Why the world is not over the moon on Ban.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Sir,

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

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

Light Drivers and Heavy Drivers

Hotel Managers and Supervisors.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kind Regards,
Captain Barley Gordon Smith DIRECT LINE+447045726140

UK OPERATIONAL OFFICE

HR GROUPS CONSULTING INC.

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

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

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

Reihe: GENIAL DAGEGEN/ kuratiert von Robert Misik

Montag, 6. September, 19.00 Uhr

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

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

FRANZ WALTER

Institut für Demokratieforschung Göttingen

VORWÄRTS ODER ABWÄRTS?

Hat die Sozialdemokratie noch eine Zukunft?

Moderation:   Robert Misik, Journalist und Autor

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

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

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

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

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

www.kreisky-forum.org

PLEASE SEE:  .eco

Aid only trickles to Pakistan’s monsoon disaster.

August 18, 2010

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

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

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

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

Pakistan’s flood-affected areas

Pakistan flood: Before and after

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

————————

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

–

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discuss this article

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

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

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

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

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

About Valerie Amos

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

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

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

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

Role of Director

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

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

Selection Process and Critiques

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

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

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

Member State Entitlements

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

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

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

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

The former directors of OCHA are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Qualifications

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

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

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

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

View a slideshow of Tibet’s melting glaciers

On Aug. 8, 1975, geoscientist Wallace Smith Broecker published “Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?” in the journal Science, the first time the iconic phrase “global warming” was used in a scientific paper. Broecker — known by all as Wally — was already a prominent scientist by then, having served on Columbia University’s faculty for 16 years. Today, at age 78, Broecker is recognized as one of the fathers of climate science, with more than 450 journal publications and 10 books to his name, ranging from paleoclimatology to chemical oceanography.

The past 35 years have also seen humanity answer Wally’s question in the affirmative, running a radical experiment on the only planet we inhabit. Carbon dioxide levels have risen 40 percent to 392 ppm from preindustrial levels of 280 ppm, and the global mean temperature has risen 0.8 degrees Celsius, on 1.3 trillion tons of carbon dioxide. Humanity has produced 60 percent of that global-warming pollution since Broecker’s paper was published. As a result, the planetary ecosystem has fundamentally changed — weather has become more extreme, seasons have shifted, and global ice and snow are in decline — with more rapid and radical change on its way.

Wally’s seminal Science paper built upon decades of earlier work by scientists who had found natural cycles of planetary warming and cooling in Greenland ice cores (Dansgaard, 1973), developed a mean global temperature from meteorological records (Mitchell, 1963), modeled the greenhouse influence of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere (Manabe and Wetherald, 1967, 1975; Rasool and Schneider, 1971), and measured the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels (Keeling, 1973). Synthesizing the work, Broecker accurately predicted “that the present cooling trend will, within a decade or so, give way to a pronounced warming induced by carbon dioxide.”

“To those who even today claim that global warming is not predictable,” climatologist Stefan Rahmstorf writes at the peerless RealClimate blog, “the anniversary of Broecker’s paper is a reminder that global warming was actually predicted before it became evident in the global temperature records over a decade later.”

In fact, one can even go back to the 1896 work of Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius, in which he predicted that the burning of coal could eventually double atmospheric CO2, leading to a temperature increase of several degrees Celsius, though he believed such a day was far into the future.

For the next 50 years, most scientists considered man-made climate change an unlikely speculation. In the scientific explosion following World War II, however, scientists began using new measurements and the era’s new digital computers to revisit the effect of humanity’s carbon dioxide pollution on the climate, and our modern understanding of the greenhouse effect developed through the work of pioneering scientists like Gilbert Plass, Hans Suess, Roger Revelle, and Bert Bolin (eventually the first chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1988).

By the end of the 1950s, Frank Capra had made an instructional film on man-made global warming, and Revelle had testified before Congress about the “large-scale geophysical experiment” humanity was conducting with industrial greenhouse gas pollution.

From the Desk of Dr. James E. Hansen

to:		pj@sustainabilitank.com
date:		Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:52 PM

What Global Warming Looks Like…So Far

What Global Warming Looks Like discusses current global temperature anomalies in July 2010; see also summary and full paper accepted for publication in Reviews of Geophysics.

From Alaska to Argentina in an Electric Sports Car.

Racing Green Endurance hopes to spin the experience into an electric car startup.

http://twitter.com/GreenTechnology

Michael Kanellos: August 3, 2010

 http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/r…

Austin, Tex.–They get pulled over quite a bit.

That’s the word from Alex Schey, the project manager of Racing Green Endurance, a group that is driving an electric sports car called the SRZero 16,000 miles from Alaska to Argentina.

“So far, we’ve been stopped by cops 15 times,” he said. “They just want to take pictures.”

The group — which grew out of work conducted by Schey and others at Imperial College London — designed the car to help make consumers aware that electric cars can be both functional and stylish. In addition to posting their own blog and conducting interviews, the drivers are being followed by a team filming a documentary that may air on BBC News in the future. When they finish in a few weeks, the group will then sit down, study the results and attempt to incubate a startup, possibly around the battery management system or the battery pack designed for the car. We met up with them in Austin at NI Week, a conference sponsored by test and measurement giant National Instruments. (NI supplied hardware for the battery management system; Racing Green Endurance created the software.)

