Who lives in Tallinn, travels free with public transport.

based on article by André Anwar of Der Standard of Vienna, 5 April 2013.

Six EU leaders to skip Nobel gala

30.11.12 @ 09:51

By Andrew Rettman on www.EUobserver.com

				The Israeli navy boarded a ship attempting to break the sea blockade of Gaza on Saturday, and planned to take the passengers into custody. Those aboard the ship were hoping to call attention to the blockade of the Palestinian territory, which has been under an Israeli blockade since 2007. Vessels attempting to break Israel’s blockade of Gaza have sparked controversy — and violence — in the past. In 2010, an Israeli raid on one flotilla ship resulted in the deaths of nine Turkish activists. ———– Even while the Prime Minister is considering bringing to his cabinet’s approval the report of Judge Edmond Levy, which asserts that the Palestinian territories are ‘not occupied’, Prime Minister Netanyahu, and his ally and rival Ehud Barak, have  ordered the Naval Commandos on a s resort to force, demonstrating that in effect  there is an occupation, and that the State of Israel is extending this occupation into international waters in the Mediterranean.Among the passengers on the Swedish ship “Estelle”, which is now being dragged to the port of Ashdod in Israel, are three Israeli peace activists – Elik Elhanan Reut Mor and Yonathan Shapira. They arrived at the boat a few days ago, going by speedboat from Greece, and dodging the Greek Coast Guard. Along with them came on board the “Estelle” five Members of Parliament, from Sweden, Norway, Spain and Greece. Estelle’s passengers got yesterday a message from the Government of Israel, passed by the Finnish Foreign Ministry, in which they were warned that if they continue on their way they would be taken into custody in Israel and that they might be prosecuted for “illegal entry into Israel.” They asked the Finns to relay back their answer – that they have no intention of or interest in trying to enter Israel, and that their sole purpose is to reach the Gaza Strip which is not part of Israel and from whose inhabitants they got an explicit invitation. Yonathan Shapira wrote that his decision to participate in an attempt to break the siege and bring humanitarian aid to Gaza, is a direct continuation to his taking part, back in 2003, in the “Refuser Pilot Letter”. Previous to the publication of this letter, Shapira had served in the Israeli Air Force as a helicopter pilot. Shapiro has been detained in the past when he sailed on “The Jewish Peace Ship” which was stopped off the Gaza shore in 2010. The question is now how these events will impact the US electioneering debate.

Swedish Ship to Gaza – Former Israeli Air Force combat pilot evades coast guards in Greece to get on Gaza-bound boat.

Former Israeli Air Force combat pilot boards Gaza-bound boat

Came by motor boat, evading Greek coastguard, greeted with cheers

“Estelle” due at Gaza shore Saturday or Sunday

Activists on board:”Determined to reach Gaza, consent to UN inspection”

Israeli peace activist Yonatan Shapira, who had been a combat pilot in the Israeli Air Force and refused to take part in the bombing of Palestinian cities, has arrived on board the Swedish boat “Estelle” which is making her way towards the coast of Gaza.

When the Estelle passed near the shores of Greece, Shapira and other activists made their way in a motor boat, evading vessels of the Greek Coast Guard which sought to bar their way. “Along with the Greek Coast Guard  we saw a ship which seemed very much like an Israeli Navy vessel, though it did not fly a flag,” said Shapira.

He was received with cheers by activists already on board. Shapira had taken part in a similar sailing last year, being taken off by Israeli Navy Commandos near the Gaza shore and spending time in police detention, but not charged with any criminal offence.

Meanwhile, Israel’s Ambassador to the UN Ron Prosor has sent a letter calling on the United Nations to stop the Estelle from reaching her destination. To this activists on board respond: “If this means that Israel has decided to cede control over Palestinian territorial waters to the UN, this would actually be a step forward.

The UN and many other representatives of the International Community have for years characterized the siege of the Gaza strip as inhuman and incompatible with International Law.

“Ship to Gaza Sweden” assumes that that UN will not take over the implementation of this policy, by itself preventing a peaceful vessel from delivering humanitarian supplies.

“Ship to Gaza and the Freedom Flotilla have never opposed lawful inspections of cargo and vessel by representatives of the UN, as well as  by national authorities in the ports and waters we have passed through. We welcome further inspections of this kind by the UN, once we have anchored at Gaza City. What we refuse to accept is something which also the UN and the majority of The International Community oppose: The illegal siege of the Gaza Strip, with its devastating humanitarian results.”

The Estelle has now set course to Gaza and, weather permitting, is due to get there on Saturday.

Adam Keller, Spokesperson of Gush Shalom, who is in ongoing contact with the Estelle activists, says that Israel’s Prime Minister and Defense Minister still have some forty-eight hours’ grace to make a wise and courageous decision, and let the Estelle dock at the Port of Gaza – while implementing a thorough UN inspection of her cargo, to which the activists  specifically consent.

Ship to Gaza-Sverige -  www.shiptogaza.se

In this release…

Source: Margaret Scott

CAFTA-DR Governments in Contrast to Small-Scale Owners Parcel Engines of Development

[THE CENTRAL AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT THAT INCLUDES THE US AND THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC OF THE CARIBBEAN ISLANDS.]

After 8 years of free trade agreement between Central America and the United States, CAFTA-DR has brought increased dependency on international markets for the region. Whereas this development decision was potentially positive for the countries’ economy, it has hindered food security in the region, representing a huge risk to peasant’s lives.

This article was prepared by Mar Guinot Aguado, Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs.

To read full article, click here.

parts of it say:

Historically dependent on their neighbor to the North as the engine for development, the Central American countries agreed to fully open their markets to the United States in the late 2000s. The Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR), initiated in 2002 between El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic and the United States, strove to liberalize Central American markets in an effort to increase investments and create economic opportunities throughout the region. The neoliberal policy was aimed at eliminating trade barriers and tariffs on guaranteed agricultural and manufactured goods, investments, and services, which traditionally have led to misery for vulnerable peasants in the agreement’s less developed countries. Central America is the third largest U.S. export market in existence, and up to now the neoliberal ideals imposed by the agreement have mainly benefited large corporations that have migrated to the region. The decision of these governments to establish a free market has hampered the Central American agricultural sector and has decreased food security. This process intensifies the area’s dependency on volatile international markets in a region already threatened by structural malnutrition.

Free-trade advocates had argued that CAFTA-DR would decrease poverty in rural areas and accelerate the development of Central America, substantially benefiting consumers by decreasing prices of consumer products and improving their purchasing power. But years after its implementation, CAFTA-DR has re-structured the countries’ economies by flooding their markets with subsidized grains coming from the Unites States. In fact, between 1995 and 2011, the U.S. government spent $277.3 billion USD in agricultural subsidies, exporting many of these products to Central America.[6] Since the free-trade agreement, Central American countries and the Dominican Republic have been transformed into net food importers, with their governments unable to dedicate as much investment to the agricultural sector. As a result of the international economic integration with trade liberalization, the region has dramatically increased its dependency on imports supplemented by diminishing amounts of aid, and thus has been exposed to the volatility of commodity prices. Yet, low food prices in Central America have not effectively mitigated hunger.

According to the 2008 State of the Region Report, “An increase of 15 percent in the price of food could mean 2.5 million more people in extreme poverty, particularly in Guatemala and Honduras.” The report shows “a model of rising imports (wheat, rice and corn went up to about 30 percent in available food between 1990-2003) with tripled prices for wheat and doubled prices for corn and rice (2008-2009),” which not only “leads to profits for the companies that import the goods, but growing malnutrition, especially among the region’s rural and indigenous poor.”[7] For example, El Salvador imports 79 percent of its rice and 43 percent of its corn. Similarly, Costa Rica imports 77 percent of its beans while Guatemala imports 100 percent of its wheat and 70 percent of its rice.[8] Food prices have risen internationally; wheat prices have grown 152 percent and maize prices have grown 122 percent between 2006 and 2008.[9] This price inflation, therefore, has negatively affected poor people in the region, who suffer from a huge dependency on agricultural imports promulgated by CAFTA-DR.

Instead of growing yields destined for local consumption, the trade agreement has led to a decrease in the diversification of production and a concentration on exportable crops in Central America. From the 1990s to 2005, local food production—such as rice, beans, and corn—shrank by 50 percent.[10] Prior to the agreement, 75 percent of Central American exports had free access to the U.S. market through bilateral agreements. This slashed CAFTA-DR’s developmental benefits for Central America.[11] Moreover, the huge size differences between the United States’ and the other countries’ markets seriously hindered Central America in seeking an equal negotiation.

Developed countries are promoting the cultivation of biofuel crops, such as palm oil in Guatemala, as a sustainable development project strategy. Yet, this expansion deepens food insecurity in this afflicted region by weakening rural sustainability.

