http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/b…

An Australian blog teaches us how elections are won at the UN.

We excerpt here parts of that article that deal with Mew York rather then Australia.

According to reports in 1996 one of the reasons for Australia’s failure to secure enough votes at that time in its bid {for a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council} was that Australia was perceived as too close to the United States.
That charge appears to have currency within the Rudd Government for it has changed Australia’s voting patterns at the United Nations since announcing its bid, most noticeably with regard to support for Israel.

There is a deep suspicion that Mr Rudd has been seeking to win the support of Arab nations, leading to suggestions from the Arab League and the Syrian Ambassador that Australia should further distance itself from Israel if it hoped to win their support for the UNSC bid.

There is also concern about the actual cost of the bid, which is officially budgeted at $11.2 million.
This is merely the tip of a potential iceberg.

Considerable time and effort is being devoted to the campaign from within our diplomatic resources.
The Governor-General last year undertook a tour of nine African nations, estimated to cost more than $700,000, which involved actively lobbying for votes.

The Rudd Government has also massively increased the aid budget in the year prior to the vote and there are growing concerns that it will be used to buy votes, particularly in Africa and Latin America, where there are large numbers of UN votes.

Jenny Hayward-Jones of the Lowy Institute criticised this widespread use of aid as a poor use of taxpayers’ money and noted that “the interest in Africa and Latin America of late is really motivated by Australia’s desire to be elected to the UN Security Council.”
I acknowledge that there is great need for aid in these regions, but significant increases in Australian aid can have a bigger impact in our neighbourhood within the  Asia Pacific region, where it is more closely aligned to our national interest.

UNEP NEWS: John Scanlon appointed as New Secretary-General of Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES)

Geneva (Switzerland)/Nairobi (Kenya), 13 March 2010 –

John Scanlon, a top advisor at the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), has been named as the new Secretary-General of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES). Mr. Scanlon was selected after a global search and selection process yielding close to 200 applicants and will assume his new position in May 2010.

Mr. Scanlon, an Australian national, joined UNEP in 2007 as the Principal Advisor on Policy and Programme to Executive Director Achim Steiner, in which capacity he also led the UNEP internal reform team.

A lawyer by training, he has had a long and distinguished career in environmental law, policy and management at national and international levels.

Among other roles, he was Australia’s first independent Commissioner on the Murray Darling Basin Commission, he held the position of Strategic Advisor to the World Commission on Dams in Cape Town (South Africa), and headed the Environmental Law Programme (Bonn, Germany) at the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

He also served as Chief Executive of the Department of Environment, Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs in South Australia and held several senior roles in New South Wales including as Deputy Director-General of the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources.

CITES is an international agreement between Governments that was adopted in 1973 in order to ensure that international trade of wild animals and plans does not threaten their survival.

With some 175 Parties, the Convention is one of the world’s most important agreements on species conservation and the sustainable use of wildlife.

Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary-General and Executive Director of UNEP, said: “John Scanlon is a highly qualified and accomplished professional in the fields of environmental law, international policy and governance. His extensive management experience in public institutions and the strategic role he played in UNEP’s recent reform programme make him an outstanding candidate for leading the CITES Secretariat at this critical juncture when the efficacy of environmental governance instruments is under scrutiny.”

CITES is currently holding its fifteenth meeting of the Conference of Parties in Doha, Qatar, from 13 to 25 March. Over 42 proposals are on the table, reflecting growing international concern about the accelerating destruction of the world’s marine and forest ecosystems through overfishing and excessive logging, and the potential impacts of climate change on the biological resources of the planet.

A growing number of commercially exploited fish have come under CITES controls in recent years. For instance, basking and whale sharks were included in Appendix II in 2002, the great white shark and the humphead wrasse in 2004, and the European eel and sawfishes in 2007.

2010 marks the International Year of Biodiversity and the role of CITES in regulating the global trade in plant and animal species is widely regarded as central to promoting the dual objectives of conservation and sustainable use.

Mr. Scanlon succeeds Mr. Willem Wijnstekers who served the CITES Convention as Secretary-General since 1999 and will retire on 1st May 2010.

For more information, please contact
Nick Nuttall, UNEP Spokesperson/Head of Media, on Mobile: +254 733 632755 or +41 795965737, or Email:  nick.nuttall at unep.org

————–

CITES world conference opens with call for new wildlife trade rules Decisions on the budget will show how seriously 175 member States take new measures to conserve and manage natural riches of the planet.

Doha, 13 March 2010 – Some 1,500 delegates representing more than 170 governments, indigenous peoples, non-governmental organizations and businesses are attending the triennial world conference of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Bluefin tuna, elephant populations and a wide range of sharks, corals, polar bears, reptiles, insects and plants are top of the agenda for the two-week meeting.

CITES Secretary-General Willem Wijnstekers thanked Qatar for hosting the meeting and noted that existing and new challenges require increased political support for the 35-year old treaty to match present day demands. Mr Wijnstekers congratulated the member States for the many conservation successes during these years but warned that more needs to be done.  “We do not want to risk letting down the developing world in its struggle to ensure that trade in wild fauna and flora is conducted legally and sustainably”, he said.

Many of the 42 proposals on the table reflect growing international concern about the accelerating destruction of the world’s marine and forest ecosystems through overfishing and excessive logging, and the potential impacts of climate change on the biological resources of the planet. The UN General Assembly has declared 2010 the international year of biodiversity and the CITES Conference will be one of the key occasions governments have this year to take action to protect biodiversity. Member States will decide by consensus or a two-thirds majority vote for measures to conserve and manage species on the agenda.

“2010 is a key year for biological diversity. By ensuring that the international trade in wildlife is properly regulated, CITES can assist in conserving the planet’s wild fauna and flora from overexploitation and thus contribute to the improved management of these key natural assets for sustainable development”, said Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme, which administers the CITES Secretariat.

Other issues on the agenda include the adoption of urgent measures to tackle illegal trade of tiger products, rhinos and other species that are on the brink of extinction. It will also address the potential impacts of CITES measures on the livelihoods of the rural poor, those on the frontlines of using and managing wildlife.

For more information on CITES, see www.cites.org.
Jim Sniffen
Programme Officer
UN Environment Programme
New York
tel: +1-212-963-8094/8210
 info at nyo.unep.org
www.nyo.unep.org

The New York Times Co.’s stock was surging today, March 1st, up 6.3%. It reached greater heights earlier in the day, spiking an astounding 11% on rumors that a billionaire shareholder – the Mexican Carlos Slim – would buy the whole company.

A representative for Mr. Slim has told CNBC that Slim won’t be buying The New York Times. For its part, the Times Co. has said it doesn’t comment on rumors.

Trading volume in New York Times shares is about four times as much as average today.

Slim bought a 6.9% stake in the Times in 2008. In January 2010 he invested an additional $250 million.

Over the weekend, New York Magazine reported that Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal was mooting a $15 million initiative to take on The New York Times with a new New York metro section, in hopes of cut into the Times’ advertising base. The Times needs money even though it actually returned last week the salaries of some of its employees that were cut because of the recession.

Does the NYT try to retain some of the staff so that its writing does not suffer further?

Are Murdoch – Salim fighting matches on New York’s horizon?

