never been replaced with a peace treaty.

Dozens of cars, trucks and buses already cross between North and South Korea and bilateral trade between the two countries is worth around $1bn. The transport links between the two were first reconnected after a 2000 summit.

One of the engineers on board the train told the Associated Press that be believed it would not be so long before a passenger service began operating. “I expect a day will come when South Koreans visit North Korean tourist attractions freely by train,” said Shin Jang-chul.

South Korea is certainly keen to help build economic links with the north as a means of helping reduce military tension between the two countries. It may also help reduce the huge disparity in wealth between developed South Korea and impoverished North Korea ahead of a possible reunification between the two nations. South Korean officials are today expected to begin a survey of part of a dilapidated railroad that links Kaesong to the city of Shinuiju, located close to North Korea’s border with China. The survey is part of a recent deal to start highway and railroad repairs in North Korea next year.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                          November 28, 2007

REMARKS ON THE MIDDLE EAST AND FREEDOM AGENDA
BY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR STEPHEN HADLEY

Johns Hopkins University
Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies

As Prepared for Delivery

As you know, an international conference on the Middle East was held in Annapolis yesterday.  At that meeting, Israelis and Palestinians – with the support of their Arab neighbors and the international community – launched negotiations for the establishment of a Palestinian state and for a broader peace between Israelis and Palestinians.  Success in these negotiations will contribute to the ultimate goal of a comprehensive peace between Israelis and Arabs.

In light of this development, I thought it would be timely to address four questions this evening:

First, why do we believe that there is an opportunity to achieve a Middle East peace at this particular time?

Second, why is it important to seize this opportunity?

Third, how did we get to this moment of opportunity?

And finally, how is Annapolis linked to President Bush’s broader agenda of promoting freedom in the Middle East and beyond?

I. Why do we believe that there is an opportunity to achieve a Middle East peace at this particular time?

There are three reasons why we believe there is an opportunity to achieve a Middle East peace at this time.

First, there has been a dramatic change in the Israeli assessment of their strategic position and long-term interests.

Key segments of the Israeli public have given up the aspiration for a “Greater Israel” – and no longer wish to retain control over the West Bank and populate it with Israeli settlers.  They have recognized that this approach – combined with current demographic trends – would threaten the Jewish character of the State of Israel.

A much larger portion of the Israeli public – who once opposed the establishment of a Palestinian state – have begun to embrace the idea.  They have come to understand that the establishment of a free and democratic Palestinian state as a homeland for the Palestinian people can advance international recognition and acceptance of a free and democratic Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people.

And a growing number of Israelis understand that a Palestinian state supported by its people and with the will and capability to maintain peace within its borders will advance Israel’s own security against terrorist attacks.

There has also been a change within the Palestinian community.

President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad are Palestinian leaders whose first priority is bettering the lives of the Palestinian people. They have committed themselves to building the institutions of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state that can provide dignity and hope to their people.  They have rejected the terrorist violence that has made victims of so many Palestinians and Israelis.

They are committed to establishing a Palestinian state – and they understand that it cannot be achieved through terror.  They want to negotiate with Israel for the creation of that state and to live side by side in peace and security with Israel.  As President Abbas said yesterday at Annapolis:  “He who says that making peace between Palestinians and Israelis is impossible wants only to prolong the duration of the conflict.”

Third, the Arab states have been engaged.

While giving rhetorical support to the Palestinian cause, Arab states until recently have not made the major investment required to build the institutions of a free and independent Palestinian state.  Arab states now are increasingly seeing it as in their interest to put the Israeli-Palestinian issue behind them and to focus instead on the pressing security challenges confronting the region.

A reflection of this new attitude is the reaffirmation this year of the Arab Peace Initiative first proposed by then-Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia over four years ago – and the decision taken by the Arab states at the Arab League meeting last week to attend the Annapolis meeting en masse.

II.  Why is it important to seize this opportunity?

It is important to seize now the opportunity presented by these developments.

Key leaders of Israel and the Palestinians have for their own reasons come to the conclusion that it is in their interest to launch negotiations.

Having decided to pursue negotiations, it is important that they not fail.  If the effort to establish a Palestinian state through negotiations is abandoned, it will appear to vindicate those who preach violence and practice terror.  It will almost ensure that the next generation of leaders of the Palestinian people will come from Hamas or other terrorist groups.  This would represent a clear and present danger to Israelis … responsible Palestinians … and their Arab neighbors.