According to USA Rice Federation Chairman Lee Adams, echoing the upbeat attitude of other unalloyed boosters, “support for CAFTA-DR means more jobs for rural America, and greater stability for U.S. agriculture.”[18] Their argument is that CAFTA-DR has positively impacted agriculture in the U.S., increasing its exports to the region by 84 percent from 2005 to 2011, which represented $4.2 billion USD in 2010.[19] For the United States, removing agricultural barriers to this market has thus created a beneficial solution to its overproduction of farming goods. In that sense, the trade agreement is destroying any possibility of balanced regional integration within a Central American common market. Yet, the Central American governments continue to push toward a developmental model through free trade agreements, signing the new Association Agreement with the European Union in June 2012.[20] Similar to CAFTA-DR, this economic integration allows at least some kind of cooperation within Central America. While other trade alternatives exist such as ALBA, based on a more cooperative perspective, Central American governments chose the CAFTA-DR approach for their countries, which appears to only support narrow development.

The neoliberal policies implemented in the region through the CAFTA-DR agreement have negatively impacted these less developed countries. Subsidized production from the U.S. and superficially sustainable biofuel projects from developed countries have repeatedly devastated rural economies

———————————————————————

Ecuador’s Correa Sounds The Bugle

Senior Research Fellow Sean Burges examines the political ramifications of Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa’s decision to grant Wikileaks founder Julian Assange asylum. In this piece, Burges examines how Correa is expanding upon his tradition of a reformist populist agenda that confronts the established political orders of more Westernized countries. As the media focus on Assange, Correa is using the distraction to further implement his domestic agenda while using the splash tiny Ecuador has caused to solidify his leftist credentials.

This article was prepared by Sean Burges, Senior Research Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs.

To read full article, that explains the Correa Ecuador stand vis-a-vis the UK and the US please click here.

Some excerpts are:

The situation with respect to the US is not much different from the way Correa views the UK which has its entanglement with Latin America because of the Malvinas Islands. Correa can bank on Latin support versus the UK – this includes the strong Brazil. Relations with Washington remain stable despite sustained provocations. In 2009 Correa delivered a major blow to US drug interdiction policy by refusing to renew the Pentagon’s lease on the Manta airbase in southern Ecuador. This was followed last year with the expulsion of the US ambassador, ironically because of the material released in the WikiLeaks Cablegate.

These provocations and a habitually anti-imperialist rhetoric from Correa had little impact on trade with the US. From 2005 to last year, exports to the US grew by 20.5 per cent. More importantly for Correa’s strategic thinking, the US share of Ecuador’s exports fell from 49.7 per cent to 34.6 per cent, and this trade was concentrated in the fish, fruit and oil that have a ready Chinese market.

The foreign policy and economic cost of provoking Britain and US is thus remarkably low for Correa, allowing him to use Assange to further burnish his anti-imperialist credentials among his domestic political supporters. For Correa, maintaining credibility as a forceful voice against imperialism and a staunch rhetorical critic of the US is a domestic political necessity. His entire agenda is directed towards transforming the political and social structure of Ecuador, which automatically threatens the interests of the established political and economic elite.

Given that the three presidents elected before Correa were belted from office by massive indigenous popular protests or congressional conspiracy, it is hard to argue that there was not a need for constitutional reform in Ecuador. At issue were the twin problems of the near impossibility of electing a congress that would co-operate with the president and the systemic exclusion of the country’s indigenous peoples (25 per cent of the population) and the mixed-heritage mestizos (65 per cent) from real political participation.

Correa wasted little time in pursuing reform after his 2006 election. To facilitate inclusion and break gridlock, Correa called a constitutional convention in 2007, which duly drafted a new magna carta for Ecuador. In 2008, the document was put to a national referendum and approved by 64 per cent of the population as the country’s 20^thconstitution. The established political and economic elite is not happy and is doing all it can to undermine Correa. Although poverty rates in Ecuador have dropped from 37.6 per cent to 28.6 per cent over the past five years, the political reality is that it is very easy to spin a quarter of the population remaining impoverished as a cataclysmic failure of governmental policy.

please see also our previous posting:

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

Cut air pollution, buy time to slow climate change: US.

Cutting soot and other air pollutants could help “buy time” in the fight against climate change, a senior U.S. official said on Tuesday as seven nations joined a Washington-led plan.

Air pollution, from sources ranging from wood-fired cooking stoves in Africa to cars in Europe, may be responsible for up to six million deaths a year worldwide and is also contributing to global warming, the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP) said.

Seven countries — Britain, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy and Jordan — formally joined the U.S.-led Climate and Clean Air Initiative, bringing the total of members to about 20 since the plan was launched in February.

“If we are able to do this we could really buy time in the context of the global problem to combat climate change,” Jonathan Pershing, U.S. deputy special envoy for climate change, told a telephone news briefing from Paris.

Pershing said that time was “desperately” needed to slow global warming. Unlike other developed nations, the United States has not passed laws to cut greenhouse gas emissions despite proposed cuts by President Barack Obama.

Pershing said that Washington was in talks trying to attract more nations to the air pollution plan, including China and India which are the number one and three emitters of greenhouse gases respectively, with the United States in second.

The U.S.-led plan in Paris focuses on limiting soot, heat-trapping methane, ground level ozone and HFC gases. Soot, for instance, can speed the melt of Arctic ice when it lands as a dark dusting that soaks up more heat and thaws ice.

Soot can also cause respiratory diseases.

By contrast, U.N. plans for fighting climate change focus mainly on carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas released by burning fossil fuels that are blamed for causing more droughts, floods, wildfires and rising sea levels.

The U.N. Environment Programme, which is a partner with the U.S. initiative, said that success could reduce the projected rise in global temperatures from a build-up of greenhouse gases by 0.5 degree Celsius (0.9 Fahrenheit) by 2050.

By 2030, fast action could also prevent millions of premature deaths and avoid the annual loss of 30 million tons of crops, it said.

Pershing said that the small amount mobilized so far in pilot projects — $13 million — could catalyze wider change. And many projects paid for themselves in greater efficiency.

Karen Luken, of the C40 Partnership and the Clinton Climate Initiative, said that exploiting methane from trash decomposing in a landfill in Mexico City had reduced greenhouse gases and was providing energy for 35,000 homes.

“We will use that model in other places, such as Lagos.”

Quotes from new partners

Finland
“The need to limit short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) has grown.  In the Arctic region, in particular, black carbon emissions and deposition must be reduced.  Controlling all SLCP emissions will complement international efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, in order to combat climate change as effectively as possible.  Limiting fine particulates will also alleviate health risk”, states Ville Niinistö, Finland’s Minister of the Environment.

Germany
“The German Government is delighted to be a part of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants.  Germany has already initiated extensive measures at national and international level to curb these substances.  The Coalition can play a key role in achieving this and thus supplement the efforts of international climate policy and other environmental areas such as air quality control and the protection of the ozone layer”, according to the Federal Environment Minister of Germany, Peter Altmaier.
==============================

The initiatives were agreed at the first ministerial of the Coalition held in Stockholm, Sweden, in April during the celebrations of the 40th anniversary of the first UN Conference on the Human Environment.

Methane Emissions from Municipal Waste
Waste generated world-wide is responsible for an estimated one-third of global methane emissions—a greenhouse gas over 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide and one linked to the generation of ground level ozone that is not only damaging to crops but human health.

The Coalition is working with the Global Methane Initiative and the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, which is partnered with the Clinton Climate Initiative, to assist urban areas to cut methane emissions from across the waste chain including from landfills and pollution linked with organic waste like food.

The initiative is also planning to assist cities in reducing open burning of municipal waste, which results in harmful black carbon emissions.

A dedicated web-based platform, through which cities world-wide can share experiences, achievements and best practices, will be launched.

At today’s meeting in Paris, the Coalition discussed progress on this initiative, including plans to work with an initial group of up to 10 cities during the next 12 months through measures such as waste inventories, enhanced composting and recycling, landfill management, and comprehensive waste sector planning.

Emissions from Brick Kilns
The manufacture of bricks in developing countries is often linked with significant emissions of toxic fumes including black carbon.

The Coalition is assessing how to assist countries to switch to more efficient and mechanized “firing” technologies.

A recent study in India and Vietnam indicates that modernizing 35,000 old brick kilns in the region could cut black carbon emissions by 40,000 tons, equal to 27 million tons of CO2.

Mexico, which has secured close to $1 million from the Global Environment Facility to carry out the first national assessment of SLCPs including those from its estimated 20,000 traditional brick kilns, is planning a Coalition workshop in September to advance action in the region.

The Coalition is also putting in place the awareness raising and knowledge generation needed to fast track demonstration projects.

Reducing Black Carbon Emissions from Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicles and Engines
The Coalition discussed many different methods of reducing black carbon from heavy duty diesel vehicles and engines—emissions that are not only a health risk but contribute to melting in the Arctic.

The use of low-sulphur fuels opens up the possibility of one method — fitting particle or black carbon filters to heavy duty vehicles.

Efforts under the UNEP-hosted Clean Fuels and Vehicles Partnership, originally established to phase lead out of petrol, are now focused on reducing sulphur levels in transport fuels.  The Coalition is planning to build off of UNEP’s existing sulphur reduction efforts to also tackle black carbon emissions.

Promoting Alternatives to HFCs
HFCs are increasingly being used  as replacements to CFCs in areas such as air conditioners, refrigeration and foams because they have zero impact on the ozone layer–the Earth’s shield that filters out dangerous levels of the sun’s ultra violet rays.

