Ahim Steiner says Natural Disaster Underlines Serious Environmental
Change Challenge
Emerging Across Planet.

NAIROBI, 30 August 2010 – Achim Steiner, the head of the UN Environment
Programme (UNEP), has donated a $70,000 international leadership prize to
relief efforts in Pakistan following the devastating and ongoing floods, it
was announced today.

Mr. Steiner, who called on others to also assist the victims and support
the humanitarian efforts in Pakistan, was awarded the 2010 Tällberg
Foundation prize at a ceremony in Stockholm on Sunday evening for
“principled pragmatism” and “leadership that walks the talk”.

The value of the award, whose previous winners include former Norwegian
Prime Minister Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, is 500,000 Swedish Krona or close
to $70,000.

Mr. Steiner, who is also a UN Under-Secretary-General, began his
professional career working in the villages of Pakistan’s
Khyber-Pakhtoonkhwa Province.

He said he had “been deeply touched not only by the scale of the disaster
but also the extraordinary efforts of local communities and organizations
in mobilizing relief efforts while support from the international community
was being deployed”.

Mr. Steiner announced to the audience that he would immediately transfer
the funds to the Sarhad Rural Support Programme — a national NGO which has
mobilized a vital flood relief and rehabilitation effort for the affected
communities in the Khyber-Pakhtoonkhwa Province during the past weeks.

The funds will be deployed with a focus on rehabilitation and
reconstruction projects for communities returning to rebuild their lives
and livelihoods.

In his acceptance speech at the award ceremony Mr. Steiner called for a
spirit of solidarity and generosity to assist the people of Pakistan at
this time of crisis.

He also emphasized that while the immediate response and needs of people
should be the focus of our attention the nature and scale of this disaster
also provided a stark reminder of the need to address the causes and
consequences of environmental change on our planet.

“The vulnerability of societies – particularly the poor – to the impacts of
these change phenomena such as climate change and degradation of our
ecological life support systems continues to grow”, Mr. Steiner emphasized.

“The world deserves better answers at a time when we have the knowledge and
ability to make better choices for the future. No one can be left untouched
by the looks of despair, confusion and fear in the eyes of trusting
children being carried by their parents through flooded landscapes in the
desperate search for a safe place. Our responsibility to reflect and act
has never been greater.” The Foundation described Mr. Steiner as a
“systems thinker and doer, integrating cultures, disciplines and sectors in
the pursuit of a sustainable environment for all”. They cited his
leadership in launching UNEP’s Green Economy Initiative as leaving
indelible marks in international and national policy.

In a statement, the Tällberg Foundation said: “Achim Steiner has shown an
unusual capacity for listening to the needs and views of disparate
communities, Governments, business, academia, civil society and integrating
these into policies which have frequently been implemented. His masterful
leadership at the IUCN and the World Commission on Dams paved way for his
nomination to lead UNEP.”

Tällberg Foundation Leadership Award — www.Tällbergfoundation.org

The Award is given to an individual who has consistently applied
humanistic, social and ecological values in his/her pursuit of results. The
prize thus encourages and supports the leadership that combines the
articulation of consistent values and positive results – the essence of
principled pragmatism.  The prize consists of a diploma and a contribution
of 500,000 Swedish Kroner (SEK) to the recipient’s charity of choice.  The
contribution of 500,000 SEK is made possible by the generous support of
Svenska PostkodLotteriet.

Previous recipients:
* Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, former Prime Minister, Norway (2009)
* Kofi Annan, President, Global Humanitarian Forum, Geneva and former
Secretary-General, United Nations, New York (2008)
* Lord John Browne of Madingley, former Group Chief Executive, BP, United
Kingdom (2006)
* Russell Ackoff, Chairman, Interact, USA (2005)

For more information, please contact: Nick Nuttall, UNEP Spokesperson and
Head of Media, on Tel: +254-733-632755 or E-mail: nick.nuttall@unep.org

I saw the show tonight and it made me think of Eric Falt who worked at UNEP then became #2 at UN DPI in New York where he replaced an Egyptian and is taking over the #2 job at UNESCO.

Why that? It is because DRIVING THE SAUDIS was conceived in cooperation with The International Theatre Institute of Paris that is connected to UNESCO. This means that there is still some honesty left at UNESCO – something impossible to find at the  Department of Information and Communication of the UN in New York. Under Egyptian Ahmad Fawzi the Department was all about safeguarding the interests of the oil kings. Under French Eric Falt there was no change – only a make believe of bringing in the UN Correspondents Association in decision making and the results are even worse then the starting line. What will he do when he gets to Paris? Will activities like showing DRIVING THE SAUDIS in conjunction with ITI be considered not Halal anymore?

My first posting about this one woman show was based on their publicity and I thought that the waste of oil money by the oil kings is the main issue. Having seen it now my feeling is that it is much more about the place of a woman in the Saudi Royal family.

Actually – there is no Saudi State only a privately owned huge piece of real estate that belonged to King Ibn Saud and was passed on to his descendants that multiply like rabbits – with 30 wives if not one hundred. We understood that there are only 4 at one time and they are released simply by saying three times, in the presence of a witness,  that the owner sends them off. The whole thing turned my stomach and what is the UN for? What is a the new “UN Women” creation for? What did UNIFEM do all these years? Who at the UN has said anything about this sort of slavery at the age that overpopulation does us all in. A woman must produce sons in order to have a chance to survive some longer before being replace by a younger one.

I clearly will not do justice in this second posting to the content of this reality play – and reality it is in every minute of it – in the real sense of the word. I will write more about it and hope it will get to the public’s attention and people will not shy away anymore from what it presents. The UN Headquarters are not worth the money the world spends on it if no effort is made to follow up on 21st century slavery – even if the women involved think that they benefit from the lavish life-style as long as it lasts.

————–

The New York Fringe Festival is the largest multi-arts festival in North America, with more than 200 companies from all over the world performing for 16 days in more than 20 venues.

DRIVING THE SAUDIS, with and by Jayne Amelia Larson, was [performed at the historic SoHo Playhouse and was about 2/3 full. Those that came early – about 50 people – looked to me as Middle Easterners. Those that arrived closer to the start were younger and looked like theater students.

The SoHo Playhouse was home to playwrights like Edward Albee, Terrance McNally, A.R. Gurney … Previously it was under the Village South & Spectrum Theatre name, and even housed at the start of the last century the Tammany Hall (New York City Democrats Hall) “Huron Club.”

I met the producer of the play – Patrick Terry – who hails from the NYU Tisch School of the Arts (Drama and Production) and is connected to Peter Goldfarb, Vice President of UN’s International Theatre Institute. From Terry I learned that the content of the play will be gathered also in a book form.

