Media freedom threatened in most European countries, says OSCE

“Authorities have yet to understand that media are not their private property,” says the OSCE

IN FRANCE IT IS THE PRESIDENT WHO NOMINATES THE HEAD OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE BROADCASTING – CLEARLY AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS NOT UNKNOWN IN TOTALITARIAN STATES.

HONOR MAHONY

July 30, 2010 -  http://euobserver.com/9/30561/?rk=1

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - Media freedom is threatened in most European countries, warns the Organisation for Co-operation and Security in Europe, highlighting incidences in several of its member states including EU countries France, Italy and Greece.

In a report published Thursday (29 July), the 56-member OSCE, a loose gathering of states monitoring regional security, says that “freedom of the media concerns arise in most OSCE participating States. They only manifest themselves differently.”

The breaches, either existing or potential, to media freedom range from a draft law on electronic surveillance and electronic eavesdropping law in Italy which could “seriously hinder investigative journalism” to a draft law in Estonia that may allow too many exemptions to the right to protect the identity of sources, to the fact that French President Nicolas Sarkozy is head of the public service broadcaster, France Televisions.

“The presidential nomination of the head of a country’s public service broadcaster is an obstacle to its independence and contradicts OSCE commitments,” said the body’s Dunja Mijatovic, in charge of monitoring media freedom.

Other areas of concern include the recent adoption by the Hungarian Parliament of parts of a media package with elements threatening media freedom and a possible threat in Greece to a minority radio station that broadcasts in Turkish, while the organisation expresses hope that Germany will adopt a law protecting investigative journalists.

Beyond the EU, the “brutal attack” against a Serbian journalist known for his outspokenness against nationalism was highlighted as was the the “high number of criminal prosecutions” against journalists in Turkey covering sensitive issues as well “serious infringements” on media pluralism in Kyrgyzstan and a series of attacks against journalists in Russia.

“Many argue that media freedom is in decline across the OSCE region. In some aspects, I can subscribe to that,” said Ms Mitjatovic.

“Authorities have yet to understand that media are not their private property and that journalists have the right to scrutinize those who are elected.”

“Violence against journalists equals violence against society and democracy and should be met with harsh condemnation and prosecution of the perpetrators,” she added.

With the internet changing the nature and scope of reporting, Ms Mijatovi also promised a study into the various internet laws in place across the OSCE countries.

“My office is currently working on the compilation of the first comprehensive matrix on internet legislation which will include an overview of legal provisions related to freedom of the media, the free flow of information and media pluralism on the internet in the OSCE region.”

 http://search.japantimes.co.jp/mail/eo20…

Black Sea challenge by U.S. set to keep Russia on edge.

New pact to let European public track pollutants.

The 17 states that have ratified the Protocol on Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers are: Albania, Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, Sweden and Switzerland. The European Commission is also a party.

—–

GENEVA (Reuters) – Friday, July 2, 2010 – European citizens will be able to find out what dangerous substances are emitted in their neighborhoods under an environmental treaty to go into effect in 17 countries in October, the United Nations said on Friday.

Participating states will have to issue public inventories of major pollutants that their industries, traffic, agriculture and enterprises spew into the air, soil and water, including greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change.

Some 86 categories of substances — ranging from mercury and other heavy metals, benzine, asbestos, pesticides including DDT, and dioxins — are covered under the pact.

“These inventories are made available to the public over the Internet and generally also through a downloadable map that helps people identify major pollutants that are traveling through their neighborhoods to discover what is in their backyard …,” Michael Stanley-Jones, an environmental expert at the U.N. Economic Commission for Europe (ECE), told reporters.

“It doesn’t cover all chemicals, but it does cover the major releases of chemicals,” he said.

The pact, signed in 2003 by 36 countries, enters into force on October 8 after being ratified recently by a 17th country (France), according to the Geneva-based agency. It is open to all U.N. member states for ratification.

“It is truly a global instrument, part of a global movement initiated in the 1980s after the major accidents in Bhopal and Chernobyl,” said Stanley-Jones.

A catastrophic industrial accident in central India killed nearly 8,000 people in 1984 when tons of toxic gas leaked from a pesticide plant of Union Carbide, a subsidiary of Dow Chemical Co, the largest U.S. chemical maker.

The Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine in 1986, the world’s worst civil nuclear accident, sent radiation over most of Europe.

The protocol to the 2001 Aarhus Convention enables citizens to voice concern over pollution to industry or regulators.

“As the major greenhouse gas pollutants are included in the protocol, this will give decision-makers and the public powerful new tools for identifying the major industrial sources of greenhouse gas emissions,” Stanley-Jones said.

“Major exceptions are for national security (facilities) and also the nuclear industry — radioactive substances are not covered by the protocol,” he said, noting that countries may add further substances and facilities to their national registers.

Countries outside of Europe, including Chile and Mexico, have developed their own registers and China’s industrial region of Shanghai is also drawing one up, according to the expert.

The 17 states that have ratified the Protocol on Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers are: Albania, Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, Sweden and Switzerland. The European Commission is also a party.

Dr Taroh Matsuno Wins the IMO Prize

Geneva, 18 June 2010 (WMO) – The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has awarded its most prestigious Prize and honoured several distinguished scientists at the annual meeting of its Executive Council.  These scientists have made outstanding contributions in the field of meteorology, climatology, hydrology and related sciences.

The prizes awarded include the WMO IMO Prize, the Norbert Gerbier-MUMM International Award and the WMO Research Award for Young Scientists.

The IMO Prize, the highest WMO award, originates from WMO’s predecessor, the International Meteorological Organization (IMO), was founded in 1873. Dr Taroh Matsuno of Japan was awarded the 55^th IMO Prize. Dr Matsuno is an eminent research scientist in the field of atmospheric dynamics and a distinguished leader in climate research. His leadership in climate and meteorological research and his constant devotion in the scientific community have significantly contributed to the progress of studies on climate change and will also contribute to the development of international activities/framework such as the global framework for climate services (GFCS).

The Council conferred the Norbert Gerbier-MUMM International Award for 2010 for the paper entitled “Multi-level and Multi-scale Drought Reanalysis over France with the Safran-Isba-Modcou hydrological suite”, published in the Hydrology Earth System Sciences Discussions in 2009 (Vol. 6 No. 5) by Drs J.-P Vidal, E. Martin, L. Francistéguy, F. Habets, J.-M. Soubeyroux, M. Blanchard and M. Baillon, all from France.

The Council also conferred the 2010 WMO Research Award for Young Scientists to Juan José  Ruiz, from Argentina, for the paper entitled “Application of ensemble forecasts to weather prediction at short range over South America” PhD Thesis, and to Gabriela Szepszo, from Hungary, for the paper entitled “Transient simulation of the REMO regional climate model and its evaluation over Hungary”, published in Idojaras.

The World Meteorological Organization is the United Nations System’s

authoritative voice on Weather, Climate and Water

For more information please contact at the WMO Communications and Public Affairs Office:

Ms Carine Richard-Van Maele, Chief, Tel: +41 (0)22 730 83 15, E-mail: cpa@wmo.int

Website: http://www.wmo.int

The UNFCCC does not provide, even now, any direct information about the UN Member States that submitted names for candidates to the post of Executive Secretary of the Climate Convention. Whatever Press Conferences were held on the subject at UN Headquarters, to-date, were private Press Conferences organized by individual countries – not official UN or UNFCCC Press Conferences.

The fact that such information is not forthcoming has reduced to a minimum the number of media outlets that deal with this issue – and some that did ended up having only partial information or even wrong information. From the major media outlets, only the Washington Post has tackled the issue, but picked up only six names missing one more name.  The spokesman for the UN Secretary-General has not released the information – though the closing date for submission was March 31, 2010.

To ad insult on injury, the UNFCCC website of News from the Media, to the best of our knowledge, also does not post what is written or posted on the subject – but now seemed to gloat when The Washington Post was pushed into making a correction regarding having missed the candidate from Barbados. We post this because we understand the difficulties The Washington Post had in its efforts to collect the names of the candidates. The UN secrecy on this matter, and in other matters, is just not a good omen for an open flow of information that we expect from the UN.

The gloating matter is as follows:

“Barbados seeks top U.N. climate post The Washington Post
A recent Post Carbon item about the contest to become the next executive secretary for the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change left out the name of one candidate: Barbados’ Elizabeth H. Thompson.”

————————

But that is not all – today, having forced the issue many the Small Island States have backed Senator and former Energy and Environment Minister Elizabeth Thompson from Barbados for the position of Executive Secretary. Which is fine except that she was proposed by Barbados Already March 18, 2010 – not just today.

ALSO – THE RELEASE FROM THE UN IS CLEARLY ASTONISHING AS WE KNOW THAT THERE WAS NO INDONESIAN CANDIDATE BY THE CUT OFF DATE OF MARCH 31st. We are informed by the UN that this release is just a summary of what was said by Barbados and not by the UN – so what – should not the UN say something if they believe that there are inaccuracies in a report they are facilitating?