However, studies indicate that some HFCs are powerful greenhouse gases and if these become widespread they could be responsible for emissions equivalent to 3.5 to 8.8 gigatonnes (Gt) of carbon dioxide (Gt CO2eq) — comparable to current annual emissions from the entire global transport system, estimated at around 6-7 Gt annually.

There are many climate-friendlier replacements available and opportunities to reduce HFC emissions through advanced technologies as well as best service practices.

The Coalition is catalysing awareness of the risks and the alternatives. This week it convened a packed meeting of industry and governments in Bangkok, Thailand, aimed at fast tracking these aims.

Emissions from Oil and Gas Industry
Venting and leakage from oil and gas systems account for over a fifth of global man-made methane emissions and represent estimated economic losses of $27 billion to over $60 billion a year.

An estimated one-third of these losses can be reduced at zero cost with existing technologies and practices. Meanwhile, flaring also leads to emissions of black carbon.

Action is underway to address the issue through initiatives such as the Global Methane Initiative, the Natural Gas STAR International programme, and the Global Gas Flaring Reduction (GGFR) Partnership.

The Coalition is planning to build upon those efforts by working with industry, countries and investors to catalyse accelerated action.

Dear Reader,

Don Hazen
Executive Editor, AlterNet

——————————

YES – but not enough. Let us understand finally that we have been hijacked by our own inaction.

The papers this weekend want us to believe that the two greatest things that are happening right now are the start of Olympics 2012 in London and the opening of  ”The Dark Knight Rises” or Batman III. What goes on in Syria is just a distraction from above focal points of our lives.

Just in case – if we want a little bit more then tragicomedy in our lives – the main attraction at the London Olympics – the first since 1948 – will be the helicopter-carrier positioned in the middle of the Thames River, and the main advertisement for the Batman movie was done with the help of news from the killings at Aurora, Denver, Colorado.

For the honest reality show – the whole world was placed in a Ghetto by the terror act at the Munich Olympics in 1972.

The present Olympics Committee – just a mere 40 years later, did not even agree to have a special ceremony at this year’s Olympics – the tenth since that on-TV event of 1972. Now the TV programs amaze us with the killings of Arab-against-Arab, as in the Damascus routine, and the pre-Olympic celebration in Burgas near the Bulgarian Black Sea coast. There, a terrorist blew himself up, and took along six other people – five of them Israelis – his presumable targets.

Who was the terrorist of Burgas? We do not know and do not assume to know, but we read that Israel says Hamas, and the US know that it was a Hezbollah man backed by Iran, while  the Bulgarian official version is simply – he was not Bulgarian but someone who came from the outside with a pre-conceived plan. Strangely – a Bulgarian journalist had more to say.

He wrote on inter-view.info hat the killer, Mehdi Muhammad G. (33) was born in Sweden, son of immigrants – an Algerian father and a Finnish mother, and went to Pakistan to absorb Islamic teachings. There he was found by the US and brought to Guantanamo on December 1, 2001.

July 2004 (that is still during the G.W. Bush US Presidency – something worthwhile noting right here in the light of the potential of politicizing the event – if true)  he was subsequently released upon request from Sweden. We have no proof that this story is true, but if it is there will clearly be repercussions at the EU and in the US.  So far we read only in Austrian papers, whatever the facts, Bulgaria’s chances to join the Schengen agreement are now diminished.

But above mishap, or perhaps an Olympic reminder to the survivors of the Israeli 1972 team, that went this week to re-visit the Munich site, was coincidentally only a first step – followed by an unrelated event – that we argue to be related nevertheless.

The second event is the Aurora shooting in at a movie house near Denver, Colorado – the killing of 12 people, and injuring 59 more, by what the papers try to describe as a deranged person who had – in a US crazy way – legal access to buy guns and ammunition. (The amo bought on internet and delivered to his home and school, the guns bought directly from official dealers based on his having a clean record.)

James Eagan Holmes, a 24 year young student of neuroscience, hair dyed red, with a gas mask on his face, armed with tear gas and guns, did his thing at the midnight premiere of Batman III, a movie officially titled “The Dark Knight Rises,” that was going to bring in a lot of money to its producers – who prepared as well a great advertising campaign with the help of a website www.RottenTomatoes.com The website itself, though managed by the film-critics community Flixter.com is owned by Warner Brothers – the studio that produced this film.

The critics, based on seeing trailers or having been at previews, posted 197 articles out of  which 86% were positive.
The first negative review earned the critic, Marshall Fine, threats to his life.

The film, like all Batman films, deals in hidden ways with what is interpreted as a glorification of the George W. Bush, post 9/11 War on Terror. That would not have excited us. We decided to write this posting only when we read that Rush Limbaugh, the fire-brand of the US Tea-Party, and the storm-trooper of the fight against an Obama Presidency, pointed out that the character’s name  in the film – Bane, is a hidden psychological hint at the Bain Capital Company (same pronunciation) owned by Mitt Romney in real life, and this is no coincidence according to Rush.

Rush expressed the certainty that this was intended so that it plants in the mind of the viewers the idea that Romney is a personification of evil. The fact that the book was actually written in 1993 by a conservative writer –  Christopher Nolans – and the character was already there – is a detail of no importance to Rush – but we fear  that in real political life of the Republican Party  in the USA of 2012, facts have no importance.   …. It is the figments of imagination that are being expressed as facts, and weak minds draw weak conclusions. The real  problem is that such conclusions can kill.

Holmes booby-trapped his apartment in Aurora, and now the police must be very careful in gaining access – we hope they do not proceed by blowing up the place and losing whatever further evidence can be found there.

In Paris the opening of  The Dark Knight Rises was cancelled, in Vienna the Tuesday preview is still on, and the opening is scheduled for Wednesday. In New York, supposedly the movie’s Gotham City – a sin city of the stock exchange if you want this sort of interpretation for creation of good ticket-box results, Mayor Bloomberg, who calls for gun-control laws, has made sure that the movie house is supervised by no-nonsense police.

Also, we understand that some wise person wrote a pro-guns’ proliferation piece contending that had there been more guns in the theater room, the number of casualties would have been smaller. I guess, if this logic holds, our lives would be safer living in a wild west coral – like in the movies – all of us would would be drawing guns.

———————————————

Our posting is very short – if interested here are some further material that throws light at the low state we find ourselves in the post-Munich insecurity that benefits only the arms producers and the outspoken and powerful moron politicians:

From The Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation:

New publication: Development Dialogue no.59 No future without justice – Report of the Civil Society Reflection Group on Global Development Perspectives The world faces an unprecedented coincidence of global crises. They testify to the failure of the dominant model of development and economic progress that is oriented on a technocratic modernisation path, is blind to human rights and the ecological limits of the global ecosystem, confuses growth of Gross Domestic Product with progress in society, and regards poverty as a primarily technical challenge in which categories of inequality and social justice are neglected. The Civil Society Reflection Group on Global Development Perspectives brought together 18 civil society activists and scholars from different disciplines from around the globe. Its members jointly drew lessons from the current crises, looked beyond conventional development concepts and goals, questioned the models and measures of development and social progress, and presented alternatives. This report is the main outcome of the joint deliberations. It describes the root causes of the multiple crises, reconfirms the framework of universal principles and rights, reconsiders development goals and indicators, and draws conclusions for the post-2015 development agenda. It seeks to stimulate debates about alternative development paths, participatory and inclusive governance structures, and the transformation in politics and societies that future justice for all will require. Read online Download as pdf Pressrelease Have a nice day, Henning Melber Executive Director The Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation.

Given the slow progress of international climate talks, many have come to see the “green economy” as a more promising approach: If we can make low-carbon technologies profitable, reliable and affordable, they argue, they could be successfully deployed around the world even without mandatory emission-reduction targets.

In a new article in the journal Climate and Development, researchers from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), and PricewaterhouseCoopers test the viability of this strategy by examining trends in Europe’s electricity sector.

They find that changes are occurring in the political, policy, and regulatory landscape in Europe, as well as North Africa, that are consistent with a continued and accelerated deployment of renewable power in the region. This supports the proposition, they write, that a technology push could be sufficiently substantial and sustained to make some renewables economically competitive with fossil fuels, perhaps by the end of this decade, or the beginning of next. And if this occurs, renewables could potentially become attractive and viable globally, even in the poorest of countries, and even in the absence of a global treaty.

The article is “An alternative to a global climate deal may be unfolding before our eyes,” by Johan Lilliestam, Antonella Battaglini, Charlotte Finlay, Daniel Fürstenwerth, Anthony Patt, Gus Schellekens and Peter Schmidt. It appears in the forthcoming Climate and Development 4(1), DOI:10.1080/17565529.2012.658273.  If you do not have access to the journal but would like to read a copy of the article, please email me or Tom Gill, Managing Editor of the journal, at tom.gill@sei-international.org.

–

Marion Davis
Stockholm Environment Institute – Communications

+1(617) 245-0895 / Skype: marion.s.davis

www.sei-international.org / www.sei-us.org

EU Fails To Resolve Dispute Over UN Climate Fund Seats.

Date: 02-Apr-12
Country: UK/BELGIUM
Author: Nina Chestney and Charlie Dunmore from Reuters.

European Union ambassadors failed to resolve a dispute over the allocation of seats on the United Nations’ Green Climate Fund (GCF) board on Friday, possibly undermining the bloc’s credibility in international climate talks.