“In the past, everyone had these perceived ideas that electric cars were boring and slow and had funny names,” he said.

The SRZero contains a 54 kilowatt-hour lithium ion phosphate battery, which is more than double the size of the battery of the Nissan Leaf and a single kilowatt-hour larger than the battery in the Tesla Roadster, and can drive 350 miles on a charge. They body of the car is a modified Radical SR8, one of the fastest gas-burning cars in the world.

While it can go farther than the Tesla Roadster on a single charge, the maiden version of the SRZero going to Argentina doesn’t accelerate like it, or even like a regular high-end sports car. It takes six to seven seconds to go from zero to 60 miles per hour. But that’s because the group deliberately left out the gearbox. The motor right now connects directly to the wheels. When the group completes the drive, a fixed-gear gearbox will be added that will allow the car to go from zero to 60 in three seconds.

“This smashes the Tesla in terms of range and it will smash the Tesla in acceleration,” he joked.

After Texas, the group will head to Mexico, Guatemala, the Central American chain, Colombia and other South American nations.

View a slideshow of Pakistan’s great flood.

This week, Pakistan’s president, Asif Ali Zardari, boarded a private Gulfstream Jet along with his family and his hundreds-large entourage to visit the European countries included on the president’s grand tour.

Yesterday, Zardari — who was married to my aunt, the late Benazir Bhutto, before her 2007 murder — landed in London. As soon as the plane touched down, the president and his Very Important coterie were chauffeured in a dozen luxury vehicles to a five-star hotel where the president will be staying in a £7,000 ($11,160) per night Royal Suite.

His welcome, however, was less than royal. On the drive to the hotel, protesters held placards reading “Zardari King of Thieves,” “Zardari 100% Pure Corruption,” and “GO Zardari GO.” While Zardari was schmoozing with his cronies in luxe London hotels, Pakistan was reeling from the deadliest floods to hit the country in 80 years. In short, it looks like Zardari’s Katrina.

More than 3 million people in the northwestern region of Pakistan have now been affected by the floods. Parts of the north are facing terminal food shortages even as they are inaccessible to relief workers. The U.N. World Food Program says that 1.8 million will urgently need something to eat in coming weeks. The death toll has risen steadily in recent days to more than 1,400 people. About another million have lost their homes.

The news is also unlikely to get any better: Officials now say that the waters are expected to hit Punjab and Sindh provinces, Pakistan’s food-producing regions. New flood warnings are still being issued, and the country is bracing for further monsoon downpours.

Zardari takes a lot of overseas trips — so many that one local TV pundit estimated somewhat anecdotally last year that Richard Holbrooke, U.S. President Barack Obama’s special envoy to the “AfPak” region, had spent more time in Pakistan than Zardari had recently. But the timing of this particular visit has angered not only his subjects but also his hosts. Two prominent Asian Britons refused to meet the visiting head of state. Khalid Mahmood, a member of parliament, vigorously condemned Zardari’s decision to visit London. “A lot of people are dying,” he told the press. “He should be [in Pakistan] to try to support the people, not swanning around in the UK and France.” Lord Ahmed, a labor MP, continued that Zardari had a responsibility to be “looking after people, not [be] over here.”

Yet the protests seem to have fallen on deaf ears — which really shouldn’t surprise anyone who has watched the Zardari government in action. The floods are just the latest, most tragic example of how inept the Pakistani state truly is. The inundation was predictable; Pakistan suffers monsoon rains every year at exactly the same time. But in a country — and with a president — so endemically corrupt,  dealing with the entirely preventable, whether terrorism or natural disasters, has become impossible. There is simply no will, and more importantly no money, to spend on the Pakistani people. The country’s coffers are constantly being diverted to more pressing programs — or pockets, for that matter. Before he came to office, Zardari was facing corruption charges in Switzerland, Spain, and Britain. (As president, he withdrew Pakistan’s cooperation with the latter two countries’ courts; his presidential immunity prevented a Swiss case from re-opening.)

And thus the tragedy unfolds: There are no emergency evacuation plans for natural disasters, nor is there money for institutions that could help victims of such crises. What there is money for — almost $600,000 — are such programs as the Martyr Benazir Bhutto Income Support Scheme, a cult of personality initiative named after the president’s late wife. Those who sign up receives meager cash handouts and find themselves on the president’s ruling party’s election rolls — which themselves received more government funds than two whole federal departments of Pakistan put together.

Meanwhile, if rumors in the Pakistani press are right, Zardari’s European tour is even more cynical than it already seems. The trip is meant to kickstart the president’s young son’s political career. That launch has to take place overseas to avoid the inevitably hostile reactions such a dynastic coronation would draw back in Pakistan.

Speculation has it that Zardari’s son Bilawal, a recent college graduate who is already co-chairman along with Zardari of their political party, will proclaim himself the future leader of Pakistan to a select audience in Birmingham on August 7.

Pakistan’s The News newspaper summed up popular sentiment in a laundry list of questions posed to the country’s High Commission in London. “Who is paying for the buses and coaches being booked to bring people to the Birmingham rally?” the paper asks. “Why will the president not cancel his visit?” And the most crucial question: Shouldn’t the money for the trip be better spent on the flood victims? In response, the Pakistani High Commission issued a one-line blanket response:  ”This is an official visit and procedures for official visits are being followed.”