WE KNOW OF 7 CANDIDATES AS WE POSTED EARLIER. THE LIST DOES NOT INCLUDE INDONESIA BUT DOES INCLUDE HUNGARY, ECUADOR AND PAKISTAN THAT ARE MISSING FROM THIS  RELEASE FROM THE PC .

Please see the full release

15 April 2010

Press Conference on Barbados’ Candidature for UN Climate Change Treaty Chief

 http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/20……

Barbados today announced the nomination of Senator and former Energy and Environment Minister Elizabeth Thompson as its candidate for Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, bringing to five the number of countries that have so far nominated candidates for the same position:  Costa Rica; South Africa; India; and Indonesia.

Christopher Hackett, Permanent Representative of Barbados to the United Nations, made the announcement at a Headquarters press conference in New York to introduce Ms. Thompson as his country’s candidate for the post.  Her candidacy has been presented to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, who has to name the official to take over from the outgoing Yvo de Boer of the Netherlands.

Mr. Hackett pointed to Ms. Thompson’s “extensive and rich” leadership experience in national, regional and international issues, which he said qualify her for guiding the United Nations work on climate change affairs.  He said given the respected and principled voice his country had in the international community on questions of sustainable development, particularly as reflected in the role Barbados played in the first conference in 1994 on the sustainable development of small island developing States, that someone from that location with her level of experience would be an effective leader of the UNFCCC.

For Barbados, and the wider Caribbean, climate change and sustainable development were important challenges, Mr. Hackett said, adding that Ms. Thompson had received the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Champion of the Earth award, in 2008.

Articulating the case for her candidature, Ms. Thompson made reference to the 2007-2008 Human Development Report, which described climate change as the most important development challenge of the present era.  With that in mind, the post she was vying for was of extreme significance at the global level, and its leadership was one of tremendous importance and should be approached with great care.  Barbados was of the view that not only was the country from among the region’s most vulnerable to climate change, but for several other reasons her candidature was significant.  It was based on three planks; namely, Barbados’ own record and strength; her own record and strength; and lastly, “just sheer competence”.

Expanding on the first plank, she said as a small island developing State with very few resources, Barbados had managed to be recognized and ranked thirty-first on the Human Development Index.  Despite being a small island developing State, and despite its very limited resources, the country had managed to address successfully several of the development challenges facing the globe, and to include in its policy framework several very effective policies to address issues relative to the environment and to climate change.  Also, the country was known for its good governance and had an excellent reputation in the world community.

Not only had Barbados managed development issues well, but generally, the country was recognized as being well-managed, she said.  Added to that, it had a strong environmental record of achievement and of policy; if there was a single country which had the background that would allow it to bridge North and South, developed and developing –- that country was in very many respects Barbados.  She declared that having been a member of her country’s Cabinet for 14 years, and having led Barbados’ environmental policy agenda framework from 1994 until 2009, she had contributed, not only to the country’s general management and governance as a Cabinet member, but specifically to its environmental policy, climate change agenda and reputation in that realm.

On the more personal second plank, she said she was politically, professionally and academically qualified for the post in many ways, as evidenced by the persons with whom she shared the UNEP Champion of the Earth award, namely, Prince Albert of Monaco; former United States Vice President Al Gore; former United States Senator Tim Wirth; former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark, and now United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Administrator; and former Presidents of the Russian Federation and South Africa, respectively, Mikhail Gorbachev and Thabo Mbeki.

“So, at an international level, my leadership, my skill, the quality of my contribution to environment in Barbados and in the Caribbean has been recognized by the UN.  I managed to catch their radar,” she stated.  Politically, she added that she had been a politician, and the post of UNFCCC Executive Secretary required political skill and savvy.  For some 20 years, she had been engaged in decisions that required the delicate balancing of policy choices against international demands and demands of an electorate and population, as well as against budget considerations.  “So, I don’t just see climate change and development issues from the perspective of the negotiating table.  I understand how one then has to move the negotiating outcomes to practical implementations.  And those are decision that I have had to take”, she explained.

Equally, at the academic level, she said she was a lawyer; held an MBA from the University of Liverpool; a Masters in Law from the Robert Gordon University in Scotland; and is also trained in Economics; renewable energy; international petroleum negotiations; alternative dispute resolution; and in arbitration.

Since leaving the cabinet in January 2008 when her party lost the elections, she had been leader of opposition business in the Barbados Senate, she said, adding that the Government had nominated her because it felt that she had the capacity and the competence to do the job.  It was not often that a Government nominated a leader form the opposition, she noted.  Additionally, she had also been working as an energy consultant for various agencies, including the Organization of American States (OAS) and other international consultancies.

Also present at the press conference were the Permanent Representatives of Saint Vincent and Grenadines, Camillo Gonzalves; Grenada, Dessima Williams; Jamaica, Raymond Wolfe; the Solomon Islands, Collin Beck; and Saint Lucia, Donatus St. Aimee — all of whom said they endorsed Ms. Thompson’s candidature.

In brief remarks, Mr. Gonzalves, who is the current chair of the Permanent Representatives Caucus of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) at the United Nations, said Ms. Thompson brought a wealth of experience and a multiplicity of skills, and a demonstrated passion to the issue of the environment and climate change and sustainable development, which should make the Secretary-General’s job of selecting a candidate “very easy”.  CARICOM generally, and Barbados specifically had long held a leadership position on climate change and sustainable development, and a great deal of Ms. Thompson’s leadership on the issue could be directly attributable to her work as minister in charge of the environment for over 14 years.  She would bring not only the political talent that would be needed in such a sensitive position, but the political gravitas befitting the importance of the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC and raise the profile of the position.

“We think that it is important that she is from a small island State, and that she is from a nation that is somewhat removed from the great power intrigue and not necessarily an ideologue on either the North-South divide or the East-West divide.  We think that she will focus on the very important substance of climate change, and for small island developing States, it is critical to us that we get back to the substance of the matter, and divorce ourselves from some of the extraneous matters involved,” he declared.  In that regard, CARICOM was “exceedingly pleased” that Barbados had offered her as a candidate for the post.

Asked for her views about the allegations of some Member States that the Copenhagen process had not been an open one, Ms. Thompson said what transpired at the end of the meeting in Copenhagen in December 2009 had been “a last-ditch attempt” to rescue the process from what had appeared to be certain failure.  In that regard, she felt that those who were the authors should be commended for making that attempt.  At the same time, it should be recognized that a large number of countries had now associated themselves with the accord, which meant that regardless of how the process was characterized, there seemed to be some consensus coalescing around it.

However, she added, it was also clear that there were concerns about the process, and it was her view that the new Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC had to ensure that whatever emerged in the future was party-driven and that countries and regions felt that they had value, that their perspective was being heard and that they could contribute to the process in the interest of their stakeholders and their citizens.  A top objective of hers was to ensure there was transparency within the processes and there was scope for all countries to feel represented.

As for those countries that had not fully associated themselves with the Copenhagen outcome, she said it was critical to look at their issues of concern and to determine how best to address their concerns.  It was important too to look at the accord because it contained some positives and because strength could be drawn from those countries that supported it.  Whether the process was lamentable or not, the accord was the text on the table.  The challenge now for the new Executive Secretary was to determine how best to use it and to make it viable for all the countries, incorporating the many perspectives and concerns.

Asked how she would facilitate better cooperation between developed and developing countries, she said the Executive Secretary should not herself behave as if she had a vested interest in the outcome, because essentially what she was doing was trying to bring countries to the table who had strong vested interests.  Her skills as a facilitator and manager of the process, therefore, were critical.  To a further related question, she said that as Executive Secretary, she would have come from the bosom of Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), and there was no doubt that Barbados was the “birth mother” of the Barbados Programme of Action, which was the United Nations agenda, and she delighted in that heritage.

More importantly, she stressed that she was cognisant of the fact that, beyond her own perspectives and background, her responsibility as Executive Secretary was to the process and to the convention and to all countries, adding:  “My greater role is to bring North and South together; to bring developed and developing countries together; to find a way for us to work together on what unites us and what we have in common, and to find an agreement and a solution that politicians and ministers and Governments find acceptable for their countries and their citizens.”

Also important, she said, was to bring academia into the climate change process and to work with non-governmental organizations, which she noted was part of the difficulties encountered at Copenhagen, where many of the latter group had complained that they had not been given enough space to contribute or that their perspectives had not been accepted.  She pledged to facilitate the participation of non-governmental organizations because she believed a party-driven consensus was important, and that ultimately, a legally-binding agreement involving all was vital.  “But the immediate vision, and the vision has got to be short-, medium- and long-term, the immediate thing is to get parties in a frame of mind to work without rancour at Mexico.  That’s the immediate- and short-term goal.”  The long term goal would be a legally binding agreement, she said.

Is there any hope for the EU to be part of a G3 global leadership? The EU destroyers come from the inside from those that do not want to give up temporary powers – that is for all to see.

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

EU presidency trio of next three rotating EU Presidents – Spain, Belgium, Hungary – lays claim to political power and raises new objections to a strong full time effective EU President as envisioned by the Lisbon treaty. A specially pathetic case in our opinion in this respect is Belgium.
HONOR MAHONY of EUobserver writes: “EU presidency trio lays claim to political power.”