The EU envoys were meeting for the second time in a week to decide which European nations will be represented on the governing board. This has 12 seats for developing countries and another 12 for developed countries.

“Despite willingness to compromise and adequately share board seats, it has, unfortunately, not been possible to come to an agreement within the EU,” the EU’s Danish presidency said in a statement.

As a result, the EU will miss a March 31 deadline for making a joint proposal on board membership, and EU governments and the bloc’s executive will now have to negotiate directly with other developed countries over who gets the seats.

“For this reason, respective nominations from the group of developed country parties will be withheld until these discussions have taken place,” delaying the entire process, the Danish presidency said.

U.N. climate talks in Durban last year agreed on the design of the fund, which is aimed at channelling up to $100 billion a year to help developing countries adapt to climate change.

Disputes of this kind could both slow the process towards the launch of the fund in 2013 and give other countries the impression that the EU is stalling on climate finance. “It shows that the EU unity we had in Durban has been eroded and that could damage Europe’s image in global climate change talks,” Danish presidency spokesman Jakob Alvi said.

The fund’s first board meeting is due on April 25 to 27, a U.N. spokesman said, subject to confirmation next week.

Despite the EU’s failure to reach an agreement, it should not affect the number of seats it will be allocated on the GCF board, he added.

SEAT DISPUTE

Thirteen of the 27 EU countries had requested a board seat, to ensure they had a say in funding decisions.

A draft EU document, seen by Reuters this week, shows that EU member states and Switzerland might together be able to obtain seven full seats plus associated alternating seats between them. Denmark had proposed that Britain, Germany and France, as the likely biggest financial contributors, should hold a full seat each and share three further alternating seats with another EU country.

But an EU source involved in the discussions said Germany – backed by France – refused to share its seat with any other EU country and insisted on a permanent position on the board, ending any chance of an EU compromise.

Poland also insisted on having a full seat, and told the meeting that in the absence of a joint proposal it would put itself forward to the U.N. in a separate bid outside the EU, sources said under condition of anonymity.

Poland, which relies heavily on coal production for its energy needs, says its economy would develop much more quickly if it wasn’t for the EU’s climate policy, which aims to make coal power generation more expensive.

“(The Commission) has tried to rob us so many times before. This time around we want to wear a second jacket – just in case – and let nothing we are eligible for miss us,” a Polish government source told Reuters.

International Herald Tribune EDITORIAL

A Second Front in the Climate War

Published: February 17, 2012

By NICK BUNKLEY
Published, The New York Times on-line,  January 9, 2012

DETROIT — In the race to claim ever-higher fuel-economy numbers and keep up with government regulations, automakers are rolling out hybrids and electric cars aplenty at this week’s Detroit auto show.      If only buyers were arriving as fast as the cars.

	Rebecca Cook/Reuters Stefan Jacoby, chief executive of Volvo Cars, showed the XC60 plug-in hybrid concept car on Monday in Detroit.

Clockwise from top, Rebecca Cook/Reuters; Geoff Robins, via Agence France-Presse — Getty Images; Tannen Maury, via European Pressphoto Agency

New cars unveiled at the Detroit auto show on Monday are, clockwise from top, the Mercedes-Benz E-400 hybrid, Volkswagen Jetta Hybrid, and BMW Active Hybrid 3.

Hybrid sales waned as gasoline prices ebbed in 2011, declining to 2.2 percent of the market from 2.4 percent a year earlier, according to the research firm LMC Automotive. Meanwhile, sales of the Nissan Leaf electric car and theChevrolet Volt plug-in each fell short of expectations.

Analysts do not expect the segment to grow significantly this year: the combination of gas prices below $4 a gallon and higher upfront costs for the cars is not attracting consumers.

But that is not deterring Toyota, Honda, Ford Motor and several European carmakers from introducing new hybrid and plug-in models.

“The market is going in one direction and fuel-economy regulations are going the other direction,” said Jeremy Anwyl, vice chairman of the automotive information Web siteEdmunds.com. “Just because people start building more of something doesn’t mean the segment grows.”

Regardless, the automakers have little choice but to develop and try to push more hybrids as they prepare for fuel-efficiency requirements that call for significant increases later this decade. Advances such as Ford’s EcoBoost technology have increased mileage for gas-powered engines — the new Fusion midsize sedan it unveiled Monday can get 37 miles to the gallon, Ford said — but bigger gains are needed.

“Internal combustion can’t get all the way there, so you need an alternative,” said Russell Hensley, a partner with the consulting firm McKinsey & Company. “The only alternative we have at the moment is electrification.”

In a report Monday, McKinsey listed “uncertainty around future adoption of hybrid/electric powertrain technology” as one of several challenges facing automakers and their suppliers in the coming years.

McKinsey said hybrids could account for up to a quarter of sales by 2020, with battery-powered cars making up 5 percent. But it said internal-combustion engines would dominate the industry through at least 2030. “The demand is in its infancy,” Mr. Hensley said.

Hybrids and electric cars typically cost at least several thousand dollars more than their conventional counterparts. BMW said Monday that its ActiveHybrid 5 would be priced at $8,700 above the gas-powered 535i. The Volt costs nearly twice as much as the similarly sized Chevy Cruze, after a $7,500 federal tax credit.

Most consumers want to be able to recoup the additional cost of an alternative-technology vehicle within a year, Mr. Anwyl said. At today’s gas prices, the payback generally takes several years, if not more.

Automakers said shortages of batteries and other parts also held back sales in 2011.

“We have a bottleneck with the batteries,” said Carlos Ghosn, the chief executive of Nissan, adding that he expects supplies to increase as the Leaf enters new markets in the United States and production of the car and battery begins in Tennessee later this year.

“A lot of consumers are thrilled that they have the option of buying an electric car,” Mr. Ghosn said. “We sold 9,700 the first year. We can double that.

“I am much more optimistic on the prospects for electric cars than many people. We are very, very far from our potential.”

General Motors has said it wants to sell 45,000 of the Volt this year, despite falling short of its 10,000 target in 2011. G.M.’s chief executive, Daniel F. Akerson, said on Sunday that the company would build only as many Volts as the market called for.

“We’re going to match production with demand,” Mr. Akerson told reporters. “There are new variables in the equation, so we’ll see.”

Sales of the most popular hybrid, the Toyota Prius, declined 3.2 percent in 2011, after disruptions caused by the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, where it is built. The Prius accounted for almost half of all hybrids sold.

On Tuesday, Toyota will unveil the Prius C, a smaller version. It began selling the larger Prius V in the fall and plans to bring out a plug-in Prius this spring.

Toyota also is showing off a plug-in hybrid concept called the NS4 on Tuesday. Its premium brand, Lexus, on Monday unveiled a hybrid concept sports coupe.

Honda showed off two cars, the ILX and NSX, that will be the first hybrids ever for its upscale Acura brand. Honda said it planned to build a new plant in Ohio to assemble the NSX.

Volkswagen unveiled a hybrid version of its Jetta compact car Monday. BMW brought two new hybrids and a pair of electric concept cars to Detroit. Mercedes took the wraps off two E-Class hybrids, though one will not be sold in the United States, and a tiny electric pickup truck concept for its Smart brand. Volvo is showing a plug-in hybrid concept.

Ford is taking away the hybrid option on its small sport utility vehicle, the Escape, but it is bringing out hybrid and plug-in versions of the Fusion, which it introduced Monday. The plug-in Fusion will get the equivalent of more than 100 miles per gallon, Ford said.

“We still believe electrification is going to play a big role in the industry, both to meet CAFE requirements and because of consumers’ sensitivity to gas prices,” said Mark Fields, the president of Ford’s Americas division, referring to the government’s corporate average fuel economy regulations. “We want to give people an opportunity to choose, and we have a manufacturing strategy that allows us to be flexible with what we produce. Whatever way the market goes, we will be able to respond.”

Bill Vlasic contributed reporting.

These states are:

Three of them are – The UK, Isle of Man and Jersey Island – Like the Isle of Man, Jersey is a separate possession of the Crown and is not part of the United Kingdom.^[

Seven independent States – AUSTRALIA, CANADA, LICHTENSTEIN, LUXEMBOURG, NORWAY, SINGAPORE and SWITZERLAND.

Seven EURO States – AUSTRIA, DENMARK, FINLAND, FRANCE, GERMANY, THE NETHERLANDS, and SWEDEN.

and HONG KONG that sits on the rib of China.

Of these France seems to be next State to fall of this economists’ tree of life.

RTCC stands for Response to Climate Change and is an International Chambers of Commerce outlet. To judge its point of view please note:

“At RTCC, we continue to be encouraged by the breadth and depth of action happening at the coal face. The map opposite shows how companies and organisations worldwide have thrown their hat into the ring of climate change action. From Equatorial Guinea to Kuwait to the Netherlands, there are an array of initiatives and display of commitment – it is all that is good about the basic principles of entrepreneurship.

SMEs, local government and NGOs stand side by side with multinationals in taking the planet’s future seriously. Of particular note is the reaction of universities worldwide. They have had a difficult time restoring academic credibility amidst the 2010 sceptic glee, but all the signs indicate greater intra-institutional partnerships, interdisciplinary knowledge sharing, and more transparency. When the going gets tough, the tough surely gets going.

