When real scientists say they are uncertain about something because they know that nothing is matter – all is probability – they are called cooks and what they say is rejected by the real cooks – then when the scientists decide to be efficient by talking certainty rather then probability – the same real cooks call them charlatans. Is there any hope to a decent world led by decent government capable of saying that the uncertainty principle
becomes a must in dealing with the precautionary principle?

March 10, 2010   -  One Flew over…..The Sequel   {that must have been … the Cookoo’s Nest?}

http://jer-skepticscorner.blogspot.com/

UN to review errors made by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

—

FROM-The Times

The United Nations is to announce an independent review of errors made by its climate change advisory body in an attempt to restore its credibility.

A team of the world’s leading scientists will investigate the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and ask why its supposedly rigorous procedures failed to detect at least three serious overstatements of the risk from global warming.

The review will be overseen by the InterAcademy Council, whose members are drawn from the world’s leading national science academies, including Britain’s Royal Society, the United States National Academy of Sciences and the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

The review will be led by Robbert Dijkgraaf, co-chairman of the Interacademy Council and president of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.

He has been asked to investigate the internal processes of the IPCC and will not consider the overarching question of whether it was right to claim that human activities were very likely to be causing global warming.

The review, which will be announced in New York by Ban Ki Moon, the UN Secretary General, and Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, is expected to recommend stricter checking of sources and much more careful wording to reflect the uncertainties in many areas of climate science.

The IPCC’s most glaring error was a claim that all Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. Most glaciologists believe it would take another 300 years for the glaciers to melt at the present rate.

It also claimed that global warming could cut rain-fed North African crop production by up to 50 per cent by 2020. A senior IPCC contributor has since admitted that there is no evidence to support this claim.

The Dutch Government has asked the IPCC to correct its claim that more than half the Netherlands is below sea level. The environment ministry said that only 26 per cent of the country was below sea level.

The allegations about climate scientists are believed to have contributed to a sharp rise in public scepticism about climate change. Last month an opinion poll found that the proportion of the population that believes climate change is an established fact and largely man-made has fallen from 41 per cent in November to 26 per cent.

The Met Office, which produces the global temperature record used by the IPCC in its reports, has proposed a separate review of its data after admitting that public confidence in its findings had been undermined.

The Met Office relies on analysis by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, which is under investigation over allegations that its director manipulated raw data and tried to hide it from critics.
 http://jer-skepticscorner.blogspot.com/

————

We find in above the repetition of the figure 26 quite amusing. Actually we think that while at present perhaps indeed only 26% of the Netherlands is under sea level, but then, with sea level rise thanks to the melting of the ice at the poles, and in the mountain glaciers like in the Himalaya’s (what we call the three poles) – rest assured – half of the Netherlands will be under the water line. So what is your problem with that or with what the scientists said? By that time maybe 50% of the population will accept that this was an anthropogenic event – that is that they themselves caused it – and the only fault of the scientists was their shortage of words.

Yvo de Boer, the new free man, gives  to The Financial Times his first interview as elder statesman – and we gleaned three elements in his statement as his very balanced views after 20 years of experience with the climate international problematics.

(1) The Copenhagen non-binding outcome has nevertheless provided us with a good basis for a treaty.

It Copenhagen accord has for the first time drown from from both – rich and poor countries pledges to limit their  GHG emissions, and promised financial assistance from the developed to the developing world to do so. (we did in effect earlier today post already such an agreement between Japan and Kenya.)

(2) There is no practical hope that a binding treaty that has both form and content – can be signed at the meeting of December 2010 in Mexico. (Mr. de Boer has removed the smiley face that the UNSG has imposed on him these last two years)

(3) While governments provide the necessary policy framework for addressing climate change, the real solutions must come from business. As such there are two stages in the process:

(a) Governments must use Taxes or a Cap & Trade methodology to limit emissions.  No corporation can justify the investment required to reduce their carbon intensity without confidence that carbon emissions will become and remain much costlier than today, with few loopholes for those unwilling to pay. Only government can provide that predictability. As we see it today – the EU failed in its effort because of the permit system that allowed for too many permits to float around, and for the US – even the bill that is stalled in Congress is useless as it was emasculated by emission permits giveaways to favored sectors. (what he is saying is what we say all the time – government is there in order to govern – without this nothing logical will evolve from plain empty handed competition.)

(b) If governments dared to embark on real efforts to limit emissions – as long as it is more then just a token idea – the private sector would take it in its stride, it would even thrive, especially the low-carbon companies and sectors that would emerge to replace those unable to kick the carbon habit.

———

We knew already that Yvo de Boer will join KPMG consulting. We know that he is not the first to jump the public policy wagon for the private sector. Al Gore, former US Vice President and father of The Inconvenient Truth” has shown the way He is doing very well – thank you – in the corporate world. We know of people that were formerly with Greenpeace that make now a good living supporting renewable energy corporations.

What we did not know before this interview is that in the academic world, Mr. de Boer chose Yale University and the University of Utrecht that will benefit from his direct involvement.

———

Strange remarks we saw from some that did very little to help the climate cause earlier, but now look down at Mr. de Boer as if he were a traitor to that lost cause to which they did not put their honest heart earlier. Specifically we found the mention to Paul Bledsoe the policy director at the Washington – US National Commission on Energy Policy and former White House adviser.

He said: “This resignation is simply dispiriting – if someone as politically adept, dedicated and charismatic as Yvo de Boer can’t bring the UN process to heel, then the process is broken and has to be reformed.” That is true but disingenuous – why did he not work harder at creating the US government solution that could have been helpful to that UN process? After all, there were times that even the UN was trying to achieve climate goals. On the other hand, the fact that BP and ConocoPhillips walked out from a business pro-climate group this week, came about because they found that the White House will subsidize nuclear power so the price of energy stays low – but oil companies are not electric utilities to be subsidized under this plan – so why should they be part of a program that can only harm them. This was clearly a give-away to the nuclear lobby on the back of the oil lobby – and thus two out of the only three progressive oil companies, that dream of becoming energy companies, found it completely irrational of participating in the backing of an Administration that did not think through all aspects of the issues.

Now, just two nights ago, at a meeting at a top University here, I saw people from Academia and Businesses (the AB of the process) trying to spread the word about what they are doing, but did also not understand the basic policy logic on which they were trying to sell – but on this on a different posting. Here it will suffice to say that we will look forward at what Mr. de Boer will do for Yale University with the strong hope that from now on he will be ready to stand up for what he believes, without bowing to UN or business interests that will flock on him like vultures trying to push him in their preferred directions. We had our difficulty with his bowing to the UN bosses, but we expect to see no future problem in his AB role.

Based on  the same Press Release from Bonn as we did, The Washington Post put on the following:

U.N. climate chief resigns: Yvo de Boer to quit in July.
 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con…

We bring here the Washington Post note and our further analysis at the end of it.

———–

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 18, 2010 10:12 AM

Yvo de Boer, the United Nations’ top climate official, announced Thursday that he would step down from his post in July to work in the private sector on environmental sustainability.

De Boer has overseen international climate talks for nearly four years, laboring without success to produce a legally binding pact to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.

His departure comes amid uncertainty as to whether the 193 member nations of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change can produce a final treaty in Mexico in December.

“Working with my colleagues . . . in support of the climate change
negotiations has been a tremendous experience . . . but I believe the
time is ripe for me to take on a new challenge,” de Boer said in a
statement.

In recent weeks it has become unclear whether the Copenhagen accord,
the political agreement President Obama helped broker in December, can
serve as the basis for a lasting treaty. Although all major emitters
have reiterated their commitments to cut carbon over the next decade,
some key countries, such as China and India, have not formally signed
off on the accord.

In his statement, de Boer, a former government official in the
Netherlands, said governments must work with private businesses to
move forward in cutting emissions around the globe.

“I have always maintained that while governments provide the necessary
policy framework, the real solutions must come from business,” said de
Boer, who will join the consulting group KPMG as global adviser on
climate and sustainability and work with multiple universities. He
added, “The political commitment and sense of direction toward a
low-emissions world are overwhelming. This calls for new partnerships
with the business sector, and I now have the chance to help make this
happen.”

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which
issued de Boer’s statement, said that he would spend the next 3 1/2
months helping the agency prepare for the climate change conference in
Mexico late this year.

———-

What  is… KPMG?

KPMG is a really huge, long established accounting firm. It formed in 1987 following the merger between the accounting firms of Peat Marwick International (PMI) and Klynveld Main Goerdeler (KMG), however, the history of the combined business can be traced back to 1870.

What do the letters “KPMG” stand for?

The name of the firm, KPMG, is not actually an initialism. However, the roots of the name stem from four partners in the firms that merged to form KPMG.

The “K” in “KPMG” stands for “Klynveld”. In 1917, Piet Klynveld founded the accounting firm Klynveld Kraayenhof & Co. in Amsterdam.
The “P” stands for “Peat” after William Barclay Peat who founded the accounting firm William Barclay Peat & Co. in London in 1870.
The “M” stands for “Marwick”. With Roger Mitchell, in 1897 James Marwick founded the accounting firm Marwick, Mitchell & Co. in New York City.
Lastly but not least, the “G” is for “Goerdeler”. For many years Dr Reinhard Goerdeler was the chairman of Deutsche Treuhand-Gesellschaft and later became the chairman of KPMG. He is given credit for doing the groundwork for the KMG merger.

The final merger formed the firm in 1987, when Peat Marwick International (PMI) and Klynveld Main Goerdeler (KMG) merged as KPMG – and its global network of professional firms providing Audit, Tax, and Advisory services operates operate in 148 countries and has more than 113,000 professionals working in member firms around the world – one could easily say that this is a giant mini-UN multi-national on professional economic auditing issues. http://www.kpmg.com
 http://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/WhoWeAre/L…

One can say that KPMG in many ways had its roots in the Netherlands.

* * *

KPMG – Corporate citizenship:

“This is an exciting and critical moment in the debate around the role of business in tackling the world’s most pressing problems. Problems such as climate change, food and water scarcity, poverty, security, development and economic growth.

“We have a clear vision of the role of KPMG firms. We believe we should use our skills and our resources to become fully involved in finding sustainable solutions to global and local issues, working alongside governments, civil society groups and international agencies. This vision is in line with our values — where we make a commitment to the communities in which we work.

“Locally, member firms around the world are using their skills to support local community initiatives and projects. Globally, we are using our capacity and capability as an international network to support the Millennium Development Goals, working strategically with governments, non-governmental organizations and charities to make an impact. To help combat the effects of climate change, we have developed the KPMG Global Green Initiative, which includes an ambitious target to reduce our combined global carbon footprint by 25 percent by 2010.

“These are often big and complex challenges, but I see, first hand, truly remarkable examples of KPMG people making a difference in the world. While there is still much to do, we are confident we are making a significant contribution in creating a more sustainable world and we are proud to share some of this with you.”

Michael Hastings
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CBE)
Global Head of Citizenship and Diversity, KPMG International

* * *

KPMG International established the Global Development Initiative. This innovative program takes KPMG  commitment to corporate citizenship to a new level, bringing together KPMG people from around the world so they can tackle global issues.