Again, getting back to the history of the play, both, Larson and Terry said that it is all true. Larson who is a theater person, director, actress, in her own right, for money reasons took on this job of being part of a group of 15 drivers that were serving a family of 7 Saudi Royals and their entourage of 50 that includes cooks, nannies, security, secretaries …, that came to Los Angeles for aesthetic surgery and shopping that lasted 50 days. They were spread out in 4 hotels. When she got the job to be chauffeuring the princess and her daughter, it turned out that she had to chauffeur also the hairdresser to Las Vegas. The family came with $20 million and that money was spent. The help had to leave their passports with the hired ex-American military and one of the help, from Sudan, at the airport, when she got the passport in her hands, simply ran away and refused to board the private 747 for the return trip to Saudi Arabia.

Larson digs into the social implications of what she saw and learned. She has sympathy for the three women she talks about – the princess, her daughter that would have loved to go to UCLA but was already promised in marriage, and a Lebanese nanny that with her earnings put through college her siblings back in Lebanon. She speaks of the men as always in need to have someone to insult bellow them in the pecking order. The men never looked into he eyes and this seemingly in an attempt to show respect. And yes – when she applied for the job, she was interviewed and there was no question about her driving only if she was not Jewish. (“You are not Jewish? Not Jewish!”)

Oh yes, I will have more on this in further postings.

Why the world is not over the moon on Ban.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Romania and Bulgaria keep low profile on Roma expulsions – 26.08.2010 -

 http://www.opendemocracy.net/openeconomy…

im Rahmen der Reihe Talking for Peace. A Karl Kahane Lecture Series laden wir Sie sehr herzlich zu der

folgenden Veranstaltung ein:

Wednesday, September 8, 2010, 7.00 p.m.

WOMEN CARRY THE BURDEN CONFLICT PREVENTION AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION

Opening event in the framework of the 2010 International Meeting of National Committees for UNIFEM (Part of UN Women) presented by DER STANDARD

Welcome: Gabriele Heinisch-Hosek, Federal Minister for Women and Civil Service

Introduction to UN Resolution 1325: Maj. Gen. Johann Pucher, National Security Policy Director, Federal Ministry of Defence and Sports

Keynote: Inés Alberdi, Executive Director of UNIFEM (Part of UN Women)

Contributions:

Sonja Biserko, Helsinki Federation for Human Rights, Serbia

Taghreed El-Khodary, New York Times, Gaza

Liberata Mulamula, Executive Secretary, International Conference on the Great Lakes Region, Burundi

Anat Saragusti, Executive Director of Agenda, Israel

Moderator: Gudrun Harrer, Senior Editor, DER STANDARD

In cooperation with

the Austrian National Committee for UNIFEM (Part of UN Women)

and the support of the Federal Chancellery, the Federal Ministry for Women and Civil Service,
the Federal Ministry of Defence and Sports (Directorate for Security Policy,
and the Vienna Institute for International Dialogue and Cooperation.

Bruno Kreisky Forum for International Dialogue | Armbrustergasse 15 | 1190 Wien

Please register: Tel.: 3188260/20 | Fax: 318 82 60/10 | e-mail: einladung.kreiskyforum@kreisky.org

Melitta Campostrini
Bruno Kreisky Forum
for International Dialogue
Armbrustergasse 15
A-1190 Vienna

The conclusions to what we ought to do in the present situation that holds no promise for a global agreement on climate change, and for that matter on Sustainability in general, the best we can do is to work on efficiency, sustainable energy and renewables, on a National level – and I would add through mutually beneficial bi-lateral agreements. Eventually, a network of such agreements is then formed, and can become the basis for multi-lateral agreements. This is a realistic common-sense approach.

———————————————————–

from David Hodas <drhodas@gmail.com> date Mon, Aug 23, 2010 subject International Law and Sustainable Energy

You may be interested in a recent paper, International Law and Sustainable Energy: A Portrait of Failure available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1648906

Dear Sir,

We are using this opportunity to inform you that our company is in need of the following workers to work in a Factory / Hotels in  Canada with the reference of our power of attorney, we therefore require you to supply us the following manpower as follows:

HOTEL PERSONNELS
Waiters
Waitress
Cooks
Caregivers
Tea Ladies
Barbers
Gardeners
Fishermens
Store Keepers
Receptionists
Bar Attendants
Room Cleaners
Office Cleaners
Shop Assistants
Security Guards
Laundry/Washer man

Light Drivers and Heavy Drivers

Hotel Managers and Supervisors.

MEDICAL DOCTORS – Specialists / General Physicians / Surgeons / Staff Nurses

CONSTRUCTION PERSONNELS: Welders, Foreman, Mechanical Engineers, Electrical Engineers, Painters

All this vacancy is available now, the visas, Tickets, Accommodation,Transport and Hospitality for the workers are in company charge.

If your company is interesting in our vacancies, you should please reply us immediately so that we can forward to you our company details and the mode of operations.

Note that your company are entitled to one month salary of each workers supplied as agency commission and it will be paid to you on arrival of the workers at their respective duty post.

IMPORTANT INFO
Pls be informed that any workers who will not be ready for the final deployment by Oct,Nov 2010 are not eligible to apply

Kind Regards,
Captain Barley Gordon Smith DIRECT LINE+447045726140

UK OPERATIONAL OFFICE

HR GROUPS CONSULTING INC.

Regent’s Park London NW1 4SA United Kingdom
Tel+447031842231+447024971364 /+44703898643

CORPORATE OFFICE
HR GROUPS MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS
Suite 105, 4990-92 Ave., Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

HOURS OF DUTY.
Opening Hours:Monday-Thursday 07:30 -17:30 Friday: 07:30 -12:30
Telephone Hours:Monday, Tuesday,Wednesday and Thursday from 8:00 to 17:30,Closed on Saturdays

Reihe: GENIAL DAGEGEN/ kuratiert von Robert Misik

Montag, 6. September, 19.00 Uhr

Bruno Kreisky Forum für internationalen Dialog | Armbrustergasse 15 | 1190 Wien

Anmeldungen unter: Tel.: 3188260/20 | Fax: 318 82 60/10 | e-mail: einladung.kreiskyforum@kreisky.org

FRANZ WALTER

Institut für Demokratieforschung Göttingen

VORWÄRTS ODER ABWÄRTS?

Hat die Sozialdemokratie noch eine Zukunft?