Pakistan can ill afford a president who prioritizes his personal political future over the lives of millions of his citizens. We have always known in Pakistan that the rest of the world’s attention comes at a tremendously high cost. Yet we seem to keep paying

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

Bilawal Bhutto Zardari The Cool Image Party Boy.

David Cameron To Hold Talks With Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari

Pakistan president Zardari has informal dinner at Chequers prior to formal discussions after period of diplomatic tension David Cameron poses for photographers with Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari and his children Asifa Bhutto Zardari and Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. Photograph: Kirsty Wigglesworth – Pool/EPA David Cameron will today hold formal talks with Pakistan’s president, Asif Ali Zardari,…   Kosmix News

Read more: http://www.kosmix.com/topic/Bilawal_Bhutto_Zardari#ixzz0vqTsl6Z6

Oldest university on earth is reborn after 800 years.

Nalanda, an ancient seat of learning destroyed in 1193, will rise again thanks to a Nobel-winning economist.

By Andrew Buncombe

GETTY IMAGES

The ruins of Nalanda, the 2,000-year-old Buddhist University near Rajgir in the northern part of India.

Jason Leopold is the Deputy Managing Editor at Truthout. He is the author of the Los Angeles Times bestseller, News Junkie, a memoir. Visit newsjunkiebook.com for a preview.
 http://www.truth-out.org/BP-Executive-Tu…

———————

BP Executive Turned Alyeska Pipeline Into “Deeply Distressed” Company.

Monday 02 August 2010

by: Jason Leopold, t r u t h o u t | Investigative Report

Former BP human resources executive Kevin Hostler will be retiring from his current post as Chief Executive Officer for Alyeska Pipeline Service Company in September. (Photo: Alyeska Pipeline Service Co)

Alyeska Pipeline, the BP-led consortium that operates the 800-mile Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS), has implemented deep budget cuts, deferred work on a number of important maintenance and upgrade projects, failed to study how relocating engineers would impact the safe operations and long-term integrity of the pipeline and is led by a chief executive who was described by the company’s five vice presidents as “intimidating,” “demeaning,” “aggressive,” “confrontational,” “unpredictable,” “polarizing,” “withering,” “edgy,” “vulgar” and “inappropriate.”

Those are just some of the critical findings contained in a closely-held report, obtained exclusively by Truthout, that was prepared by two attorneys hired by Alyeska to investigate widespread safety concerns raised by a senior employee in an anonymous letter to BP’s Office of the Ombudsman alleging TAPS is vulnerable to a catastrophic spill.

Charles Thebaud and Jane Diecker of the law firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, conducted the four-month probe and turned over their report in mid-June to TAPS’ owners BP, ConocoPhillips Transportation Alaska, ExxonMobil Pipeline Company, Unocal Pipeline Company and Koch Alaska Pipeline Company.

Truthout documented some of the findings of Thebaud’s investigation and the safety and integrity concerns raised by nearly a dozen Alyeska and BP officials in an investigative report published last month.

Alyeska has not shared a copy of Thebaud’s report with its employees and the company downplayed many of the report’s conclusions in a company-wide email distributed June 30 signed by TAPS’ owners.

Thebaud’s report paints a picture of a company where employees suffer from low morale, have a deep mistrust of senior executives and fear retaliation if they openly discuss or raise concerns about safety and integrity issues with them.

The harshest criticism was reserved for Chief Executive Officer Kevin Hostler, a BP executive “on loan” to Alyeska who admittedly uses “anger” to “obtain results,” in violation of Alyeska’s own code of conduct.

Hostler announced his retirement from the company, effective in September, one day after the publication of Truthout’s report last month.

“Although lawful, [Hostler's] leadership style and demeanor have affected the work environment,” the report’s executive summary says. “Employees at various levels of the organizations, in [Fairbanks, Anchorage and Valdez], have either witnessed or heard about [the CEO's] interactions with his executives. Their observations or perceptions have adversely affected some employees’ willingness to raise concerns to [Hostler] and senior management, particularly for non-core issues.”

Hostler’s “conduct has had consequences, even among the executives,” the report added. “The group is admittedly ‘consciously cautious’ and ‘wary’ in how they approach [Hostler] and in the topics they raise. In fact, some are hesitant to raise ‘non-core’ issues with [Hostler], given his unpredictability and demeanor.”

The five Alyeska vice presidents who were critical of Hostler are: Mike Joynor, Greg Jones, Jordan Jacobson, the company’s general counsel, Mike Muckenthaler, Alyeska’s chief financial officer, and Kristi Acuff, who recently retired as senior vice president, employee external relations.

In his own defense, Hostler told Thebaud, “he can become particularly angry if he believes that ‘safety has been ignored.’” That statement, according to a dozen senior BP and Alyeska officials who were interviewed for this story and reviewed the report, said is “laughable” and “a flat out lie.”

“It’s when you discuss safety concerns that he lashes out,” said one top Alyeska executive who has interacted with Hostler over years. “Raising safety concerns means Alyeska will have to spend money and Kevin Hostler and BP do not want to invest money to make sure this pipeline operates safely. That’s a fact.”