Jane Smallman
Senior Manager, Global Citizenship & Diversity – UK
+44 207 311 1000
 citizenship at kpmg.com

To achieve this, KPMG firms have partnered with numerous International Development Agencies and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) to pioneer a model of professional collaboration. The aim is that we apply our people’s skills, knowledge and resources to sustainable enterprises in pursuit of the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). By working with a number of organizations, KPMG people have already made an impact on some pressing global issues. Some of the organizations include The Millennium Promise, Oxfam, Save the Children, UNICEF and World Vision.

KPMG says it is already involved in climate change issues via its 2008 started GREEN INITIATIVE that as they say -” which, amongst other progressive strategies, includes the ambition to reduce our global carbon footprint by 25 percent by 2010.”   ? ? ?
 http://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/WhoWeAre/C…

————

Yvo de Boer will still be at the helm of the UNFCCC for the coming four months when one expected the UN to rev up its efforts for the December 2010 meeting in Mexico – Mexico City or Cancun – we got as of now different indications.

Without prior agreements, it is again unrealistic to expect a clear UN mandate to come out from a UNFCCC COP, but it is important that someone out there manages the travel time-tables of the UN folks for the preparatory meetings. Also, there is the need to discuss where the UN wants to take the UNFCCC institution, and if there is an intent to appoint a new Secretary-General – and if so – who shall he be? It seems that time has come to pass the batton to a South American considering the need to come up with someone from the South, and the clear Asian increase in CO2 emissions. So – what will it be? Will this new debate come instead of the search for an agreement of substance?

Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer leaves United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat.
We knew Yvo since his work for the Dutch government and held him in high esteem. The problem with Yvo was that he fell in for the nothingness of the UN and was not ready to stand up and fight for his subject in face of that nothingness. The UN is nothing more then the lowest common denominator of its member states and on climate it was the oil industry of the major industrial states and the monarchs of the oil exporting states that colluded in holding the subject under the table. The Rio UNCED ghost of Maurice Strong was still around and pushing for the importance of the conventions signed at the 1992 UN meeting on Environment and Development, so the subject could not be killed, but then most countries were ready to push it under the table. The US did not ratify any of those conventions anyway. Morris Strong is now active in China – we saw him last December in Copenhagen outside the UNFCCC compound.

When Yvo de Boer – the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, headquartered in Bonn, thanks to a wish of the  German government to find some use for that city after moving its capital back to Berlin, a UN body run by delegates of UN Member States that was located in Bonn together with the Secretariats of the other Rio Conventions Secretariats, according to UN rules set up in New York, came for the first time to New York as a UN official, back in 2006, when I was still  an official  member of the UN Press Corps, I fought for having UN Department of Public Information set up a Press Conference with the head of this important new UN body. He was given about 10 minutes in the Press briefing-room – that infamous S-226. I organized a few correspondents to demand more time with him, and we did have the chance to talk with him, officially,  further using the UNCA room (UN Correspondents Association) as a venue. The Pakistani head of UNCA did not like it. Neither  The New York Times nor the CNN came. Their correspondents at the time did not believe yet in climate change – actually very few – but the best journalists came – those that were the budding internet breed. Just four years ago – the UN was still considered as the place where one should be able to explain the global aspects of CO2 emissions. The problems with not being able to do so were palpable. I thought then that Yvo understood where his main opposition will be – in this  New York spirit of the UN – and thanks to his EU base Yvo de Boer will be ready to fight for the cause and not be just another UN bureaucrat.

But I was disappointed. He did become a UN bureaucrat and smiled – ear to ear – along with UNSG Ban Ki-moon in that “SEAL THE DEAL” – when there was no deal – CHARADE. The following press release that is being released by the official UNFCCC Press officers that worked along his side all those years, shows that Yvo de Boer understood the reality of the situation all along – but does not explain why he did not try to manage the subject with personal pride in what he was doing there. Though personal, but this is nevertheless something that throws a shadow on Mr. de Boer, is the fact that when under the new UN Secretary General, Mr. Ahmad Fawzi managed finally the feat to declare our website as non-UN-Press under his rules, something he fought for but was rejected by Mr. Sashi Tharoor, the Under Secretary General under UNSG Kofi Annan, Yvo de Boer bowed to the decision – though he knew well that our website is fighting for what should have been his cause in his job. Yvo de Boer ran an organization that was lacking positive press because he bowed to those in New York that did not want climate change positive press. It is as simple as that – so he is responsible for failures by not having fought strong enough for success.

Yes, we knew all the time that it will eventually be the industry and business that will, come the day, move on climate change work. We knew all the time that China is in the lead despite everything that they were saying in public – climate change does work well for innovative business and that is why it will win in the end. We knew that the meeting in Poznan is a waste of time and there is no deal for Copenhagen. We had misgivings about going to Bali, and when I came to Vienna to participate at a pre-Bali meeting Mr. De Boer bowed to a note from Mr. Ahmad Fawzi and was not ready to let me in as Press. Had he been ready to show backbone for the subject he was in charge off – he could have found ways to resolve the conflict by granting limited accreditation – for God’s sake – he knew me, knew what I was doing, knew the problems, where was his fighting spirit?

Yes, we think that Yvo de Boer will be a good addition to the climate consultancy business, and lobby within the States that can start implement such programs internally, and within business relationships, in context of more limited groupings – like a G2 – a possible G5 or G7 – a United EU, etc. They need the experience he has accumulated, and we hope that in these contexts he will indeed develop his career and find himself as well. KPMG is a good outfit for this. Work with Universities is good as well, and personally would love to see him involved at the Earth Institute at Columbia University where he could still be around at the UN periphery and finally not be hindered from speaking  truth.

Also, let me repeat once more – Copenhagen was not the disaster as the UN contends. It was thanks to President Obama’s trip to Beijing that it has become the start to moves in the real world – with China and The White House officially on board. Will the new Secretary General of the UNFCCC be chosen so that he leads within the context of the reality that is now open for all to see? Pitty that Mr. Yvo de Boer did burn himself out by putting himself too much in those losing dancing shoes – though we see now that the dance was not unknown to him.

——————–

A UNFCCC PRESS RELEASE

Executive Secretary leaves United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat

<http://unfccc.int/press/press_releases_advisories/items/4712.php>

(Bonn, 18 February 2010) – Mr. Yvo de Boer has announced today that he will
resign his position as Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change as of 1 July 2010. Mr. de Boer will be joining
the consultancy group KPMG as Global Adviser on Climate and Sustainability,
as well as working with a number of universities.

“Working with my colleagues at the UNFCCC Secretariat in support of the
climate change negotiations has been a tremendous experience”, said Mr. de
Boer who has led the organisation since September 2006. “It was a difficult
decision to make, but I believe the time is ripe for me to take on a new
challenge, working on climate and sustainability with the private sector
and academia,” he explained.

“I have always maintained that while governments provide the necessary
policy framework, the real solutions must come from business,” said Yvo de
Boer. “Copenhagen did not provide us with a clear agreement in legal terms,
but the political commitment and sense of direction toward a low-emissions
world are overwhelming. This calls for new partnerships with the business
sector and I now have the chance to help make this happen”, he added.

Mr. de Boer will remain in his current position until 1st July and help
negotiations move forward ahead of the Climate Change Conference in Mexico
in November this year. “Countries responsible for 80% of energy related CO2
emissions have submitted national plans and targets to address the climate
change. This underlines their commitment to meet the challenge of climate
change and work towards an agreed outcome in Cancun”, he said.

Mr. de Boer (1954) was appointed Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC in
September 2006. Before that he was extensively involved in European Union
environmental policy as deputy Director General of the Dutch Environment
Ministry.  Mr. de Boer has also served as Vice-chair of the U.N. Commission
on Sustainable Development, acted as an advisor to the Government of China
and the World Bank and worked closely with the World Business Council on
Sustainable Development.

About the UNFCCC

With 194 Parties, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) has near universal membership and is the parent treaty of the 1997
Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol has been ratified by 190 of the UNFCCC
Parties. Under the Protocol, 37 States, consisting of highly industrialized
countries and countries undergoing the process of transition to a market
economy, have legally binding emission limitation and reduction
commitments. The ultimate objective of both treaties is to stabilize
greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will
prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system.

For further information, please contact:

Mr. Eric Hall, Spokesperson/Manager of Communications and Media
Tel.: (+49-228) 815-1398; mobile: (+49-172) 259-0443; e-mail: ehall
(at)unfccc.int

Mr. John Hay, Media Information Officer
Tel.: (+49-228) 815-1404; mobile: (+49-172) 258-6944; e-mail: jhay
(at)unfccc.int

From: ALDE-PRESS <press@alde.eu>
Date: Thu, Feb 11, 2010

Distribution: immediate – February 11, 2010, 1:19 pm
Verhofstadt: 20 years on, Mandela’s dream is alive

On the occasion of the 20th anniversary of Nelson Mandela’s release from jail, which signalled the end of apartheid, Guy Verhofstadt the President of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe made the following statement:

“The dream of Nelson Mandela is still alive. February 11, 1990 was a historical day for South Africa and the World. It was the symbol of tolerance, anti-apartheid and anti-racism. South Africa is now an equal player at the world’s top table. The transformation that took place in the country should serve us both as an inspiration and a reminder of what the courage of one man can do in the plight for freedom.

Mandela’s commitment to peace has been unwavering. I remember very well how we cooperated in Central Africa’s peace process. This brought the end of the war after the terrible genocide. It was thanks to Mandela that this peace was reached.”

Louis Michel (MR, Belgium) and former commissioner for development added:

“Mandela’s fight is witness that the conscience of a single man can illuminate the whole of humanity and transform the world for the better.”

For more information, please contact:

Neil Corlett: +33-3-88 17 41 67 or +32-478-78 22 84
e-mail:  neil.corlett at europarl.europa.eu
Web: http://www.alde.eu

A course on “Application of Public Domain Models for Water, Food and Climate Studies”, in Wageningen, Netherlands, this summer.

Details can be found at:
 http://www.futurewater.nl/uk/projects/mo…

and
 http://www.futurewater.nl/downloads/Mode…

from:
Johannes Hunink
Costerweg 1G | 6702 AA Wageningen | The Netherlands
Tel: +31 317 460050 | Mob: +31 633 891849
 j.hunink at futurewater.nl
 http://www.futurewater.nl

–

The White House has said that the US President would not be attending what used to be the regularly scheduled EU-US talks, which have been planned to take place in Madrid in May 24-25, 2010 by the Spanish Rotating EU Presidency for the First half of 2010.

Honestly, why should he participate in the European Games while there are so many real problems on his plate?

The EU has three Presidents – if they cannot decide who is their President in fact – do they really expect for Obama to travel trans-Atlantic, and sit at Summits chaired by all three of them – Herman Van Rampuy, The Permanent EU President, Jose Manuel Baroso, the President of the European Commission, and the Spanish Prime Minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero,    who is presently the Rotating President of the EU?