Moderation:   Robert Misik, Journalist und Autor

Vorwärts oder Abwärts?: Zur Transformation der Sozialdemokratie (edition suhrkamp)

Jospin, Blair, Schröder: 1998 sah es so aus, als stünde die europäische Sozialdemokratie vor einem goldenen Zeitalter. Elf Jahre später hat die SPD 10.192.426 Millionen Stimmen verloren und sechs Parteivorsitzende verschlissen, die niederländische Partij van de Arbeid fuhr 2002 das schlechteste Ergebnis ihrer Geschichte ein, die schwedischen Sozialdemokraten 2006, die österreichischen 2008. Der »Dritte Weg« erwies sich als Weg ins Abseits, längst ist vom Ende einer Volkspartei die Rede.

Es sieht so aus, als hätten die Sozialdemokraten keine überzeugende Antwort auf den radikalen Wandel der Arbeitswelt, auf Individualisierung und Globalisierung.

Franz Walter, einer der profiliertesten deutschen Parteienforscher, untersucht die Ursachen für den Niedergang der SPD. Er wirft einen Blick über die Grenzen Deutschlands und fragt, was Freiheit, Gleichheit und Solidarität in unserer Zeit bedeuten.

Melitta Campostrini
Bruno Kreisky Forum
for International Dialogue
Armbrustergasse 15
A-1190 Vienna
tel.: ++43 1 3188260/11
fax: ++43 1 3188260/10
e-mail: kreiskyforum@kreisky.org

www.kreisky-forum.org

Fareed Zakaria discusses CC with Jeff Sachs (Columbia), Pat Michaels (Cato, ex-UVA) & NASA’s Gavin Schmidt.
http://bit.ly/cCQO4Y

Pat Michaels says he is 40% funded by Petroleum Industry. There is no need to fight global warming.

Gavin Schmidt says he thinks we’re too sane not to do something about global warming.

Jeffrey Sachs says – if we do not act we will end up with a catastrophic planet.

Is it clear?

===============

Fareed Zakaria talks to Hirsi Ali who rejected Islam and Irshad Manji who wants to reform Islam.

Hirsi Ali, African Black, born in Mogadisho, Somalia and immigrated to Holland where she went to university and after 9/11 left Islam to become an atheist that says if you need a God take Christ. Her family says she risks hell for leaving Islam.

She says don’t lock 1.57 billion Muslims in a book written in the 7th century. She wrote “Nomad” about her leaving Islam.

She worked with Teo Van Gogh on a movie “Submission” about women in Islam, when he was killed. She was a member of the Netherlands Parliament, and now lives with security in the US and is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

She says that most Americans are unaware of Saudi Funded proselytizing in America.

Irshad Manji , with Pakistani African complexion, born in Uganda, with her family escaped to safety the US in Idi Amin’s days. She heads project Ifthihad at the Moral Courage Institute at NYU. She wants to reform Islam. Good popular cause backed by a good university, but who listens? She tells about a group of young boys in Detroit listening to her mother.

Op-Ed Columnist at The New York Times says – Islam needs a Mandela and means three of them.

Surprise, Surprise, Surprise.

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: August 21, 2010

I love that line: “We have to surprise them.” I was watching the movie on an airplane and scribbled that line down on my napkin because it summarizes what is missing today in so many places: leaders who surprise us by rising above their histories, their constituencies, their pollsters, their circumstances — and just do the right things for their countries.

I tried to recall the last time a leader of importance surprised me on the upside by doing something positive, courageous and against the popular will of his country or party. I can think of a few: Yitzhak Rabin in signing onto the Oslo peace process. Anwar Sadat in going to Jerusalem. And, of course, Mandela in the way he led South Africa.

But these are such exceptions. Look at Iraq today. Five months after its first truly open, broad-based election, in which all the major communities voted, the political elite there cannot rise above Shiite or Sunni identities and reach out to the other side so as to produce a national unity government that could carry Iraq into the future. True, democracy takes a long time to grow, especially in a soil bloodied by a murderous dictator for 30 years. Nevertheless, up to now, Iraq’s new leaders have surprised us only on the downside.

Will they ever surprise us the other way? Should we care now that we’re leaving? Yes, because the roots of 9/11 are an intra-Muslim fight, which America, as an ally of one faction, got pulled into. There are at least three different intra-Muslim wars raging today. One is between the Sunni far right and the Sunni far-far right in Saudi Arabia. This was the war between Osama bin Laden (the far-far right) and the Saudi ruling family (the far right). It is a war between those who think women shouldn’t drive and those who think they shouldn’t even leave the house. Bin Laden attacked us because we prop up his Saudi rivals — which we do to get their oil.

In Iraq, you have the pure Sunni- versus-Shiite struggle. And in Pakistan, you have the fundamentalist Sunnis versus everyone else: Shiites, Ahmadis and Sufis. You will notice that in each of these civil wars, barely a week goes by without one Muslim faction blowing up another faction’s mosque or gathering of innocents — like Tuesday’s bombing in Baghdad, at the opening of Ramadan, which killed 61 people.

In short: the key struggle with Islam is not inter-communal, and certainly not between Americans and Muslims. It is intra-communal and going on across the Muslim world. The reason the Iraq war was, is and will remain important is that it created the first chance for Arab Sunnis and Shiites to do something they have never done in modern history: surprise us and freely write their own social contract for how to live together and share power and resources. If they could do that, in the heart of the Arab world, and actually begin to ease the intra-communal struggle within Islam, it would be a huge example for others. It would mean that any Arab country could be a democracy and not have to be held together by an iron fist from above.

But it will be impossible without Iraqi Shiite and Sunni Mandelas ready to let the future bury the past. As one of Mandela’s guards, watching the new president engage with South African whites, asks in the movie, “How do you spend 30 years in a tiny cell and come out ready to forgive the people who put you there?” It takes a very special leader.

This is also why the issue of the mosque and community center near the site of 9/11 is a sideshow. The truly important question “is not can the different Muslim sects live with Americans in harmony, but can they live with each other in harmony,” said Stephen P. Cohen, an expert on interfaith relations and author of “Beyond America’s Grasp: a Century of Failed Diplomacy in the Middle East.”

Indeed, the big problem is not those Muslims building mosques in America, it is those Muslims blowing up mosques in the Middle East. And the answer to them is not an interfaith dialogue in America. It is an intrafaith dialogue — so sorely missing — in the Muslim world. Our surge in Iraq will never bear fruit without a political surge by Arabs and Muslims to heal intracommunal divides. It would be great if President Obama surprised everyone and gave another speech in Cairo — or Baghdad — saying that.