In other areas, forward-thinking cities and regions are marching on, inspiring many of us to consider relocating. Poland is well represented with Pozna? and Warsaw flying the sustainable flag. {let us remember that this is the semester of Poland Presidency of the EU – so they speak till December 31, 2011 for the EU covering Durban! – our own comment.} In Sweden, they are taking a rigorous look at the supply chain, and how to change purchasing behaviour.

The Spotlight on Energy section reveals the latest renewable technologies including printed batteries and novel wind turbines. The magazine also explores initiatives from high-impact industries, such as transport and construction, addressing mitigation and adaptation issues. From a prefabricated house to amphibious machinery, the technology is out there.

Nature abhors a vacuum, and clearly business does as well. How much so is yet to become apparent.“ {the highlights are ours.}

For more information:
www.rtcc.org

From our point of view this seems to be a hodgepodge controlled by those that will not allow for policy changes when delay is still possible.

Anyway – there are businesses that stand to benefit from answering climate change and there are true NGOs that look at people first. They can have an input to RTCC. Thus we thought to bring to our readers’ attention their TV video competition which is part from the RTCC Cancun to Durban effort.

Registration for the $5000 award for the best video on climate change closes on the 31st July.

Entries should follow our guidelines, www.climate-change.tv/video-award. They should be provided in flv format, last no longer than three minutes, and must relate to climate change.

The winner will be chosen from votes from the public – and voting will take place in August and September. They will email once they are all up and running.

Send your entries to:
By email: (using, for example, dropbox or yousendit) to award@climate-change.tv
By post: RTCC/Climate Change TV, 19 Heddon Street, London, W1B 4BG

If you have any questions, please email award@climate-change.tv

Good luck and best wishes,

from  Anna at RTCC.org

There are many Kreisky events this year in Vienna – presenters
frequently mention a short list of 20th Century giants – Churchill,
Kennedy, Mandela, Adenauer, De Gaul, Ben Gurion, Brandt, Palme  -
leaders of their Nations, people with vision who had great impact on
shaping events that saved their Nations – qualities that are hard to
come by today. It is also usually noted that the 20th Century should
not be remembered only because of Hitler and Stalin.

Kreisky, though the leader of a small Nation, is put on the short list because of his impact on the reformulation of the post-WWII Austria. In this respect he is honored today by all Austrian parties that agree that he was the best Kanzler Austria ever had. Even what was considered at the time as misdeeds, fiascos, mistakes – is now being explained in rather understanding terms – he is the real father figure of the Second Austrian Republic.

Bruno Kreisky was born January 22, 2011, to Irene and Max Kreisky – a Jewish family on Schoenbrunnerstrasse 122, in the 5th District of Vienna (Margareten).
His mother was of the Bohemian family named Felix that produced canned food. Was his name derived from the city Brno? He had a brother Paul.

Young Bruno became politically active already in 1925, in highschool,  and in 1936, at 25, was beaten up by police of the pro-NAZI government who broke his teeth and condemned him to a year in prison. After another half year in detention he managed to escape to Sweden and joined there two other giants – Willy Brandt and Olof Palme – in a Democratic Socialist European trio where he helped other Austrian refugees.

As he explained later, he did not continue to the US, he did not seek personal advantage, he simply knew that he will want to return to Austria and be politically involved in a new Austria. As a Jew this was a very tall task, but not as impossible as it might have seemed then – this because of the fact that Democratic Socialism had many Jews and in Austria for a while it seemed to be sort of a Jewish monopoly – but when will the time be right to enter and try for leadership? This was, last night discussed as part of a panel of members of former Kreisky circles, as it was in prior panels, and presentations we witnessed since we came to Vienna at the end of
2010.

Let me jump the gun at this point mentioning that though Exile is “EX SOLIS” – Kreisky never contemplated an alternative to his return to Austria “under all circumstances.”  Events proved that eventually he was the right man in judging the Austrian post-war various fields - psychology, politics, unions, industry just to mention a few – and he tried for a new paradigm – a complete restructure of the Austrian political concept. What helped was that he was  capable of taking decisions that had to be taken. We see this from the vantage point of 30 years since he eventually retired from politics when his other choice was to continue with a government in which his party lost the absolute majority.
It is now 20 years since his death.

The title of the evening was “Bruno Kreisky – Erinnerungen an einen Jahrhundertpolitiker” – the Remembrances of a Century-Politician.

The participants included several authors of books about Kreisky and his closest cooperator – his personal secretary – head of his office through several consecutive jobs.

 * Ms. Margit Schmidt worked closely with Bruno Kreisky during the 1965 -1990 years that cover the most important years of his being in office - having been elected to the office of Kanzler in 1971, 1975, 1979 - in all these cases with an absolute majority – and the time of his retirement in 1983 when his party – the SPÖ - lost the absolute majority – until his death in 1990.

 * Dr. Wolfgang Petritsch, who is now Austrian Ambassador to the OECD in
Paris, was an Assistant to Mr. Kreisky in the Kanzler´s office, and now published: “Bruno Kreisky – Die Biographie.”

 * Dr. Helene Maimann, historian, author and ÖRF documentary maker, who
interviewed many of the people that knew Kreisky and published those interviews. Her book of the Falter Verlag is titled: “Über Kreisky: Gespräche aus Distanz und Nähe.”

 * Professor Oliver Rathkolb, Head of Contemporary History at the University of Vienna, just released the second edition of his history of the Austrian Republic years 1945-2010 but also wrote a book of memoirs: “Erinnerungen: Das Vermächtnis des Jahrhundertpolitikers.”

 * Dr. Rudolf Scholten,  formerly a Minister in international finance and
culture matters in Kanzler Vranitzky cabinets, since 2004 he is President of the Bruno Kreisky Forum for International Dialog – an institution that occupies the former home of Bruno Kreisky at Armbrustergasse 15, in the Vienna 19th District, where the Kreisky legacy is continued in matters diverse as Middle East peace, Democracy, African Affairs, East and Central Europe Affairs, and everything else that would have interested Kreisky had
he been around.

The event was organized by the Kreisky Forum in the home of the ÖBV, the insurance company that covers Ausrtrian workers, located in the building that was once headquarter of the Austrian Socialist Party.

Other events we attended earlier were at the Parliament, the Burgtheater, the Diplomatic Academy, The National Archives etc. and included among others former Kanzleer Vranitzky, Ambassador Eva Nowotny, Ambassador Thomas Nowotny, Ambassador Friedrich Bauer, former Foreign Minister Peter Jankowitch, Eugen Freund from the State media, and many others, but as said I will concentrate on this latest event.

We heard how Kreisky did not return from Sweden to Vienna immediately after the war ended in 1945. He knew he wanted to be part of the post-war politics but thought he can start easier in foreign affairs then in internal Austrian matters. He did not want to join the foreign service, but helping other Austrian refugees was fine and would not keep him from eventually moving back to Vienna.

Further, he was too young to impress the Austrians. He thought he better wait till he is at least 40. Also, Austrians did not favor people that left and had what they thought was a better life away from the NAZI regime, and the punishment of war. But this was clearly unjust to Kreisky who did suffer personally before his escape to Sweden. But Kreisky was enough of a realist thinking of the 400,000 members of the SS and their families – all of whom will be voters in a democratic Austria. No-way could one succeed in changing the country by using a bulldozer and making believe that these people will vanish somehow.

Kreisky, as a Jew, hoped for a balanced number 2 position on a ticket – it is very improbable that he started out by aiming at #1.

From the end of the Austrian Empire till 1945 Austria was in a downward spiral. Kreisky´s greatness starts with him being able to judge what is realistically possible. First he joined in by organizing the Socialist party and eventually joined in 1956 the Julius Raab government as Secretary of State in the Foreign Ministry, as this was the easiest way to enter the governing circle thanks to his continuing contacts with his friends from his years in Sweden. Even before that  capacity he was instrumental in negotiating with the Soviets what became the Austrian State Treaty of 1955. That was the birth of the actual shell of  the Second Austrian Republic. From 1958 – to 1986 he was for 30 years in a chain of positions that took him from Secretary of State to Foreign Minister and to Bundeskanzler.

Kreisky’s second job in government was Foreign Minister. Kreisky followed closely the events of 1968 in the neighboring countries. Again, the questions were what can be done? and How far can I go? He planned for reforms in Austria with an eye on how much will people accept. Then came the oil shock that showed how little the world was prepared for such events. Kreisky was already in charge of Austria. He asked for trust from the people and promised to deliver. For one thing he facilitated the link between the Austrian Government oil industry – the ÖMV – and Gaddafi’s Libya.

The most interesting comment of the evening came from Ms. Margit Schmidt. She said that to each one his own Kreisky.
This observation seems very appropriate when presenters and questions from the audience dealt with some of the more controversial stands taken by Kreisky.

Some of these involve his conflict with Simon Wiesenthal. Was this a political decision, did it follow party lines with Wiesenthal being part of the conservative party? Was this mutual misunderstanding between two Jews that took different positions on how to react to the memory of the Holocaust?  Yes, there was strong anti-Semitism still in existance, outside the party but also inside the party and Kreisky was pulled in from time to time and had to react. There was even a Minister of his party that he had to chastise and curb his anti-Semitic pronouncements. In his first government he was dependent on elements of the right and ended up having a minister of Agriculture that was a former member of the SS.