Prior to being named chief executive of Alyeska, Hostler spent 27 years with BP, most recently as senior vice president of BP’s global human resources organization. Before that, Hostler was head of BP’s subsidiary in Colombia.

The report said employees have been lodging complaints against Hostler since 2007, which senior officials in Alyeska’s human resources (HR) department failed to address.

In fact, Thebaud’s report also documented widespread problems in the human resources division.

Click here to sign up for Truthout’s FREE daily email updates.

Interviews with employees “revealed a significant weakness in the quality of the work environment in [human resources]” and determined that the “majority of the [human resources] personnel interviewed do not believe that an open work environment [to express concerns] exists in HR.”

“The HR Director, has a management style that her staff and peers view as aloof and … confrontational,” his report says. “Regardless of the factors giving rise to the current situation, the work environment in HR requires attention. A substantial segment of the workers mistrusts the organization’s leader [Theresa Guim] and is reluctant to raise concerns. The situation … must be addressed.”

The report also said “morale is low” at the Valdez Terminal, where employees who respond to spills work. Thebaud’s report said employees do not trust Kathy Zinn, Alyeska’s Valdez Terminal director, because of her close ties to Hostler and her own brash management style. Numerous employees have left the Valdez Terminal in recent months and the report suggests that the departures may be directly related to Zinn’s leadership.

Scrutiny Following Oil Spill {At THE NORTH SLOPE}

Alyeska has been the subject of intense scrutiny in recent months following a 4,500-barrel oil spill at one of its pump stations on the North Slope in May, which, according to a copy of a separate 17-page internal report into the circumstances behind that incident, was largely the result of the company continuously repeating past mistakes.

The spill at pump station 9, about 100 miles southwest of Fairbanks, resulted when oil started to flow back into the tank, after a backup battery system failed during a planned shutdown. Because the power was out and the facility was not manned with trained operators, no one recognized that the relief valves, which open during an outage, were discharging oil into the tank, which eventually overflowed and spilled. The incident forced Alyeska to shut down the pipeline for three days.

The facility is usually unmanned, another cost-cutting measure implemented by Alyeska as part of its long-delayed “strategic reconfiguration plan,” an “efficiency” measure implemented by TAPS’ owners to address declining oil production on Prudhoe Bay.

But a work crew was nearby because of the planned shutdown. The report said the pump station 9 was being shutdown in order to test the fire detection system, which includes isolation of primary power. During one of the tests, two uninterrupted power supply systems failed. The uninterrupted power supply was supposed to provide backup power, but when it failed, it caused critical station control systems to shut down.

When power is lost, five of the pump station’s relief valves are supposed to kick into an open position to prevent pipeline overpressure and flow into tank 190. But according to the report, also lost along with the uninterrupted power supply failure were audible and visual alarms when relief valves open at 5 percent or more. The operators, according to the report, did not realize that a power failure causes the relief valves to open into tank 190. The tank then overfilled and spilled crude oil into the containment area.

Alyeska’s internal report into the root cause of the spill noted that at least four serious incidents have occurred at pump station 9 since 2007, including one on March 22, 2007, that was nearly identical to the spill in May and almost caused an explosion at the facility, but the company has failed to learn from the operational mistakes that caused those accidents.

“A number of significant incidents on TAPS over the last several years, demonstrate a trend of operational discipline deficiencies similar to those at [tank 190],” the Root Cause Analysis and Post Accident Review report said.

Although Alyeska implemented recommendations from previous reports into past incidents, “there is recognition of a need for significant improvement in the organization’s ability to effectively learn from these experiences and prevent recurrence. The previous incident actions have been completed, however, they did not result in the cultural and behavioral changes … Reports and recommendations from previous incidents have not been communicated well throughout the organization.”

A BP master root cause specialist with behavioral safety as well as business management experience reviewed the internal report into the spill and said the findings “indicate a deep and widespread problem that is likely to be reflective not just of the operating environment but also maintenance and integrity management discipline … and highlights a clear and significant risk to the safe operation of TAPS.”

The BP official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the uninterrupted power supply failure and the fact that the pump station is usually unmanned caused the operations control center located in Anchorage to lose all visibility with the facility and was unable to obtain crucial operational data about what unfolded.

“This is the inherent weakness of strategic reconfiguration: unmanned pump station,” the BP official said. “This event could have been much worse if it had occurred when people were not there. Everything is dependent on no power failures, redundant power supplies to work and all equipment to set up in the right safe condition upon loss of power.”

The BP official added that he believes the investigation into the spill “is fundamentally flawed because it does not identify the real root causes that resulted from a failed [uninterrupted power supply] breaker and the response of [Alyeska] personnel to the power outage.

“The recommendations resulting from this investigation as well as other investigations identified in the report lack specificity as to what [Alyeska] needs to do in order to prevent future failures of equipment and people,” the BP official said. “Investigators were not able to replicate the breaker failure and therefore were not able to identify a root cause for the failure. This means that the device remains in service with the likelihood of a similar failure in the future.”

The BP officials said the report’s recommendations, that corrective action should focus heavily on communication and training do not “strongly influence or motivate behavioral changes.