We think the beneficiary of this will continue to be The Financial Times.

from:  jfalk at unimelb.edu.au

The Hon Helen Clark – Administrator of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and Former Prime Minister of New Zealand – addressed a crowded room of distinguished guests at her launch of

“Worlds in Transition: Evolving Governance Across a Stressed Planet” (Edward Elgar, UK) by Joseph Camilleri and Jim Falk,

on Friday 12 February, in Sydney, Australia.

She gave a strongly supportive analysis of “this remarkable book”.

Further details of the new book are available at http://worlds-in-transition.com

The book covers: The current state and dynamics of the evolution of governance of development, climate, information, the economy, health and security -  in this 670 page book.

Contents: Preface 1. Introduction 2. Human Organisation: The Evolutionary Context 3. Governance in the Context of Human Evolution 4. The Modern Epoch and its Limits 5. Economic Governance 6. Governing Atmospheric Flows 7. A Defining Issue of Our Time 8. The Evolving Governance of Information Flows 9. Governance, Pathogens and Human Health 10. Globalisation of Insecurity in the Era of Hegemonic Decline 11. Towards a New Security Discourse and Architecture 12. A Holoreflexive Epoch in the Making? Bibliography Index.

In his pre-publication review of the book James H. Mittelman, American University, USA writes: “At a time of overspecialization in the knowledge industry, it is energizing to read a book that navigates the social, humanistic, and natural sciences. Do Camilleri and Falk succeed in this bold venture? Yes, profoundly! Their tour d’horizon is a romantic journey, a love affair with traversing different branches of learning. Gracefully composed, Worlds in Transition also offers insights into the perils of our era and issues a clarion call for a system of multi-tiered governance to address them.”

e-consultation on setting of an independent scientific body on land degradation/desertification

from: Pam Chasek

Dear Colleagues,

We invite you to participate in a global scientific e.consultation on the needs, usefulness and options of an independent, international, interdisciplinary scientific advisory body on land degradation/desertification. The proposed body would primarily provide scientific advice to the United Nations Convention on Combating Desertification (UNCCD) to aid decision-making to combat land degradation and to achieve sustainable land management and development in drylands. It may also be relevant to various on-going efforts to harmonize knowledge on land matters.

DesertNet International and UNU-INWEH have developed this e.forum to canvass contributions from different regions and interested parties on this issue and as an input into the decision made at COP9 that requests the Committee on Science and Technology (CST) to assess how to organise international, interdisciplinary scientific advice. This activity thus, supports the follow-up of the first scientific-style UNCCD conference to the CST SS-2 in 2010 which will be making recommendations to COP10 of the UNCCD.

You can register to participate in the e.forum at: redmine at example.net. You will have to activate your account by clicking on the link that is given in this e.mail.

If you have any problems registering or answering the questions please let us know.

Please note that in the e.forum survey questionnaire you have to press the <save> button before proceeding to the next question!

Please forward this e.mail also to other experts.

The e.forum starts on 25 January 2010 and will end on 25 March 2010.

We acknowledge the generous assistance and sponsorship of the GTZ CCD Project in this exercise.

Best regards,
also on behalf of the DNI Bureau members Richard Escadafal and Giuseppe Enne who are members of the international steering committee of the E.forum.
Mariam Akhtar-Schuster and Richard Thomas

********************************************************************
Dr. Mariam Akhtar-Schuster
Sekretariat DesertNet International (DNI)
c/o Biocentre Klein Flottbek and Botanical Garden
University of Hamburg
Ohnhorststr. 18, 22609 Hamburg, Germany
Tel  +49 (0)40 42816 – 533
Fax +49 (0)40 42816 – 539
E-mail:  makhtar-schuster at botanik.uni-hamburg….
********************************************************************

Richard Thomas
Assistant Director (Drylands)
United Nations University
Institute for Water, Environment and Health
(UNU-INWEH)
175 Longwood Road South, Suite 204
Hamilton, ON  L8P 0A1
CANADA
Tel: +1 905 667 5511
Tel: +1 905 667 5490 (direct)
Fax: +1 905 667 5510
Email:  rthomas at inweh.unu.edu
Web: www.inweh.unu.edu

Pamela S. Chasek, Ph.D.
Executive Editor, Earth Negotiations Bulletin
IISD Reporting Services

300 East 56th Street #11A New York, NY 10022 USA
Tel: +1 212-888-2737- Fax: +1 646 219 0955
E-mail:  pam at iisd.org
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)
 http://www.iisd.ca/email/subscribe.htm

China is the size of a continent, has 1.3 billion people, with a quite high percentage who are indeed participating in a growing economy, and show thus blooming numbers of internet connections that have increased from 100 million in 2005 to over 300 million in 2009; but China’s leaders demand control over internet content if you want to do business in the country.

——————
 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ba665a50-00ad-…

‘We’re being kept in the Stone Age’
By Kathrin Hille in Beijing
Published The Financial Times: January 14 2010

Google’s threathas heightened fears among Chinese internet users that the country could be on its way out of the global network.

“This is not an issue of Google abandoning China, but one of China abandoning the world,” one prominent blogger, Hecaitou, said on Twitter. Hecaitou’s blog was recently blocked in a growingclampdown.

Beijing has increased surveillance and regulation of the web during the past year. Last month, the Ministry for Industry and Information Technology announced that it would start requiring all sites to register their domain names with the government. Analysts say the move could transform China’s web into a vast intranet.

It is not yet clear how fully the regulators intend to implement the new rule. But strict enforcement would amount to creating a list of “allowed” websites inside China. It would put all foreign content appearing on domain names registered in other countries out of reach of Chinese users.

“The Chinese are being kept in the internet’s Stone Age,” said Xie Wen, a prominent web commentator.

Although Google’s China-based service filters its search results according to the requirements of the Chinese government, its self-censorship has been less strict than the one applied on many Chinese search engines or portals.

Observers believe that Beijing would be likely to block Google.com at least partially, as it did before the US company agreed to operate a censored service from servers in China in 2006. If the new rules on domain names are strictly enforced, Google.com and other foreign sites would be totally blacked out.

Mr Xie said: “We are not allowed to play along with web 2.0. Maybe the Chinese will become second-class citizens of the internet world. That is a real possibility. To put it more straightforward, some want to transform the internet into a national intranet.”

The title may look strange, and indeed nobody put the three meetings I attended Friday, November 20, 2009, in direct contact with each other – but then my imagination was busy telling me – what if those people would indeed sit in the same room and plan together for a better functioning world?

First – the Solar Tower Technology:

An experimental smaller tower I saw years ago in Israel, but in the 1980s a German firm built a 50 kw prototype tower in Spain and operated it for 8 years collecting data. That tower was 650 feet tall and 33 feet wide, and the collector was about 1000 feet wide. The technology combines wind and solar technologies to produce electricity without emissions, without using up water, and at a price competitive with fossil fuels. The Solar Tower uses solar insolation and radiation to heat air beneath a large translucent collector (greenhouse) that creates a constant flow of air to drive electricity-generating turbines. The turbines are located at the base of the tower in a shape like an orange cut in a half. There is an updraft of air in the tower. There is also a capability to store heat so the system works also at night and electricity is delivered 24/7.
For more information look please at - www.enviromission.com.au

A 200MV Tower is planned for the Mohave desert in Arizona. The tower will reach 2400 feet height and the inside temperature will be 180 degrees. The location was picked so that it will supply electricity to a market in California.