III.  HOW DID WE GET TO THIS MOMENT OF OPPORTUNITY?

We have reached this moment of opportunity in the Middle East for many reasons.  Among them are the policies that President Bush has pursued over the last six years.

First, the President identified terrorism as the primary obstacle to peace in the Middle East.

Terror and violent extremism threaten the Palestinian people … the Israeli people … and the hopes of many nations for peace in the Middle East.  So fighting terror – and discrediting the apologists for terror – has been at the center of the President’s approach to Middle East peace.

The President sought to discredit violence against innocents as a means to pursue political objectives.  The President argued strongly that violence against innocents is never justified – by any cause.  He made the connection between Hamas, Hezbollah, and al Qaeda as different faces of the same evil:  a radical ideology seeking to impose its worldview throughout the Middle East and beyond.  And the President has largely won this argument.

The President further demonstrated his commitment to fight and discredit terror in refusing to deal with Yassir Arafat.  The world was shocked.  But the President saw Arafat as a failed leader who was complicit in terror and who did not deliver for his people.  The President called for a new Palestinian leadership – one that put the interests of the Palestinian people first and understood that violence and terror compromised those interests.

As he said in his Rose Garden speech in the summer of 2002:  “Today, Palestinian authorities are encouraging, not opposing, terrorism. This is unacceptable. And the United States will not support the establishment of a Palestinian state until its leaders engage in a sustained fight against the terrorists and dismantle their infrastructure.”

Four years later, the Palestinian people now have leaders in President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad who understand that terror is the enemy of the Palestinian people and their hopes for a Palestinian state.

The President also made clear that defending itself against terror is the right of every state.  He firmly supported Israeli Prime Minister Sharon’s efforts to protect the Israeli people from terrorist attacks.  By supporting their efforts to fight terror, the President gave Israelis the confidence to take bold steps toward peace.

Much of the world condemned Israeli Prime Minister Sharon’s plan to disengage from Gaza, but the President understood the real significance of the move.  He saw that when the father of the Israeli settlement movement peacefully removed settlements from Gaza, that marked the effective end of the dream of “Greater Israel.”  President Bush believed that such courage deserved America’s support – and he gave it.

The President also helped create the context for success at Annapolis by making the aspirations of the Palestinian people his own.

President Bush was the first U.S. President to call for the creation of a Palestinian state.  Not just any state – but a state worthy of the Palestinian people and their aspirations for their children:  a free, independent Palestinian democracy.

The President recognized that such a state requires effective democratic institutions.  Building such institutions takes time – and requires resources.  So the President has focused American aid to the Palestinian people on institution building – and urged the international community to do likewise.   Next year alone, the United States will provide more than half a billion dollars to the Palestinians to help them build the institutions and security forces of their future state.  General Keith Dayton of the United States Army is on the ground to assist in this effort.  Many other nations have also stepped forward with significant commitments.  And Quartet Representative Tony Blair will help generate additional aid for the Palestinian people at a donor’s conference next month in Paris.

The President believes in Palestinian democracy on principle – yet he also believes that a Palestinian democracy represents the only practical way to move forward toward peace.  With effective political institutions, a new Palestinian state has the best chance to develop in a manner that the Palestinian people deserve and expect.  And with effective security institutions, a Palestinian state will become the kind of neighbor that Israelis can envision as a partner – and next to whom they can feel secure and at peace.

As part of his commitment to Palestinian democracy, the President supported Palestinian elections.

The President believes that the Palestinian people – like all people – have the right to choose their leaders.  He also believes that only a leader elected by the Palestinian people will have the legitimacy and authority to negotiate with Israel on their behalf.

In 2005, the wisdom of the President’s support for Palestinian democracy appeared self-evident.  Mahmoud Abbas was elected President on a platform of peace … opposition to terror … improvement in the lives of the Palestinian people … and the creation of a Palestinian state through negotiations with Israel.  President Abbas won a mandate for this platform, and we believe that mandate still stands.

In the parliamentary elections in 2006, candidates affiliated with the terrorist group Hamas won.  The election campaign focused primarily on internal governance – as Hamas candidates generally ran in opposition to corruption and a legacy of misrule.  They promised more effective and accountable government for the Palestinian people.