Papers write of a “Snub.” This is ridiculous and for us who watched the Copenhagen Conference that was saved by President Obama under a G-2 arrangement with China, because he had to act fast if he wanted to save the meeting from itself, and there was no strong man or woman of the EU to stand at his side, the above “News” are old hat – and we say – we told you so!  Actually, we welcome Charles Forelle writes as “World News” in the Wall Street Journal of today: “Things haven’t been good recently for Europe’s position on the world stage. Despite the new treaty ambition to make the EU a bigger player, the bloc has sometimes seen itself shut out.  At climate talks in Copenhagen in December, Mr. Obama hammered out a last-minute accord with China and other emerging nations. The Europeans were left out of the picture.” This recognition of reality in a WSJ article is very unusual – but this is real life. If the EU does not get together – and still claims 7 seats at the G-20 – rather then one seat for real – they are turning themselves, by their own choice,  into world political irrelevancy. The same is true at the UN where we see more and more a 2 1/2 seats situation – with France and the UK in Security Council seats but Germany on practical UN Security Commissions, and no EU representative with any powers what so ever.

Obama’s decision not to go to Madrid is no snub to Mr. Zapatero or to Spain – but rather the cleareeded sign that he wants to go and meet the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED EUROPE. Had Obama decided to go to Masdrid it would have been as if someone from Europe would come to a meeting of the US Governor’s Association. Just think – Germany id California, France is New York, the UK is Texas, Spain is Florida, Poland is Illinois, Austria is Vermont … etc etc. Perhapse indeed Van Rampuy should come to the US Governor’s Association meeting in order to learn what is needed in order to create out of the EU the neededpartner for Obama in order to turn the G-2 into a G-3 and to create out of the G-20 a new meaningful global body.

———————–

The best article on this we found is from The Telegtaph:
Barack Obama has snubbed the EU amid confusion in Washington over which “president” of Europe he would be expected to meet at a trans-Atlantic summit this spring.

By Bruno Waterfield in Brussels  – from Telegraph.com
Published:  01 Feb 2010 -
 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew…

The White House has said that Barack Obama will not be attending the EU-US talks planned to take place in Madrid in May.
The White House has said that the US President would not be attending the regularly scheduled EU-US talks, which have been planned to take place in Madrid in May 24-25, 2010 by the Spanish Rotating EU Presidency for the First half of 2010.

Honestly, why should he particioate in the European Games while there are so many real problems on his plate.
US officials have expressed frustration because the Lisbon Treaty, which was supposed to give the EU a single global voice, has created a number of European presidents competing for Washington’s attention.

Even the venue for the summit, Madrid or Brussels, has been “up in the air” after a tussle between Spain, which holds the EU’s rotating presidency and Herman Van Rompuy, the new created President of Europe.

Under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty, Mr Van Rompuy, President of the European Council which represents EU heads of government, should host the summit in Brussels as Europe’s lead negotiator in global bilateral talks.

But Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, the Spanish prime minister, insisted that he should host the summit because the EU was in “transition” after the Lisbon Treaty entered into force in December.

A US official told the Wall Street Journal that President Obama had not yet received an a formal invitation to the EU-US summit, a twice yearly meeting that has taken place since 1991.

“We don’t even know if they’re going to have one. We’ve told them, ‘Figure it out and let us know’,” said the official.

Other American diplomats have blamed confusion over which of the three EU “presidents” is in charge of the summit – Mr Van Rompuy, Mr Zapatero or José Manuel Barroso, the European Commission president.

“Who attends from the US and at what point will depend on who’s calling the meeting,” said a US state department official.
“There’s a competition in Europe because you now have the standing EU architecture.”

Many national and EU diplomats are dismayed at the institutional infighting that has followed the entering into force of the Lisbon Treaty.

“The Spanish are behaving badly. They’ve made a mess of the summit but Van Rompuy and the post-Lisbon EU institutions will carry the can in the long term. The squabbling has damaged the EU in the eyes of the most powerful nation in the world,” said a senior source.

A European Commission spokesman hinted that the meeting would have to be downgraded or cancelled if Mr Obama did not show up.

“Normally a summit is a summit because it is attended by heads of state and government,” said the spokesman.

A Spanish foreign ministry spokesman said: “The EU-US summit is scheduled to take place in May in Madrid, as was foreseen and we are still preparing it.”

US officials have indicated that Mr Obama might reschedule talks with the EU in the wings of a Nato summit in Portugal this autumn.

The International Conference “Deltas in Times of Climate Change.”

from: Ottelien van Steenis  – Call for abstracts for The International Conference ‘Deltas in Times of Climate Change’          September 29 – October 1, 2010, Rotterdam, the Netherlands

The two official Dutch research programmes on climate change and spatial planning (Climate changes Spatial Planning and Knowledge for Climate), the City of Rotterdam and the C40 (a group of the world’s largest cities committed to tackling climate change) invite scientists, politicians, policy-makers and practitioners to share their knowledge and experience in a major international conference on climate adaptation.

The conference pursues three main goals:
1. exchanging up-to-date top science on climate change and delta planning
2. strengthening international cooperation between deltas and delta cities
3. exploring and strengthening the links between science, policy and practitioners

Authors who wish to present a paper or poster related to the scientific programme are invited to submit an abstract.

The abstracts have to be submitted before 15 February 2010, and will be expected to fit within one of the themes:
1.     Regional climate, sea level rise, storm surges, river run-off and coastal flooding
2.     Fresh water availability under sea level rise and climate change
3.     Climate change and estuarine ecosystems
4.     Climate change and climate proofing in urban areas
5.     Competing claims and land use in deltas under climate change
6.     Governance and economics of climate adaptation
7.     Decision support instruments for climate adaptation policy
8.     Climate and health in delta areas
9.     Managing extreme weather risks

Dates to be remembered:
February 15     deadline for submission of abstract
February    registration open (fee: approximately € 350)
April   notification of abstract/poster selection
August 1    submission of draft full paper

During the conference, the Delta Alliance, Connecting Delta Cities and the C40 will be working to develop worldwide cooperation between deltas and delta cities. The Delta Alliance is an international alliance promoting effective cooperation among deltas in their efforts to manage existing and new challenges. The Connecting Delta Cities is an international network that unites delta cities that strive to make their cities climate proof.

More information is available at the  conference website and the brochure of the conference.

The Steering Committee – Pier Vellinga and Pavel Kabat
________________________________________
Programme Office Climate changes Spatial Planning / Programme Office Knowledge for Climate
p/a Wageningen UR, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA  Wageningen, the Netherlands
T +31 30 48 6540
M +31 2120 2447
E  o.van.steenis at programmabureauklimaat….
W www.climatedeltaconference.org

Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change Study:
The Global Report
 hpage at worldbank.org by Friday January 8, 2010

Siemens study says Scandinavian cities are cleanest
December 8, 2009 from DPA

Northern cool meets northern clean: The Scandinavian capitals come out best in a survey by German electrotechnical giant Siemens on Europe’s greenest conurbations.

Top of the list is Copenhagen, where the biggest UN climate summit of all time is curently into its 2nd day, followed by squeaky-clean Stockholm and the Norwegian capital Oslo. Vienna and Amsterdam score high too.

The analysis is based on the efforts of 30 European cities with a total population of 75 million people towards sustainable living and economic development in line with the so-called Green City Index. The Ukrainian capital Kiev – not renowned for its ecological correctness – comes bottom of the list of clean cities.

When it comes to yearly C02 output per citizen, the Norwegians are tops. They churn out just 2.2 tonnes of C02 per head each year compared to a EU-average of 8.5 tonnes annually. The survey said most cities has drawn up a climate strategy and all faced challenges ahead. For instance the proportion of renewable energy used by the power utiities averaged out at 7 per cent – well under the 20 per cent which the EU hoeps to achieve by 2020.

Martin Bensley, dpa

Subject: The Dutch Celebrate 400 Years of New Amsterdam with a Festival on Governor’s Island Renamed A NEW DUTCH ISLAND.
 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/arts/1…

From: WISE Amsterdam

Summer School energy and climate

from: Zeeland, the Netherlands, August 2-7, 2009

What?
This summer WISE organizes a Summer School for young adults with an above average interest in the public debate on climate change and future energy supply. During one week, the participants will be educated on climate change and nuclear energy. You will talk and think actively about the problems and solutions. There will be input from reputable and interesting speakers.

Who?
One hundred young people from all over Europe (including fifty from the Netherlands): students, activists, young people of environmental and development organizations, and others who are interested in the subject matter.

Why?
Because climate change calls for action NOW. Because more and more people say that nuclear energy is a part of the solution. Because in December the Climate Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, have to lead to a new treaty. And because with thirty of the participants we will go to Copenhagen to be close to the negotiations to create new ideas and influence them.

When?
From Sunday evening (arrival) August 2nd until Friday August 7th 2009.

Where?
In the out-door centre in Veere, Zeeland (the Netherlands). That way we have one day to go to the climate action camp (near Belgium), and a day to go to the nuclear reactor in Borssele.

What are the costs?
200 euros per person. But you’ll get an interesting program, accommodation and meals. Students will receive a discount. And there is travel re-imbursement up to 70% of your travel costs (unless you fly…)

Language?
English

What to do?
Sign up! Call +31 (0) 20-6126368, reply to this message ( wisemc at antenna.nl) or look for more information on http://www.tegenstroom.nl

————————————–
This email was sent to you by WISE Amsterdam.

Dutch Put Anti-Immigration Party in EU Parliament.

By Jurjen van de Pol, June 5, 2009, Bloomberg.

        Dutch voters gave the Freedom Party of Geert Wilders, the lawmaker who made a film linking the Koran to violence, its first seats in the European Parliament, preliminary results showed.

Wilders’ party received 17 percent of the votes or four of the 25 Dutch seats, participating in the European polls for the first time yesterday, news agency ANP reported, citing preliminary results. The Freedom Party aims to reduce European Union influence, curb immigration and reject Turkey’s membership in the bloc.

The Irish and Czechs will cast their votes today. Final results will be released June 7 after all 27 EU nations have voted.

While Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende’s Christian Democratic Alliance remains the largest party, the vote indicated the ruling coalition risks losing its majority in the Dutch parliament after yesterday’s vote suggests the Freedom Party was the country’s second largest.

“The cabinet should step down, the sooner the better,” Wilders told Dutch public television NOS. Dutch parliamentary elections are scheduled for 2011.

The worst recession since World War II may spur voters across Europe to seek alternatives to established parties for the bloc’s legislature.

Libertas, which opposed the EU treaty in a referendum in Ireland, may win seats today for the first time. In Austria, the anti-immigration Freedom Party will pick up two seats and in France a new anti-capitalist party will gain seven, forecasts by a group of scholars show. “People are fed up with a large Europe as it is now and with Turkey possibly joining,” Wilders told NOS.

————-

Police Protection:

U.K. authorities in February refused entry to Wilders after he defied a travel ban and flew into Britain for a screening of his movie “Fitna.” Wilders said in a newspaper editorial the Koran was “fascist” and should be banned. The lawmaker, who receives police protection around the clock, faces trial in his own country on charges of inciting hatred.