The information was presented by Mr. Christopher Davey, President, EnviroMission (USA), Inc. and hosted by Mark Townsend Cox, Managing Partner of New Energy Fund www.newenergyfundlp.com with further backing from Raymond James & Associates, Inc., members of the New York Stock Exchange.

Second – the financial meeting was billed as The Middle East Leaders Forum 2009 and was hosted by DLA Piper a law firm with pan-Gulf presence www.dlapiper.com  I www.MiddleEastLeadersForum.com was organized with the help of Edgar Perez, CEO of Golden Networking who chaired the event. www.goldennetworking.com DLA has 3,500 lawyers in 29 countries throughout Europe, the Middle East, Egypt, the US, South Asia, and Asia in general.

The panels dealt with -
Evolution of Capital Markets in the Middle East;
Alternative Approaches for Private Equity Investing in the Gulf;
Tapping into the World’s Richest Sovereign Wealth Funds;
Retaining Talent and Focusing Teams in the Middle East.

The speakers ranged from the Thompson Reuters Head of Islamic Finance to various International Investment Groups – management and strategy heads. What I came away with is the clear understanding that there is a lot of private money out there – even if much of it is held by individuals in the name of Sovereign entities. This money will not want to buy US treasuries. Places like Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and Qatar – the smaller members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) – have turned into Financial Centers and one of the speakers called the GCC the biggest bank in the world. Sure, there was a lot of talk of outside investments potential in the GCC States, also about income from oil, but now the ruling families are rather interested in being seen as investors and manager of finances then oil producers. So, here is my angle – why not invest in the technologies of the future – like the Solar Tower I mentioned above? There is also the angle of Islamic Finances that do not have as a target gains from interest – so why not turn this into investments instead?

There is a lot of sun in the desert, but no water – so these towers could do a lot of good for the development of the GCC region itself. They could also invest in the production of electricity in Sahara and sell it in Europe. Cables will be the new energy pipelines. They could start by participating already in the first development of the technology in Arizona. This could also improve the image of states that seem to be pushing only for sales of oil – something they can start being less dependent on because of their new standing as financial centers. The technology could also be related to desalination projects …

Third – the Friendship Ambassadors Foundation that since 1973 facilitates cultural exchange programs that promote mutual understanding and peace. The foundation brings volunteers and NGOs for meaningful exchanges that also focus on sustainable development. These are the people that could through example facilitate thinking that there is a common good in helping bring about change when change is needed – and today doing something about decreasing a potential runaway of climate change is the order of the day. Patrick Sciarratta, is the Executive Director of the Ambassadors – they could try to promote a common ground between those that have the money they could use to work out needed answers to the stalled Copenhagen process, and the technology people that have the know-how. www.FAF.org

One not so trivia I learned about the Friendship Ambassadors last evening was the fact that among the many young people they brought from the Developing world to the United States were Kofi Annan and Shashi Tharoor, when they were still young students – they later became among the most successful, low key, public servants in UN history. Kofi Annan as perhaps the only other Secretary General, besides Dag Hammarskjold, that left a positive imprint on the organization, and Shashi Tharoor, author of many books of thought, the highest intellectual Under-Secretary General in charge of Communications, who tried to be Annan’s successor, but was seemingly too much for the G.W. Bush Administration for that job. I mention this here as it seems that this youth-Ambassador NGO, that was funded originally from the Readers Digest fortune, has indeed had the penchant of picking right people – specially among the young – to promote global understanding for right causes.

My conclusions for the day – there is hope if the right people will provide the links between the different elements that are in place already, rather then allow these elements to fester in their solitude and pursue a detrimental future unconnected.

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

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

————-

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

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

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

————–

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

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

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

————-

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

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

—————

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

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

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

A certain raport evolved between him and Washingtonian Diringer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——-

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

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

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

——-

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

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

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

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

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

——————

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

www.ft.com/obamainasia 

www.ft.com/rachmanblog

Climate Change Adaptation: It’s about Water! 
— Global Water Partnership’s contribution to the climate change dialogue

Water is central to the world’s development challenges. Whether it is food security, poverty reduction, economic growth, human health—water is the nexus. Climate change is the spoiler. No matter how successful mitigation efforts might be, people will experience the impacts of climate change through water.

The Global Water Partnership is participating in ‘Water Day’ at the climate change negotiations in Barcelona. GWP Executive Secretary Dr Ania Grobicki will be the lead speaker on water and transboundary issues on Tuesday, November 3. The venue is the Fira Congress Hotel, opposite the conference centre. The opening session starts at 9 am and lunch will be provided.

Recently, the GWP’s Technical Committee released its 14th Background Paper: “Water Management, Water Security and Climate Change Adaptation.” It argues that investments in water are investments in adaptation. The paper can be downloaded on www.gwpforum.org or ordered free at gwp@gwpforum.org.

Climate Change: How can we Adapt? – a one-pager about GWP’s key messages on this subject – is available here: http://www.gwpforum.org/gwp/library/GWP_Briefingnote_climatechange.pdf.

GWP has been accepted as an Inter-Governmental Organisation with Observer Status at  COP 15 in Copenhagen in December and has submitted an article to the delegate publication. But more information on that will follow later. 

More resources about climate change and water and more information on GWP’s involvement in the global dialogue on climate change is available on this page: http://www.gwpforum.org/servlet/PSP?iNodeID=205&itemId=442.

——————————————————–Steven DowneyHead of CommunicationsGlobal Water Partnership (GWP)Drottninggatan 33SE-111 51 Stockholm, SWEDENPhone:   +46 8 522 126 52Fax:      + 46 8 522 126 31E-mail: steven.downey@gwpforum.orgWebsite: www.gwpforum.org
A water secure world – the mission of the Global Water Partnership is to support the sustainable development and management of water resources at all levels.

Dear Friends,
I’m sitting here in New York City, and the whole 350.org team still has huge smiles on our faces. We just can’t stop watching the flood of images continue to flow in from around the world–5200 actions in 181 countries makes for a lot of gorgeous photos.

You can spend hours on the website looking at the 20,417 photos we’ve received  from last weekend’s day of climate action, but if you’ve only got three minutes this short video will give you a good idea about what happened:

 http://www.350.org/oct24-vid

I’ve been coordinating the translations for 350.org since the beginning, so my favorite part of the video is seeing the incredible diversity of people all over the world, speaking so many different languages–but all speaking with one voice.  Everyone in the video is joyful, passionate, and fired up by the knowledge that they are not acting alone.  They know, as you should, that there are millions around the world who are standing together for bold climate action. I think you’ll like the video as much as I do, so do take a couple of minutes to watch it now: http://www.350.org/oct24-vid

But we don’t want you to think we’ve stopped working and spend all day watching videos. Two days ago we met with the chief of the climate change section of the United Nations, Janosz Pastor. We gave him a book of photos that we prepared, filled with stories and news clippings about what happened on October 24th, and information about the 350 target.  The best news: he’s passing it on to UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon.