“The condition described by the investigation report and its scale indicates a deep and widespread problem that is likely to be reflective not just of the operating environment but also maintenance and integrity management discipline,” the BP official said. “What was described as an operating discipline issue is likely not to be an isolated condition but reflective of the entirety of [Alyeska's] operation including management of the TAPS mechanical integrity.” The report underscores “a complete lack of management leadership to motivate personnel without fear of retaliation to perform their job duties with the highest degree of integrity and with rigorous discipline.”

TAPS owners have “abdicated their responsibility for proper management of [the pipeline] to a BP executive [Hostler] who exhibits the same flawed management qualities that characterize the BP leadership culture which have led to numerous integrity incidents in the last five years,” the BP official added. “You could describe TAPS as Alaska’s ticking time bomb because of flawed leadership, flawed management, lack of rigorous operational discipline and loss of skilled and experienced staff. The numerous incidents preceding the [spill at pump station 9] are harbingers of a worse event that will happen unless an intervention by an owner with a stronger management culture occurs.” (A detailed story on the circumstances that led up to the spill will be published later this week.)

The BP official said both the Thebaud and pump station 9 reports are cause for serious concern.

“The public, State of Alaska, Department of Transportation and Congress should be alarmed by the findings of the two reports,” the BP official said. Alyeska “is a deeply distressed organization and has a serious systemic issue with operational discipline that is likely indicative of a bigger problem with serious integrity management implications.”

Patricia Klinger, a spokeswoman for the Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), said in an interview last month that the circumstances behind the spill are still under investigation by federal regulators.

Additionally, Klinger said a corrective action order was issued to Alyeska May 27, requiring the company to keep personnel on site 24-hours a day, seven days a week and perform inspections every 30 minutes for “leaks and any abnormal operations or activities.”

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, last week called on Alyeska to conduct its own internal review of the pipeline, in areas such as maintenance and leak detection, to ensure its operating safely.

Alyeska said the company would hire a third party to conduct an independent review of TAPS after Alaska State Rep. David Guttenberg (D-Fairbanks), who has been critical of the company’s cost-cutting measures, said Alyeska could not be trusted to investigate itself.

Anonymous Email Sparks Probe

The investigation conducted by Thebaud and Diecker into the safety issues at Alyeska was sparked by an anonymous three-page email sent to BP’s Office of the Ombudsman last December by an Alyeska employee identified as “Afraidaspill.”

In that letter, Afraidaspill wrote that Alyeska’s Employee Concerns Program (ECP) “is non functional” and that was one of the reasons BP’s Office of the Ombudsman was initially contacted about the safety and budgetary issues. The email noted that BP’s Deputy Ombudsman, Billie Garde, an attorney, had previously represented Alyeska whistleblowers. Garde also formerly worked for Alyeska.

Thebaud’s report said BP’s ombudsman’s office then sent Afraidaspill’s email to Alyeska’s general counsel and, in February, attorneys for TAPS’ owners directed Morgan, Lewis & Bockius “to conduct this privileged, independent investigation on behalf of Alyeska … without guidance, direction, or oversight from Alyeska management.”

Thebaud and Diecker conducted 66 interviews with Alyeska executives, directors, managers, supervisors and “individual contributors” during the course of their investigation and obtained 200 internal company documents from a senior research analyst in Alyeska’s legal department. The questions asked were based on a review of the documents, says the report, which is marked “attorney-client privilege.”

Afraidaspill’s email raised concerns “in seven general topic areas affecting Alyeska personnel and operations,” Thebaud’s report says. “The allegations relate to all three major Alyeska locations – Anchorage, Fairbanks and Valdez.”

The BP official said what’s interesting about Thebaud’s report is that it “narrowly examines [Afraidaspill's] concerns with exactness for substantiation of the concern exactly to the words used to define the concern.”

For example, the email described Alyeska vice presidents as “neutered,” “spineless” and “worn down.” Thebaud’s report said his probe determined that company officials are neither “neutered,” “spineless” nor “worn down” and, therefore, the accusation was unsubstantiated.

“That is very unusual and a narrow viewpoint,” the BP officials said. “To me this was deliberate so that [TAPS owners] could say that they could not substantiate the concerns rather than examine the meaning of the concerns.”

Stanley Sporkin, BP’s ombudsman, and Garde, were both said to be distressed by Thebaud’s final report, which substantiated some of the initial concerns, but ultimately concluded that the issues in the Afraidaspill email and correspondence their office received from other employees had no immediate impact on the integrity of the pipeline.

Sporkin and Garde were in Anchorage last week meeting with BP officials to discuss the report and register their disapproval with the results of the investigation, Alyeska and BP officials said. Ironically, in 2006 and 2007, Garde was working with Alyeska on revitalizing their employee concerns’ program and helped the company establish an open work environment, which Thebaud’s report identified as areas of major concern for employees that contributed to the issues at the center of the Afraidaspill email.

Some senior Alyeska employees, who reviewed Thebaud’s report, said they believed it ultimately amounts to a “whitewash” because it failed to absorb how low morale, poor leadership and a culture of fear has already affected the safe operations of a pipeline that moves anywhere from 600,000 to 700,000 barrels of oil per day and accounts for 15 percent of the country’s oil supply. The employees pointed to the spill at pump station 9 as evidence of how these issues have affected pipeline safety and integrity.