The Netherlands and the U.K. were the first of the European Union member states to cast their vote for the Brussels and Strasbourg-based parliament, which oversees business and environmental regulations while leaving foreign and finance policy largely in national hands. Only the Dutch publish preliminary results the same day.

Balkenende’s Christian Democratic Alliance received 19.9 percent of the votes compared with 24.4 percent in 2004 and dropped to five from seven seats, according to the preliminary results. The Labor Party of Finance Minister Wouter Bos has been overtaken by the Freedom Party. The party received three seats (12.1 percent) after gaining seven seats (23.6 percent) in the previous election.

The Netherlands controls 25 seats in the 736-member European Parliament, compared with 27 in 2004, as the total numbers of assembly seats is reduced. Dutch turnout fell to 36.5 percent from 39 percent five years ago, ANP said after 99.7 percent of the votes have been counted.

To contact the reporter on this story: Jurjen van de Pol in Amsterdam at  jvandepol at bloomberg.net

————-

A breakdown of the seat distribution in the new 736-seat European Parliament per member state in the 27-nation EU bloc. Seats are distributed based on representation by population.

Under treaty rules, the size of the EU assembly falls from the outgoing 785-seat chamber to streamline the legislature’s work to the above 736 total:

_ Germany: 82.4 million people, 99 seats
_ France: 62.9 million, 72
_ Britain: 60.4 million, 72
_ Italy: 58.7 million, 72
_ Spain: 43.76 million, 50
_ Poland: 38.2 million, 50
_ Romania: 21.6 million, 33
_ Netherlands: 16.3 million, 25
_ Greece: 11.1 million, 22
_ Portugal: 10.6 million, 22
_ Belgium: 10.5 million , 22
_ Czech Republic: 10.3 million, 22
_ Hungary: 10 million, 22
_ Sweden: 9 million, 18
_ Austria: 8.3 million, 17
_ Bulgaria: 7.7 million, 17
_ Denmark: 5.4 million, 13
_ Slovakia: 5.4 million, 13
_ Finland: 5.3 million, 13
_ Ireland: 4.2 million, 12
_ Lithuania: 3.4 million, 12
_ Latvia: 2.3 million, 8
_ Slovenia: 2.0 million, 7
_ Estonia: 1.3 million, 6
_ Cyprus: 0,7 million, 6
_ Luxembourg: 0,5 million, 6
_ Malta: 0.4 million, 5

———————-

Astonishing – the reaction from the European Commission to the Dutch results:

05.06.2009 – 15:00 on the EUobserver -
Commission criticises Dutch for early results publication
 http://euobserver.com/9/28250/?rk=1

——————–

Open Democracy, June 5, 2009,   questions the sense of the European Parliament these days of such low interest by voters in the member states:

The European parliament: problem, and solution – The sacrifice of an institution without a purpose would strengthen the European Union itself, says Anand Menon.

To read the full article please look at:   http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/the…

http://culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=422&Itemid=1

Waking Up in a Former Empire at the End of the Industrial Age.                

Or: Is It “Mean” to Tell Someone Their House is on Fire?
You can never awaken using the same system that put you to sleep in the first place. – Gurdjieff

by Suzanne Duarte
www.CultureChange.org, 13 May 2009
Dearest Ones of Future Generations,

I thought you might find it interesting to hear what I’m observing of those people I know about who are just waking up to what the state of the planet is. Last month saw Earth Day, an international day of observance for the Earth. For nearly 40 years, it has been a day when environmentalists have had a chance to provide a reckoning of the damage that industrial civilization has been inflicting on the natural world. It is usually a time when print media make some obligatory gesture of recognition that humans live on a planet that we depend upon and that needs our attention. This year the statements were a little more urgent than usual, especially about climate change, which is increasingly referred to as “climate emergency.”

The reason that we are in a climate emergency — in fact, a biological holocaust, as it was identified over 20 yrs ago — is that the dominant Western, globalized culture has been in a “cultural trance,” drunk on oil, living in a delusional bubble for about 60 years. Now, the question is, is it unkind or rude or unskillful to try to wake people up from their cultural trance and point out that we are endangering the future of our species, and many others, to remain asleep? Is it “mean” to wake somebody up to tell them that their house is on fire? A lot of people seem to think so.

I’ve lost friends by trying to wake them up. Waking up at this time of the Great Turning from the industrial growth society to a life-sustaining way of life is painful.

Many people still don’t want to know, don’t want to think, because it would entail facing painful truths and making hard choices. They can stand to think about it only briefly on one day out of the year. This is the reason I write letters to the future.

I feel that beings of the future need and deserve an explanation for the destruction caused by my generation. And I can be more straightforward with you than with my contemporaries, for the aforementioned reasons.

In the last resort, perhaps I am writing only to my future incarnations to remind them of what this lifetime was like, remind them of the dismay, frustration and pain of not being able to wake people up so that the future might be more livable.

In any case, this missive is about what I observe to be the difficult stages of waking up at this time of crisis and danger. There is complex inner terrain to traverse before we can identify the opportunities and the adventure that await us if we have the courage to wake up and make the Great Turning. The challenge is that the Great Turning requires a psychological transformation from childlike dependence on external authorities and their outworn belief systems, to a mature, individuated, authentic sense of responsibility for oneself and one’s effects on the world. This is a major transformation, much more than is normally implied when we, at this time, speak of ‘growing up.’

It seems that the hardest part of waking up at this time is facing the fact that it is too late to avoid the pain, suffering and loss that could have been forestalled, had humans collectively heeded the warnings. The warnings were and are rational and scientifically based. The denial of the warnings was and is irrational, based on false beliefs. Pointing out that the denial was collective and irrational causes some people to point the ‘shame and blame’ finger at those who make this point. Instead of allowing themselves to evaluate the truth of the statement, they whine, ‘You’re shaming and blaming us. That’s not healing. You’re being apocalyptic. We don’t want to hear it, and it’s your fault for not giving us the message of hope that we need.’ This is a common shoot-the-messenger response, in which people who don’t like the message blame, or ‘shoot,’ the messenger.

The message of ‘hope’ that is demanded is the hope that we don’t have to take responsibility for ourselves and our world by changing how we live, and what we preoccupy ourselves with. The hope that many people want is very conditional. They can only take hope if they are reassured that things will continue as they have been during these very extraordinary last few decades.

The cultural trance prevents people from recognizing that the reality of living on Earth is unconditional. Our survival depends upon facing the reality of the larger living system we depend upon, and that larger living system doesn’t make deals. We can’t bargain with it. We live within its jurisdiction. The Earth has been very patient. It has put up with a lot of abuse, but the biological life of living systems is quite fragile, very vulnerable to damage by machines. Living systems have limits and tipping points beyond which breakdown and/or evolution can occur. The limits to which we can push living systems have been in view for decades. Because the limits were ignored, we are now seeing and experiencing the tipping point stage, and systemic chaos can therefore be expected.

The reality is that, not only do we have to change the way we live, but we need to recognize our part in creating this necessity. In order to survive we need to own this responsibility and grow up, so that we don’t repeat our mistakes again. That this message is taken as an insult is an ego-based default response, which is irrational and childish. This is the crux of the reason that humanity needs to grow up. Growing up resets these immature default settings. Growing up means accepting responsibility, taking the blame upon oneself, acknowledging one’s blind spots, and one’s dysfunctional social conditioning. Growing up means getting honest and feeling remorse for the consequences of one’s childishness and self-deception.

This is the point where we are right now, collectively. The minority of visionary Cassandras is turning out to be correct. But that is small comfort since they/we are still facing the wrath – and the consequences – of the majority who rejected foresight, and want to blame somebody, scapegoat somebody. The stages of grief have to be worked through in the process of waking up: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and finally acceptance. Coming out of denial, the next reaction for most people is anger.

But I hope you of future generations can have some sympathy and compassion for those who are just waking up, because the discrepancy between the dream they are coming out of and the reality they must face is quite enormous. Some people talk about how “we need a new story,” a new cosmology, and this is true as far as it goes. But there are two facts that belie the simplicity of that statement. One is that the new story is still in gestation and isn’t yet a ‘live birth.’ The other is that the gap between the cultural trance of the old story and the unfolding reality of the world has never – in the history of our species – been so wide as it has become in Western civilization. The American Dream, in particular, has been so disconnected from the reality of the Earth that waking up from it is truly a ‘rude awakening,’ as we say, that can seem traumatic. Although waking up may be most difficult for Americans, that dream has also entranced much of the rest of the world.

However, since I am an American, I can identify with the difficulty of waking up from the American Dream. I know from experience that it entails working through layers and layers of collective delusion: the sense of entitlement and security of being a citizen within the “greatest country the world has ever known”; the sense that our country is superior and can do no wrong, and that it is ‘exceptional’ and will not collapse like other civilizations and empires; the sense that America is entitled to take what it wants from the rest of the world – by force if necessary; the sense that living in the United States is an unsurpassable blessing for which we should be grateful; the sense that ‘we’ (Americans) are the best people; and the sense that loyalty to our country demands that we turn a blind eye to its wrongdoings and faults. These are the delusions of the citizens of empire, carried over from ancient tribalistic habitual patterns.

Just to wake up to the injustices, lies, and crimes of our empire, and to realize that our arrogant assumptions of entitlement and superiority are baseless, takes a lot of courage; for to face these things means we must step out of the herd, and leave the herd mentality of the majority behind. This is a necessary part of growing up.

But once we’ve woken up to the injustices of our empire, the next step in growing up and facing reality is the realization that our empire is faltering and failing; in fact, it is disintegrating. At this stage one peeks over the edge of the cloud or the cliff and begins to comprehend how far it is to the ground – how far we have to fall. This is where we truly begin to realize that we are living in a former empire at the end of the industrial age, and that ‘progress’ as we’ve known it is over. Then we begin to comprehend that the glories of the way of life we’ve taken for granted – the glamour, ease and convenience of the industrial age – can never, ever be repeated, because our civilization has stripped the Earth of the resources that are accessible through the use of fossil fuels, and fossil fuels are going away. As Richard Heinberg has detailed for us, we have reached “Peak Everything” and after the peak, the only way is down.

This “Long Descent” or “Long Emergency” – as John Michael Greer and James Howard Kunstler, respectively, have described it – is the future that the majority of citizens of former empires have not yet been able to face. I don’t mean just Americans.

——-

I live in another former empire, the Netherlands. Here is what I recently observed of the masses in this overcrowded country.

Queens Day, April 30, 2009
With the sun shining and temperatures in the low 60s, boats and barges full of people wearing bright orange, often standing up shoulder-to-shoulder, float by on the canal, blaring loud music. The Dutch make a lot of noise celebrating their Dutchness on this national holiday, celebrating the chance to take a day off in the sunshine after a long, dark winter.