And that’s a good way to remind all of you that the first task on our post October 24 to-do list is delivering photos of your actions to your political leaders–local, regional, and national, and international.

Sign up here for to take part in a photo-delivery: http://www.350.org/deliverysignup
Our team at 350.org will follow up as soon as humanly possible–linking you up with people in your community who can join you for a delivery, providing tips and support for reaching your political leaders, and asking for your stories that we can share them with the world.

We’re sorry to put you back to work so soon, but time is short till the big UN Climate Talks in Copenhagen this December. Between now and then, the next stop for 350.org is Barcelona, Spain (my home country!) in early November. Why Barcelona?  It’s the location of the final UN Climate meeting before the crucial December talks.  In Barcelona, members of the 350.org team will be meeting with UN delegates, delivering photos and videos, and making sure that our collective call to action makes a a real impact.  Wouldn’t it be amazing if while UN delegates were receiving photos and videos of citizens all over the world calling for bold action, your local officials were feeling the same heat?  Help make it happen:
 http://www.350.org/deliverysignup

With your help, we will make every world leader know that we will accept nothing less than a fair, ambitious, and binding climate treaty that puts us back on the road to 350.

Thanks for all you do,

Teresa Niño for The 350.org Organizing Team
P.S. With your help, the video I included in this e-mail can go far and wide to let the world know what happened–please share in just two clicks on Twitter and Facebook.

You should join us on Facebook by becoming a fan of our page at facebook.com and follow us on twitter by visiting twitter.com

To join our list (maybe a friend forwarded you this e-mail) visit www.350.org
 350.org
 350.org is an independent and not-for-profit project.
What is 350? 350 is the number that leading scientists say is the safe upper limit for carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. Scientists measure carbon dioxide in “parts per million” (ppm), so 350ppm is the number humanity needs to get below as soon as possible to avoid runaway climate change. To get there, we need a different kind of PPM-a “people powered movement” that is made of of people like you in every corner of the planet.

The 14 States of the Pacific Island Countries Forum, led by Australia, seem to ask for much less in the run-up to Kyoto then the Association of Small Islands States (AOSIS) which is open to European inputs. We wonder what happened to the New Zealand leadership of the Pacific Islands, did it evaporate when Australia started to reassert its position as the largest state in the region? Can one expect Australia to speak up for the much smaller islands, or indeed they be advised to look for allies elsewhere?

———-

From: <Lice-Lia-Ann  WorldEnvironmentalJournalists@yahoogroups.com

   29 OCTOBER 2009 SUVA (Pacnews) — As the world counts down to Copenhagen for a possible new climate change deal,  some Forum Island Countries increasingly appear to align themselves to the position of the Association of Small Islands States (AOSIS) rather than the Pacific Islands Forum’s Action on Climate Change, endorsed in Cairns, in August this year.

   This position came out clearly at a panel discussion organised by the European Union in Suva last night.

   Deputy director of the Secretariat of the Regional Environment Programme (SPREP), Kosi Latu said the Pacific wants an ‘ambitious and legally binding agreement.’ “A political decision is of no use to us – he said.

   “Pacific Island Countries will take the AOSIS position to enable our voices to be heard.

   AOSIS comprises 39 small island developing countries in the Caribbean, Indian Ocean and the Pacific.

All 14 Forum Island Countries are members of AOSIS.

   In September, AOSIS declared its negotiating position calling on developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emission (GHG) by more than 45 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and more than 95 percent by 2050.

   A month earlier, Pacific Islands Forum Leaders declared a ‘weaker’ position than AOSIS, Oxfam and Greenpeace said in August.

   The Pacific Leaders call to action on Climate Change ‘called on states to cut their GHG emissions by at least 50 percent below 1990 levels by 20050.

   “One of our biggest challenges going to Copenhagen is – which way do we go? Do we go the Funafuti (Tuvalu) way or the Canberra (Australia) way, said Fei Tevi, representing the Pacific Alliance of NGO’s.

   “That is clearly our dilemma. Pacific Leaders in Cairns came out with their position quiet different to the AOSIS position.

   Tuvalu’s long time climate change negotiator, Ambassador Enele Sopoaga said his country remains committed to the AOSIS position.

   “Urgent and ambitious actions are needed now or there will be catastrophic impacts on small island states like Tuvalu.

   “Copenhagen should provide a legally binding and ambitious deal for us, if not, there will be serious threats to the lives of our people in small low lying islands. “We want to retain and strengthen the Kyoto Protocol instead of a new successor agreement.

   Mr Sopoaga said, “we have to build on the experiences and achievements of the Kyoto Protocol.’ “We will prefer an amended Kyoto Protocol with new commitment period of 2012 – 2017, said Mr Sopoaga.

   A new climate change deal is expected to be placed on the table when world leaders convene in Copenhagen, Denmark in 26 days for the United Nations Framework Convention o Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties meeting….PNS 

   Lice Movono ROVA
   Info/Comms Assistant
   Politics/Trade/Media Section
   European Union
   Delegation of the European Commission for the Pacific
   360 Victoria Parade, Suva, FIJI
   URL: http://www.delfji.ec.europa.eu

————————————

****************************************************
Environmental Media Alliance Worldwide is the Global ej-Forum on
World Environmental Journalists an reaching 4321 EJ professionals
over 174 countries.This EGroup was founded 6th February,2000 and
is managed by Dharman Wickremaratne,
Secretary/CEO
Asia Pacific forum of Environmental Journalists(APFEJ)
PO Box 26, 434/3 Sri Jayawardenapura -SRI LANKA.
Email<ejournalists@gmail.com>
http://www.environmentaljournalists.org
http://www.apfej.orgYahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WorldEnvironmentalJournalists/

Friends,

I can hardly believe my eyes.

16 hours ago, citizens in New Zealand gathered before dawn next to a wind turbine on a mountaintop. As local elders said prayers to bless the global event, banners and signs were held high to to greet the planet’s first rays of sunlight on this most incredible of days. 

As the sun continues across the planet we’ve been receiving photos and video of rallies in Ethiopia, bike rides in Wellington, SCUBA divers in Australia, organizers planting 350 trees in Thailand, hundreds of students marching in India and Nepal and Mongolia. And we’re getting reports from 350.org offices around the world that the phones are ringing off the hook with calls from the media who want to cover the story.

The day is just beginning and already it’s larger, more powerful, and so much more beautiful than I ever could have imagined. I’ve been a writer my entire life and yet words truly cannot describe what you have accomplished already. To truly grasp today, please stay tuned to our website as more and more photos come in from across the planet, and especially our evolving photo slideshow.

And the best news of all? The day has just begun!

Bill

P.S. Have a photo to contribute?  Just send a decent-quality picture to  photos@350.organd make the subject “City, Country” and make sure that the body of the e-mail contains a description of the photo, any necessary photographer credits, and any other information you think we’ll need. So many thanks.