A question from the audience pointed out that in 1968 and in 1978, under Kreisky there were no events reminding that these were years 30 and 40 since the Anschluss to NAZI Germany.

Margit Schmidt pointed out that KREISKY WAS NOT INTERESTED IN MEMORY BUT IN CHANGING SOCIETY!

He had in his government people of various outlooks – such figures as Christian Broda and Anton Benya, and even though a student of Otto Bauer, a   founder of Austrian Socialism, he did not accept the pro-Soviet slant, and was thoroughly anti-Stalinist. Kreisky was his own man even though he would include different people with different ideas, while trying to weld them to his needs.

Kreisky was not ready to see Austria as the first victim of NAZI Germany – a myths backed by many Austrians, but he was also not ready to accuse all Austria of having cooperated with the Nazis. He was walking his own thin line in order to avoid being shunned by those that still believed in one Germanic Nation that includes Austria with Germany. Kreisky saw Austria as member in a larger Europe, and in order to be accepted knew that Austria has to give up any claims on South Tirol which was non-negotiable so far as Italy was going. Without Italy consenting there will be no place for Austria at the EU table, neither in the EURO economy. Kreisky pulled it off by renouncing claims to South Tirol.

Kreisky, in the party meeting of 1968 laid out the program that will take him to the Kanzler office. He stated then that the party will be a party open to all – that is “open to all that wanted to work with us.” He established committees and Christian Broda, who became the Justice Minister, led the Justice Committee. It was mentioned that
later, under Broda, no former NAZI who landed in court was ever sent to jail.

Anton Benya, a competitor of Kreisky within the party, and head of the unions, was brought in by Kreisky as link to the unions and to the Catholic Church. Kreisky  was a politicians’ politician – he knew not just the Federal level but down to the local levels, sported great wins for the party and collected I.O.U.s.

Hannes Androsh was mentioned as another man Kreisky kept though not agreeing always to his ideas about industry and economy.

Kreisky was a continuous balancing act with an eye to change from within Austria and his hands holding onto the balances to see what is possible.

It was Mr. Scholten, whose father, a progresive Catholic, was sent by the NAZIs to Auschwitz, who mentioned that his father pleaded that it is impossible to understand what people did to get people to create gas chambers. His father’s personal experiences can be described but not analyzed he said. The pressures of the 50s and 60s – the time the new Austria was being formulated, created counter reactions in the 70s and eventually Kreisky chose to move away from Vienna. As he could not afford a lake-side home in Kärnten (Carinthia), he decided on the Spanish Island of Majorca as his retirement home.

Ambassador Petritsch, who was with Kreisky in Moscow at the time of the signing of the State Agreement, said that talking of Austria as the first victim was plain politics – you think of elections and you see also the start of the Cold War. You have to take decisions and you do not want to be like the donkey who starved because there were two heaps of hay in front of him and he could not decide from which of these heaps of hay he should eat. KREISKY KEEPS SAYING ALL THE TIME – YOU MUST DECIDE.

About nuclear power generation – Kreisky took the half way decision when faced with the facts that a completed nuclear reactor stood there at Zwettendorf, and the public majority does not allow its use.

Kreisky tried the line that said yes to this plant, and no to future plants.
It did not work, and he had no problem accepting the public’s decision. Today, with the events in Japan as part of our daily news, Austria can tell the rest of Europe – yes – we thought so all the time!  Was Kreisky the ideal leader on this topic? No – but at least he lived with the public’s decision.

From our own experience we have also something to tell in order to illustrate the wide scope of Kreisky’s vision.

It deals with energy and agriculture policy after the first energy crises of 1972-73, the years leading to the second energy crisis of 1979, and the understanding that biomass and biofuels can help break the dependence on oil. These are subjects that were not touched by any of the many meetings on Kreisky that we attended these last three months.

My personal story relates to the mid 70s when I started my testimonies at US Congressional hearings on the potential of using farm policy in order to support for the US economy decreased dependence on foreign oil.

These were the days after the first energy crisis when the US was embarking also on a program of unleaded gasoline as the tetra-ethyl lead compound in gasoline was deemed a health hazard – particularly to inner city children.

The lead compound was used at the oil refinery in order to increase the octane value of the gasoline. If one were to change the composition of the gasoline by other means – i.e. by reformulating the gasoline stream at the refinery so that it has more branched chain components or more aromatic, or toluene-like components, the energy intensive process of rebuilding the carbon chain  which is usually a
C7 or C8 straight chain, requires at least 6% more petroleum crude.
This while petroleum shortages were the subject of the day, meant further increases in the price of the gasoline and increases in shortages.

On the other hand, replacing 3% of the gasoline with ethanol, the mix gets one octane number enhancement. As usually, the first refinery gasoline cut being short by 3-4 octane numbers, this previously having been answered with the addition of a few drops of lead compound, now 10% ethanol in gasoline could thus replace more then 16% petroleum product and help significantly the economy in general.

The oil industry did not want any part of this and including such ideas in the commissioned research on energy policy that Mr. Hermann Kahn of the Hudson Institute was preparing for Washington, I started on efforts to educate Committees of the US House of Representatives, the US Senate, the US Department of Energy, the General Accounting Office and other Washington Institutions.

But above was not all. I actually calculated that the production of ethanol for octane – using US grown corn – would not impact food policy – this because of the land-set-aside program in US agricultural policy.

Under above program, the US was paying farmers for taking land out of production in order to reduce the output of agricultural commodities as a way to support prices. So, what I was talking was really the production on farm land of fuel components not from the corn that was grown – but from the corn that was not grown. In the process I suggested that the money used not to grow the corn should be used to help finance the gasoline component – so – in magical ways I actually avoided also any possible need for increases in the price of gasoline in case the ethanol is more expensive then the low quality refinery gasoline. Needless to say - now I also infuriated the Washington farm lobby as these folks wanted to create new subsidies in case farm ethanol is used for energy.

The Austrian angle started with the Austrian Vogelbush company being
interested in building ethanol distilleries in the US for the production of the ethanol. That caused me to look also at the EU farm policy and in my discovering that the EU also is subsidizing the non-use of farm land. And I approached Brussels and found people ready to listen. I also spoke with the Austrian Consul General in New York – Dr. Thomas Nowotny, who used to be a member of Mr. Kreisky’s entourage, and he sent my material directly to Kanzler Kreisky. I was then surprised receiving a thank you note signed by Kanzler Kreisky.

Now, Austria like the US had an oil company, the ÖMV, that did not
like the idea, but seemingly among the agricultural interests, with
some prodding from our friends at Vogelbush – thus steel company
interests – they saw here potential contracts – it seemed somewhat
easier. The result was that indeed an agricultural  program was set up
for fuel ethanol from wheat and corn. This was not unnoticed by the
oil people and the daily Kurrier had a front page article – “Gemma
Brot Verbrennen” – or we are going to burn bread, implying that some
people in the poor countries will lose their bread. Total nonsense
because as said the intent was to use as first target the excess land
that was actually subsidized for non-production.

But here again the Kanzler’s people found a way out as it was understood that beyond being an energy policy, biofuels have the potential of helping farm policy. The answer is thus to use the excess land for growing an industrial crop that cannot be considered a hunger-producer. The first decision was to grow ricinus plant and to produce bio-diesel. Austria was thus the creator of the agricultural source of diesel-fuel replacement.

I wish this material be picked up by Kreisky researchers as another evidence of what a great leader he was.

Ms. Margit Schmidt said that to each one there is his Kreisky. Besides the above I have a second Kreisky story that is not well known.

This story deals with the relationship between Bruno Kreisky and his younger brother Paul who escaped the NAZIs in 1939 to Tel Aviv. There he changed his name from Paul to Shaul and stayed on in Israel.
Newspapers were writing that there was no contact between the brothers after Bruno Kreisky advanced in Austrian politics, but I know personally that this was not the case as my wife’s father was Dr. Jacob Brenner who became the Austrian Honorary Consul General in Tel Aviv after the establishment of relations between Austria and Israel and was the conduit of passing financial help to Shaul Kreisky and his son Jossi born in 1954. It was the Austrian Diplomat Karl Hartl who established the Austrian representation in Tel Aviv, and member of the delegation, Mr. Heinz Baar, who involved Dr. Brenner in help to take care of the Kanzler’s brother. In effect it was at the Brenner residence at Rechov De Haas 14 in Tel Aviv that the first meeting between the brothers occurred. (As a matter of fact, last month, in Tel Aviv, another resident in that house, the writer David Shaham, told me about the day that the street was closed because of the Austrian Kanzler meeting his brother at the apartment of  Dr. Brenner.) This is mentioned by Margit Schmidt in the volume edited by Helene Maimann, but was mangled  by other biographers leading some to
think that Bruno Kreisky disowned contacts with his less successful brother. In fact, he even tried to bring Jossi Kreisky to Vienna. Further, Jossi Kreisky had a daughter that he named Irene after Bruno and Paul’s mother.

The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats in the European Parliament – ALDE – pushes European Council to prioritise energy efficiency.