Fears that the investigation would be whitewashed was a prediction Afraidaspill made in an email sent June 21 to Pasha Eatedali, an attorney who works in BP’s Ombudsman’s office, inquiring about the status of Thebaud’s report.

“Concerned that the report will be whitewashed,” the email said. “Since Alyeska is paying for [Thebaud's investigation], there’s a belief that the concern report will not truly relate to the owners state of affairs at Alyeska and the irresponsible decisions that have been made by the President that will/have resulted in concern for safety and integrity,” says the email, which was obtained by Truthout.

This wouldn’t be the first time Thebaud has been accused of whitewashing a report concerning Alyeska. In 2006, Robert Glen Plumlee, an Alyeska financial executive, had accused Thebaud of covering up his claims of widespread financial malfeasance and retaliation by Hostler after he disclosed to Thebaud and federal investigators that he was pressured to boost estimates of how much Alyeska was spending to fight corrosion on TAPS. Neither Thebaud nor Diecker returned a call for comment.

“Bow Wave”

Although Thebaud’s report downplayed the significance the issues raised in the Afraidaspill email would have on the integrity of the pipeline, he did find cause for concern in many of the allegations raised in the email.

One of the main issues alleged that Alyeska, at the direction of BP, implemented budget cuts “over the last couple of years” that has resulted in a “large ‘bow wave’ of deferred projects and program work,” which can result “in an unsafe work place and potential for an environmental spill.”

“The oversight of the integrity of the system is at risk,” Afraidaspill’s email said.

Thebaud’s report said Alyeska slashed its 2010 budget by about $80 million last year due to the “global economic recession and other [unknown] circumstances” resulting in “significant reductions in almost all of the major programs.”

However, “the reductions did not … compromise Alyeska’s safety, its environmental stewardship, or the integrity of TAPS,” Thebaud’s report said.

But a top BP official told Truthout last month “there is a cogent argument for closer TAPS attention because of its age and lower flow rate that create new and unique integrity concerns.”

Still, “the Alyeska CEO and executives readily acknowledge that funding constraints and other circumstances have caused the deferral of some work,” according to the report. “Thus far, however, the deferred work has been work that could be safely and lawfully deferred. But in time, deferral will cease to be an option as conditions or regulatory commitments compel completion of the work.”

The report added that Alyeska officials are now “working with the Owners to develop a realistic, long-term budget that accounts for the timely performance of the previously deferred work” to address the potential safety issues from delaying work on the pipeline, which suggests the company never put together a long-term budget plan.

The report said, “In the past, the budget process focused primarily on whether work had to be done in the following year. Now, Alyeska is creating a five-year project plan to address the ‘bow wave’ with the intent of leveling the work over a three-year period and providing the needed funds. They are particularly concerned about the compression of work over the 2012-2015 period.

“Part of the new long-range planning process will be to identify the risk of not completing a project in any given future year so that the Company and the Owners can plan for when a project can (and must) be completed. Thus, the [Afraidaspill email] correctly notes the existence of a ‘bow wave’ and the potential consequences if the future work is not performed. Alyeska management and the Owners recognize both the condition and the consequences and are taking steps to address the situation.”

The BP official who reviewed the report said the “bow wave” of “capital projects are also indicative of the flawed BP leadership culture because it arises out of the need to generate short-term performance goals.”

“This is how it is linked to the CEO’s performance – to deliver short-term financial results and deferring the long-term to his future replacement,” the BP official said. “That is how the game is played within BP. It is the same type of practice of maintenance deferrals that ultimately led to the North Slope spills in 2006.”

Little Regard for Emergencies

Thebaud’s report said a controversial cost-cutting measure implemented by Hoslter last November, also identified in the Afraidaspill email, to relocate more than 30 Alyeska employees from Fairbanks to Anchorage – more than 300 miles away from the pipeline – was done with “surprisingly little consideration to the potential effect of the relocation on the company’s emergency preparedness and response.”

The relocation, which has been the subject of inquiries by Guttenberg, the Alaska state Representative and most recently, Congress, affects about 30 engineers, scientists and technicians, who are directly responsible for the monitoring and maintenance of the integrity, safety and environmental compliance of TAPS. If integrity management employees need to immediately respond to an incident on the pipeline, they will now have to travel by airplane to Fairbanks, then drive to the area of the pipeline that requires attention. The pipeline does not run through Anchorage.

Hostler’s decision to relocate employees to Anchorage reverses a decision made in 1997 by then-Alyeska President Bob Malone, to move employees from Anchorage to Fairbanks to be closer to the pipeline so they could easily access it in the event of a spill or to perform monitoring and maintenance functions.

“You put your employees on the pipeline … it will improve safety because you’re right there,” Malone said at the time. “It’s clear communication; it’s clear lines of authority; it’s clear accountability, which is most important to me.”

Since the relocation was announced last November, six integrity management engineers have resigned and Alyeska is finding it difficult to fill those vacancies with experienced personnel, according to employees, a warning that was raised in an internal relocation analysis describing the impact of the move.

Thebaud and Diecker were provided with the 39-page relocation analysis prepared by Alyeska integrity employees that documented the inherent risks and increased travel costs that would be realized from moving employees to Anchorage.