This is the way the Dutch have ‘fun’: they crowd together in the streets and on barges and boats, and make a lot of noise. They wear their national color, orange, to show their nationalistic solidarity. They play popular music at high volume and wave their arms in the air to express themselves. They get drunk and do crazy things. Today a driver drove his car into a crowd of people, and four people died. My Dutch husband said it was simply ‘mania,’ a mania he reported seeing on the streets yesterday as people prepared to ‘celebrate.’ The Dutch are prone to do crazy things when they have an excuse to relax their habitual stiffness.

I catch myself looking at these people unkindly. I am not only detached, but arrogantly so. Yet I immediately recognize that my arrogance is a cover for the sadness I feel, knowing that the loud display of color and sound is a cover for a psychological condition, of which the Dutch are in stubborn denial. I think about all the petroleum that is being wasted to power these people around and around the canals of the city, trying so hard to have a good time. What is behind this frivolity? Why do people waste time, energy and resources on such frivolity, if it isn’t an avoidance mechanism – an avoidance of the truth? Do they know at some level that they live in a former empire at the end of the industrial age? Is this the subconscious awareness, the anxiety that is fueling their manic ‘fun’?

I am reminded of the drunken parties of the Nazi elites, portrayed in many films, just before the fall of Berlin and Hitler’s suicide, which marked the end of World War II. This kind of frivolous abandon – also evoked by the image of the mad emperor Nero fiddling while Rome burned – seems to be a compensatory measure of resistance to facing a reality that cannot be faced. The drunken parties precede suicide.

——-
Not far from the Dutch geographically or politically is another former empire, Britain. Both the UK and the Netherlands have supported the American empire in its military adventures to control the supply of oil. But the Brits seem to be expressing their anxiety slightly less frivolously – by attacking each other for policies that are meant to maintain the status quo and the illusion that economic recovery is possible. (The British are much better at publicly arguing with each other than the Dutch are.) However, things seem to be in a more advanced stage of economic and social breakdown in the UK than in Holland, and grassroots movements – notably Transition initiatives – are far more robust in the UK than in Holland. In fact, they started there. I attribute the Transition movement’s birth in the UK to the deeper spiritual connection with the natural world that people traditionally have had in the British Isles, and also a deeper understanding of the dark side of industrialism. After all, the industrial revolution started in England, which provoked several opposition movements – the Romantic poets, the Arts and Crafts movement, and the Luddite protests against machines, not to mention many novels. It’s almost as though something in the British cultural psyche has been waiting and preparing for the end of the industrial age since it began.

Waking up to living in a former empire at the end of the industrial age brings gravitas to one’s outlook, as Kurt Cobb suggests in Does understanding complexity beget a tragic view of life? One does not and cannot celebrate as the Dutch were celebrating outside my window. That kind of frivolous abandon is no longer possible once one has worked through the cultural trance, come down to Earth, and accepted responsibility. Then celebration takes on a decidedly more sober, mindful, even reverential tone.

——

But, dear ones of the future, few people in this former empire, Holland, or in America (which will soon be globally recognized as a former empire) have acquired the gravitas – the groundedness in reality – to prepare for the end of cheap oil, or any of the other circumstances that will radically change our supposedly ‘non-negotiable’ way of life.

So, if you can, try to see the wastefulness and triviality that are so prevalent at this time as the desperation of an immature culture, which is resisting the necessity of a rite of passage that only those capable of growing up are likely to survive. The ones who do survive are likely to be your ancestors. They will probably be the ones who woke up in time and prepared for the end of the industrial age and climate change.

With love and compassion for all future beings,

Suzanne

———————-
Suzanne Duarte
Suzanne Duarte has been teaching Buddhadharma, Deep Ecology, and Ecopsychology for over 30 years, including Peak Oil since 2005. Later this year she will launch her new website, Dharmagaians.org and its blog. This essay will be the kind of thing that will appear on her Dharmagaians blog.

***** EUobserver.com – 05.04.2009 ******************************************

Liberals and Democrats for Europe in the European Parliament organise the
first European Civil Liberties Day on April 15th.

We wish to create a platform at the European level and gather at least 20
organisations working in different fields, e.g. freedom of speech, data
protection, transparency, asylum, gender equality etc.

Venue: 15/04/2009, 14.30-16.30, Forum Bar, ASP, 3rd floor, European
Parliament.

Please register by contacting  latifa.afafe at europarl.europa.eu by 3rd April
and visit our website:
 http://www.alde.eu/en/campaigns/civil-li…

***** THE NEWS *************************************************************

04.04.2009 – 21:52
NATO talks on Rasmussen impact EU-Turkey relations
 http://euobserver.com/9/27915/?rk=1

04.04.2009 – 15:35
NATO takes in two more former Communist states
 http://euobserver.com/9/27914/?rk=1

 Monday update: US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced in Ankara that President Obama’s first trip to an Islamic country will be in April 2009 – to Turkey. Turkey last year mediated between Syria and Israel in talks suspended because of the Gaza offensive – and the US is keen to see those talks revived. Also, it seems to be Obama policy to show that there is more to the Islamic World then Arab oil. Ankara’s good relations with Tehran may also become an asset.

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

 The two day meeting, Friday March 6th – Saturday March 7th, is a serious effort to dig deeper into the background of Turkey’s attempt to become the only Muslim-majority member-country of the European Union. Even a Dutch politician, Joost Lagendijk from the Green Left, a Member of the European Parliament Committee on Foreign Affairs, Chairman of the Delegation to the European Union – Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee, is one of the speakers at the last Panel on Saturday afternoon. We had a chance to talk to him on Saturday – but on this later.

The First Panel, on Friday Morning, after the opening remarks by Professor Alfred Stepan, Wallace Sayre Professor of Government, Columbia University, was handed over for Chairing to Columbia University Professor Rashid Khalidi, and our introductory posting   refers to him, rather then to the excellent presentations of the panel.

The Star of the panel was the discussant Professor Richard Bulliet – Professor of History at Columbia University, a Turk.   He is the author of “The Case for Islamo-Christian Civilization” and a co-editor of The Encyclopedia of the Middle East.

The Panel included:

Professor Karen Barkey, Professor of Sociology, Columbia University, who spoke on “Empire and Religious Diversity:The Ottoman Model in Contemporary Perspective.” She has edited and researched topics of “After Empire: Multi-ethnic Societies and Nation-Building, the Soviet Union, and the Russian, Ottoman, and Habsburg Empires.”

Professor Sukru Hanioglu, a Turk, Chair of Near Eastern Studies at princeton University, the author of “Brief History of the Ottoman Empire, Preparation for a Revolution: The Young Turks, 1902-1908,” and “Young Turks in Opposition.”   He spoke naturally on “The Historical Roots of Kemalism.”

and Anthropolgy Professor Nur Yalman, a Turk, from Harvard University, who studied Caste, Kinship, and Marriage in Sri Lanka, but also co-authored “A Passage to Peace Global Solutions from East and West.” His topic is titled: “The Three ways of Politics’ Revisited: Whither the People of the ‘Sublime State?”

The above panel looked at the span in time:   “FROM THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE TO THE TURKISH REPUBLIC.”

It was history, sociology, anthropology – it looked into women issues, into the place of religion – the question of a State controlling religious belief rather then the trite question of Religion and State. In an empire there are at any moment a multitude of relations between the State and religions. Professor Bulliet was at pain getting back to it –   that in the Turkish case there is a generality of Islam – it is really a de-centering   of differences in the Islam – this is at variance with the Arab world with their Shiia and Sunni conflicts. Turkey was also not colonized – this makes it different from the Arab and Iranian world. In effect Turkey managed to turn WWI into   victory from defeat. The feeling in Turkey is that what is important in Turkey – is what happens in the country itself – they are much less dependent on what goes on outside their territory.

The moderator, Rashid Khalidi, was the weakest link on that panel – he just kept showing that he does not belong there, and as we will soon show, he probably does not belong at Columbia University all together. He kept arguing that the notion “The Arabs and the Turks are separate entities is totally bogus!” Why was he really there?

Professor Rashid Khalidi is the Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University, but unlike Professor Edward Said who was a man of very large-scope culture, and even when his politics were attacked from various quarters, he was never discredited as a source of intelligent thought, the man that Columbia University appointed to the chair named after Edward Said is a flat one issue man – the Palestinian anti-Zionist music is all what he knows to play – and sources in the Middle East, rather then sources in Middle America, are the rock on which he was established. The case in front of us – the serious symposium on Turkish issues, is just one case that highlighted the inappropriate Columbia University appointment.

From - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashid_Khal… – and to be fair let us also note the Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, comment: This page is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved.
This protection is not an endorsement of the current version.

Khalidi was born in New York. Khalidi is the son of Ismail Khalidi and the nephew of Husayin al-Khalidi.[2] He is the father of Ismail Khalidi (writer). He grew up in New York City where his father, a Saudi citizen[2] of Palestinian origins who was born in Jerusalem,[3] worked for the United Nations.[2][4] Khalidi’s mother, a Lebanese-American Christian born in the United States, was an interior decorator. Khalidi attended the United Nations International School.[3]
In 1970, Khalidi received a B.A. from Yale University,[5] where he was a member of Wolf’s Head Society.[6] He then received a D. Phil. from Oxford University in 1974.[1] Between 1976 and 1983, Khalidi “was teaching full time as an Assistant Professor in the Political Studies and Public Administration Dept. at the American University of Beirut, published two books and several articles, and also was a research fellow at the independent Institute for Palestine Studies.”[7] He has also taught at the Lebanese University.[5]
Khalidi became politically active in Beirut, where he resided through the 1982 Lebanon War. “I was deeply involved in politics in Beirut” in the 1970s, he said in an interview.[8] Khalidi was cited in the media during this period, sometimes as an official with the Palestinian News Service, Wafa, or directly with the Palestinian Liberation Organization.[9] However, Khalidi has denied that he was a PLO spokesman,[10] stating that he “…often spoke to journalists in Beirut, who usually cited me without attribution as a well-informed Palestinian source. If some misidentified me at the time, I am not aware of it.”[7] Subsequent sources disagree on the nature or existence of Khalidi’s official relationship with the organization.[11]
Returning to America, Khalidi spent two years teaching at Columbia University before joining the faculty of the University of Chicago in 1987 where he spent eight years as a professor and director of both the Center for Middle Eastern Studies and the Center for International Studies at the University of Chicago.[12] During the Gulf War, while teaching at Chicago, Khalidi “emerged “as one of the most influential commentators from within Middle Eastern Studies.”[13] In 2003 he joined the faculty of Columbia University. He has also taught at Georgetown University.[citation needed]
Khalidi is married to Mona Khalidi, who is the Assistant Dean of Student Affairs and the Assistant Director of Graduate Studies of the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University.[14] He is a member of the National Advisory Committee of the U.S. Interreligious Committee for Peace in the Middle East, which describes itself as “a national organization of Jews, Christians and Muslims dedicated to dialogue, education and advocacy for peace based on the deepest teachings of the three religious traditions.”[15]
He is member of the Board of Sponsors of The Palestine–Israel Journal, a publication founded by Ziad AbuZayyad and Victor Cygielman, prominent Palestinian and Israeli journalists.[16]
He is founding trustee of The Center for Palestine Research and Studies.[17]
Academic work