– Why am I doing this stupid meaningless job? – Why did I choose journalism and marketing when I could have studied sustainability or environmental management? – Why the hell did I vote for Labour and not the Greens? – How much greenhouse gas have the 50 (or so) flights that I’ve taken emitted? – What do I have all this crap at home for? – Who do I know of political influence that would actually listen to me about this?   Added to which I feel absolutely devastated about the guilt attached with flying now. Travelling is what’s given my life meaning and made me the person that I am today. I have a holiday booked to Vietnam and another three booked in my head to Japan, South America and the South Pacific. It’s a shitty feeling.   I was sitting there last night listening to you talk and ask if anyone wants to help and I couldn’t say anything. I DO want to help, but I think I need to make some changes in my own life first.   So I’ve made some decisions;   1. I have ordered an Age of Stupid DVD and donated to the film cause on the website   2. I’m going to talk everyone I know into watching the doco and try to organise a screening somewhere. I have a massive family and a huge circle of friends, many of who are mad activists and humanitarians so I reckon if I can get them on board they will spread the word.   3. Tonight is my last night eating beef, which is going to be horrible because I’m a complete carnivore. But I’m going to slowly cut out other forms of meat and dairy – in a few months it’ll be pork, and then chicken. (I don’t know about roo or goat yet)   4. T and I are going to majorly invest in eco-friendly technology when we buy a house and we don’t care how expensive it’s going to be. T is researching wind-turbine kits, I’m researching worm-farms, we’re buying 2 tanks and a solar panel. Hopefully we can make our house carbon neutral.   5. I am going to write to Penny Wong and SA Minister for Environment and Conservation Jay Weatherill every week up until Copenhagen   I don’t know if I’m doing all this because I actually think it will make a difference, or to make myself feel better about the whole situation but I have to start somewhere. So thanks again. I really respect what you’re doing and you sure as hell have converted someone.

An UPDATE – The September 26, 2009, Global Citizens Consultation on Climate Policy.

As we posted earlier, on basis of very limited information, the initiative that started in Denmark ended up involving 39 countries but a total of 46 meeting places as the United States had six events, Switzerland three according to their three main languages, Spain three, and India, Brazil two each.

The full list of participating partners can be found at:
 http://www.wwviews.org/node/11

It is interesting how the Maldives had a meeting organized by “Strength of Society – S.O.S.” that can be reached via sos.org@gmail.com, in Egypt the meeting was organized by Care International, and in Ethiopia and Malawi by the British Council – so we have a mix of local organizations and international NGOs. Basically it seems that the organizers did in most cases not come from the Country’s Government.

WWViews on Warming , c/o Teknologirådet, is The Danish Board of Technology
Antonigade 4
DK1106 Copenhagen K

Phone: +45 33320503    info at wwviews.org
Press contacts

- part of a European network of technology assessment that obviously must have strong contacts with the country’s government.

Our information comes from having eventually visited with the event organized by the Austrian member of the European network – the Institute of Technology Assessment (ITA) of the Austrian Academy of Science (OEAW) -  www.oeaw@at/ita and having spoken with ITA Director Dr. Michael Nenwitch, the Vienna event organizer Dr. Ulricke Bechthold, and Project Management outreach person, Sabine Stemberger.

The ITA of the OEAW is an interdisciplinary research institute, something that we would call a think tank, that relates technical change with social issues in an effort to develop alternatives for political use with understanding for the technologies’ effects on society.
From them I learned that actually this was a 9 to 6 or as they say in Europe a 9:00 to 18:00 single day event, that because of its global scope becomes a 36 hour event, as while I was talking to them in Vienna, actually the Australian results were already known.

The idea was to invite chosen organizations in various parts of the world – chosen on basis of their interest and reliability. Those organizations were then supposed to invite a cross section of the population’s structure, chosen statistically according to age, gender, professional interest etc. to sit in a closed meeting around small tables – I think there were just 10 people to a table seated so they were a representative mix within the general representative mix of people in the room for sum total of 100 chosen representatives. Funny was how I at first did not understand that if I would be seated at a table, poor me could have upset this carefully organized apple cart.

The people were charged to participate in a series of four discussions – as said at their small round tables – they had then to answer questions for each separate topic of those four separate discussions, and in each discussion answers were tabulated like votes with final results given for the 100 participants in the room.

The first discussion deal with The Climate Change and its effects. After 45 minutes of discussion that followed a short introductory movie they had to vote on two questions.

In Essence -The Questions were: (A) Did you know how serious the issue of effects of global climate change is? and (B) How worried you are?

The answers were tabulated and presented at the end of the following discussion at the roundtables, while in between the discussions there was another activity. In between the first and second discussion the group was to hear just for 10 minutes from Austrian Federal Minister for Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Economy, Mr. Niki Berlakovich, who participated also last week at the Verbund meeting and is heavily involved in the biofuels issue. www.lebensministerium.at

Also addressing the group were Professor Helga Kromp-Kolb, Climate researcher at the Meteorology Istitute of the Vienna University, and the scientific adviser to climate and energy funds in Austria  www.boku.ac.at  Also Professor Georg Stingl, the head of the mathematics and natural sciences at the Academy of Sciences  www.oeaw.ac/ita.

Before the first discussion took place, the event was introduced by ITA Project Chair, Dr. Ulrike Bechthold, and by Dr. Wolfgang Gerlich.

The results of the voting following the above mentioned two questions for Discussion Round number one – they were -
for Question A: There was zero for full knowledge of the problems and for I do not want to answer. There was 38% for I knew a lot on the problems and 10% for I knew little – with 52% for I knew some of the issues.

for Question B: This about Worries. It was 36% for I worry a lot; 46% for medium; 14% for little; then still 4% – no way and 0 for – no answer.

The way I interpret the above is that further education work is needed so more people know the problems and worry about what goes on – but I surely would not want to see this become an excuse for a call to action now – the fact that politics are based on push from the people, the fact that people are not yet fully informed, may have a slow-down effect on the politicians. And this is dangerous for those that are in the know.

————–

Discussion round 2 dealt with the long range goals and urgency.

Discussion round 3 dealt with the issues of Green House Gas Emissions.

Discussion round 4 dealt with economy aspects, technologies, and adaptation.

Again, short videos were going to be used as introduction to each discussion. Eventually there was going to be a two hours debate about recommendations and the presentation of results – all of which I suggest to our readers to go to the original website in order to find out the results. As said, the meeting was not intended for outsiders or the press, and I fully understand the integrity of the procedures. Also, the intent of the recommendations is to influence the country’s delegation to Copenhagen – in this case the country is Austria and it is expected that the Minister of Environment, who just was here, will be the spokesperson in Copenhagen.

The meeting, though private, had nevertheless exposure to the press with a small Press Conference after the Minister’s visit with those selected for the discussion groups. As the Press Conference was not advertised on the WWView website, I missed it, though by chance arrived at its end and saw that there were good questions from the few journalists in the room. Having not heard the presentation, I did not ask in the open, but tried to ask the Minister what he thinks of the eventual G2 (US-China) answer to a  post-Copenhagen situation if no real moves are decided upon in Copenhagen? I know this was an unfair question, but I asked it anyway, and I believe there will be a chance to come back to it another day. The Minister is clearly in the EU mainstream on climate change.

Now, before I finish, let’s see what are the recommendations that already came in from the Far East:

AUSTRALIA – Commit confidently at COP15 – Act now to limit warming below 2°C through a legally binding global agreement. Develop new technology in an ethical and accountable process. The need for leadership, education in technological advances is paramount.