November 3, 2009 http://euobserver.com/9/28917/?rk=1

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS – Leaders of the countries next in line to take on the day-to-day running of the European Union have made it clear that they do not wish to be sidelined by any future EU president.

Gathered in Brussels last week to present a common logo for 18 months of co-operation beginning in January, the prime ministers of Spain, Belgium and Hungary were keen to emphasize the importance of “institutional balance” – an oblique way of saying they do not wish to get elbowed out of the political picture by a powerful new president of the European Council, a post created by the almost-ratified Lisbon Treaty.

“The future of Europe does not depend on one person …the future of Europe depends on institutions,” said Belgian leader Herman Van Rompuy.

His Hungarian counterpart Gordon Bajnai said “more time” is needed to “decide the role of the president and his relation to the rotating president.” He also said that one of the three prerequisites for the future president should be that the person “is someone who is ready to live with the already existing institutions of Europe.”

With the Lisbon Treaty now likely to come into place within the coming few months, focus has turned to the uncertainties contained in the document.

One of these includes how the six-month rotating presidencies and the national leaders of the moment will rub along with the permanent president.

While the president, who can hold office for up to five years, is supposed to drive forward the political agenda of the EU through the regular meetings of EU leaders, the rotating presidency will manage the daily policy-making including chairing monthly ministerial meetings in all areas, bar foreign policy. The set-up, with its undefined hierarchy, could lead to damaging turf wars.

The problem of the proliferation of chiefs with potentially overlapping job descriptions under the Lisbon Treaty – it also introduces a beefed up foreign policy post – has practical implications too, such as who will take part in EU summits with third countries. EU attendance at these events is often a crowded affair, a problem the union’s new set of rules is supposed to fix.

Who will be the first president of the European Council is still unclear, with member states unsure about whether they want a powerful global figure, or someone with a more administrative job description. The EU parliament will discuss the role of the new president on 11 November, while the appointment itself is expected to be decided at an extraordinary summit later this month.

The type of person who gets the job is set to strongly influence how the EU will make a go of the new Lisbon Treaty system – a fact acknowledged by the Hungarian leader.

Mr Bajnai said it was the three countries’ “noble task” to “prove it is a better solution.”

Spain, which is likely to be the first country to operate a presidency under the Lisbon Treaty beginning on 1 January, will face the challenge of setting the terms for how successive countries manage the relationship between the national leader and the EU president.

A still greater challenge to the system is likely to come when one of the most powerful EU countries, Britain, France or Germany hold the rotating presidency. But this is not foreseen until 2017.

I thought you might be interested to know that George Soros is delivering a series of lectures in Budapest at Central European University starting yesterday, October 26th.

In the lectures, Soros discusses his philosophical theories in general and specifically as they pertain to the economic crisis, regulatory reform, finance, politics, open society, and a host of other subjects.

Monday, October 26 – General Theory of Reflexivity Tuesday, October 27 – Financial Markets Wednesday, October 28 – Open Society Thursday, October 29 – Capitalism versus Open Society Friday, October 30 – China and the Way Ahead.

Videos and transcripts posted at www.ft.com each evening after the event.
from:  Michael Vachon

—————–

Further: See :

//search.ft.com/search?queryText=Soros&x=15&y=5&aje=true&dse=&dsz=

George Soros has material for the public daily this week. His intent is to make us aware of the need not to ignore the need for financial reform – and there is no person better then him to tell us so. He did benefit from the Wall Street self serving rules and now wants the world to extricate itself from the situation that the rules are so that the actual result is a planned distribution of gifts to the Wall Street office holders – the State is to be blamed for having allowed this to happen.

Soros to invest $50m in institute to re-think economics
George Soros, the fund manager, has pledged $50m to back a new think-tank…Anatole Kaletsky and John Kay, a Financial Times columnist. Mr Soros is pledging $5m a year for 10 years.Mr Soros, who has long been a critic of economic “fundamentalism…
Oct 27 2009, By Alan Rappeport in New York, FT.com site

Transcript: Soros on the Institute of New Economic Thinking
…Freeland, US managing editor, interviewed George Soros, the fund manager, about the new Institute…George SorosCF Thank you for joining us, MrSoros.GS It’s a pleasureCFDo you think that this…listening to them. CF Thank you very much, Mr Soros.
Oct 27 2009, FT.com site

Soros: General Theory of Reflexivity
In the course of my life, I have developed a conceptual framework which has helped me both to make money as a hedge fund
Oct 26 2009, FT.com site

Do not ignore the need for financial reform
…second phase, when the money supply needs to be brought under control and carefully phased in so as not to disrupt recovery. But we cannot afford to forget about it.The writer is chairman of Soros Fund Management and author of The Crash of 2008
Oct 25 2009, By George Soros, FT.com site

Soros says Wall St’s ‘hidden gifts’ should not be used for bonuses
…of such companies is “justified”, George Soros, the fund manager, said in an interview…not the achievement of risk-takers,” Mr Soros said. “These are gifts, hidden gifts, from…resentment which I think is justified.”Mr Soros, who joins a transatlantic chorus calling…
Oct 24 2009, By Chrystia Freeland in New York, Financial Times

Soros calls Wall St profits ‘gifts’ from state…of such companies is “justified”, George Soros, the fund manager, said in an interview…not the achievement of risk-takers,” Mr Soros said. “These are gifts, hidden gifts, from…resentment which I think is justified.”Mr Soros, who joins a transatlantic chorus calling… Oct 23 2009, By Chrystia Freeland in New York, FT.com site

Transcript: George Soros interview…US managing editor, interviewed George Soros, the fund manager, about the state of the…interview.FT: Thank you for joining us, Mr Soros.GS: It’s a pleasure.FT: How do you judge…in this conversation, he might argue, MrSoros, that you’re talking your own book and…  Oct 23 2009, FT.com site

Soros to invest in clean energy
George Soros, the billionaire investor, philanthropist…on his expertise in all three arenas.Mr Soros plans to invest as much as $1bn in clean-energy…will necessary to solve the problem.”Mr Soros said he would provide the organisation…
Oct 12 2009, By Justin Baer, Financial Time.

Soros to invest $1bn in green technology
George Soros, the billionaire investor, philanthropist…on his expertise in all three arenas.Mr Soros announced on Saturday plans to invest as…Syndicate, a newspaper editors’ group, Mr Soros said he would “apply stringent conditions…
Oct 11 2009, By Justin Baer in New York, FT.com site

———

With the US Dollar now Hovering around $1.50 t0 the Euro, and since the beginning of 2009, the Brazilian Real having appreciated by 25.1%, the Australian Dollar by 22.2%, the New Zealand Dollar by 21.6%, the South African Rand by 19.3%, the Norway Krone by 19.0%,the Chilean Peso by 16.3%, the Uruguayan Peso by 16.0%, the Colombian Peso by 13.2%, the Indonesian Rupian by 13.0%, the Canada Dollar, the Sweden Krona, the UK pound all well above 10%, even the Czech Koruna at 8.8% and the Peruvian New Sol is at 7.9%, with the Euro and the remaining European currencies, including Russia, are in between 4-5%, what future is there for the US economy? Will it have to attempt to continue running to the bottom in order to compete at least against China and Japan, or will there be an era of listening to George?

Turkey Gets Boost from Pipeline Politics.

by Helena Cobban

WASHINGTON, Jul 19 (IPS) – The political geography of the modern Middle East has been affected for one hundred years by the appetite of westerners and other outsiders for the region’s hydrocarbons. Last week, the region’s “pipeline politics” took another step forward with the signing in Turkey’s capital, Ankara, of an agreement to build a new, 3,300-kilometre gas pipeline called Nabucco, running between eastern Turkey and Vienna, Austria.

The project underlines the new influential role that Turkey, a majority Muslim nation of 72 million people, is playing in the Middle East, and far beyond. The new project’s name was chosen, Austrian officials said, after the Verdi opera that representatives of the five participating countries – who include Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary, along with the two terminus states – saw together during an earlier round of negotiations in Vienna.

But the name also gives clues to two intriguing aspects of the project’s geopolitical significance. The theme of the opera is the liberation from bondage of slaves held by the ancient Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar (‘Nabucco’) – and it is a widely discussed feature of the Nabucco project that many European nations want access to a gas source that is not under the control of Russia. Last winter, several European nations suffered severe gas shortages after Russia, locked in a tariff dispute with transit-country Ukraine, closed off the spigots completely.

But the other implication of the name is more strictly Middle Eastern. The modern-day home of Nebuchadnezzar is Iraq. Washington has given strong support to the Nabucco project – and one of the reasons U.S. officials give for this support is their hope that once Nabucco is up and running in 2015, Iraq can be one of the nations that reaps large profits by feeding gas into it. However, construction of the pipeline is estimated to cost some eight billion dollars, and many officials in the participating countries are still unclear where they will get enough gas to make it economically viable.