Khalidi’s research covers primarily the history of the modern Middle East. He focuses on the countries of the southern and eastern Mediterranean, with an eye to the emergence of various national identities and the role played by external powers in their development. He also researches the impact of the press on forming new senses of community, the role of education in the construction of political identity, and in the way narratives have developed over the past centuries in the region.[1] Michael C. Hudson, director of the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies at Georgetown, describes Khalidi as “preeminent in his field.”[18] He served as President of the Middle East Studies Association of North America in 1994. Khalidi is currently editor of the Journal of Palestine Studies.[19]
Much of Khalidi’s scholarly work in the 1990s focused on the historical construction of nationalism in the Arab world. Drawing on the work of theorist Benedict Anderson who described nations as “imagined communities”, he does not posit primordial national identities, but clearly argues that these nations have legitimacy and rights. In Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness (1997), he places the emergence of Palestinian national identity in the context of Ottoman and British colonialism as well as the early Zionist effort in the Levant. This book won the Middle East Studies Association’s Albert Hourani Prize as best book of 1997.[20] His dating of Palestinian national emergence to the early 20th century and his tracing of its contours provide a rejoinder to Israeli nationalist claims that Palestinians either do not exist, or had no collective claims prior to the 1948 creation of Israel.[citation needed] Nevertheless, Khalidi is also careful to focus on the late development, failings and internal divisions within the various elements of the Palestinian nationalist movement as well.[citation needed]
In Resurrecting Empire: Western Footprints and America’s Perilous Path in the Middle East (2004), Khalidi takes readers on a historical tour of Western intervention in the Middle East, and argues that these interventions continue to have a colonialist nature that is both morally unacceptable and likely to backfire.[citation needed]
Palestinian Identity
Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness (1997), is probably Khalidi’s most influential book, and certainly the most widely cited. In Palestinian Identity, Khalidi demonstrates that a Palestinian national consciousness had it origins near the beginning of the twentieth century. This is not, however, the kind of simplistic reading that dates a nation’s origin to a point in time. Rather, Khalidi describes the Arab population of British Mandatory Palestine as having “overlapping identities,” with some or many expressing loyalties to villages, regions, a projected nation of Palestine, an alternative of inclusion in a Greater Syria, an Arab national project, as well as to Islam.[21] Nevertheless, his book was the first to demonstrate substantive Palestinian nationalism in the early Mandatory period. As Khalidi writes, “Local patriotism could not yet be described as nation-state nationalism.”[22]
Khalidi also demonstrates the active oppositon of the Arab press to Zionism in the 1880s.[23]

Further, I must add here that one of the most interesting comments I heard while sitting at lunch next to a Quebec-Canadian that lives now in Tokyo. She brought to my attention that Japan is very similar to Turkey because it had a transition from its military past leadership to a democratic system, but as Islam, in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic ethics’ tradition id imbued with ethical concepts, nothing of the kind exists in Japan where religion was not based on ethics – but the military was handling the situation by simple repression with power. She actually would welcome Japan learning from the Turkish experience in order to achieve a modicum of humanization in the Japanese system. i found this quite interesting and continued the thought by comparing Chinese Confucian thought to the Buddhist Japanese system. In effect, Confucius with clearly about getting the folks to bow to power – so, is here a difference that explains the real East from a West that in the old days started somewhere in India?

—–

The second panel on Friday dealt with: “Religion. Religious Parties, and Democracy.” It included Professor Stepan, Professor Statys Kalyvas of Yale University, and Myrjam Kunkler of Princeton U., as Discussant. The latter is author of “The Role of Religious Institutions in Democratic Transition Processe.”

—–

The Sunday morning session was about “The AKP Government and the Military,” and was again chaired by Professor Stepan. On his panel where Professor Umit Cizre of Bilkent University in Turkey – editor of “TheSecular and Islamic Politics in Turkey: The Making of Justice and Development Party,” and Ahmet Kuru – a postdoctoral Columbia University fellow who is the author of “Secularism and State Policies towards Religion – The US, France, and Turkey.”

AKP – Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi – Justice and Development Party – is the Islamic Party of Tayyip Edogan, the former Mayor of Istanbul, Prime Minister of the Republic of Turkey since 14 March 2003, his party came to power came to power in November 2002 and he is often credited as the head of a liberal party. However, the party’s liberalism seems selective. For instance, while the AKP’s constitutional amendments on the turban will further increase the rights of the Muslim majority in Turkey, explicit measures for the protection of non-Muslim minorities are still deficient, according to the European Commission. The AKP’s liberal credentials can also be questioned in the economic sphere. And this is now the background of the EU – Turkey difficulties.

——

The Saturday afternoon Session was titled: “Politics of the EU, Constitution, and Democratization.” This session we will review a little more in depth as it is the real reason for the seminar and for the release of the eventual report as a book.

The Session was chaired by Professor Karen Barkey, and the Discussant was Professor Stepan; on the Panel were:

Mr. Joost Langedijk who addresses directly – “Turkey’s Membership to the EU: Perceptions and Processes;”

Professor Andrew Arato, the Dorothy Hirshon Professor of Political Theory at the New School for Social Research, and author of “Constitution Making under Occupation: The Politics of Imposed Revolution in Iraq, and Civil Society Constitution, and Legitimacy.” His title was “Legality and Legitimacy in the Making of a New Turkish Constitution;”

and Professor Ergun Ozubudun,   of the Bilkent University, Turkey, author of “Contemporary Turkish Politics: Challenges to Democratic Consolidation and co-editor of Ataturk: Founder of a Modern State.” His presentation had the title – “Turkish Democracy in constitutional Crisis.”

Joos Langedijk told me that he will leave the European Parliament, where he belongs to the Green Party, and move to Turkey in order to help the Turks prepare for a better chance to be accepted into the EU. With this information I was even more eager to hear what he had to say.

In his presentation he started from 2002 when an anti EU party, the AKP, took over, but then when in December 2004 the EU decided to start accession negotiations   with Turkey in October 2005, that party, surprisingly, actually turned out presenting a favorable and eager face to the proceedings, but it slowed down the speed of reforms. The background also includes that in France and the Netherlands, people did not understand what the EU treaty will do, voted against, and left Turkey with the feeling that they are not wanted. On the other hand, in 2004 Cyprus was let into the Union – and this was a mistake – an anti Turkey move that further turned Turkey away. A strange alliance developed between the European left and the Turkish Right – this alliance favored Turkey’s accession and Joos Langedijk’s Green Party is part of this alliance.

Joos described the Islamicist party as the “new kids on the bloc – from Anatolya – challenging the Istanbul and Ankara establishment. They looked at secularism as a new religion in Turkey – were religious Islamic – thought they were conservative liberal – but were unable to explain their view of liberalism. In 2008 there was support in the EU Parliament but the APT did not push for change on issues of limit to freedom of speech.Had they stayed secular it would have helped. In Morocco and Egypt there is much interest in what happens with Turkey Joos Langedijk concluded.

Ergun Ozbudun pointed out that the State is monolithic – pluralism is not reflected in the Islamic State. The development of a truly pluralistic State is not a constitutional question but is something rooted deeply in the society. The Ottoman Empire was a purely pluralistic society, with the Republic having lost first in the Armenian question, and then in other events. In the Empire Turks were 10-15% – now they decided to be the majority. Society continued to be pluralistic nevertheless, but the State was monolithic. Andrew Arato said previously that the Turkish People had the right to give themselves any Constitution they please and he did not seem to attribute importance to what the constitution says. The Joke went that it was TMSS – Turkish, Muslim, Sunni, Secular – whatever that meant. They were Muslim but wanted to behave like Ivy League – read drink alcohol etc. Today Turkey is behind East and Central Europe in the consolidation of Democracy – and this is an impediment for accession. Sure, the original Constitution has already 15 amendments, but it is probably hard to save. It was the military that introduced religious education to the schools – now one sees clearly the mistake this was.

Further the problem with the Kurdish identity. The problems here put Turkey back for years. Professor Nur Yalman said that it would make sense to have a Federal State and Professor Ergun Ozbudun adds that if you go to South-East Turkey, to a village – by law you are not supposed to speak Kurdish – but they do not understand you because nobody speaks anything else. Here the comment about India and Sri Lanka – two States that became independent 1948-49. While Ghandi insisted already in Bombay, in 1922 that when there will be a State it will have three languages – two National languages – Hindi and English and a third local language as appropriate to the differing States – this in a country where at the time of that meeting, in Bombay only 2% of the people spoke English or Hindi. When Independence came, Nehru kept the 1922 decision and there was internal peace on the language front. When Sri Lanka became independent, the Nationalists demanded there should be only one official language – the language of the majority – so they still fight today.

Joos Langedijk remarked about Turkey, that you do not make yourself liked by the EU by making yourself important in the region – what the EU wants to see is democracy and human rights. I asked if anyone thought that A Turkey with oil and gas pipelines could be an asset to the EU so it gets in easier? The answer was still that democracy and human rights come first. Joos continued by saying that some Germans, thinking of the energy diversification issue, pipelines, Nabuco etc., propose preferential treaties – but nobody is in the clear how this would work.

Mr. Osman Hummaida (for interviews in Arabic or English), human rights researcher and former Director of the Sudanese Organization Against Torture Tel: please contact Sasha Tenenbaum at (+1) 646.465.8524 E-mail: oshirazu@hotmail.com	Mr. Dismas Nkunda, Darfur Consortium and International Refugee Rights Initiative (Kampala, Uganda) Tel: +256414340274 Mobile tel: +256 75 331 0404 E-mail: dismas.nkunda@refugee-rights.org
Ms. Niemat Ahmadi, Save Darfur Coalition and Darfuri Leaders Network (Washington, D.C., USA) Mobile tel: +1 804 439 2022 E-mail: niemat2002@yahoo.com	Ms. Olivia Bueno, Associate Director, Darfur Consortium/ International Refugee Rights Initiative (New York, USA) Mobile tel: +1 646 301 8938 E-mail: olivia.bueno@refugee-rights.org
Ms. Ashley Roberts, Media Relations manager, Save Darfur Coalition (Washington, D.C., USA) for interviews with U.S.- based Darfuri leaders Tel: 202-478-6181 E-mail: ashley@savedarfur.org	Dr. Khalid Cherkaoui Semmouni President, Centre Marocain des Droits de l’Homme (Rabat, Morocco) Mobile Tel: +212 68 68 11 38 E-mail: semmouni2003@yahoo.fr
Mr. Richard Dicker, Director, International Justice Program, Human Rights Watch (New York, USA) Mobile tel: +1 917 747 6731 E-mail: dickerr@hrw.org	Mr. Nicolas Burniat, Pennoyer Fellow and Senior Associate, Crimes Against Humanity Program, Human Rights First (New York, USA) Mobile tel: +1 917 3289252 E-mail: burniatn@HumanRightsFirst.org
Dr. Karine Bonneau, Director of the International Justice Desk, International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) (Paris, France) Mobile tel: +33 6 72 34 87 59 Email : kbonneau@fidh.org	Mr. Christopher Hall, Senior Legal Adviser, Amnesty International (London, UK) Tel.: +44 207 241 1728 E-mail: chall@amnesty.org
Ms. Carla Ferstman, Director, REDRESS (London, UK) Tel: +44 20 7793 1777 E-mail: carla@redress.org	Dr. David Donat Cattin, Director of Programmes, Parliamentarians for Global Action (The Hague, The Netherlands) Mobile tel: +31 6 23 31 8581 Email: donat@pgaction.org
Ms. Brigid Inder, Executive Director, Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice (The Hague, The Netherlands) Tel: +31 70 302 9911 Mobile tel: +31 62 03807184 E-mail: brigid@iccwomen.org	Ms. Alison Smith, Legal Counsel, No Peace Without Justice (Brussels, Belgium) Mobile tel: +32 486 986 235 Email: alison@sensible.it
Mr. John Washburn, Convener, American NGO Coalition for the ICC (New York, USA) Tel: +1 212 907 1317; Email: jwashburn@unausa.org	Mr. Dadimos Haile, Head of the Thematic and International Justice Department, Avocats Sans Frontières (Brussels, Belgium) Tel: +32 2 22 33 654 E-mail: DHaile@asf.be
Ms. Lorraine Smith, IBA Programme Manager, International Bar Association (The Hague, the Netherlands) Tel: +31 70 302 2859 Mobile Tel: + 30 (0)634266310 Email: lorraine.smith@int-bar.org

The Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC) is holding a press briefing this morning 4 March 2009 at 10:00 a.m. promptly in Room 226 at the United Nations Secretariat in New York in response to the upcoming International Criminal Court Pre-Trial Chamber I’s decision concerning the Prosecutor’s 14 July 2008 application for the issuance of an arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmad Al-Bashir.  

The Coalition’s briefing will be streamed live and archived via the UN Webcast website at http://www.un.org/webcast/

The Coalition’s briefing will follow the Court’s press conference scheduled earlier today, 4 March, at 2 p.m. in The Hague (or 8 a.m. Eastern Standard Time) at the seat of the Court during which the Chamber’s decision with regard to the issuance of a warrant of arrest against President Al-Bashir will be announced.

Coalition briefing panelists include Richard Dicker, the director of Human Rights Watch’s International Justice Program, Niemat Ahmadi, the Darfuri Liaison Officer at the Save Darfur Coalition and Tanya Karanasios, the director of programs at the Coalition who will act as moderator. Brief remarks will be followed by Q&A.

Please note that later today, the Coalition will distribute to this list its press release on the Chamber’s decision as well as a list of experts from international and Sudanese human rights organizations for comment and background on the decision. Our website, www.iccnow.org , will be continually updated with member statements, Question and Answer documents, etc. as they are made available on or around 4 March.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact directly    tenenbaum at iccnow.org copying my colleague in The Hague,  maillet at iccnow.org

——————-

Sasha Tenenbaum
Communications Officer
Coalition for the International Criminal Court
708 Third Avenue, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel.:       +1 (646) 465-8524
Fax:       +1 (212) 599-1332
 tenenbaum at iccnow.org

—————-
Together for Justice: Civil society in 150 countries advocating for a fair, effective and independent ICC.

For more information, visit the new website at www.iccnow.org or www.togetherforjustice.org and participate in their blog, In Situ: See Justice through the Eyes of Civil Society, at www.iccnow.org

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

LIBYAN PRESIDENCY OF UN COUNCIL TO FOCUS ON PEACEKEEPING POLICY, SUDAN .

(THIS AS PER THE OFFICIAL UN NEWS RELEASE)

Peacekeeping policy and the repercussions of a possible indictment of the Sudanese President by the International Criminal Court (ICC) are among top concerns of the Security Council this month, according to the Charge d’affaires of Libya, the body’s March president.

There is nothing scheduled by the Council as an immediate reaction to tomorrow’s expected decision on an indictment of President Omar Al-Bashir for war crimes in violence-torn Darfur, Ibrahim Dabbashi said. (The Libyan President of the UNSG – for March 2009)
However, he added, there were ongoing consultations with Council Members on a possible decision under article 16 of the Rome Statute that set up the ICC, which could defer investigations connected with an indictment for 12 months.

“We hope the situation will not deteriorate in Sudan. We feel it is very important that the Security Council look into this matter in light of the decisions taken by the Regional Organizations, especially the African Union and the League of Arab States,” he said.

There was as yet no consensus on the matter, he said, and the Council would continue its consultations and closely watch the situation on the ground in the meantime, he added.

An estimated 300,000 people have died, either through direct combat or because of disease, malnutrition or reduced life expectancy over the past five years in Darfur, where rebels have been fighting Government forces and allied Arab militias.

Yesterday, Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, Alan Le Roy, said that the African Union-United Nations Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) would continue to perform its duties to protect civilians no matter what decision the ICC takes.

Also unrelated to the decision, a briefing by the Council Committee that oversees an arms embargo and related sanctions in Sudan is scheduled for 10 March.

In regard to peacekeeping policy, Mr. Dabbashi said that on 18 March an open debate is planned on the report of the AU-UN Panel on joint peacekeeping operations, chaired by Libya’s Minister for African Affairs.

A retreat on peacekeeping for Council Members will take place from the 20th to the 23rd of the month, and a Council mission to Haiti is planned for 11-14 March.

A debate is also scheduled on piracy and the peace process in Somalia on 20 March as a follow-up to the two resolutions on the subject that were adopted by the Council in December 2008.

In addition to the regular monthly briefing on the Middle East, discussions and actions are also slotted on the UN missions in Central African Republic and Chad (MINURCAT), Kosovo (UNMIK), Afghanistan (UNAMA) and elsewhere, Mr. Dabbashi said.

———–===========————

See also from this UN News Press Release:

SECURITY SITUATION CALM IN DARFUR, UN-AFRICAN UNION BLUE HELMETS REPORT

The United Nations-Africa Union (AU) hybrid peacekeeping operation in Darfur known as UNAMID today reported that the security situation in war-ravaged Sudanese region is calm.

Forces with the mission are operating as normal, conducting patrols and closely monitoring the state of affairs throughout the area.

The pre-trial chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) will announce tomorrow whether it will issue an arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir on charges of war crimes.

Alain Le Roy, Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, said yesterday that regardless of what the ICC decides, UNAMID will continue to protect the local Darfurian population.

“The Government would assume its full duty of protecting UN missions in Sudan against any negative impact that may result from ICC possible decision against the Sudanese political leadership,” he told reporters in New York yesterday.

UNAMID was set up by the Security Council to protect civilians in Darfur, where an estimated 300,000 people have been killed and another 2.7 million have been forced from their homes since fighting erupted in 2003, pitting rebels against Government forces and allied Janjaweed militiamen.

One year from the transfer of responsibility to UNAMID from the AU Mission in Sudan (AMIS), over 60 per cent of the 19,555 military personnel authorized by the Security Council are now in place.

Meanwhile, regarding a shooting incident in a market in El Fasher where one person was killed and six others injured, UNAMID received information that armed militiamen were attempting to loot shops, allegedly due to their anger over not having received salaries.

* * *

BAN, FORMER US PRESIDENT CLINTON TO JOIN FORCES TO HELP HAITI

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has invited former United States President Bill Clinton to join him on an upcoming trip to Haiti to raise awareness of efforts to help the Caribbean nation’s people and government bolster their economic security.

According to a statement issued by his spokesperson, Mr. Ban’s decision was spurred by the former American leader’s attention to Haiti while in office, his work as a United Nations Special Envoy for Tsunami Recovery after the devastating 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and his September 2008 call to help Haiti as part of his Clinton Global Initiative (CGI).

Next week’s visit builds on Mr. Ban’s continuing work with Haitian President René Préval to find a way to create jobs and improve food security, reforestation and the provision of basic services, including health care.

“The presence of the Secretary-General and President Clinton will bring a strong message of hope that Haiti is still ‘winnable,’” the statement noted.

“The trip will help to focus attention on the importance for new partnerships and new efforts to assist the people and government of Haiti as they continue to ‘build back better’ from recent storm damage and create a more stable and prosperous future for the children of Haiti.”

Yesterday, Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations Alain Le Roy – who visited the country in January – told reporters of the “allure of hope” in the impoverished country.

* * *

GAZA: AFTER DONOR CONFERENCE, AID INFLOW STILL RESTRICTED, UN SAYS

Despite calls at yesterday’s donor conference for the unfettered import of aid and reconstruction supplies to the combat-battered Gaza strip, Israeli authorities continue to block crucial supplies, the United Nations said today.

Key crossings remain closed or partially closed, reconstruction materials are still prohibited, and restrictions on food types, clothing and schoolbooks have been maintained, the UN Office for Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) said in an update on the situation in Gaza today.

“More than 80 percent of all goods currently allowed into Gaza are basic foods,” OCHA said, adding that materials for home rebuilding and repair of water, sanitation and power infrastructure were urgently needed.

As of 2 March, the Coastal Municipalities Water Utility (CMWU), Gaza’s water utility, reported that 50,000 people still do not have access to piped water and an additional 100,000 receive water approximately every 7-10 days.

According to GEDCO, Gaza’s power utility, the power deficit throughout the Gaza Strip as of yesterday remained at 19 per cent, with 90 per cent of the Gaza population receiving intermittent electricity and 10 per cent completely off the grid.

Those conditions will not improve until the necessary pipes, generators and other basic supplies are allowed into Gaza, OCHA said.

At yesterday’s donor conference in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called the situation at border crossings “intolerable,” stressing that opening them was the first priority for aid and reconstruction efforts.

Israel launched a three-week offensive in Gaza on 27 December 2008 with the stated aim of ending rocket attacks by Hamas and other groups. At least 1,300 Palestinians were killed and some 5,300 were injured in the heavy bombardment and fighting in densely populated areas, which reduced homes, schools, hospitals and marketplaces to rubble.

In its update today, OCHA said that violent incidents in and around Gaza have continued in the period since 24 February, with seven rockets fired toward Israel and missiles fired by Israeli aircraft at tunnels at the Gaza-Egypt border, causing three Palestinian casualties.

(The above just makes no notice of the fact that money by the donors will not be fothcoming as long as Hamas does not change its skin – so what sense to just complain that money is not forthcoming?)

++++++++++++=============================+++++++++++++

ICC: Bashir Warrant Is Warning to Abusive Leaders
Move to Seek Arrest of Sudanese President a Victory for Darfur’s Victims.

(New York, March 4, 2009) – The International Criminal Court’s (ICC) issuance of an arrest warrant for President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan signals that even those at the top may be held to account for mass murder, rape and torture, Human Rights Watch said today. ICC judges granted the warrant for Bashir, its first for a sitting head of state, on charges of crimes against humanity and war crimes for his role in orchestrating Sudan’s abusive counterinsurgency campaign in Darfur.