In a letter to the President of the European Council, Herman van Rompuy, the Liberal and Democrat group in the European Parliament (ALDE) has asked for energy efficiency to be put at the top of the agenda of the Council’s special meeting on energy issues on 4th of February 2011.

The special summit on energy is set to discuss the shift towards an efficient low-carbon economy and greater security of supply in Europe, including through a better integrated and interconnected energy market.

Lena Ek MEP (Centerpartiet, Sweden), ALDE Coordinator in the Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) Committee, commented:
“Energy efficiency measures are the most cost-effective way to achieve our climate targets, to reduce our dependence of imported fuels, while at the same time increasing investments and the number of jobs in the current difficult economic climate. This is why energy efficiency must be a priority at the Council’s summit.
“In particular, the Council needs to consider the European Parliament’s request to make the EU’s objective of achieving 20% energy savings by 2020 a binding target.
“We also want to see a revival of the SET-Plan, a great EU initiative from 2007 to facilitate the development and deployment of low carbon energy technologies, which unfortunately has slipped off the agenda – both in terms of political priority and funding.”

Fiona Hall MEP (Liberal Democrat, UK), rapporteur on the EU’s 2006 Energy Efficiency Action Plan, added:
“I trust that, in the preparatory discussions ahead of the summit on 4th February, the European Commission is being ambitious and proactive in order to ensure that there are real proposals on the table for Ministers and Heads of States to discuss.
“European Member States and the Commission need to send out a clear signal that they are committed to energy efficiency as an important means to tackle climate change and energy security whilst stimulating economic growth.”

Before establishing the award in 1980, von Uexkull had tried to interest the Nobel Foundation in a new prize to be awarded together with the Nobel Prizes. However, as a result of the debate that followed the establishment of the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel (first awarded in 1969), the Nobel Foundation had decided not to associate the Nobel Prize with any additional awards, so von Uexkull’s proposal was rejected.

The new award – called the Right Livelihood Award – states that, in the 21st century, the “greatest benefit to mankind” may be found in different fields than in the traditional sciences or in strict categories: the vast majority of award winners work for grassroots non-governmental organizations in their countries. The foundation that backs these awards understands its awards as a complement to the Nobel Prizes.

Since 1980, the foundation has presented, as of 2010, awards to 141 individuals and organisations from 59 countries. Its purpose is both to bestow prizes and to publicize the work of its recipients’ local solutions to problems that also exist worldwide.

The ceremony takes place in the Stockholm old Parliament building, usually during the first week of December. A group of Swedish Parliamentarians from different parties host the ceremony. The prize is sometimes called the Alternative Nobel Prize, and differs significantly from the Nobel Prizes in

• having an open nomination process (anyone can nominate anyone else, except close relatives or their own organizations);
• not being limited to specific categories (many more people are eligible);
• making individual or shared awards amounting to about 5% of the Nobel ones; and
  
• neither being a fulfillment of Alfred Nobel‘s bequest nor being affiliated with the Nobel Prize committees.

Physicians for Human Rights-Israel

Physicians for Human Rights-Israel -  known in Israel as Physicians for Human Rights or PHR, is a medical non-governmental, non-profit, left-wing organization based in Jaffa. Physicians for Human Rights-Israel was founded in 1988 with the goal of struggling for human rights in general and the right to health in particular, in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The principles of human rights, medical ethics and social justice are at the core of the world view of the organization. These principles direct and instruct PHR’s activities and efforts on both the individual and principle level.^[1] In Septemberber 2010, PHRI was awarded the Right Livelihood Award “for their indomitable spirit in working for the right to health for all people in Israel and Palestine”.^[2]

PHR’s working guidelines are based on the concepts of medical ethics, social justice, and human rights. Much of PHR’s work is based on appeals and testimonies from persons whose rights may have been violated. Such claims may come from the Occupied Palestinian Territories, the unrecognized Bedouin villages in the Negev, or from migrant workers, refugees and asylum seekers living in Israel. PHR advocates on their behalf through different established authorities such as the Israeli Prison Service, Kupat Holim, the Israeli Defense Forces, the Ministry of Health, and others and appeals to the court system when necessary. Additionally, PHR publishes reports on various human rights concerns, and operates two clinics; one for persons of no civil status located in Jaffa, and a mobile clinic operating 3-5 times per months in a number of towns in the West Bank.

PHR-Israel’s diverse staff and volunteer base are composed of Jewish and Arab medical professionals and human rights activists who are committed to changing Israeli government policies that allegedly restrict the right to health. Today PHR-Israel has more than 1150 members, over half of whom are health workers.

Physicians for Human Rights-Israel cooperates with other human rights and medical NGOs in Israel, the occupied Palestinian territories, and abroad. PHR is also in partnership with the Legal Clinics of the Tel Aviv University. Cooperation is based on universal human rights principles.

Physicians for Human Rights-Israel has operated the Mobile Clinic Project since its establishment in 1988, with the goal of addressing the ongoing health crisis in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The Mobile Clinic brings together Israeli and Palestinian health professionals and active members of Palestinian civil society for weekly cooperative medical work in rural Palestinian villages. Within this setting, Israeli doctors provide immediate primary care and when necessary, referrals for follow up care, while Palestinian and Israeli Pharmacists dispense basic medications to patients.

From the very beginning, the Palestinian Medical Relief Society (PMRS), the largest non-governmental primary healthcare provider in the West Bank, has been the main partner of PHR-Israel in these activities. Over the years, PHR-Israel has built partnerships with other local non-governmental, independent organisations. Through consistent collaborative work, the mobile clinic aims to serve as a gesture of trust and solidarity with Palestinian patients and medical professionals, help to foster greater recognition for human rights values among the Israeli medical community, while sensitizing the Israeli public and international community to the need for Israeli policy change vis-à-vis the occupied Palestinian territory.

1. ^ www.phr.org.il/default.asp?PageID=145
2. ^ “List of Right Livelihood Award Laureates”

Migrants Department

The Migrants and undocumented people department strives to promote the Right to Health of immigrants and persons of no civil status living in Israel. This includes refugees and asylum seekers, migrant workers carrying or lacking a work permit, children who are not recognized as residents, victims of human trafficking, threatened Palestinians, persons deprived of citizenship through the Law of Citizenship and Entrance to Israel, and even returning residents. Individually, the department handles personal claims of persons without civil status and aids them in achieving their rights through the different bodies of the State of Israel. The Migrants department advocates for a reformation of Israel’s immigration policies, and in particular acts to promote a social residency status which will differentiate between the right to health and civil status, and will guarantee apt access to descent medical care for all, regardless of civil class or status. Additionally, the migrants department promotes reforming the private medical insurance sector, and transferring immigrants’ medical insurance policies to the public system. The department advocates for applying universal health care to all children living in Israel, for preventing the deportation of immigrants who suffer from complex or life-threatening illnesses, and advocates against the proposed Anti-Infiltration Law (which may result in up to 7 years detention for Asylum Seekers). The department operates the Open Clinic.

The Open Clinic is an established medical clinic located within PHR’s headquarters in Jaffa. The clinic provides community healthcare to immigrants and persons lacking civil status living in Israel. The Open Clinic was founded in 1998 as an initiative of volunteer physicians, and due to the limitations in access to healthcare imposed on persons with no civil status. The clinic does not claim to solve all medical problems of the immigrant community, or to replace the Ministry of Health, but acts to point out the alleged faults in Israel’s policy towards immigrants, and to show solidarity with the immigrant and refugee community. The Open Clinic is the only clinic of its kind in Israel providing primary medical care and specialized medicine, as well as hospital referrals and medical follow-up to persons with no civil status, free of charge or for a minimal fee. The clinic team, including reception staff as well as medical professionals, is made up solely of volunteers. While in the early years of the clinic most patients were migrant workers, today the patient population includes mostly refugees and asylum seekers. The clinic cares for over 6,000 patients annually.

Prisoners Department

The Prisoners department caters to the inmate population in Israel. PHR receives and handles claims from detainees, criminal prisoners, or ‘ ‘security prisoners ‘ ‘ who may have had their right to health violated while in jails, interrogation centers, or prisons. The prisoners department conducts research and publishes reports on prison health services, denial of medical treatment to inmates, torturing of inmates and physicians’ collaboration with torture. As a left-wing organizaiton, The department opposes the privatization of the Israel prison system, as it believes inmate care should not be handled by a for-profit company.

Residents of Israel Department

The ROI department acts to include in the public agenda issues deemed acutely problematic with Israel’s healthcare system. The department claims that such problems are hardly addressed by the Israeli political system or in the Israeli media. The main focus of the Residents of Israel department is the promotion of equality in availability and standards of healthcare in Israel, through addressing medical inequalities between Jews and Arabs, urban and rural residents, naturally-born citizens and Olim, upper and lower classes. The department aims to identify concerns with the implementation of Israel’s public health insurance law, and acts to create solutions to these problems. Issues addressed by this department include:

• A campaign to cancel co-pay fees on medical services and medications included in the official list of provided medical services in Israel.
• A campaign to diminish gaps in health and in the availability of healthcare between different groups within Israeli society; Jews and Arabs, urban and rural residents, upper and lower classes.
• A campaign to repeal amendments to the Israeli public health insurance law which may harm the public health system. Such amendments are often included in the Israeli Law of Arrangements.