The Nabucco participants had been hoping that a key feeder state would be one of Turkey’s eastern neighbours, Azerbaijan. But on the eve of the project’s inauguration in Ankara, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev took the CEO of the vast Russian gas company Gazprom to Azerbaijan, where they signed a contract with the state gas company that will force Nabucco to compete hard against Gazprom for any purchase it wants to make from Azerbaijan. One fairly evident other source for Nabucco’s would be Iran, which is reported to have considerable amounts of new gas coming online in the next five years.

EU turns blind eye to corruption in eastern gas trade
Andrew Rettman, The EUobserver, June 6, 2006

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS – The EU is sending a “fact-finding” mission to Ukraine to see if its financial troubles could lead to a new gas crisis. But it is wary of tackling deeper problems of politics and corruption in the eastern gas trade, which also threaten EU energy security. The team of senior European Commission officials will travel to Kiev “in the coming days” and produce a report in time for a regular summit of EU leaders in Brussels on 18 June.


The move comes after Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said that Ukraine is unable to pay for Russian gas and will probably start stealing EU-bound transit volumes, unless the EU loans it billions of euros.

Ukraine’s state-owned gas distributor, Naftogaz, has poor cashflow and often avoids public audits. But Ukraine sees the Putin statements as part of a propaganda war to damage its reputation and increase political support for new Russian pipelines bypassing the country. The dispute over Naftogaz’ reliability is just one aspect of a major shake-up in the Russia-Ukraine gas business.

Mr Putin and Ukraine Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko are at the same time trying to strong-arm Ukraine gas tycoon Dmitry Firtash, in developments which highlight the links between politics, gas and organised crime in the region.

A Putin-Tymoshenko deal in January ended the role of RosUkrEnergo (RUE), in which Mr Firtash controls a 50 percent stake, in selling Turkmenistan gas to Ukraine. Naftogaz in March also seized €3 billion of RUE gas stocks.

A little-known, Swiss-based firm called RosGas in May took ownership of Mr Firtash’s Hungarian gas supply company, Emfesz, in a transaction that Mr Firtash has called “illegal” and is fighting in the Swiss courts. It is unclear who owns RosGas. But Emfesz has said it belongs to the Putin-controlled Russian firm Gazprom.

The events have already affected European interests. RUE’s problems have seen it cut deliveries to EU states Poland and Hungary. The Emfesz takeover means 20 percent of Hungary’s gas supply is now in unknown hands.

The Putin-Tymoshenko attack on Mr Firtash could be designed to hurt Ukraine’s pro-Western president, Viktor Yushchenko, and reformist presidential candidate, Arsenyi Yatsenyuk. Mr Firtash is widely reported to have given financial support to Mr Yushchenko. The Firtash-linked TV station, Inter, has given Mr Yatsenyuk lots of good publicity.

“People can see that Firtash is a dead fish, so they are taking little bites out of him,” one Brussels-based diplomat said on the Emfesz takeover.

See no evil, hear no evil

Mr Firtash, who denies having any business relations with Mr Mogilevich or paying Mr Yushchenko, is trying to engage EU support.

One of Mr Firtash’s employees, Robert Shetler-Jones, last year donated around €57,000 to the British Conservative party.

Mr Firtash’s small, Brussels-based public affairs firm, Macmillan, compares him to “Mazeppa” – a seventeenth century Ukrainian patriot betrayed by a fellow nobleman and forced to flee the country, leading to decades of domination by Russia.

A middleman claiming to represent Mr Firtash has also approached the Brussels offices of two large international PR firms in recent weeks.

The European Commission has so far turned a deaf ear. In March, EU officials said they were “closely monitoring” Naftogaz’ seizure of RUE’s gas – “closely monitoring” is a typical commission “holding statement” when it does not have a real position.

The June fact-finding mission will not ask questions about Emfesz.

“From our point of view, the takeover of Emfesz has to be done in full respect of internal market rules. If there is any suspicion this is not the case, there should be a notification by one of the parties. At this stage we have not received any such notification,” a commission spokesman said.

———–

Concrete steps:

“The European Commission has failed to recognise the danger these companies [RUE, RosGas or other alleged Gazprom offshoots] present to the energy security of the EU and has not made any attempt to convince member states to investigate the role these companies play in the supply chain,” Jamestown’s Mr Kupchinsky s

 UNSG Ban Ki-moon and Diplomats accredited to the UN came Saturday January 24, 2009, to Park East Synagogue in New York City for a Holocaust Remembrance Day Service.

In November 1, 2005, 60 years since the creation of the UN in the aftermath of WWII and the Holocaust, the UN decided to designate January 27 as an annual International Day of Commemoration in memory of the victims of the Holocaust. This year will be thus   thus the fourth year of such a   Commemoration and it will be held at the UN next week, while some at the UN will try to connect   these memorial events by holding parallel activities targeting the State of Israel for the recent invasion of the Gaza Strip and for the essence of its existence. As one example of this cloud over the UN, we posted   – www.SustainabiliTank.info posted:   http://www.sustainabilitank.info/2009/01….

With above in mind, nevertheless, the Park East Synagogue community, in the presence of Holocaust survivors, was proud to host the UNSG, four more UN officials, and the Diplomats that showed up – including the Diplomats from six European countries on whose territory the Holocaust was committed – Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Russia, Italy. The Ambassador to the UN from Rwanda, a non-Muslim African country came as he knows the impact of genocide from his own country’s experience. Also present were diplomats from Australia, Israel and the United States, and from the Latin American countries – Argentina, Costa Rica, and Mexico. Thus,14 countries out of the 192 Representations to the UN, showed up at this memorial service, but then, thinking of the WWII differences – seeing Germany, Russia, Israel, and the US sitting side by side, in the presence of survivors, and honoring the memory of the victims of the Holocaust in the presence of the UNSG, means that change is possible. Albeit, change through the UN maybe still very far off. There a great number of members may still take the position that Jews are not entitled to sit in the same bus with them, and when the issue is the Holocaust they will try to muddle it with “The question of Palestine.” January 26-27, 2009 will be just this sort of UN days. So what?

From:          vorsatzd at ceu.hu
Subject:       Call for applications: PhD in sustainable energy and climatechange at the Central European University
Date:       November 13, 2008 1:54:07 PM EST
Reply-To:          vorsatzd at ceu.hu

Central European University is pleased to announce its Call for Applications for the academic year 2009/2010.

Central European University was founded in 1991 with the explicit aim
of helping the process of transition from dictatorship to democracy in the countries of
Central and Eastern Europe, and Central Asia. While the university remains committed to its
original aims of nurturing respect for diverse cultures and opinions, human rights, and of
promoting the values of the Open Society, we now cast our web wider to include other parts of the
world in our social mission. With candidates from 125 countries, and students from 80
countries, CEU creates a uniquely international atmosphere, without any national predominance.
CEU is dedicated to providing personal attention for every student. In addition to the
highest academic standards, the university is further committed to a student-centered, in-depth
learning experience placing personal growth and intellectual development high on its agenda.
CEU*s student to faculty ratio is 7:1.

The CEU’s Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy
(www.ceu.hu/envsci) invites applications in the area of, among
others, climate change and sustainable energy.   PhD students in these
areas have an opportunity to work on research projects and global
initiatives, such as the Global Energy Assessment
 www.globalenergyassessment.org), together with the Center for
Climate Change and Sustainable Energy (3CSEP, see 3csep.ceu.hu ).

Financial Aid and Tuition
CEU has a comprehensive series of financial aid packages, ranging from
the Full and Partial
Fellowship awards to tuition waivers. We offer these packages,
including assistance with
medical insurance and accommodation, to the majority of our students.

For more information, see:
 http://www.ceu.hu/admissions/financialai…

Application Deadlines

* January 26, 2009: For applicants to all degree programs wishing/required to take CEU-administered admissions
examinations and/or requesting exemption from the English language proficiency
requirement.
* March 16, 2009: For applicants to all degree programs submitting applications complete with language test scores
and other applicable test scores.

Applying to CEU
To apply, please use CEU*s on-line application form. Instructions can
be found at:
 http://www.ceu.hu/admissions/apply

Diana Urge-Vorsatz, PhD
Professor and Director
Center for Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Policy (3CSEP)
Central European University
H-1051 Budapest Nador utca 9.
Ph:   +36-1-327-3021
Fax: +36-1-327-3031
 http://3csep.ceu.hu/

 vorsatzd at ceu.hu

New Fascism Hunts Roma.
David Cronin

BRUSSELS, Nov 13 (IPS) – A political ideology based on the desire to exterminate Roma gypsies is emerging in parts of Europe, a Brussels conference has been told. Following a number of violent attacks on Roma by skinheads and other extremists in Bulgaria, it was announced during August 2007 that the far-right National Guard party was being established. The ‘anti-gypsyism’ advocated by its leader Vladimir Rasate could be compared to the anti-Semitism that helped bring the Nazis to power in 1930s Germany, according to Michael Stewart, professor of anthropology at University College London. “With the National Guard party, the disposing of the Roma is seen as a basis for national renewal,” said Stewart, who has worked extensively with Roma communities in former communist countries. “This is a new phenomenon in Europe that has not existed before. It is a real danger.” Stewart’s comments, delivered to a hearing in the European Parliament Nov. 13, echo the findings of a recent report on hate crime against Roma by Human Rights First. The New York-based organisation stated that for Roma in some countries “the newly virulent anti-gypsyism is an eerie reminder of the Porrajmos, the Romany Holocaust during the Second World War that killed more than half of Europe’s Roma population. “When senior European political leaders publicly discuss ‘solutions’ to the ‘Roma problem’, advocating the use of dynamite, electrified fences, mug shots, fingerprinting of men, women and children, and deportations, historical parallels inadvertently come to mind.” The hostility against Roma has been particularly acute in Italy, where parties in Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s ruling coalition have openly tried to portray all Roma as criminals. In May, the Italian government introduced a ‘security package’ which provided for the dismantling of Roma camps and the automatic deportation of migrants who cannot prove they have regular employment.