Fareed Zakaria: Right these days – Germany is booming – not China or the other developing counties. The US is falling behind compared  to both of them.

German Consumers did not over spend on credit cards like in the US.
Germany still has manufacturing going on – they did not switch to outsourcing like the US. The government encouraged and sustained manufacturing.
German manufacturers did not fire workers – they retained them for the return of better days by going to half time work.
Germany instituted reforms in such areas as pension systems, the labor market was freed – so their workers are less expensive but still have work

GERMANY – WITH THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE GLOBAL ECONOMY HAS REGAINED BY NOW ALL THE JOBS THAT WERE LOST NEVERTHELESS DURING THE RECESSION.

———————

China is now in second place in the global economy. In 2030 China will overtake the US.

Niall Ferguson wrote “High Financier” about Goldman Sachs and Ascent of Money.” Sees 14% growth in China.

Zachary Karabell spoke of “Super-fusion” of the US and China economies and looks at the US where it took 18 months to make grants for green business while it took China a plain government decision to achieve a similar goal.

Minxin Pei, a former Chinese dissident that goes back to Tiananmen Square, and works now with Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said that most dictatorships misallocate resources but the Chines did better – this because they believe the government must show competence to have claim to power, but is behind in environmental protection and education.

Tina Hachigian, added – With a per capita income income one tenth of the US China chose instead to have to say more on intellectual property and trade.

Karabell thinks it is now beneficial to have China as the weaker party in Chimerica – but China wants more like we saw in its relations to Australia. China is dependent on investments from abroad and the World is doing better when China is doing well.

Ferguson thinks the marriage may be now on the rocks and perhaps beyond counselling.

Nina Hichigian did not think this will happen very fast – We work together on Terrorism, north Korea (though not as well lately, on CLIMATE CHANGE – if this will not happen we all are sunk.

Pei still did not forgive China and said they will be lucky to grow 7% for the next 10-15 years – this because workers will get higher wages. The low labor costs were the strength.

Niall Ferguson seems rather optimistic by saying that we will witness in China the fastest INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION and an economic story rather then an ideological radicalization. They have had it already and now he sees the evolution of a large middle class. THEY WANT HIGHER WAGES BECAUSE THEY WANT TO CONSUME. And here Pei added -  AND DO NOT THINK OF THE “Square.” That is as in Tienanmen Square.

Nina said that 40% of Americans think they are already the domineering power today (that is China), but if we make right domestic policy decisions in the US we could still be ahead.

——

But did she look at Washington lately? Is this Washington capable of making decisions or every tea cap holder will just stay in the way? Did anyone look at Germany? Is there anything to learn from them still, or the boat has left already and the US is just irretrievably behind?

—–

And Fareed’s reading recommendation for the week:

The Birth of Plenty: How the Prosperity of the Modern World was Created by William Bernstein.

Bernstein argues that from the birth of civilization until 1820 there was little change in the standard of living. And then all of sudden came the prosperous life.

And what brought about such a change? Science, innovation, communication and more.

Fareed says this is a fascinating look at how we got to where we are today, with lessons for how we can continue to be prosperous.

————————————-

Footnote: We read in the paper that France looking at Germany that is again doing well – says that because it fell deeper, Germany got up faster. Oh well! We would have expected better logic from a tall good looking French Finance Minister.

Only extremely few journalists were left at the UN who really care to investigate the facts. The UN likes those that do not look under the rug – so they do not like us at all. Clearly, this makes our work harder, but we can still get information – and believe us – the stench comes  through the UN gates. Let us see:

As UN Denies Offer to Mediate for Cambodia, Dodges on Roma, Selective Answers.

UNITED NATIONS, August 20 — How does the UN choose which questions to answer, and to which publications? How should journalists know when to ask question about topics on which the UN rarely comments, like Guantanamo Bay, Chechnya, Tibet, Kashmir and many other Asian conflicts?

A week after Inner City Press asked the Spokesperson for Ban Ki-moon if he had received a letter from Cambodia asking Ban to mediate the country’s border dispute with Thailand, Deputy Spokesman Farhan Haq sent a response to another publication, then called its reporting inaccurate.

On August 12, Inner City Press asked

Inner City Press: Cambodia now says that they’ve sent a letter to the Secretary-General and the Security Council. I don’t know if it’s been received. And a Cambodian, the Prime Minister, has said that he’ll be asking the Secretary-General personally to somehow coordinate this border dispute that they’ve had for some time but that seems to be heating up, with Thailand saying that they’re going to fortify their border. Is it something that DPA [Department of Political Affairs] is watching? Have you gotten the letter and would the Secretary-General be willing to mediate?

Spokesperson Martin Nesirky: We’ve seen the reports. We have not received any request. And if requests are received, not just in this case, but in any case, from parties to a dispute or conflict, asking for mediation, then, obviously, the United Nations, the Secretary-General would look at that. But we have not received a request from one or either or both.

This was the last Inner City Press heard from the UN. Then on August 20 a publication in the region reported that “The deputy spokesperson for UN Secretary General, Farhan Haq, replied to an email from the Cambodian press on August 18 saying that, ‘The Secretary-General is willing to mediate situation when both sides request him to do so.’”

Inner City Press asked Haq about the statement, including why it was not sent out more broadly, including to Inner City Press which had asked the question. Video here, from Minute 15:10.

Haq first said that the report that Ban was “willing to mediate” was inaccurate. Haq said that all he sent out was that Ban “stands ready to help.” But where then did the press in the region get the quote?

How are journalists at the UN to guarantee that they receive the UN’s responses to questions they have previously asked, or have NOT asked because of the UN’s historic unwillingness to comment on the problems of the Permanent Five Security Council members, any one of which could veto a second term by Ban Ki-moon, such as Chechnya, Guantanamo Bay, Tibet or, as Inner City Press asked earlier in the briefing, France’s expulsion of the Roma to Romania. Video here, from Minute 13:51.

Haq said the UN is monitoring it and if it has anything to say, we’ll know.

—- {and regarding France and the Roma} —-

In front of the General Assembly on August 20, Inner City Press asked the French charge d’affairesl’affaire Roma, and was met with blank stares. Let us know if there is a meeting on that, was the answer. and a French spokesman about But there are rarely meetings at the UN on controversial acts by Permanent Five members of the Security Council.

They can block them in the Council, and the S-G- and his spokespeople don’t seem to like to ruffle P-5 feathers, with a second term on the line….

UN’s Ban cozy with Sarkozy, comment on expelled Roma not shown

If you ask, we try, Haq said more generally.

But what if you don’t ask because the UN never comments? How can a reporter go on record as wanting statements about peace and security, without going down the line of all possible questions?