The analysis warned that the relocation “will likely result in the inability of the [integrity management] teams to focus attention on core business functions that are necessary to maintain regulatory compliance and leak/spill prevention …”

At a hearing last month before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials, Alyeska Senior Vice President Greg Jones testified that the integrity management officials who prepared the relocation analysis no longer stand by its conclusions.

That prompted Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minnesota), a member of the subcommittee, to demand Jones provide the committee with statements from the individuals who changed their position.

But that’s not what the committee was told in a July 26 letter signed by Tom Webb, Alyeska’s engineering integrity manager, who worked on the relocation analysis.

Webb said, “At the current time, I do not know of any Integrity or Safety risks resulting from the relocation,” adding that the measure has resulted in “the loss of over 30% of Integrity Management’s staff.”

According to several Alyeska officials, the committee has not yet spoken with the other integrity management personnel who worked on the report, but they accused Jones of misrepresenting the facts.

Thebaud noted that his “investigation found no written analysis of the effect of the proposed relocation” on the [incident management team], the individuals who respond to spills or emergencies, such as an earthquake, or “staffing levels, experience, response capabilities, logistics, training, or overall effectiveness.”

“Moreover, [Alyeska's] Emergency Preparedness and Compliance Manager reported that management did not discuss with him, or request that he conduct an analysis of, the impact of the proposed relocation on the [incident management team],” the report said. “In light of these circumstances and the evolving personal decision-making by those selected for relocation, the investigation cannot conclude that the relocation will have no impact on the effectiveness of the [incident management team]” when it comes to responding to a spill or other emergencies.

Thebaud said the concerns raised by Afraidaspill surrounding the relocation are “substantiated in part” because it correctly predicted that it would “result in key engineers leaving the company,” placing the “the integrity program at risk” and “reversing the significant progress made by the Company in integrity management in recent years.”

“These losses will, in the near term, place added stress on the organization,” Thebaud’s report said.

But Thebaud’s report then appears to be somewhat contradictory stating he has not found “compelling evidence to support a conclusion that either the loss of personnel or the new work location will have a significant adverse effect on the Company’s performance of its integrity management program.”

That last statement by Thebaud led a top Alyeska official to state: “Well of course not yet. This is an example of a statement being made by someone who has no concept of what Integrity Management for a pipeline is or looks like.”

“This is a case in point that Thebaud was not qualified to perform this part of the investigation. You would not expect any ‘evidence’ to immediately crop up right after these events have occurred – it doesn’t work that way,” the Alyssa official said.

Michelle Egan, an Alyeska spokeswoman, told Truthout last month that the relocation was carefully planned by Hostler and Alyeska managers and that “staff [were being] transferred because of the efficiency and synergy that is gained when [employees] are co-located with the rest of the departments” in the “same building.”

Thebaud’s report said the relocation was actually supposed to be phased in over an 18-month period and finalized in spring 2011. The report further states that Hostler unilaterally made the decision to move up the relocation by a year. The change, coincidentally, came after a news report was published in the Fairbanks News-Miner that questioned the logic behind the relocation and reprinted a separate email written by Afraidaspill critical of the decision.

Disastrous Decision

Several Alyeska officials said the relocation has already proven to be a disastrous move and has neither resulted in “efficiency” nor “synergy.”

Indeed, an email obtained by Truthout sent to senior Alyeska officials July 26 by David Hackney, one of Alyeska’s integrity management engineers, said, “Even in the short time I have been relocated in the Anchorage office, it is already clear to me that moving our operations from Fairbanks puts the safety of operations at risk. As to business efficiency, I have already seen that there are none to be realized.”

“No aspect of my job has become more efficient by being in Anchorage, my cubicle is simply in a geographic location far removed from the ground where most of my work is done,” Hackney wrote, requesting to be transferred back to Fairbanks. “There have been no enhancements in communications, supervision, coordination, or scheduling as to my work. The required move to Anchorage has caused loss of skilled and experienced personnel that cannot readily be replaced … This has a direct impact on the safety of our operations.”

A day after the email was sent, Hackney, who had sued the company for unknown reasons after he raised safety concerns, entered into a settlement with Alyeska and was transferred back to Fairbanks.

Additionally, Truthout has learned that one of the company’s integrity management supervisors is being transferred to Anchorage while the key engineers he’s going to supervise will remain in Fairbanks, an exception the company recently made for those individuals. The decision further contradicts statements by Egan and other Alyeska officials that the transfer of integrity management employees to Anchorage was about “efficiency” and “synergy” and being located in the same building.

Flawed Survey

During the course of Thebaud’s probe, Alyeska also commissioned Dittman Research & Communications to conduct an “open work environment survey” to try and get a sense of how employees felt about raising safety concerns, according to a copy of the 62-page report of the results of the survey Dittman provided to Alyeska in May.

But the survey was fundamentally flawed and designed specifically to shield Hostler from criticism, one of the most damning findings of Thebaud’s investigation. Thebaud’s report said “the 2010 Dittman survey missed a substantial opportunity to measure directly the workers’ perception of [Hostler].”

According to Thebaud’s report, the reason was due to the fact that a previous survey conducted in 2007 by a different research firm resulted in numerous employees complaining about Hostler’s management style.