“With this arrest warrant, the International Criminal Court has made Omar al-Bashir a wanted man,” said Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch. “Not even presidents are guaranteed a free pass for horrific crimes. By ruling there is a case for President al-Bashir to answer for the horrors of Darfur, the warrant breaks through Khartoum’s repeated denials of his responsibility.”

The court did not confirm the three counts of genocide that were requested by the ICC prosecutor. Genocide requires evidence that the crimes were committed specifically “with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part,” a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group solely on the basis of its identity.

“Proving genocide charges is always extremely difficult,” said Dicker. “President Bashir is hardly off the hook, as he is sought for crimes against humanity and war crimes, including widespread rape, murder, and torture committed as part of a government plan.”

Under the ICC Statute, the prosecutor is able to request an amendment of the warrant to include genocide if he obtains additional evidence to support the charge.

The ICC prosecutor requested an arrest warrant for Bashir on July 14, 2008  http://www.hrw.org/node/74138 ). Following the prosecutor’s announcement, Sudanese government officials made implicit and explicit threats of retaliation against international peacekeepers and humanitarian workers. On July 25, a Sudanese presidential advisor, Bona Malwal, stated in regard to peacekeeping forces that, “We are telling the world that with the indictment of our President al-Bashir we can’t be responsible for the well-being of foreign forces in Darfur.” President Bashir has also threatened to expel international peacekeeping forces if a warrant is issued.

The Security Council, its individual members, the UN Secretariat, the European Union, and the African Union have a critical role in promptly responding to any government-supported retaliation in Darfur following news of the warrant.

“The Sudanese government is obliged to maintain security in the country and the Security Council should act decisively to hold them to it,” said Dicker. “Khartoum should not be allowed to use the arrest warrant as a pretext for stepping up its obstructionist policies that have hobbled peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts in Darfur.”

The government of Sudan is required by a Security Council resolution to facilitate the deployment of the African Union/UN Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) and to cooperate with the ICC. Under international law, Sudan remains obligated to protect its own civilians and to provide full, safe, and unhindered access by relief personnel to those in need in Darfur. The arrest warrant does not change these obligations, nor does it have any impact on Khartoum’s obligations to carry out the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement with the government of Southern Sudan.

“The Security Council and concerned governments should impose targeted sanctions against Sudanese officials responsible for any retaliatory violence, and consider other measures such as further banking restrictions or a widening of the arms embargo,” said Dicker.

The ICC is an independent judicial institution. Sudan, though not a party to the Rome Statute creating the court, is subject to ICC jurisdiction through Security Council resolution. Having an official position as head of state does not provide immunity from criminal responsibility before the ICC.

Apart from the warrant against President Bashir, the ICC has issued two other warrants in relation to Darfur. On April 27, 2007, the court issued arrest warrants for State Minister of Humanitarian Affairs Ahmed Haroun and a “Janjaweed” militia leader, Ali Kosheib. The prosecutor has also requested arrest warrants for three rebel leaders in connection with attacks on international peacekeepers at Haskanita in October 2007. That request is currently under consideration by the court.

Sudan has so far refused to cooperate with the ICC. All the arrest warrants remain outstanding. Haroun continues in his official position as state minister of humanitarian affairs. On November 24, the Sudanese government arrested and tortured three human rights defenders in Khartoum for allegedly giving information to the ICC.

“Khartoum is required to cooperate with the court,” said Dicker. “Because the ICC has no police force of its own, it needs strong support from governments to ensure that all those charged with crimes are arrested.”

Background

In a March 31, 2005 resolution, the Security Council referred the situation in Darfur to the ICC prosecutor for investigation and prosecution. The decision was based on the recommendation of an international commission of inquiry, which found that violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law were continuing in Darfur and that the Sudanese justice system was unwilling and unable to address the crimes. Darfur is the first situation referred by the Security Council to the ICC.

For a Q&A on the International Criminal Court’s decision to issue a warrant for al-Bashir, please visit:
 http://www.hrw.org/node/81223

Human Rights Watch has available a clip reel of footage, including:

·             Interviews with Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, and Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch, on the warrant for the arrest of al-Bashir;

·             B-roll from Darfur in 2005, showing Sudanese refugees; burned villages and victims; dead bodies; Human Rights Watch investigators speaking with witnesses and survivors of Janjaweed attacks; groups of militia members; and children and women gathering water.

To download the above-mentioned clip reel of footage, please contact:
In New York, Brian Griffey or Conor Fortune: +1-212-216-1832; or  hrwpress at hrw.org

For more Human Rights Watch reporting on the crisis in Darfur, please visit:
 http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/f…

For more of Human Rights Watch’s work on the International Criminal Court, please visit:
 http://www.hrw.org/en/category/topic/int…

For more information, please contact:
In New York, Richard Dicker (English): +1-212-216-1248; or +1-917-747-6731 (mobile)
In New York, Georgette Gagnon (English): +1-212-216-1223; or +1-917-535-0375 (mobile)
In New York, Sara Darehshori (English): +1-212-216-1262; or +1-646-342-1749 (mobile)
In London, Selena Brewer (English): +44-20-7713-2778; or +44-79-2973-1851 (mobile)
In London, Tom Porteous (English): +44-20-7713-2766; or +44-79-8398-4982 (mobile)
In Johannesburg, Tiseke Kasambala (English): +27-11-484-2640; or +27-79-220-5254 (mobile)
In Brussels, Elizabeth Evenson (English): +32-2-737-1486; or +32-498-298504 (mobile)
In Brussels, Reed Brody (English, French, Portuguese, Spanish): +32-2-737-1482; or +32-475-681708 (mobile)
In Paris, Jean-Marie Fardeau (French, Portuguese): +33-143-59-55-31; or +33-6-45-85-24-87 (mobile)
In Berlin, Marianne Heuwagen (German): +49-30-259-30612; or +49-173-354-8202 (mobile)
In Washington, DC, Abderrahim Sabir (Arabic): +1-202-612-4342; +1-202-701-7654 (mobile)

Obama Picks Ross to Coordinate Iran Policy – Nicholas Kralev (Washington Times)
The Obama administration has chosen former Middle East negotiator Dennis Ross to be “ambassador at large and special adviser to the secretary of state” for Middle East affairs and to coordinate policy toward Iran.
In addition, Dan Shapiro, the Obama campaign’s liaison to the Jewish community, will be director for Near East and North African affairs at the White House National Security Council.
See also Ross’ Portfolio on Iran – Steve Rosen (Middle East Forum)
Ross will be special envoy on Iran, including Iran’s support for Hizbullah and Hamas.
Ross will not be responsible for Arab-Israeli peace issues; there will be another envoy for that.

Senior Iranian Official Meets Hamas in Damascus (Reuters)
Ali Larijani, speaker of the Iranian parliament, met Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal at the Iranian embassy in Damascus on Wednesday.
Larijani also met leaders of Islamic Jihad.

Should Israel Value Palestinian Civilians Over Its Own Civilians? – Spengler (Asia Times-Hong Kong)
To insist that Israel desist entirely from military activities that have a high probability of causing civilian casualties is hypocritical.
That would demand, in effect, that Israel value the lives of Palestinian civilians more than those of its own civilians, who are subject to rocket bombardment.
That is something no state in the world can do, and it is silly to ask it.
Israel has less reason than any other nation on Earth to heed such a demand. Never has the State of Israel been offered mercy by its enemies, nor has it any reason to expect it.

Egyptian Film Star: Hamas Is to Blame – Khaled Abu Toameh (Jerusalem Post)
The Arab world’s most prominent comedian and movie star, Egyptian actor Adel Imam, has expressed understanding for Israel’s military operation in Gaza.
Imam, 68, a longtime outspoken critic of Islamic fundamentalism, lashed out at Egyptians who have been demonstrating against Israel’s war on Hamas, saying that calls for general strikes in solidarity with the Palestinians “harmed our economy.”
Imam blamed Hamas for the violence, pointing out that the Egyptian leadership had warned the Islamist movement against an impending Israeli military operation.
“Hamas ignored our warnings and chose to lead an asymmetrical war,” Imam said. “It’s preferable for Hamas to stop [the rocket attacks]. They should have known that Israel wasn’t going to receive the attacks with roses.”

LEIGH PHILLIPS

EUobserver, January 8, 2009

President Nicolas Sarkozy of France announced on Wednesday (7 January) that Israel and the Palestinian Authority had accepted a joint Franco-Egyptian ceasefire plan, hailing the “step forward”.

“The president is delighted by the acceptance by Israel and the Palestinian Authority of the Franco-Egyptian plan presented last night in Sharm el-Sheikh by President Mubarak,” reads a statement from Mr Sarkozy.

Israel has welcomed the principles behind Mr Sarkozy’s proposal (Photo: EUobserver.com)

However, as fighting continued, it subsequently appeared that Israel had only agreed to the “principles” behind the proposal, while the Hamas governors of the Gaza Strip did not figure in the French president’s statement.

“The challenge now is to get the details to match the principles,” said Israeli spokesman Mark Regev, according to the BBC.

Details of the proposal remain sketchy, but it is believed that the ceasefire plan would include some language around a halt to the smuggling of weapons through the Egypt-Gaza border and an opening of border checkpoints between Gaza and Israel.

Egyptian and Israeli senior officials are to meet on Thursday to discuss details of the proposal.

Separately on Wednesday, in a letter to the Czech Republic, which currently chairs the European Union’s six-month rotating presidency, the Netherlands and Denmark suggested that the EU organise a mission to monitor Gaza’s southern border to prevent the weapons smuggling.

Such a mission could offer “watertight control and monitoring of the Egyptian-Gaza border,” the letter reads.

“An early, permanent ceasefire will be possible only if Israel believes that Hamas will not again arm itself with rockets,” said Dutch foreign minister Maxime Verhagen.

“It will then be possible to reopen Gaza’s borders for humanitarian and economic assistance, which are so urgently needed,” he said.

Meanwhile, the Dutch government has rejected imposing sanctions against Israel for its war on Gaza. In written answers to MPs suggesting the move, Mr Verhagen and development minister Bert Koenders said such action is not necessary, reports Radio Netherlands.

Israel temporarily halted its military operations for three hours on Wednesday to facilitate “humanitarian corridors” permitting the delivery of food and fuel. The Gaza government for its part said it would also pause its shelling of Israel during the lull.

The UN Relief and Works Agency however rejected the three-hour halt to fighting as insufficient for delivery of supplies.

The Israeli assault and Hamas rocket fire resumed shortly after the clock ran out on the pause.

From:        sander at brinkmanclimatechange.com
Subject: Information Toolkit for post-2012 climate policies, side event Poznan December 1st, 3.30pm
Date:           November 28, 2008

Toolkit for post-2012 climate policies will be presented in Poznan on the very first day:

December 1, 3.30-5.30pm, EU Pavilon: Rubinstein room.

We are pleased to invite you to have a look at the Toolkit and to be informed on the contents.

If you are already interested, you may freely download the Toolkit from:
 http://www.brinkmanclimatechange.com/Too…

For further information, please contact:
Sander Brinkman,  sander at brinkmanclimatechange.com
Koen Smekens,  smekens at ecn.nl