Someday it does feel like you go down the line, Haq said. And still we try.

—-{then on India!} —

But why send out responses selectively, like Haq sent his Kashmir response to other three journalists, and gave the UN’s answer on the death of DSS staffer Louis Maxwell to a publication in Germany and not to Inner City Press, which had been asking about the case in the noon briefing in New York every day for a week? This, Haq did not answer.

UN’s Kashmir Email was Drafted by DPA from its “Morning Prayers,” Watered Down by Nambiar, Blamed on Haq.

UNITED NATIONS, August 5 — When the UN made a statement on Kashmir, then stepped away from it and blamed it on an Associate Spokesman, there was more than met the eye. Inner City Press has inquired and finds the following: the initial response on the violence in Kashmir was produced by the UN Department of Political Affairs, in what is called its “morning prayers” meeting, chaired by DPA chief Lynn Pascoe.

Then, even before the statement was released, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s chief of staff Vijay Nambiar, a former Indian diplomat and intelligence operative, edited the statement, “watering it down” as one senior UN official puts it.

After UN Associate Spokesman Farhan Haq emailed the statement to four journalists and it was published, the Indian Mission to the UN protested. They came to meet with the UN, Mr. Nambiar, for more than two hours. Apparently, Nambiar did not fully disclose his initial role in editing the statement.

Next, the UN Spokesman Martin Nesirky stepped away from the statement, emphasizing that Ban Ki-moon never said it, and it was mere “guidance from the Secretariat,” and claiming that it had been misinterpreted. How?

UN’s Nambiar and Pascoe, Kashmir statement and morning prayers not shown.

On August 4, Inner City Press asked Nesirky to think it through: if he could walk away from this statement attributable to the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary General, how can any of his future statements be taken seriously? I have said all I am going to say, Nesirky replied. Okay…

Footnote: attendees that DPA’s “morning prayers” quote Pascoe, for example that “Hillary Clinton is going to Colombia, what does she think she can accomplish?”  While some attendees conclude from this that Pascoe is aligned with US Republicans who appointed him, others say it establishes his “street cred” as an international civil servants. But is this what HRC and Obama want?

—

From the UN’s August 3 noon briefing transcript:

Inner City Press: a controversy has arisen around a statement that Farhan Haq had put out, talking about Indian-occupied Kashmir and calling for restraint. And, basically, it says that the Indian Foreign Ministry or Ministry of External Affairs has taken issues with it, that your Office has clarified that the Secretary-General never made those comments. Have you seen that story, and what can you do to clarify the seeming discrepancy between the Indian Foreign Ministry and your Office?

Spokesperson Nesirky: The Spokesperson’s Office released to the media guidance which was prepared by the UN Secretariat, and that seems to have been taken out of context. This was not a statement of the Secretary-General.

Question: What was taken out of context? This was a formal statement.

Spokesperson: Let me repeat what I just said: the Spokesperson’s Office released to the media guidance which was prepared by the UN Secretariat, and it seems to have been taken out of context. This was not a statement of the Secretary-General. That’s what I have; I don’t have anything to add.

Question: But the statement said the Secretary-General calls for restraint, and is there concern about it?

Spokesperson: As I said, I don’t have anything to add to what I’ve just said.

–

From the UN’s August 4 noon briefing transcript:

Inner City Press: Some think that the way that it was answered yesterday — it’s hard for them to take; what weight should statements by the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General be given if they’re later characterized as mere guidance and the Secretary-General didn’t mean them. For your own purposes, how do we — is this a one-off, or does this somehow change; you get a statement today about Tanzania — is that a statement of the Secretary-General, or is it mere guidance, and from who — who gave the guidance on Kashmir?

Spokesperson Nesirky: You know very well what it said [on Tanzania]: it said “a statement attributable to the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General”, and that clearly is a statement. But I don’t have anything beyond what I’ve already said on this topic. Okay?

PLEASE SEE:  .eco

Aid only trickles to Pakistan’s monsoon disaster.

August 18, 2010

Islamabad, Pakistan (CNN) — Pakistan is reeling from a natural disaster affecting 20 million people but relief groups say donors have been painfully slow in helping.

When a magnitude 7.0 earthquake hit Haiti in January, donors responded with $13 billion in aid. Within 24 hours Hollywood mega-stars like George Clooney, Madonna, Tom Cruise and Beyonce had signed up for a telethon to raise money for Haiti’s quake victims.

By contrast nearly three weeks after flood waters inundated one-fifth of Pakistan, the United Nations has collected roughly half of the $460 million it has called for to meet the immediate needs of 20 million flood victims.

This week Oscar winner and U.N. goodwill ambassador Angelina Jolie made a high-profile plea to ask the international community to give more aid to Pakistan.

Pakistan’s flood-affected areas

Pakistan flood: Before and after

“Hopefully there are a lot of people ready to give money,” Jolie told British television network ITN.

Aid workers and analysts say there are several possibilities why governments, individual donors and celebrities are not giving to Pakistan the way they’ve done with other disasters. None, they add, is a good excuse.

The relatively low death toll — roughly 1,500 killed — may have created the impression that Pakistan’s floods are not as severe as the Haiti quake and the Indian Ocean Tsunami where tens of thousands were instantly killed.

U.N. officials say the death toll in Pakistan’s floods belies the desperate and often life-threatening conditions of the 20 million victims. Many of them have lost their homes, their belongings and their sources of income.

Analysts say governments may also be suffering from “donor fatigue” with Pakistan. For years now Pakistan has been on a seemingly constant round of donor needs — money to revive its feeble economy, fight the Taliban, recover from the 2005 Kashmir earthquake, the 2009 refugee crisis and now these floods.

“A donor never gets fatigued,” Islamabad-based political analyst Mosharraf Zaidi told CNN.

“A donor, just as an idea, is not about ‘I’m fresh so I’ll give.’ You don’t give because you’re fresh. You give because of humanity.”

There’s also the perception that Pakistan is run by corrupt politicians and the aid won’t get to those who need it.

This week Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani insisted all aid would be transparent. Aid professionals say if you don’t trust the Pakistani government, then give to an international aid group you do trust.

“There are so many ways people can give that doesn’t have to be rooted in the government if that was a concern,” said OXFAM’s country director in Pakistan, Neva Khan.

Aid groups and analysts say the worst excuse not to give is the perception among many in the west that Pakistan is just not a good place, a country full of militants. It’s an image reinforced by the media’s obsession with extremism in Pakistan, says Mosharraf Zaidi.

“I think that coverage is fundamentally one of great reasons why it’s been hard for people to reach into their wallet.”