INDIA (Bangalore) – Co Clean and Green – Governments and Corporate must fund development of clean technology and renewable energy without patent and proprietary bases. Create actionable awareness at all levels for sustainability and a clean green planet.

BANGLADESH – An International Climate Court! The new climate deal should include establishment of an international climate court to control the states/countries responsible for causing negative climatic impacts. The court should also evolve a legal framework to try climate cases and bring the offenders to justice and provide opportunity for negatively affected countries to claim compensation.

CHINA – Bring the Issue Before The People. To enhance the citizen’s awareness of environmental protection by effective dissemination e.g. short film, public interest advertisement.

The above clearly shows what it is paramount is were you live, and citizen of what country you are. It would be nice if we had a true global citizenship, but as we do not have one yet, it is hard to come to an agreement, and our refuge is to talk among those who really count – something that may be as large as a new G-20 or who knows – as small as a G2.

on www.wwviews.org – the link for the results is -
 http://results.wwviews.org/new2/?cid=bla…

The Foreign Policy Association  coinciding with the United Nations General Assembly, will hold the World Leadership Forum 2009 meeting  on global affairs on September 23rd.

This year’s forum features a keynote address from Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and panels moderated by Wall Street gurus Henry Kaufman and Theodore Roosevelt IV. Check   www.FPA.org for updates!

We find extremely in point the sessions and potential panels onm the global economy – clearly a driver on Global Affairs. We also look forward to the session on climate change, but we wonder how Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, though well intended at start, will present the Australian side on the climate change issue when it is obvious that his country will only present difficulties when the world at large is looking for a way out.

Did they pick Mr. Rudd as luncheon speaker as a stand-in for Mr. Obama, who just as Mr. Rudd, has come in as a fresh face full of good intentions to change things, but then found out that the Congress at large, including quite a few of his own party members, are too beholden to vested interests to allow him to achieve change?

Will the way how this Foreign Policy Association event is handled tell us on whose side the FPA is coming down
- is it on Obama’s side or the Lords of Wall Street?

2009 Agenda
9:00 am
Opening Remarks

9:15-10:30 am
The Future of Wall Street

10:45 am-12:00pm
U.S. and Global Economic Outlook

12:30-2:00 pm
Luncheon Keynote Address with the Honorable Kevin M. Rudd
Prime Minister of Australia

2:30 -3:30 pm
New Energy Paradigm

3:30-4:30 pm
Cybersecurity: Threats and Responses

4:30-5:45 pm
Women’s Health and the Development Agenda

MORE INFORMATION ON PANELS AND SPEAKERS

Details
Date:
Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009

Panel Location:
TIAA-CREF
730 Third Avenue bet. 45th & 46th St.
New York, NY

Luncheon Location:
Waldorf-Astoria, Grand Ballroom
301 Park Avenue at 49th Street
New York, New York

If you have any questions, please contact the FPA Events Department at  eventsdepartment at fpa.org or at 212-481-8100, ext. 240.

Australia’s Kevin Rudd Government in Climate defeat.

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

Xinjiang Crisis Creates Ripples Overseas.
Antoaneta Bezlova

BEIJING, Jul 29 (IPS) – In recent days, China’s mainland intellectuals have publicly displayed a wave of patriotic support for the Xinjiang cause. They have expressed anger against “hostile foreign forces”, whom they blame for inciting the recent violence in the ethnic Muslim area.

But much of this is suspected of being stage managed by the country’s communist leaders. And behind this fervent display, there is a welling up of anger in a section of the Chinese literati who are critical of Beijing’s policies towards its ethnic minorities. The Xinjiang crisis, which erupted in early July, claiming 197 lives, has now spilled far beyond the borders of China’s resource-rich western autonomous region.

Last week, this issue created ripples in Melbourne, which is hosting Australia’s largest film festival. Several Chinese film makers decided to boycott the festival in a gesture of protest against the inclusion of a documentary in the festival about Rebiya Kadeer, an exiled Uyghur leader accused by Beijing of instigating the unrest from abroad. Among the directors who withdrew their works from the festival is Jia Zhangke, one of China’s award-winning independent filmmakers.

His refusal to participate in the Melbourne festival spurred Beijing to highlight that artists operating outside of the mainstream film umbrella are “patriots” who are unwilling to compromise on issues of national sovereignty. The Beijing Youth Daily reported that Zhangke felt repulsed by the idea of appearing on the same stage as Rebiya Kadeer.

“We feel that appearing with Rebiya in a thoroughly politicised festival, crosses the line of what our emotions and behavior can accept, and [it] is not appropriate. Therefore, Xstream (Jia’s production company) unanimously decided to withdraw, in order to express our attitude and position,” said the press statement released by Zhangke.

The film festival’s organisers said they were unable to verify whether his decision to withdraw was under duress. Zhangke has not been available for any independent comments since then.

But the walkout from the festival has been very publicly supported by a slew of famous film directors and film industry heavyweights. Director Feng Xiaogang, known as the master of sweet-sour modern Chinese dramas, told the state agency Xinhua last week that film festivals should be a platform for cultural and artistic exchanges.

“However, the Melbourne film festival organisers have turned it into a political drama by inviting Rebiya Kadeer, a political liar,” he said.

The works that were withdrawn from the festival were not state-endorsed film products by any standards. Zhangke’s “Cry me a river” is an elegy of lost idealism swept by the tides of China’s fast modernisation. “Petition”, another withdrawn film, by director Zhao Liang, is a documentary about the evolution of the ancient Chinese tradition of petitioning central authorities over the abuses by local officials.

Beijing’s chances of pushing its version of what happened in Xinjiang as legitimate have got a boost with artistic rebels like Zhangke appearing to be on its side.

Riots were reportedly ignited in Urumqi, Xinjiang’s capital, on July 5, as college students other citizens protested against the death of two Uyghur migrant workers in a factory located in Shaoguan, Guangdong province.

But Beijing claims that the riots were instigated by Uyghur terrorist units from southern and western Xinjiang who had infiltrated Urumqi shortly before July 5.

Chinese leaders have blamed Rebiya Kadeer, a 62-year-old former business tycoon, now exiled in the United States, for inciting the violence. Beijing claims that the “East Turkestan forces” — a Uyghur independence movement accused by China of having terrorist links — have long portrayed Kadeer as an international spokesperson for Uyghur people, similar to the role Dalai Lama plays for Tibetans.

Beijing’s claims have received a mixed response overseas. Japan has irked China by issuing a visa to Kadeer despite Beijing’s repeated concerns that she might engage in “anti-China separatist activities”. India, however, showed more consideration for Beijing’s concerns and denied Kadeer a visa even before the July riots.

Domestically, Beijing has attempted to muzzle dissenting voices on the causes of the protests. But Chinese intellectuals have been prodding the roots of ethnic unrest since the Tibetan riots last year which exposed the facade of harmonious society painstakingly maintained by the leadership.

The debate on China’s dealings with its 56 ethnic minorities is gathering pace despite official frowns. Two polarised views have emerged. The first is about defending the right to development of the majority Han Chinese, who make up 91 percent of the country’s population. The other traces the roots of ethnic resentment among Tibetans and Uyghurs. Beijing’s imposed economic modernisation of their homeland, observers say, has led to the social marginalization of these ethnic groups.