To the credit of the Palestinian people, the elections were conducted openly and fairly.  The international community called on Hamas leaders to honor previous agreements of the Palestinian Authority … reject terror … and recognize the existence of the State of Israel.  They refused.  In June of this year, Hamas terrorists staged a coup d’etat in Gaza – overthrowing legitimate government institutions … killing those who stood up to their gunmen … and bringing violence, want, and despair to millions of Palestinians.

The undemocratic actions of Hamas have been a major setback for the Palestinian people.  Yet these same actions make clear to the Palestinian people the two alternatives before them.  On the one hand is the vision offered by Hamas of chaos and misery … perpetual war with Israel … and isolation from their neighbors and the international community.  On the other hand is the vision offered by President Abbas:  a vision of peace, dignity, and opportunity for the Palestinian people.

A peace agreement negotiated with Israel would help make the vision offered by President Abbas much more tangible … give moderates in Gaza something specific to support … and isolate and marginalize Palestinian extremists.  We can be confident that – when given the choice – the people of Gaza will choose the vision that allows them to exercise their sovereignty … reject violence … and join their fellow Palestinians in the West Bank who are building a positive future for all Palestinians.  When they do so, Palestinian historians will look back on the 2006 parliamentary elections as a Pyrrhic victory for Hamas … and merely a stumble, rather than a fall, for Palestinian democracy.

The President also helped create the context for success at Annapolis by encouraging key regional states to give greater support to peace negotiations.

The President recognized that Middle East peace enjoys broad support within the international community – yet that broad support is not enough.  For their negotiations to be successful, the Israelis and Palestinians need engagement and proactive support from their neighbors – including Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.

The President has delivered this message at major summits – including Aqaba in 2003 – but he does the vast majority of this diplomatic work privately, in bilateral meetings and phone calls with regional leaders.  Over the past six years, he has made the case time and time again that the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is in the best interests of the Arab states … that violent extremism is the biggest threat to regional security … and that a free and democratic Palestine at peace with Israel would be a grave blow to the extremists’ cause.

Key states in the Middle East can support the Israelis and Palestinians in two ways:  financial support for building the institutions of a Palestinian state and for improving the lives of the Palestinian people … and diplomatic support to help both parties make the hard choices necessary for peace.  For President Abbas, diplomatic support from Arab states further isolates Hamas, and will allow him to negotiate with the Arab states behind him.  For Prime Minister Olmert, diplomatic support from Arab states will allow him to deliver a broader peace to the Israeli people:  a reconciliation not only with the Palestinian people, but with their many Arab neighbors as well.

Fourth, the President helped create the context for success at Annapolis by refusing to impose an American solution.

President Bush believes that only Israelis and Palestinians meeting together can resolve their differences – only they can negotiate an agreement that both their peoples will accept.  The President will not force a resolution of differences nor impose a peace plan with his name on it.  What the President will do is use his relationships with the parties to help them build the confidence necessary to make hard choices for peace.  He has made clear that he is only a phone call away.

When desired by the parties, the President will facilitate solutions to hard problems.  He will continue to offer his full support to Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas – and urge other nations to do the same.

IV.  How is annapolis linked to president bush’s broader agenda of promoting freedom in the middle east and beyond?

Success in establishing an independent, democratic and viable Palestinian state – and an Israeli-Palestinian peace – will represent a crucial advance in promoting freedom in the Middle East and beyond.

The President believes in the Freedom Agenda because he believes that freedom is the right of every person.  Freedom is not America’s gift to the world – it is God’s gift to every person in the world.  The United States promotes freedom because it is right to do so – and part of our heritage as a nation.

The Freedom Agenda is visionary – but it is not new.  Freedom was the basis of our founding as a nation – and promoting freedom has been pursued with more or less emphasis by every U.S. Administration and every generation of Americans.

Promoting freedom means supporting the rights of all people to choose their leaders and enjoy basic civil liberties.  This requires free and fair elections – and democracy’s parallel institutions such as a free press … freedom of association … and an independent judiciary.  Elections are not sufficient – in and of themselves – to transition a nation to a free and democratic political system.  But elections can clarify choices and point the way forward – and thereby accelerate the establishment of other democratic institutions.  History teaches us that tyrannies are rarely the midwives of democratic institutions.