Discrimination against Roma in Italy is “unrivalled by any other country in Europe,” said Monica Rossi, researcher at the University of Rome, explaining that Roma are denied the official status of a minority and are unable to claim Italian citizenship. Programmes ostensibly aimed at allowing Roma children go to school have failed, she said. “After 40 years of having schooling projects, we have got 20 underage Roma who are in secondary schools. That is out of a population of 15,000 people.”

Graziano Halilovic from Xoraxane Rrom, Italy’s Roma federation, described the conditions in the camps where his people live as “pretty extreme”.

“It’s a shame for the Italian nation to allow Roma to live in such conditions,” he added. “What’s even worse is that Italy is a part of the European Union. Italy’s shame can readily become the shame of the European Union.”

During September, the European Commission, the executive arm of the EU, hosted a Roma summit, which heard calls for the development of an EU strategy on Roma inclusion. Estimated to comprise between 12 and 15 million people, the Roma are frequently described as the largest ethnic minority in Europe, up to nine million of which live within the EU’s 27 countries.

Valeriu Nicolae, secretary-general of the European Roma Grassroots Organisation, said Roma are not properly consulted when policies affecting them are being formulated. “The main body dealing with Roma issues in the European Union — which is the European Commission — does not employ any Roma or any Roma policy expert,” he said.

Jan Jarab, a Commission official dealing with social policy, said the EU’s executive is willing to increase its efforts to ease the plight of the Roma. But it is reluctant, he added, to simply “repackage” previously introduced laws against discrimination and “put on the label ‘strategy’.”

At the moment, policies in EU countries on Roma are often based on either a ‘laissez-faire’ approach or repression, he said. He cited Spain as a country where success has been registered in providing Roma with decent jobs and housing.

Marian Nedelica, a teacher in the Romanian city Craiova, said that although his country has enacted a law guaranteeing access to education, some 27 percent of Roma children do not attend school. Penalties should be introduced against school authorities that allow discrimination to occur, he argued.

Livia Jaroka, a Hungarian member of the European Parliament of Roma origin, said that her people suffer from an “extreme sub-Saharan Africa type of poverty.” Instruments to punish EU governments that fail to enforce the Union’s anti-discrimination laws are needed, she added.

Gabriela Hrabanova, an official with the Czech ministry of labour and social affairs, said that there is a “lack of coordination” between the EU’s member states on issues concerning the Roma. “In many member states, there is nothing going on at the local level, although on paper it looks like everything is great.”

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND MOVES TO BOOST UKRAINE, HUNGARY AND ICELAND.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has announced forthcoming loans for Hungary and Ukraine – the latter potentially receiving up to $16.5 billion – to strengthen both countries’ financial systems and ensure fiscal sustainability.

“An IMF staff mission and the Ukraine authorities have today reached agreement, subject to approval by IMF Management and the Executive Board,” said IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn yesterday.

The announcement follows an agreement last Friday to loan Iceland more than $2 billion over two years in support of an economic programme to help restore confidence in the Nordic country’s banking system and stabilize its currency.

Last Friday Mr. Strauss-Kahn also joined Secretary General Ban Ki-moon at the meeting of the Chief Executives Board (CEB) – which brings together the heads of various UN agencies and entities, the World Bank and the IMF – where leaders discussed issues of global financial crisis, particularly their impact on the world’s poorest.

During the meeting, the Secretary-General told participants that “drastic measures” will be needed to resolve the financial crisis, possibly including the IMF and the world’s major central banks setting up substantial standby lines of credit so that banks in poor countries have adequate funds to draw on in an emergency.

Following the conference, Mr. Ban reiterated the UN’s position on the global financial crisis and the needs of the undeveloped world.

On 15 November world leaders – including Mr. Ban – will gather in Washington for a summit to devise ways to respond to the crisis.

———

The above sounds a bit like exaggerated self-laudatory on the part of the UN – after all the IMF is beholden rather to the rich countries of the post- WWII era, and not even to the new money of the present day, newly developed or oil exporting countries.

\The simple truth is that some of the main share holders of the Bretton Woods institutions, including the IMF, are now the post global-financial crash the new poor countries that caught the poverty flue. OK, some of the perpetually poor countries, continue to be poor, but they were too poor to suffer from the recent conflagration.

Iceland did not have to be in the present hole, Hungary for sure, and the Ukraine maybe, could also have avoided the present suffering.

These are not countries cared for by UNDP, so why does the UN craw about help extended to them?

IMF ready to bail out swooning Hungary – 13.10.2008

Hungary may be the first member of the European Union to be bailed out by
the International Monetary Fund since Britain was forced to take out a €3
billion loan in 1976. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the head of the International
Monetary Fund, is ready to “rapidly” step in with loans to the beleaguered
east European nation.

 http://euobserver.com/9/26923/?rk=1

******

Even as EU-Iceland relations strain, Reykjavik looks to membership – 13.10.2008

Iceland’s fisheries minister and foreign minister have said that the
country’s severe financial crisis could force them to join the European
Union. Meanwhile, analysts worry that the West’s snub of Iceland when it
turned to them cap in hand has inadvertently benefited Russian designs in
the north Atlantic

 http://euobserver.com/9/26920/?rk=1

******

This weekend, as expected, the TV was plastered with the Russians in Georgia and the Beijing Olympics.

President Bush and Secretary Condaleezza Rice said that Russia will not get away with this like it happened in Hungary.

On CNN, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, the man with the Kosovo and Bosnia experience, said this was not Kosovo. The Russians were ready to stage this action already two years ago. It happened now because there was a Russian provocation and there has been indeed a real ethnic cleansing going on in Ossetia and in Abkhazia that caused many thousands of refugees pouring continuously into Georgia. The US says the number is 150,000 displaced people.

Holbrooke looks back into history and thinks of Budapest of 19956, Prag of 1966, Afghanistan of 1968 – so this is the invasion of Georgia that was executed in similar methodology.

Dmitry Simes, President of the Washington DC Nixon Center, and Rose Gottemoeller, Director of Carnegie, Moscow, agree to the above and say that the fact that this happened again at the time of the Olympics, just shows the Putin self confidence and that Putin does not worry that this will harm Russia’s Sochi Winter Olympics of 2014. That area is in fact just across the border from were fighting was going on now.

Governor Bill Richardson stressed that this is not time for high US talk, simply, “we have no leverage on Russia,” so we have to engage them and not isolate them. He knows the area, problems, has been there – all as part of his UN Ambassadorship.

Georgia was incorporated into Russia in 1801 and stayed under Russian rule for 190 years. They re-emerged as an independent state only in 1991. The Ossentians always considered themselves different from the Georgians – and also not similar to the Russians. The same goes for Abkhazia and Azaria as per Rick Stengel, editor of Time Magazine, who was this Sunday’s coordinator of the GPS program that is usually brought out by Fareed Zakaria.

So, can one ostracize Russia from world business? Will this bring about a renewal of the Cold War?

He does not think that Russia has become a revisionist State and that it is fighting for a larger Russia. His idea is that the area is specially complicated – something like the Balkans, and that there were many reasons to what went on.

———

***

Cold Friends, Wrapped in Mink and Medals.

By BILL KELLER
Published in The New York Times August 16, 2008

Writing in The Financial Times last week, Chrystia Freeland recalled Francis Fukuyama’s 1989 essay “The End of History?,” which trumpeted the definitive triumph of liberal democracy. The great nightmare tyrannies of last century — the Evil Empire, Red China — had been left behind by those inseparable twins, freedom and prosperity. Civilization had chosen, and it chose us.

Related
Map
Russia Marches, Neighbors Check Their Cards (The New York Times, August 17, 2008)
Specter of Arrest Deters Demonstrators in China (The New York Tines, August 14, 2008)

Chrystia Freeland’s Article: The New Age of Authoritarianism  www.ft.com August 12, 2008)

So much for that thesis. Surveying the Russian military rout of neighboring Georgia and the spectacle of China’s Olympics, Ms. Freeland, editor of The Financial Times’s American edition and a journalist who started her career covering Russia and Ukraine, proclaimed that a new Age of Authoritarianism was upon us.