Ma Rong, a professor of sociology at Beijing University, represents the former view. He argues that while Beijing did not grant its minorities the right to self-determination, as the former Soviet Union did, it did offer several social privileges that are currently being exploited by hostile elements.

Those rights include exemption from China’s “one-child” policy, educational privileges and a slew of financial and infrastructure programs aimed at boosting their economic development. Ma warns against treading the path of the former Soviet Union. The right of autonomy for its ethnic minorities led to the politicisation of ethnic identities and ultimately to the break up of the Soviet Empire.

“Modern China’s policies on ethnic minorities were hugely influenced by the Soviet Union’s theories on nation-building, and therefore there exists a clear danger of nationalist separation in China too,” Ma wrote in a research paper, excerpts of which were published in the Southern Weekend newspaper.

The opposing lobby argues that the lack of adequate rights to development has led to the flaring up of ethnic unrest. Investigating the causes for the wide-spread Tibetan riots in March last year, members of the liberal group Gongmeng, or Open Constitution Initiative, came up with a report detailing a list of grievances among ethnic groups.

Their paper, posted briefly in June on Chinese websites before being censored by the authorities, argues that Beijing has not given ethnic minorities a fair share of the profits from the exploitation of their homeland’s resources. It also states that ethnic Han Chinese migrants enjoy a monopoly on jobs in all service industries promoted by the central government as ways of ending poverty.

When the Urumqi riots broke out in July, investigative reports revealed the same picture. The two migrant workers who died in a toy factory brawl in southern China were part of a government-funded labour export scheme aimed at relieving poverty in a Xinjiang area, where jobs for locals were few and far between.

——————–

see more details: http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/chi…

China-Turkey and Xinjiang: a frayed relationship.

The violent unrest in China’s western region has cast a chill over the prevously warming links between Ankara and Beijing. The deeper roots of their dispute lie both in history and modern geopolitics.

write Igor Torbakov and Matti Nojonen, 31 – 07 – 2009, from Finland, as reported on OpenDemocracy.net

Igor Torbakov is a senior researcher at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA)
Matti Nojonen is director of the Transformation of the World Order programme at  FIIA.

The violent ethnic clashes in China’s northwestern province of Xinjiang on 5-6 July 2009 have had effects far beyond the region. The pressure from the Chinese government to halt the showing at the Melbourne film festival of a documentary film on the exiled Uyghur leader Rebiya Kadeer – followed by the withdrawal of Chinese films from the programme and electronic harassment that disabled the festival’s website – is but one example.

The countries which host significant numbers of the Uyghur diaspora, or which have close ethnic or cultural ties with the Uyghurs, are among those that have expressed concern about the bloody events in Xinjiang and Beijing’s ruthless crackdown’s. Where such countries also have valuable economic and trading links with China, the potential for the violent episode to create political complications is evident.

This indeed is the situation with regard to Turkey, whose government has as result been torn between its desire to protect its economic ties with China and pressure from public opinion that it does something to stop the Chinese persecution of their Muslim and Turkic kin in “East Turkestan”.

In this position Ankara, under the leadership of the Adalet ve Kalkinma Partisi (Justice & Development Party / AKP) of prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan,  is attempting to perform a delicate balancing-act. But the difficulties of the moment – reinforced by the AKP’s desire to be seen as no less nationalistic and pro-Uyghur than the opposition – raises concern that Turkey and China could be on a collision-course.

* * *

A positive dynamic

The two countries have forged a good economic and political relationship in recent years. This was symbolised only one week before Urumqi erupted, when the Turkish president (and former foreign minister) Abdullah Gul made an official state visit to China, which included a stopover in Xinjiang – the highest-level ever Turkish visit to the region.

[Also on the Xinjiang crisis in openDemocracy please go via the link:

James A Millward, "China's story: putting the PR into the PRC" (18 April 2008)

Henryk Szadziewski, "Kashgar"s old city: the politics of demolition" (3 April 2009)

Yitzhak Shichor, "The Uyghurs and China: lost and found nation" (6 July 2009)

Henryk Szadziewski, "The discovery of the Uyghurs" (10 July 2009)

Kerry Brown, "Xinjiang: China's security high-alert" (14 July 2009)

Dibyesh Anand, "China's borderlands: the need to rethink" (15 July 2009)

Temtsel Hao, "Xinjiang, Tibet, beyond: China's ethnic relations" (27 July 2009)

Ross Perlin, "The Silk Road unravels" (28 July 2009)]
The state visit had taken place on the invitation of the Chinese president, Hu Jintao. It reflects the Chinese leadership’s appreciation of Turkey’s positive efforts to promote constructive dialogue with Beijing – which has included Turkey’s repeated emphasis that Xinjiang is an integral part of China (including references to “Chinese Xinjiang”).

Indeed, Beijing’s trust in Ankara’s “one-China” stance is measured in its granting President Gul the rare opportunity to deliver a speech at Xinjiang University. In his 28 June address the president said that Xinjiang constitutes one of the most important bonds between the two countries, and that the Uyghur people in Xinjiang form a bridge of friendship between China and Turkey.

Many of Turkey’s economic ties with China have been through Xinjiang, one of China’s least developed areas. It seemed a good strategy for both sides: mainly low-end Turkish products cannot compete with domestic Chinese brands in the developed coastal regions of China, but could provide an entry-point for Xinjiang to international markets and help diversify China’s sources of foreign direct investment (FDI).

More widely, the Turkish newspaper Hürriyet reports that the visit to Beijing secured trade deals involving eight Turkish companies and worth $3 billion. There have also been expectations of more strategic ties, including a plan by the Chinese company Chery Auto to build a car-factory in Turkey (though this will depend on government support).

This gradual development of political trust and economic exchange makes the Xinjiang crisis – and the Turkish reaction to it – all the more unsettling for both countries.

* * *

Turkey’s dismay

The boisterous and competitive Turkish media intensively reported the Urumqi events from the start. The majority of victims of the initial rioting (197, according to the official death-toll) may have been Han Chinese, but many media outlets announced hundreds of casualties among the Uyghurs. This contributed to a steep rise in nationalist sentiment in Turkey in which the Uyghurs seemed confirmed as a close cousin of the Turkic family.

“China should know that when East Turkestan is hurt, Turkey is hurt”, one commentary in the Bügün daily warned. “East Turkestan is bleeding”, echoed Sabah; “Turkey cannot remain indifferent to the sufferings of its ancestral lands.”

Some Turkish commentators even invoked the idea of independent Xinjiang – an argument destined to enrage official Beijing. “Although the riots failed to be successful today, they will open the way of hopes for tomorrow”, wrote Sabah’s columnist Nazli Ilicak; she added that one day East Turkestan might free itself from China’s oppressive rule and become an independent country like Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan.

The weight of press coverage, reflecting widespread public sentiment, had near-instant political effects. The opposition was quick to criticise the government’s initially muted response to the “Urumqi massacres”, leading the AKP leaders to toughen their own rhetoric. Regep Tayyip Erdogan, at the G8 summit in Italy – from where Hu Jintao had abruptly returned to China on  news of the unrest, described what had happened as amounting to “almost genocide” against the Uyghurs and urged China to stop the “assimilation” of its Uyghur minority.