The cooling global economy may also have governments and individuals reluctant to give but analysts say the consequences of not giving to Pakistan could be costly.

In the short run people will go hungry, suffer from disease, and lose their fight to survive. In the long run a nation that’s critical in the fight against extremism may face a political crisis that could further destabilize the region.

————————

Except for Kuwait  and the UAE – the Islamic States are not on the donor list – Why? Is this not Ramadan time – if nothing else?

Seemingly, it is all coming from the US, UK, EU, Japan, Australia, Denmark, Switzerland. We  find China at less the $2 million – and we learned that Pakistan refused $5 million from India. At the pledging we learned that Georgia is contributing $1oo,ooo and there are small amounts from around the world.

All of the above seems strange but clear to us. It is the US that fights to keep Pakistan in one piece as it did in Iraq. Can Pakistan hold when the real enemy is climate change?

These tough days for the US economy – a stand out – New Hampshire Job Growth in Recession.

• New Hampshire outpaced every other state except Kentucky in job growth over the last year, according to information released by the U.S. Department of Labor.
• According to preliminary figures, the Granite State experienced job growth of

1.43 % between June 2009 and June 2010, which resulted new 8,900 jobs.

———————————

From the New Hampshire Overview Prepared by:

Michael Bergeron, NH Business Development ManagerNew Hampshire Division of Economic Development, August 9, 2010603-271-2591 mbergeron@dred.state.nh.us

for:

———————————-

•“The magic of New Hampshire: Big enoughto get things done, small enough to reallystand out” Dean Kaman— DEKA R & D

Dean Kamen’s DEKA—Manchester, New Hampshire.

{ We wrote about the visit at his place in Manchester when we reviewed FIRST and Senator Shaheen’s visit there.
 http://www.sustainabilitank.info/categor… }

New Hampshire cuts through state government red tape so that businesses don’t have to spend time fighting a slow bureaucracy.

The contention of New Hampshire business is – Our office provides:

• Excellent customer service
• Facilitate state permits
• Help when needed but otherwise, stays out of your way

So, What makes New Hampshire
different than other states?

New Hampshire’s state motto:

LIVE FREE OR DIE

New Hampshire

• Control state spending
• Lower tax burden
• Individual freedom
• Individual responsibility
• Success based on merit
• Land ownership rights
• Right to bear arms for selfdefense
• Citizens Legislature

————-

They contend that there are – Two different fundamental government approaches:

1. Give us more of your money and if you fall into a certain class and/or location, we may reimburse or credit you for a period of time, and then we will impose a tax on you so we can offer credits and grants to someone else.

or -

2. You keep more of you money and we keep taxes lower—but that means you also don’t receive a long list of special credits, exemptions, and subsidies—this is what New Hampshire does.

——————————————————————————–

Foundational differences:

New Hampshire has a Citizens’ legislature

New Hampshire does not support professional politicians

New Hampshire has 400 Representatives and 24 Senators all of whom get only $100 per year.

*No broad base personal income tax *No sales tax *No use tax *No inventory tax *No capital gains tax *No professional service tax *Corp tax: 8.5% of net business income

State of New Hampshire Net Income
Fiscal Year 2008 $1.247 Billion

New Hampshire Tax Details – 8.5% of net business income.

Business Profits Tax:

• • 1.The tax is imposed at the rate of 8.5% on the taxablebusiness profits of every business organization (RSA Sec.77-A:2).
  • Business Enterprise Tax
• 2. A business enterprise tax is imposed at the rate of 0.75%of the taxable enterprise value tax base of every businessenterprise (RSA Sec. 77-E:2). This is a dollar for dollar credit against the business profits tax.
• “Enterprise value tax base” means the sum of all compensation paid or accrued, interest paid or accrued, and dividends paid by the business enterprise, before special adjustments or apportionment (RSA Sec. 77-E:1).

————————————————————-

THEY OFFER AN -

•Economic Revitalization Tax Credit

$200,000 cap over 5 years, 40K per year cap

•R & D Tax Credit

$50,000 cap each year, 5 year maximum

•Job Training Program

50/50 cash match, customized training, no cap

New Hampshire ERZ: Economic Revitalization Zone

———————————————————–

What is the amount of the tax credit?

*$40,000 cap per year,

* Capped at $200,000 over five years, with carry over up to 10 years.

*Credit against Business Profits or
Enterprise Tax (BPT or BET).

R & D Tax Credit

• 10% of the business organization’s qualified manufacturing research and development expenditures (salaries related to new research) up $50,000 tax credit per year.

State of New Hampshire
Business Energy Efficiency

Audit Program

• No cost energy efficiency assessment & comprehensive energy audit program available through the NH Business Resource Center.
• All business sectors eligible (commercial, retail, hospitality, healthcare, arts, etc) -special emphasis on manufacturing.
• Eligible businesses must agree to try to implement at least some of the suggested measures if at all possible.
• Help with exploring various financing options.

————————————————————–

NH Job Training Grant Program

*

Customized group training

*

Cash grant–up to 50/50 match with state

*

No cap

• Training can be done at the company or other location.

Example of national rankings

New Hampshire:

6th highest per capita income in the U.S.-U.S. Census 09 “Most Livable State” in U.S., Morgan Quitno 2003-2008 (4^th in 2010) “4nd Healthiest State”, United Health Foundation 09 3^nd Lowest crime rate in U.S., Morgan Quitno 09

New Hampshire is the Most Business Friendly State in the Northeast

The conference ‘Deltas in Times of Climate Change’ starts 29 September 2010 in Rotterdam. More than 650 people from all over the world have already registered.

His Royal Highness the Prince of Orange, who is very much engaged in water management and climate change, will give the opening speech at the conference.  Also speaking at the opening session will be: Michael Oppenheimer (Princeton University), Ahmed Aboutaleb (Mayor of Rotterdam), Martin Parry (IPCC) and Malcolm Smith (ARUP).

A day-to-day overview of Conference events can now be found on our website: www.climatedeltaconference.org.

The programme includes 70 challenging sessions of interest to policy makers, practitioners, business people, politicians and scientists. These sessions cover a broad range of issues related to climate change in deltas: flood risk management, fresh water availability, health, climate in the city,  land use conflicts, governance, economics and estuarine ecosystems.
It is still possible to register for the conference, but as places are limited you are urged to do so soon.

Registration, travel and hotel reservations:
- Registration
- Travel and hotel reservations

We hope to welcome you at the conference in Rotterdam.