Promoting freedom emphatically does not mean imposing freedom.  People must struggle for and win their own freedom.  Democratic reform comes at its own pace and in its own time.  And when it comes, the free institutions a free people establish will reflect their unique historical and cultural experience.

Yet for much of the last century the Freedom Agenda seemed to inform U.S. policy in every region of the world except the Middle East.  The results were tragic.  Tyranny and oppression fueled resentment – and violent extremists, including al Qaeda, exploited that resentment.  There can no longer be – in the 21st Century – a “Middle East exception” to the progress of democracy in the 20th Century.

We do not know where the negotiations begun at Annapolis will lead.   But if they are successful, the result will not only be peace – but an expansion of freedom in a part of the world that has known very little of it.  And if freedom can be established in a Palestinian state, it will be a major inspiration and example for other people throughout the Middle East and beyond.

I want to thank all the students here tonight who are studying international affairs.  I strongly encourage you to consider a career in public service.  And I hope that you will inherit – and continue to build – a world growing in freedom, prosperity, and peace.

And with that, I would be happy to take your questions.

Thank you.

EU warning system to tackle potential energy shocks.

writes Renata Goldirova from Brussels for the EUobserver, May 11, 2007.

“In response to a sudden cut in oil supplies coming from Russia earlier this year, the European Union is setting up an early-warning system for potential gas and oil supply shocks.  Brussels has announced it will put in place a network of energy security correspondents tasked to monitor, assess and exchange information about brewing crises that could affect the 27-nation bloc.”

It will be “a crucial part of the union’s efforts to have a credible long-term energy policy”, EU external relations commissioner Benita Ferrrero-Waldner said, according to press reports.

The network – to be discussed at the upcoming EU-Russia summit in Samara (17-18 May) – will use services of the EU’s 130 delegations worldwide, EU governments, energy advisory panels and the European commission’ external relations crisis room.

Energy security has topped the EU’s political agenda since January, when Moscow closed the Druzhba oil pipeline supplying Eastern and Western Europe through Belarus because of a price row with Minsk.

The oil disruption – following a similar unilateral move in 2006 involving Ukraine – affected several EU states, including Germany, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic.

The row also prompted the EU’s shift towards renewable sources of energy, such as solar, wind or biomass, which are believed will decrease the bloc’s dependency on external energy sources as well as help combat climate change.

In March, the 27 member states legally bound themselves to use 20 percent renewable energy and cut CO2 emissions by 20 percent by 2020.

For the European Union, Russia is the single most important external supplier of energy, 25%  of the bloc’s gas as well as 25%of its oil originates from the vast country.

According to Brussels, the dependency is likely to increase, with forecasts saying the EU will import 70 percent of its energy by 2030.

—————–

SustainabiliTank.info sees here the creation of an EU Central Intelligence Energy Agency, this having been for many years also one of the functions of the US CIA that is looking at implications of energy shortages worlwide - including such implications for the Europeans. We remember back in the early 1980s how CIA people would come to energy conferences that were held in Moscow. It was also the CIA that warned Europe of depending on Soviet oil pipelines. We thought differently at that time. Pincas Jawetz even had an article in the Wall Street Journal saying that the Soviets could always interfere with shipments of oil from the Middle East, but would never shoot themselves in the foot by losing direct business they establish with the west. We were right - the Soviets never did anything that is similar to what the Russians did in the last year - to stop the flow of gas. Things have changed and the rationale of  State Government leaders has changed with the demise of the Soviet Union, and the enlargement of the EU. The target this year were the satellite states rather then the EU, but then, Moscow thinks that it must wrestle the remaining two main satellites - Belarus and Ukraine - from getting too close to the EU - and everything is now open for reinterpretation. China needs gas and oil also and pipelies can go east as well as west. Intelligence is needed to gather information on future business dealings, and on future strikes on finding reserves and on policy moves as well.

Will this lead also to information gathering on questions of renewablwe energy production? Possible deals like large solar and wind plans for the Sahara desert, or biofuels in Africa? Is this what the US CIA has now in mind by taking Brazil to the Caribbean? Will there be studies on food versus fuel production issues? Will Europe do deals for swaps of food for fuel? Is genetic engineering of biofuel production in the cards? is this why the nice lady from Bayer Crop Science was doing this week watching closely what was going on at CSD15?