If it is not yet an age, it is at least a season: Springtime for autocrats, and not just the minor-league monsters of Zimbabwe and the like, but the giant regimes that seemed so surely bound for the ash heap in 1989.

The Chinese have made their Olympics an exultant display of athletic prowess and global prestige without having to temper their impulse to suppress and control. From the dazzling locksteps of that opening ceremony, to the kowtowing international V.I.P.’s, to the carefully policed absence of protest, this was an Olympics largely free of democratic mess.

Individualism has been confined between lane markers. The pre-Olympics promises that attention would be paid to international norms of behavior went unredeemed. The New York Times’s Andrew Jacobs followed one citizen who decided to take up the government’s Olympic offer of designated protest zones for aggrieved parties who had filed the proper paperwork. Zhang Wei applied for the requisite license and was promptly arrested for “disturbing social order.” Take that, International Olympic Committee.

The striking thing about Russia’s subjugation of uppity Georgia was not the ease or audacity but the swagger of it. This was not just about a couple of obscure border enclaves, nor even, really, about Georgia. This was existential payback.

It turns out that if 1989 was an end — the end of the Wall, the beginning of the end of the Soviet empire, if not in fact the end of history — it was also a beginning.

It gave birth to a bitter resentment in the humiliated soul of Russia, and no one nursed the grudge so fiercely as Vladimir V. Putin. He watched the empire he had spied for disbanded. He endured the belittling lectures of a rich and self-righteous West. He watched the United States charm away his neighbors, invade his allies in Iraq, and, in his view, play God with the political map of Europe.

Mr. Putin is, in this sense of grievance, a man of his people, as visitors to the New York Times Web site can see in the sampling of breast-beating commentary from Russian bloggers. It is safe to assume that Mr. Putin’s already stratospheric popularity at home has grown to Phelpsian proportions, not least among the long-suffering military.

In China, 1989 was the year that a spark of liberal aspiration flickered on Tiananmen Square, and was decisively extinguished. That was another beginning, or at least a renewal: of Chinese resolve. In May of that year, in the midst of the Tiananmen euphoria, Mikhail S. Gorbachev visited Beijing, and two visions of a new communism stared each other in the face.

The protesters on the Chinese pavilion held banners welcoming Mr. Gorbachev as a champion of the greater freedom they sought. Meanwhile, the visiting Russian delegation marveled at the abundance in Chinese stores, the bounty of a policy that chose economic liberalization without political dissent.

The Chinese and Russians scorned each other’s neo-Communist models, but in some ways they have evolved toward one another. Both countries now tolerate a measure of entrepreneurship and social license, as long as neither threatens the dominion of the state. Both countries have calculated that you can buy a measure of domestic stability if you combine a little opportunity with an appeal to national pride. (The Chinese “street” felt no more sympathy for restive Tibetans than the Russian blogosphere felt for Georgia.) And both have discovered that if you are rich the world is less likely to get in your way.

President Bush was mocked from both sides for his seeming impotence. Neoconservatives were appalled by photos of President Bush sharing a laugh with Mr. Putin in Beijing while Russian armor gathered at the Georgian border. For a president who has made the export of democracy his signature doctrine, that looked to the stand-tough crowd like a “Pet Goat” moment.

Others argued that this was a crisis Mr. Bush tacitly encouraged by talking up Georgia’s rambunctious president as a friend and NATO candidate. By midweek, possibly goaded by the wailing of neoconservatives and the aggressively anti-Putin rhetoric of Senator John McCain, Mr. Bush had abruptly amped up his opprobrium and dispatched an American airlift of humanitarian aid. And by the weekend there was a cold war chill in the air.

But Mr. Bush’s predicament is not just his. The question of how to deal with these reinvigorated autocracies bedevils the Europeans and will surely rank high among the legacy issues that confound Mr. Bush’s successor.

This time it is not — or not yet — the threat of nuclear apocalypse that limits the West’s options toward our emboldened Eastern rivals. The Chinese, in fact, are acting as if they have gotten past the saber-rattling stage of emerging-power status; they lavish diplomacy on Taiwan and Japan, and deploy the might of capital instead. The Russians may be in a more adolescent, table-pounding stage of development, but Mr. Putin, too, prefers to work the economic levers, bullying with petroleum.

The United States, meanwhile, is mired in Iraq and Afghanistan, estranged from much of the world, and bled by serial economic crises.

History, it seems, is back, and not so obviously on our side.

Bill Keller, executive editor of The Times, covered the last years of the Soviet Union for the newspaper.

***

——————

The New Age of Authoritarianism.
By Chrystia Freeland
Published: August 12 2008 in The Financial Times.

In 1989, the Berlin Wall fell, democracy was on the march and we declared the End of History. Nearly two decades later, a neo-imperialist Russia is at war with Georgia, Communist China is proudly hosting the Olympics, and we find that, instead, we have entered the Age of Authoritarianism.

It is worth recalling how different we thought the future would be in the immediate, happy aftermath of the end of the cold war. Remember Francis Fukuyama’s ringing assertion: “The triumph of the west, of the western idea, is evident first of all in the total exhaustion of viable systematic alternatives to western liberalism.”

Even in the heady days of 1989, that declaration of universal – and possibly eternal – ideological victory seemed a little hubristic to Professor Fukuyama’s many critics. Yet his essay made such an impact because it captured the scale, and the enormous benefits, of the change sweeping through the world. Not only was the stifling Soviet – which was really the Russian – suzerainty over central and eastern Europe and central Asia coming to an end but, even more importantly, the very idea of a one-party state, ruthlessly presiding over a centrally planned economy, seemed to be discredited, if not forever, then surely for our lifetimes.

That collapse brought freedom and prosperity to millions of people who had lived under Soviet rule. Moreover, the implosion of Soviet communism inspired hundreds of millions of others around the world to embrace freer markets and demand more responsive governments. The great global economic boom of the past 20 years, which has brought more people out of poverty more quickly than at any other time in human history, would not have been possible had the Soviet way of ordering the world not been discredited first.

Yet today, in much of the world, the spread of freedom is being checked by an authoritarian revanche. That shift has been most obvious in the petro-states, where oil is casting its usual curse. From Latin America to Africa to the Middle East, the black-gold bonanza has given authoritarian regimes the currency to buy off or to repress their subjects. In Russia, oil has fuelled an economic boom that prime minister Vladimir Putin, and some of his foreign admirers, mistakenly attribute to his careful demolition of the chaotic democracy of the 1990s.

For Russians, that argument is strengthened by the fact that the rising economic power of the moment – China – is unashamedly sticking to its faith in one-party rule. The end of the cold war made it tempting to believe that as countries opened up their markets, and became richer in the process, they would inevitably open up their societies, too. George W. Bush, US president, reiterated that hopeful thesis on his Asia tour last week, insisting: “Young people who grow up with the freedom to trade goods will ultimately demand the freedom to trade ideas.”

But the Chinese mandarins and the Russian siloviki are taking a different view – and acting on it. As China scholar David Shambaugh recounts in his new book, China’s Communist Party: Atrophy and Adaptation , the CCP studied the collapse of Soviet communism with great care. And rather than seeing it as proof of the inevitable, global triumph of western liberalism, the Chinese comrades treated the Russian example as a textbook case of what a ruling Communist party ought not to do.

In this version of history, sinologist Andrew Nathan tells me, 1989 is also a turning point, but not because that was when communism’s most notorious wall came down. Instead, the key event of that year was the bloody suppression of protesters in Tiananmen Square: “As a propaganda position they have put it out that we had a crackdown in 1989 and we saved the party and we saved the country,” he says. “We didn’t have a failure of will like the Russians. Without that, we wouldn’t have been a great, modern power.” That’s a point of view Mr Putin has embraced, too, describing the collapse of the Soviet Union as a tragedy and his own reconstruction of a neo-authoritarian state as the only way to restore Russian “greatness”.

The west has been remarkably sanguine about this resurgence of authoritarianism, and one reason is that, this time, the comrades have money. Even as the Kremlin repeatedly confiscates the assets not just of its own businesspeople but of foreign ones, too, investment bankers, and plain old investors, are flocking to a Moscow flush with petro-roubles. The same is true of the Gulf states. China, on a path to become the world’s largest economy, is the most attractive of all.

But the Age of Authoritarianism is bad news for all of us, not just the human rights campaigners that businesspeople and practitioners of realpolitik love to dismiss. Like all overly rigid objects, authoritarian regimes conceal a tremendous fragility in their apparent strength – and their leaders know it. It is this realisation that has driven Mr Putin’s systematic destruction of all forms of civil society – an eminently pragmatic measure, although it has mystified some outside observers, who wonder why so popular a leader needs to be so heavy-handed. China’s chiefs have figured this out, too, hence their anxiety about everything from the Muslim Uighurs to the internet to the former Soviet Union’s “colour revolutions”.

Of course, another way to ensure popular support for your authoritarian regime is by playing up nationalist sentiment. We are more tolerant of our home-grown bullies if we think we need them to fight our enemies abroad – as even democratic America has demonstrated in recent years. Mr Putin has understood this all along, launching a brutal attack on Chechnya even before his coronation as president in 2000.