Turkey’s prime minister was emphatic: “No state, no society that attacks the lives and rights of innocent civilians can guarantee its security and prosperity. Whether they are Turkic Uyghurs or Chinese, we cannot tolerate such atrocities. The suffering of the Uyghurs is ours.” Erdogan said that Turkey, as a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, was determined to bring the issue of the Chinese crackdown onto the council’s agenda.

Bülent Arinc, a co-founder of the AKP and currently deputy prime minister, echoed his leader, saying “we have profound historical ties to our brothers in the Uighur region” including a 300,000-strong Uighur community in Turkey. The industry minister Nihat Ergün went even further when on 9 July he called on businessmen and consumers to boycott Chinese products (though this was followed by a qualified retraction).

These acerbic remarks have begun to impinge on the potentially disruptive issue of Turkey’s stance towards Rebiya Kadeer, the millionaire businesswoman-turned-political dissident living in the United States whom Beijing accuses of masterminding the Urumqi riots. Ankara has in fact twice refused to issue a Turkish visa to Kadeer, in an apparent wish to avoid upsetting the Chinese leadership. This attitude seems to be changing, with Erdogan (on 9 July) saying that a new visa application would be accepted.  Kadeer responded by telling the Cihan news agency that she planned to visit Turkey soon, and that believed “Turkey wouldn’t sell out the Uyghurs, who have Turkish blood in their veins.”

* * *

China’s retaliation

For its part, Beijing took a week before responding to the first official Turkish outcry. In an official statement China demanded that Turkey withdraw its leader’s remarks on genocide and assimilation, which the state-owned China Daily denounced as “groundless and irresponsible.” The Chinese foreign minister also made a personal phone-call to his Turkish counterpart strongly advising Ankara to retract its harsh words.

At the same time, the Chinese media reported the Turkish public commentaries in a quite restrained manner, certainly when compared to the frenzied denunciation of France’s government and media over perceived support for the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan protestors’ cause in 2008. Even the notoriously partisan Chinese blogosphere seemed not overly agitated, with writers confining themselves to warning Turkey about interference in China’s internal affairs or questioning the nature of the relationship between Uyghurs and Turkey; though some netizens are reported in official media as having called for Turkey to be “punished” over its attitude.

Beijing’s stance would of course significantly harden if Turkey’s leaders indeed host Rebiya Kadeer. The director of the Turkey project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Bulent Aliriza, says: “All hell is going to break loose if she shows up in Turkey, especially after the comment that Erdogan made.”

China’s sensitivity over Rebiya Kadeer is clear in the formulaic comment of Qin Gang, China’s foreign-ministry spokesman: “We resolutely oppose any foreign country providing a platform for her anti-Chinese, splittist activities.”

The pressure on Turkey could escalate. China squeezed the French nuclear and aircraft industries in the wake of the Tibet controversy in 2008, and citizens’ boycotts of French goods targeted Carrefour department-stores. France refused to make the unilateral apology China demanded, but the two sides did agree a joint communiqué on 1 April  2009 in which both sides “(reiterated) their commitment to the principle of non-interference” and France affirmed its (objection) to all support for Tibet’s independence in any form whatsoever.” The question now arises: does Turkey have the economic and political leverage to demand a politically face-saving joint communiqué, or will it too have to yield to making a unilateral apology?

Turkey might already be looking for ways to compromise. A group of Turkish parliamentarians plans to visit Xinjiang, and intend (according to the Turkish media and the head of parliament’s human-rights committee) to be “careful” – neither interfering in China’s internal affairs nor harming Sino-Turkish economic relations. A Turkish media delegation that has already been allowed to visit Urumqi (representing mainly the state-run media outlets) was instructed to make conciliatory noises. There were no problems between Turkey and China, one member of the delegation was quoted as saying.

* * *

Ankara’s isolation

There are three strong reasons for Turkey to avoid embracing too zealous a nationalistic or even outright pan-Turkist stance over the Xinjiang events. First, it risks isolation. The international community – including the United States – is in no mood to annoy the Chinese leadership at a time when it needs China’s cooperation over managing the global financial crisis and addressing climate change. Most powerful states are preoccupied more with China’s stability than seeing it progress toward democracy and inter-ethnic harmony.

China in any case has already dismissed Erdogan’s proposal to discuss the crisis at the UN Security Council, saying the incident was of no concern to the outside parties, a position backed at the Yekaterinburg summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation on 12 July (in which China plays a leading role together with Russia).

It is indeed striking that Ankara appears to have found itself diplomatically isolated, globally and even regionally, in its pro-Uyghur position. The prominent foreign-policy analyst Cengiz Candar noted that “we don’t see any Turkic republics or a single Muslim country or a single western ally standing beside Turkey.” This state of isolation, Candar warns, makes Ankara vulnerable to possible “fierce” retaliation by China.

* * *

A volatile region

It might appear that in the brutal calculus of modern geopolitics, Ankara has made tactical mistakes over the Xinjiang violence. But in a broader historical context, the tensions provoked by the incidents in Urumqi are near-inevitable: rooted in the political, cultural, and national fault-lines of the larger region.

The territories of greater central Asia were divided between the Chinese (Qing) and the Russian (Romanov) empire in the 19th century. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of five independent “Stans” in what used to be Russian-ruled Turkestan released powerful social forces – including the nationalisms of the local Turkic peoples and the rise of Islam. It is only natural that these same factors are at play across the Chinese border in Xinjiang – historic East Turkestan. It should also come as no surprise that, in the wake of the Soviet Union’s unravelling, Ankara’s interest in the “Turkic world” – an interest that lay dormant since the time of the Young Turks and Enver Pasha’s (and the historian Ziya Gökalp’s) fantasies of Turkish central-Asian empire – has undergone a certain revival.

These lands are a mosaic of utmost social, cultural and ethnic complexity. Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan have sizable Uyghur populations – there are 50,000 in Kyrgyzstan and 300,000 in Kazakhstan (including the country’s prime minister, Karim Masimov). The pattern works the other way, with an estimated 1 million ethnic Kazakhs in Xinjiang. The “Stans” today live in the shadow of China’s rising power, mindful of their own vulnerability, and keen to partake in Beijing’s financial largesse; these considerations to a great extent undercut any particular interest in promoting the Uyghur independence cause.

Amid these regional complexities, Turkey is trying to position itself as a rising regional (even global) power – making a degree of tension with China natural, even if there are many contingencies in the current situation. Ankara’s policy elite sees its ethnic, cultural and religious ties to the Turkic world as valuable strategic capital; and its ability successfully to mediate in the security and political crises that punctuate the region as a sure way to enhance Ankara’s international stature.

So long as the lands of historic Turkestan remain volatile and their geopolitical status uncertain, the outside powers’ competition for influence in the region – often quiet, occasionally sharp and vocal – will continue. It seems that Turkey intends to press its claim to be one of these main players – alongside China, Russia and the United States. This means that, however the current Xinjiang crisis ends, Ankara and Beijing might well again collide over “greater Turkestan”.