Florrie de Pater
Chair Organizing Committee

August 19, 2010, before the UN started its meetings, the Asia Society in New York opened the discussion on the Pakistan Flood response by diving right to the bottom truth – the latest mega-disasters have one common cause – human induced climate change. It was Financier George Soros who injected the topic and the media was allowed by Ambassador Holbrooke to follow up. See what you can do when you go outside the UN!

Ambassador Dr. Richard C. Holbrooke, former Chairman of the Board of the Asia Society, and now US Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan,  chaired the 8:30 am event at his New York home – the Asia Society – on the day when for 3:00 pm the UN General Assembly scheduled a pledging event for funding Pakistan relief. At the UN, for the US, spoke Secretary of State Hilary Rodham Clinton, and I saw on TV  the complete  Asia Society American team sitting in the hall. The team included also Judith A. McHale, US Department of State Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, Dr. George Erik Rupp, a theologian, President of the International Rescue Committee and former President of Rice University and Columbia University, and Raymond Offenheiser, President of Oxfam America.

The opening speaker after Ambassador Holbrooke was Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, and the panel included also USAID Administrator Dr. Rajiv Shah. Then there was a list of guests that made their comments, followed by questions from the floor and answers from Administrator Dr. Shah and Ambassador Qureshi.

enlarge image
L to R: USAID’s Dr. Rajiv Shah, Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, and Ambassador Richard C. Holbrooke. (Else Ruiz/Asia Society)

–

Judith A. McHale, a former media head herself ( President and Chief Executive Officer of Discovery Communications – 1987 to 2006), and now with the US Government, said that information is critical. “We work with the government of Pakistan to provide the critical information on the ground. It is posted on www.State.gov

Among the guests were Financier George Soros, whose Open Society Institute and Soros Foundations work on the ground in Pakistan – he announced that he adds another $5 million to the funds that his foundation will work with in helping directly civil society in Pakistan,  Christopher MacCormac of the Asian Development Bank, which is leading the effort to assess the flood damage, said much of the economic infrastructure of the area has been destroyed. 2 million ha. of crops were lost and livestock have been devastated, which has taken a large toll on Pakistan farmers. ADB has said that after the immediate contribution of $3 million from the ASia-Pacific Disaster Fund, it would loan Pakistan $2 billion to help the country rebuild, and Pakistan’s rock star turned political activist Salman Ahmad, known as Pakistan’s Bono, or as Holbrooke pointed out, “Bono is the Irish Salman Ahmad,” pointed out a very important topic:

“This is a defining moment in Pakistan,” Ahmad said. “This flood has set back Pakistan in a huge way. Out of 175 million people, 100 million are under 25. Those young people are skeptical, and they feel abandoned by the world. The international community has to win hearts and minds of those 100 million youth in Pakistan.” “If there is a sluggish response the terrorists/extremists win.” He also said that last year he had a concert at the UN to show to the young people in Pakistan that there was hope – he said that he is sure the international community will react positively.

Ambassador Holbrooke said that in the catastrophe there is also an opportunity, that we should not miss -  the people in Pakistan should see that the world is ready to help. He found that these elements of hope in opportunity were missing in the day’s article in The New York Times.

For the US the strategic implications are clear. The US pulled out helicopters from the military effort in order to help in the rescue effort. Will the Taliban take advantage of this? A US transport ship with materials arrived to Karachi, and Japan will now also send helicopters to help in the rescue effort.

The meeting was summarized by The Asia Society and there is also the full tape at -

 http://asiasociety.org/policy-politics/e…

Further, Ms. Nafis Sadik from the UN, now a Trustee Emeritus of the Asia Society and Chair of the Pakistan Foundation at the Asia Society called for Ramadan giving to the Foundation. Other Pakistan-Americans spoke and told of their own efforts to raise funds for the Pakistan relief program as the State’s capacity to meet the challenge has been overstretched. Today Pakistan , one fifth of its territory submerged, 68 million of its people affected, and 1,600 people dead, crops, animal stock, and infrastructure devastated – Pakistan is calling – humanity is calling they said. We saw a video proving every point. The Pakistan-American Foundation was inspired by Hilary Clinton’s “Pakistani Peacebuilders.”

Oxfam America was joined by “Save the Chidren” NGO  representative Gorel Bogarde said the obvious – what children most need is food, clean drinking water and shelter. She is most concerned for the moment about the outbreak of water-bourne diseases, such as cholera.

We will not repeat here further figures of loss and the size of the calamity. We assume that these are known by our readers by now – we want rather to point out the blunt comments that resulted from the statement by Mr. Soros who linked what happens to our lack of readiness to do something about the human-made climate change. Pakistan is the biggest of the recent disasters he said and we must deal with the root causes he continued. CLIMATE CHANGE IS THE ROOT CAUSE FOR ALL THESE RECENT DISASTERS. Mr. Soros spoke of the coincidence of the Himalaya glaciers melting and the monsoons getting stronger at the same time.

He also said “there is a certain amount of fatigue in responding to these disasters… [but] we have to come to terms with the fact that they are in fact connected, that there is climate change.”

At the Q & A part of the program, I asked the last question that was intended to bring the attention back to what Mr. Soros said.
My question was something like – I am with Sustainable Development Media and I wonder what Pakistan thinks about Mr. Soros’ statement about climate change – the reason being that the present calamity will repeat itself, so how does one do reconstruction work that makes sense?

Ambassador Holbrooke said Thank You and addressed the question first to Mr. Rajiv Shah.

When asked if there was a connection between the floods and climate change, USAID’s Shah said “while it’s very hard to attribute any single event to what we’re doing to our global environment it is very clear that that trend is leading to a greater number of large hurricanes, a greater number of floods, hotter and dryer conditions in places that are dependent on weather and rainfall for agriculture, and it’s making it very difficult for the least resilient, the most lower income communities of the world to survive.”

We heard from Mr. Christopher MacCormac that after the Earth Quake of 2005 the rebuilding of houses was done according to higher standards – so what we need here in the response to the present calamity is also to build better – but he did not specify, neither did Mr. Holbrooke. This, with the understanding that the increased monsoon floods,  joined with the melting of the Himalaya Glaciers, is indeed not a one time shot – but the beginning of a trend – leaves us with very bad premonitions about the future of Pakistan and other low lying lands of the region. This  has  clearly left me thinking about what means building better? Are we going to take into account these new phenomena resulting from global use of fossil fuels when going from the immediate reaction to the suffering from the floods to the longer range rebuilding stage? This is clearly an area that will be written up much more in the foreseeable future.

Ambassador Qurashi was asked by Mr. Holbrooke to react to the climate change implications. Are there additional run-off from the Himalayas?