Russia’s expert taunting of the hotheads in Georgia, followed by immediate and massive retaliation the moment Tbilisi took the bait, is the latest evidence that, for the Kremlin, neo-imperialism is an essential bulwark of neo-authoritarianism. Bringing down the walls really did make the world safer. Now that so many leaders are building them back up again, figuring out how to contain the 21st century’s monied authoritarians is our most pressing foreign policy dilemma.

 chrystia.freeland at ft.com

An Austro-Hungarian firm with licence to print Mugabe’s money.

The Mugabe regime’s final lifeline is a small Vienna-based software company that helps it to keep printing the money it relies on for its survival, was revealed July 24, 2008, by   The Independent of London, as per information from Zurich.

Jura JSP, an Austro-Hungarian firm with just 50 employees, has been dealing with the pariah government in Harare, enabling it to keep ahead of its hyperinflation crisis. Officials at the company confirmed yesterday that it supplied the licences and software used to design and print the Zimbabwe dollar, but would review this position if required to do so by the EU.
Fresh EU sanctions announced yesterday do not cover all companies dealing with the Mugabe regime, but other firms named and shamed for profiting from the Zimbabwe crisis have cut all links. The software company enables the regime to print the money it uses to pay the army, police and security agents which keep Zanu PF in power. Without access to paper money, Mr Mugabe would face an immediate crisis.

Inflation is running at nearly three million per cent and the country issued a 100 billion dollar banknote this week, worth only about 7p. The economist say John Robertson said inflation was the greatest threat to the ruling party and the rate was likely to climb to 100 million per cent within the next month. “If the software is withdrawn there is no language to describe what would follow,” he said.

Paper is running out at the state-run mint Fidelity Printers and Refiners after the Bavarian company Giesecke and Devrient stopped deliveries last week following pressure from the German government. Now Austria and Hungary are expected to come under diplomatic pressure to follow Berlin’s lead.

After withstanding years of intense international criticism, targeted sanctions and domestic pressure, a move against the software supplier could be a decisive blow against Mr Mugabe, analysts said. And with crucial negotiations getting under way in South Africa today between the government and the opposition, the timing could be critical. David Coltart, an opposition senator, said: “If the company does stop supplying then that will show the regime that there is no place to hide and that the game is up… That may then even assist the negotiations.”

In Harare, supplies of paper money are already running out. The embattled Central Reserve Bank has capped daily withdrawals to 100 billion dollars per person, but this is barely enough to buy a bus ticket or a loaf of bread. Long queues appear from first light at banks throughout the country in a daily battle to survive.

The regime’s answer to economic meltdown – driven by its own looting of state and private assets – has been to print more and more worthless money, creating unprecedented hyperinflation and the prospect of trillion or quadrillion dollar notes in the coming months.

While Mr Mugabe and his circle of cronies have proven deaf to international calls to hold free and fair elections, his government continues to rely on its control of the central bank and the Fidelity money presses which until recently ran 24 hours a day to keep up with the crisis. Trades union leaders appealed to the government yesterday to lift the cap on withdrawals of Z$100bn, describing it as a “joke”. As recently as 2006 the central bank was still issuing a Z$50 note.

A new list of Zimbabwean targets for sanctions, including asset freezes and travel bans, by the European Union includes the central bank governor, Gideon Gono, the attorney general Bharat Patel and the cricket chairman Peter Chingoka.

Most of the 37 targets posted on the EU website are security officers, “directly involved in the terror campaign” waged around the disputed elections.

We received an e-mail showing how little costs to buy gasoline (in German called Benzin) and diesel fuel if you live in a so called developing oil-exporting country or in the USA

Date: July 4, 2008

1 Liter = 0.264174 gal (US Liq)
US$ 1 = Euro 1.5682 as of 7/4/2008

The Austrian e-mail evokes the following list. We went then and looked up other countries and found that Austria is actually a bargain when compared to other developed economies.

The Austrian 1.32 Euro/liter is 2.16 times what the complaining American sissies are paying, but only 78.7% of what Norwegians are paying or 80.7% of what the Dutch are paying.

On the other hand Japan at 0.99 Euro/liter is another chaeap-shot so is Canada at 0.88 Euro/liter.

And you know already what we think? Those that pay more for their gasoline have also decreased their dependence on oil by efficiency methods and conservation – they also developed alternatives to oil and have started building the economy of the future. So, it is actually the US that is falling behind while it transfers its funds to the Gulf States hoping that the increased National Debt will devalue the US$ to the point that it remains valueless paper in their hand.The problem is that they do not sit on the money anymore. They actually buy assets with that money – among that buying spree they also buy up chunks of America. So what then? Will they agree to American taxation without representation – or the US will eventually find out that Bush made a Faustian Deal with the US oil companies and with his Arab friends.

Our advice to our Austrian readers is thus – DO NOT COMPLAIN ABOUT THE TAX ON FUEL – BUT MAKE SURE THE MONEY IS USED SO THAT EVENTUALLY YOU WILL HAVE TO BUY LESS OF IT.

The following is what we got in the mail – then look at what we added for the sake of analysis. if our other readers want to get the actual numbers in US dollars, please use the above conversion factors.

BENZINPREISE INTERNATIONAL

Benzin that is Gasoline – but much of the posting is about Diesel – this because in Europe the motor-fuel of choice is high quality Diesel.

Afghanistan Normalbenzin € 0,43

Algerien Diesel € 0,11

Aserbaidschan Diesel € 0,31

Ägypten Diesel € 0,14

Ãthiopien Super € 0,24

Bahamas Diesel € 0,25

Bolivien Super € 0,25

Brasilien Diesel € 0,54

China Normal € 0,45

Ecuador Normal € 0,24

Ghana Normal € 0,09 !!!!!!!

Grönland Super € 0,50

Guyana Normal € 0,67

Hong Kong Diesel € 0,84

Indien Diesel € 0,62

Indonesien Diesel € 0,32

Irak Super € 0,60

Kasachstan Diesel € 0,44

Katar Super € 0,15

Kuwait Super € 0,18

Kuba Normal € 0,62

Libyen Diesel € 0,08 !!!!!!!

Malaysia Super â‚ ¬ 0,55

Mexico Diesel € 0,41

Moldau Normal € 0,25

Oman Super plus € 0,20

Peru Diesel € 0,22

Philippinen Diesel € 0,69

Russland Super € 0,64

Saudi Arabien Diesel € 0,07 !!!!!!

Südafrika Diesel € 0,66

Swasiland Super € 0,10 !!!!!!

Syrien Diesel € 0,10 !!!!!

Trinidad Super € 0,33

Thailand Super € 0,65

Tunesien Diesel € 0,49

USA Diesel € 0,61

Venezuela Diesel € 0,07 !!!!!

Vereinigte Arabische Emirate Diesel € 0,18

Vietnam Diesel € 0,55

Weißrussland Diesel € 0,51

EU und dem Finanzminister sei dank ist der Österreicher bzw. Europäer dumm
genug sich abzocken zu lassen (Mineralölsteuer und Mehrwertsteuer auf
Benzin).

Bitte dieses E-Mail weiter zu schicken damit wenigstens einige Leute
erkennen wie stark Österreich geneppt wird.

Benzinpreise auf der eigenen Webseite

And looking at international prices for July 4, 2008 at - http://benzinpreis.de/international.phtm…

Land Normalbenzin in € Superbenzin in € SuperPlus in € Diesel in €

Österreich 1,26 1,29 * 1,28 1,32 *

UK 1,40 1,46 1,50 1,58

Finnland 1,47 1,50 1,50 1,36

Frankreich 1,39 1,34 * 1,44 1,37 *

Irland 1,26 1,26 1,15 1,43

Island 1,35 1,40 1,47 1,50

Israel – 1,05 – -

Italien 1,36 1,46 1,34 1,45

Japan 0,99 1,08 – 0,79

Kanada 0,88 0.87 0.82 0.90

Neuseeland 1,03 0,97 – 1,46

Niederlande 1,56 1,61 1,69 1,31 **

Norwegen 1,60 1,61 1,46 1,56

Schweden 1,37 1,39 1,36 1,47

Schweiz 1,24 1,21 * 1,23 1,37 *

Ungarn 1,29 1,26 1,20 1,31

Budapest to house EU Techonology Institute – the Europe’s answer to MIT.
RENATA GOLDIROVA, June 19, 2008 EUobserver/Brusells.

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS – Hungary’s capital, Budapest, has been selected to house the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT), the union’s flagship project to boost innovation, research and higher education.

On Wednesday (18 June), ministers in charge of competitiveness met in Brussels to put an end to the wrangling over the institute’s seat. Last month, they failed to agree due to a Polish veto on the matter.

Slovene education minister Mojca Kucler – who was responsible for steering the dossier through the European Council, which represents EU states – praised “efforts invested by member states for the common good of the EU” and described the institute as “a special milestone in the European research policy”.

The European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has also welcomed the ministerial deal, saying that the EIT will add to Europe’s capacity to bridge the innovation gap with its major competitors, the US and Japan.