The ROI department manages a case-specific project which handles violations of the right to health within the unrecognized Bedouin villages in the Negev. These established villages are not recognized by the Israeli government. The project promotes the recognition of the villages as legitimate towns, which will guarantee their residents their right to access to apt medical services, infrastructure, development and public health maintenance. The project follows health services operating within the unrecognized villages, and appeals to relevant authorities or to the Israeli Supreme Court in order to provide residents of the villages with non-discriminatory healthcare and full civil rights.

—————————–

WE MUST INCLUDE HERE that Dr. Ruchama Marton is one of the permanent members of the Israeli famous URI AVNERY table of Tel Aviv – and that Uri Avnery himself and his wife Rachel were recipients of the 2001 awards. Further, one of the permanent members of that table has received the regular 2009 Nobel Prize in Chemistry – Professor ADA E. YONATH for studies of the structure and function of the ribosome.
Tzvi Bentewich, the other co-founder of the Physicians group, also comes to the table at times.

For the Uri Avnery biography  see also – zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/about/1177150070

——————————————————————

THE OTHER THREE AWARDEES FOR 2010 ARE:

D.E.A. Deployed Mumbai Plotter Despite Warning.

By GINGER THOMPSON, ERIC SCHMITT and SOUAD MEKHENNET

Published: November 7, 2010

WASHINGTON — American authorities sent David C. Headley, a small-time drug dealer and sometime informant, to work for them in Pakistan months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, despite a warning that he sympathized with radical Islamic groups, according to court records and interviews. Not long after Mr. Headley arrived there, he began training with terrorists, eventually playing a key role in the 2008 attacks that left 164 people dead in Mumbai.

The October 2001 warning was dismissed, the authorities said, as the ire of a jilted girlfriend and for lack of proof. Less than a month later, those concerns did not come up when a federal court in New York granted Mr. Headley an early release from probation so that he could be sent to work for the United States Drug Enforcement Administration in Pakistan. It is unclear what Mr. Headley was supposed to do in Pakistan for the Americans.

“All I knew was the D.E.A. wanted him in Pakistan as fast as possible because they said they were close to making some big cases,” said Luis Caso, Mr. Headley’s former probation officer.

On Sunday, while President Obama was visiting India, he briefed Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on the status of his administration’s investigation of Mr. Headley, including the failure to act on repeated warnings that he might be a terrorist. A senior United States official said the inquiry has concluded that while the government received warnings, it did not have strong enough evidence at the time to act on them. “Had the United States government sufficiently established he was engaged in plotting a terrorist attack in India, the information would have most assuredly been transferred promptly to the Indian government,” the official said in a statement to The New York Times. The statement did not make clear whether any American agencies would be held accountable.

In recent weeks, United States government officials have begun to acknowledge that Mr. Headley’s path from American informant to transnational terrorist illustrates the breakdowns and miscommunications that have bedeviled them since the Sept. 11 attacks. Warnings about his radicalism were apparently not shared with the drug agency that made use of his ties in Pakistan.

The director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., began an investigation into Mr. Headley’s government connections after reports last month that two of the former drug dealer’s ex-wives had gone to American authorities between 2005 and 2008, before the Mumbai attacks, to say they feared he was plotting with terrorists. Combined with the earlier warning from the former girlfriend, three of the women in Mr. Headley’s life reported his ties to terrorists, only to have those warnings dismissed.

An examination of Mr. Headley’s story shows that his government ties ran far deeper and longer than previously known. One senior American official knowledgeable about the case said he believed that Mr. Headley was a D.E.A. informant until at least 2003, meaning that he was talking to American agencies even as he was learning to deal with explosives and small arms in terrorist training camps.

The review raises new questions about why the Americans missed warning signs that a valued informant was becoming an important figure in radical Islamic groups, and whether some officials chose to look the other way rather than believe the complaints about him. The October 2001 warning from the girlfriend was first reported Friday by ProPublica, the independent investigative news operation, and published in The Washington Post.

Fuller details of how the government handled the matter were provided to The Times by officials who did not want to be quoted discussing a continuing inquiry. They disclosed that the F.B.I. actually talked to Mr. Headley about the girlfriend, and he told them she was unreliable. They said that while he seemed to have a philosophical affinity for some groups, there was no evidence that he was plotting against the United States. Also influencing the handling of the case, they said, was that he had been a longtime informant.

The Indian government has been outspoken in its concerns that the United States overlooked repeated warnings about Mr. Headley’s terrorist activities because of his links to both American law enforcement as well as to officials in Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate — a key ally of the United States in the fight against terrorism.

Bruce O. Riedel, a terrorism expert at the Brookings Institution and a former C.I.A. officer, said the Indians were right to ask, “ ‘Why weren’t alarms screaming?’ ”

Mr. Headley, 50, born in the United States to a Pakistani diplomat and Philadelphia socialite, has pleaded guilty in connection with the Mumbai plot and a thwarted attack against a Danish newspaper that published cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. As he has many times before, he is cooperating with the authorities, this time hoping to avoid the death penalty. Officials of the D.E.A., which has a long history with Mr. Headley, declined to discuss their relationship with him. The C.I.A. and the F.B.I. said that Mr. Headley had never worked with them. Privately, the agencies point fingers at each other.

The transcript of a Nov. 16, 2001, probation hearing in federal court in New York shows the government took great pains not to identify which agency was handling Mr. Headley, or whether he worked for more than one.

Mr. Caso, his former probation officer, recalled that Mr. Headley had been turned over to the D.E.A. Another person familiar with the case confirms this account. It was a world Mr. Headley knew well. After arrests in 1987 and 1998, he cooperated with the drug agency in exchange for lighter sentences. He specialized in the ties between Pakistani drug organizations and American dealers along the East Coast.

A September 1998 letter that prosecutors submitted to court after an arrest then showed that the government considered Mr. Headley — who had admitted to distributing 15 kilograms of heroin over his years as a dealer — so “reliable and forthcoming,” that they sent him to Pakistan to “develop intelligence on Pakistani heroin traffickers.”

The letter indicates that Mr. Headley, who faced seven to nine years in prison for his offense, was such a trusted partner to the drug agency in the 1990s that he helped translate hours of tape-recorded telephone intercepts, and coached drug agency investigators on how to question Pakistani suspects. The courts looked favorably on his cooperation, according to records, sentencing Mr. Headley to 15 months in prison, and five years’ probation.

While he was on probation, in October 2001, a woman told the F.B.I. that she believed her former boyfriend, Mr. Headley, was sympathetic to extremist groups in Pakistan, according to a senior American official who has been briefed on the case. The government was flooded with thousands of such tips at that time, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

William Headley, an uncle, recalled that agents called his sister to ask if her son had terrorist leanings. “She didn’t seem upset at all by the call,” William Headley said. “And I didn’t think much of it either because at that time, I thought the government was checking out anyone who had ties to Pakistan.”

It is unclear how widely disseminated the warning was. But in that probation hearing one month later, the government enlisted Mr. Headley’s help again, suspending his sentence in exchange for what court records described only as “continuing cooperation.” According to the transcript, it was a rushed affair. The probation officer apologized for not being properly dressed, and the lawyers explained that they had not been able to make their case in writing. Mr. Headley was a potential gold mine, according to an official knowledgeable about the agreement to release him from probation. One person involved in the case said American agencies had “zero in terms of reliable intelligence. And it was clear from the conversations about him that the government was considering assignments that went beyond drugs.”

American authorities have not disclosed what happened after Mr. Headley resumed his role as an informant. But in December 2001, the same month Mr. Headley departed for Pakistan, the United States designated the Pakistani group Lashkar-e-Taiba as a terrorist organization. Less than two months later — in February 2002 — Mr. Headley began training with the group on “the merits of waging jihad.”

Between 2002 and 2005, Mr. Headley attended at least four additional Lashkar sessions, including training on surveillance and small-arms combat. Then in 2007, he began scouting targets for the group to attack in Mumbai, staying at least twice at the Taj Mahal Palace and Tower hotel, and hiring fishermen for private tours of the port that helped him identify where the sea-traveling attackers could land. It is unclear when and why his connections to the United States government ended.

After the Mumbai attacks, Mr. Headley apparently turned his attention to Europe, according to recently released transcripts of his questioning by the Indian authorities. He contacted Ilyas Kashmiri, widely considered one of Al Qaeda’s most dangerous operatives, and begin plotting the attack against the Danish newspaper, according to his own account. Mr. Kashmiri put Mr. Headley in touch with Qaeda operatives in Europe who would help. He traveled to Britain in August 2009, then to Stockholm.

British intelligence authorities alerted the United States to Mr. Headley’s August meeting in Britain, saying that they believed he was involved in a plot against the Denmark newspaper. He was arrested in connection with the Denmark plot last October.

American authorities had no idea that he was also involved in the Mumbai attacks until he told them. Since then, he has been in federal custody in Chicago.

An American counterterrorism official said that agents who had questioned Mr. Headley called him “dangerously engaging.” The official said Mr. Headley was “a very charming individual who clearly knows how to manipulate the system to get what he wants” and added that agents steeled themselves before meeting with him so as not to “get sucked into his mind games.”