The answer included: The Glaciers melt and what we have in Pakistan are Monsoon water plus glacier melts combined. We have above normal moisture.

He also said that “There are local NGOs in Pakistan that help push back the extremists and you have shown the world that you are a helping Nation.”

Permalink | |  Email This Article
Posted in Afghanistan, Arab Asia, Archives, Asia & Australia, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, Copenhagen COP15, European Union, Futurism, Geneva, Global Warming issues, India, Islands & SIDS, Japan, Kyrgyzstan, Myanmar/Burma, Nairobi, Nepal, Pakistan, Real World's News, Reporting From the UN Headquarters in New York, Reporting from Washington DC, Tajikistan, The New Climate, Three Poles Melting, Tibet, UN Commission on Sustainable Development, United Kingdom

Discuss this article

UNelections Monitor, Issue #149 – OCHA Selection Process Critiqued, Amos to Begin September 1, 2010.

 https://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=1#inb…

New York, August 19, 2010 – The UN Office for the Coordination of https://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=1#inb… will have a new Under-Secretary-General and Emergency Relief Coordinator on September 1.

Secretary General Ban Ki-moon appointed Valerie Amos of the United Kingdom on July 9 to replace current Director John Holmes, who will step down at the end of this month. Amos is currently the U.K.’s High Commissioner to Australia.

Ban’s selection process has been critiqued by humanitarian groups and others on several grounds, outlined below.

About Valerie Amos

In addition to her current post in Australia, Amos has served as:

• Member of Committee on Commonwealth Membership – 2006-2007
• Leader of the Labour Party, House of Lords – 2003-2007
• Secretary of State for International Development – 2003 (6 months)
• Minister for African Affairs in British Foreign Office – 2001-2003

Amos holds the title of Baroness, conferred by UK Prime Minister Tony Blair in 1997, as she joined the House of Lords.

The UN said that Amos “brings to this position extensive background and experience coupled with well-honed leadership skills and the ability to forge consensus, coordinate delivery of results and work with diverse stakeholders…. John Holmes … said that she will bring to the job a lifetime of commitment to issues of economic and social justice, and huge political experience, not least in Africa, where so many of our operations are.”

Role of Director

The role of Director of OCHA is at the Under-Secretary-General level.

The USG is responsible for oversight of all emergencies requiring UN humanitarian assistance and acts as the focal point for relief activities involving governments, intergovernmental agencies and NGOs.

Selection Process and Critiques

Criticisms of Ban’s appointment practices to date have been based on two primary concerns:

1. Claims to key posts by specific donor countries, and
2. Politically-motivated, rather than expertise-based decisions.

In the case of selecting a successor to Holmes, both concerns were voiced.

Member State Entitlements

The practice of donor countries and other powerful countries laying claim to key posts has long been a concern in high-level appointments. Some posts, such as the Executive Director of UNICEF, have been claimed by the same donor government for decades (in UNICEF’s case, the United States). In the past, the U.K. has had influence over the head of DPA. U.K. nationals held this USG role from 1971 to 2005, when Kofi Annan appointed Ibrahim Gambari of Nigeria to the post. Gambari was succeeded by Pascoe, DPA’s current head.

According to Foreign Policy’s blog Turtle Bay, diplomats have criticized Ban’s demonstrated preference for political appointees over experienced practitioners. In the case of the OCHA appointment, the list of individuals that was reported to be under consideration by Ban largely consisted of high-ranking U.K. politicians, seemingly confirming the continued practice of reserving top UN posts for diplomats or politicians from powerful or donor countries. Civil society groups, as well, have challenged this practice.

Before the OCHA appointment was made, some anticipated that the post would be filled by another U.K. national, or a national of another major donor country. “It is no secret the [U.K.] would like to have that job back,” said one observer.

However, OCHA has not been consistently led by the national of one country, as have other offices.

The former directors of OCHA are:

• Sérgio Vieira de Mello (Brazil),
• Kenzo Oshima (Japan),
• Jan Egeland (Norway), and
• John Holmes (United Kingdom).

Upon Amos’ appointment, a spokesperson for Secretary-General Ban was asked whether there was a “set formula” for assigning specific high-level posts to specific countries. The spokesperson said, “Obviously there is an effort to make sure that there is a diverse range of nationalities appointed to jobs at the United Nations. But there is no set formula, no.”

More than previous Secretaries-General, argues Turtle Bay, Ban Ki-moon has favored political appointees. Ban reportedly “accepted the favored candidates of each of the UN’s powerful permanent five members in his first year in office, according to senior UN officials.”

Political appointments can present conflicts with the independence of the office. Appointing someone on the recommendation of a donor state not only risks compromising qualified leadership of the office at stake (as discussed below). It also could undermine the sworn political independence of the appointee. At the very least, it can create the perception of a conflict of interest.

Prior to Amos’ appointment, Turtle Bay quoted the International Council of Voluntary Agencies, a major humanitarian network, calling for Ban to “appoint the new emergency relief coordinator on the basis of qualification and experience, instead of that person’s nationality…. We don’t want a political appointee who might require a year-long training and induction program on humanitarian response. We need someone who understands humanitarian organizations and their work.”

The UNelections Campaign does not support the traditional claims by donor governments to selected high-level posts in the UN Secretariat. While the individuals nominated may be qualified in their respective fields, the motivations of a political appointment could prevent the selection of the best person for the job from any region or background. Perhaps more importantly, the tradition that the most powerful Member States wield control in the UN via political appointments to key positions implies, and can result in, compromised independence for the UN body.

Qualifications

The national claims to key posts, described above, can have an effect on the weight given to qualifications in selection processes.

Political appointments can compromise the expertise of the office. The article in Turtle Bay – “The Decline of the International Civil Servant” – characterizes how high-level UN jobs are given out, and it is not a process that depends on relevant expertise: “[M]ost experts in the field need not apply. If history is any guide, Holmes’s replacement will be selected from a small pool of influential countries who are rewarded with the most important U.N. jobs. It’s more likely Holmes’ successor will be a diplomat or politician than someone who has experience managing relief operations.”

One blog, Global Memo, which focuses on high-level appointments, noted the British government’s “desire that the selection process be ‘open and merit-based.’” The first steps to achieving this goal would be for the Secretariat to outline criteria for individual nominees and to consider nominees from any Member State, not only the most powerful.

In addition to these two frequent critiques, the UNelections Campaign has noted the lack of transparency in Ban’s recruitment process, in particular the refusal to release “shortlists” of final candidates to the public, as was done in previous appointments including the 2005 selection of António Guterres the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.