In 2006, the 27-nation EU invested 1.85 percent of GDP into research and development, far from its 2010 goal of three percent. By contrast, the US spends around 2.7 percent.

According to EU education commissioner Jan Figel, the work of the institute would be organised through so-called knowledge and innovation communities – partnerships of universities, research organisations and companies.

The commission believes that such networks could help transform education and research and attract bright young brains from within and beyond Europe.

“It is not going to be one dot on the map,” Mr Figel told EUobserver, referring to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which inspired the EIT concept. “We offer co-operation so the EU becomes more innovative,” he said.

Budapest was the only applicant able to meet the two criteria set by ministers – that the winner should be a “new” member state and not already be home to an EU agency.

But regarding the latter point, EU diplomats feared Poland’s behaviour at the negotiation table.

The country, also bidding for seat, had previously threatened not to withdraw its own application, unless it won some level of participation. It wanted, for example, the new institute’s governing board to meet in the Polish city of Wroclaw, one diplomat told EUobserver.

Besides Budapest and Wroclaw, three other applicants were keen to host the administrative headquarters of the institute – Germany’s Jena, Spain’s Sant Cugat del Valles, while Slovak capital Bratislava joined forces with Vienna in launching a cross-border bid.

The Budapest-based institute will operate with a total budget of €2.37 billion from 2008-2013, with €308.7 million of that coming from EU coffers. The rest of the monies are supposed to come from public and private partners as well as from the new institute’s own activities.

————–

We hope that, for the sake of coherence, the Budapest headquarters of EIT will find ways to cooperate with the Bratislava-Vienna group also. The Wroclaw push seemed out of place and was rather a clear effort at grand-standing.
We realize that   the City of Wroclaw is involved in such issues as the organisation of a European Citizens’ Forum (over two days) entitled: Towards a Europe of solidarity, but we insist that an EIT will have to deal with such technical issues as the development of technologies in view of changes that will have to happen because of global warming/climate change.   The institute will need laboratories and not just talk-estivals. Poland seems to have misread this intent.

The referendum: populism vs democracy: The idea of the referendum as an instrument of the people’s will rests on pre-democratic foundations, says George Schöpflin on www.OpenDemocracy.net

16 – 06 – 2008

The result of the Republic of Ireland’s referendum on 12 June 2008, a rejection of the European Union’s “reform treaty” agreed at the Lisbon summit in October 2007, has precipitated a crisis for the union whose resolution is hard to foresee. For the victorious “no” side, and for those elsewhere who support the use of referenda to decide on constitutional or other matters, the outcome in Ireland is also on three grounds a vindication of the institution of the referendum:
â–ª it restores democracy to the people
â–ª it allows the people to tell political elites to be responsive
â–ª it restores “the people’s will” to the storehouse of democratic instruments.

These propositions – which can be summarised as the seduction of direct democracy – are misconceived. The championing of referenda they embody proceeds from a series of four untenable assumptions, which are worth itemising in some detail.

George Schőpflin is a member of the European parliament for Fidesz (Hungarian Civic Union) and was Jean Monnet professor of politics at University College London.

An unsafe vehicle:

First, in complex modern societies there is no such thing as “the people”. The concept is a leftover from the time when democracy had to be legitimated in the eyes of anti-democrats; its residue today leaves it open to political manipulation. The homogeneity it implies can hardly be reconciled with the reality of an enormously varied modern society composed of millions of members with multiple motivations and choices, used to exercising individual rationality in the marketplace. How can they be compressed into something with a single voice, namely “the people”?

In too many cases – European integration among them – referenda function as an instrument not of democracy, but of populism. They can assist democracy only in a few special circumstances: for example, to resolve an issue that is more ethical than political (legalising divorce or abortion, say); or to unblock a political system (offering autonomy or independence to the population of a particular region and thus perhaps helping to avoid civil war or ameliorate division).

An example of the latter is when the populations of the various republics of the Soviet Union voted for or against declaring their sovereignty, which led to their independence as states. Another case where the referendum was a legitimate use of the instrument was the votes in 1997 on devolution for Scotland and Wales within the United Kingdom. The referendum held on 9 March 2008 in Hungary was ostensibly about the government’s health-reform project; in reality it was about a means to articulate the deep disquiet in society about the refusal of the Hungarian government to listen to that disquiet.

Second, referenda are profoundly unsuitable ways of addressing complex issues, because they offer the illusion of a simple answer to complexity. In this sense, they pull the voters into the pre-political stance that lies at the heart of populism. Modern politics is about weighing various options, in circumstances where issues only very seldom appear in stark, good-vs-bad form. Referenda have an implicit, contextual message that says the opposite, something along the lines of “vote no” or “vote yes” and all your problems will be solved; as Tøger Seidenfaden has pointed out, referenda reduce highly complex issues to a simple yes/no answer. In a cultural sense, they “dumb down” the voters.

Moreover, voting “yes” often means accepting the word of the political elite’s saying, in effect, “trust us”. If voters wish to send a message to the elite that they are dissatisfied – for whatever reason, even one wholly distinct from the issue at stake – voting “no” is a convenient and simplistic solution. So the illusion of expressing the popular will is just that, an illusion.

Third, referenda reintroduce the tyranny of the majority, the very thing that modern democracies have sought to dilute by, for example, upgrading the role of civil society. Here again, careful analysis is needed. A great deal of politics is about making matters relatively easily intelligible, but this can readily cross the line into oversimplification, especially when sections of society will be clamouring for just that. The erosion of trust between political elites and society is also about the reluctance of the latter to come to terms with political complexity and the way in which both elites and media pander to the outdated desire for a golden age when choices were simple.

The trouble with that supposed golden age is that – whenever those who invoke it can be persuaded to identify it in terms of a definite period – majorities had no trouble in imposing their views on a minority. The evolution of various forms of lobbying, advocacy and pressure groups, and radical movements since the 1960s and 1970s is precisely about giving otherwise silent groups a voice. Referenda suppress that. It is quite plausible that a referendum on, say, recriminalising homosexuality or reintroducing the death penalty would gain a majority in several European nation-states. It is unlikely that the more vocal protagonists of “the people” expressing its view in this way would approve. Indeed, supporters of referenda as the articulation of the popular will are seldom if ever called upon to define what is a proper topic to be decided by “the people” and what is not. That too is a part of the easy ride the referendum receives in modern democracy (or, to be more precise, in a surrogate for democracy).

Fourth, referenda offer power without responsibility, in that voters can confront elites without having to face the consequences of their action. At their heart, referenda provide an opportunity for ad hoc coalitions that never have to worry about the outcome. The far left and far right coming together in France in the May 2005 referendum on the European Union’s constitutional treaty was a case in point; the two sides could never have governed together, but they could operate as a spoiler. Something similar was in evidence in Ireland in the Lisbon-treaty vote, where rightwing Catholics made common cause with leftwingers suspicious of Europe. The irony of this is that an ad hoc coalition of this kind can focus on a single issue and need never on any single occasion assume responsibility for the power that it wields.
The one-way street:

Referenda have unintended consequences in that they introduce new political actors into the system together with fresh lines of polarisation, often around issues that (regardless of the new actors’ demands) have no straightforward solution. This can also introduce and legitimate potentially destructive discourses – accusations of “sell-out” and “betrayal”, for example – that gain credibility through being voiced by these “untainted” political actors.

Besides, the task of the negative campaigners tends to be simpler than that of the supporters – they only have to argue: “if in doubt, say no”. This was much in evidence in Ireland’s referendum campaign. For all practical purposes it left the supporters of the “yes” camp having to prove their credibility, if not actually their innocence. And once a “no” campaign has won, it cannot be blamed, as it immediately evaporates, once again leaving the (elected) elite with the problem of what to do next. The organisers of “no” campaigns themselves never have to face an election.

When referenda are held on questions to do with the future of Europe, there is a further generally unidentified twist to the story. European integration operates simultaneously with three different sets of actors – the European Union, its institutions and elites; the national elites; and the supposed European demos. These three do not really connect very much. There is some connection between the EU and the national elites, but the linkage between the EU and its demos is very weak and is generally felt to be weak.

It is this political gap that provides the opportunity for negative campaigners in European matters – they believe that they can hold “their own” national political elites to account for European commitments, something not possible at the European level, largely because identification with that level does not exist.

This is the democratic deficit that must be addressed. But referenda, far from overcoming that deficit, actually intensify it. Accountability and responsibility, after all, have to be a two-way process to work at all. Referenda operate only in one direction and, for that reason, are not an appropriate or a democratically sustainable instrument in European matters.
Also by George Schőpflin in openDemocracy:

“Israel-Lebanon: a battle over modernity” (8 August 2005)

“Putin’s anti-globalisation strategy” (10 July 2006)

“Hungary: country without consequences” (22 September 2006)

“Hungary’s cold civil war (14 November 2006)

“The European Union’s troubled birthday” (23 March 2007)

Russia’s reinvented empire (3 May 2007)

Turkey’s crisis and the European Union (23 July 2007)

The new Russia: a model state (27 February 2008)