“In the 2007 survey, the Executive Summary provided eleven ‘Areas of Needed Improvement,’” Thebaud’s report said. “One specifically addressed the need [for Hostler] to improve the workers’ perception of him: ‘Some respondents indicated that certain behaviors and actions of the Alyeska President and CEO have been perceived as having a negative organizational effect.’

“The 2007 survey results contain numerous examples explaining the data. For example, in response to a question about the Code of Conduct, the 2007 survey indicates, ‘Of the 110 comments provided, 31 discuss the President’s behaviors as a concern.’”

Guim, the human resources director, who Alyeska employees leveled numerous complaints about, was largely responsible for skewing the questions in the 2010 survey in such a way that it would not reflect poorly on Hostler or other Alyeska executives.

Guim told Thebaud that she did that because the “2007 survey results were filled with employees ‘venting’ against [Hostler] in highly personal and inappropriate ways, which provided no real insight or value to the survey.”

Hostler appears to have had a say in the 2010 survey as well. He told Thebaud the” 2007 survey was filled with ‘personal attacks’ on individuals and executives. Consequently, [Guim] indicated that the Company did not provide the opportunity for similar unhelpful venting in 2010.”

Thebaud said his investigation did not attempt to “validate or refute” any of the data in the 2007 or 2010 surveys. But the fact that Hostler’s conduct was a major issue in the 2007 survey, caused Thebaud’s investigation to seek information as to why the same questions weren’t included in the most recent survey conducted by Dittman.

“Workforce surveys – particularly anonymous workforce surveys – almost always include some amount of emotional venting and personal challenges to the character and conduct of some managers,” his report said. “Sophisticated survey analysts and reviewers recognize this reality and can properly dismiss or account for outlying information, personal attacks and other suspect information …

“Alyeska’s decision to design a survey that precluded the receipt of such data, creates a potential perception that it designed the 2010 survey to avoid the receipt of harmful information. By not addressing the issue specifically raised in 2007 about the effect of [Hostler's] conduct, the Company does not have survey data to describe or characterize the current perception in the workforce or to determine the effectiveness of any corrective actions taken during the past three years.”

Alyeska has not decided who will replace Hostler when he leaves the company in September.

Under the Patronage of the President of the Republic of Austria – Dr. Heinz Fischer.

With a Honorary Committe that includes Patricia Kahane – President of the Karl Kahane Foundation,  Dr. Michael Hauple – Mayor of Vienna, as well as Former Vice Chancellor and Foreign Minister  – Dr. Alois Mock, and famous Austrian artists – Andre Heller and Joseph Hader. Also among others, Rabbi Marc Schneier from the US, Rafi Elul from Israel, Ibrahim Issa from Palestine.

The Conference will deal with Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and the toning down of media that inflames hatred.

The Conference will avoid  touching upon Middle East Conflict Issues in an effort at reaching first mutual understanding before tackling issues on which there can be built an agreement to disagree – and seeing that there are other points of view.

 http://www.mjconference.org/

THE MUSLIM JEWISH CONFERENCE – VIENNA – AUGUST 1-6, 2010.

«Our first step together creating the power to forge a link between possibility and reality.
Because the pronunciation of our names is no barrier for friendships.»

The first ‘Muslim Jewish Conference’ 2010 is being held in Vienna from the 1st until
the 6th of August. 60 students from all over the world with a common goal of
establishing peaceful relations between both religions will participate. The conference
consists of discussion committees, guest speakers, open dialogue panels and social
events.

The idea for this project was born in Vienna by two Austrian students, Ilja Sichrovsky
and Matthias Gattermeier, due to their experiences at international student
conferences and driven by the desire to create cultural awareness between young
aspiring Jewish and Muslim academics.

Today, the ‘MJC’-committee harbours over 20 volunteers from Asia, the Middle East, Europe and America, including countries like Austria, Israel, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, Turkey and the U S. The Assistant Secretary General in charge of the core of 15  volunteers is Ehab Bilal who grew up in Austria, studied in the UK, and is a Muslim of Libyan parentage.

Ilja Sichrovsky, founder and Secretary General of the MJC: “Representing the
University of Vienna at numerous international student conferences, I have
witnessed inevitable misunderstanding and prejudices between young Muslims and
Jews at first hand. The ‘Muslim Jewish Conference’ was called to life, to be the first
step together for young people creating the power to forge a link between possibility
and reality. Because the pronunciation of our names is no barrier for friendships.”

The ‘Muslim Jewish Conference’ is officially endorsed by the ‘United Nations Alliance of Civilisations’ (UNAOC) and the Austrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The project is partly financed by the ‘Karl Kahane Foundation’ as well as by private donors.

Our vision is to make the MJC an annual conference, set up in different countries
each year and to provide a platform for real change in the interaction between
Muslim and Jewish Communities.

The participants represent a new generation of thinkers and upcoming opinion leaders who are connected by their joint believe in a new era of cooperation.

————————————————————————————–
Date: 1. – 6.08.2010
Place: Institute for International Development – University of Vienna
c/o Institute for African Sciences – Campus – AAKH, Hof 5.1
A-1090 Wien
URL: www.mjconference.org

———————————————————————————–

The Organisation Committee:

• Ilja Sichrovsky – Secretary General
• Ehab Bilal – Assist. Secretary General
• Matthias Gattermeier – Logistics, Protocol & Security
• Fatima Hasanain – Committees & Content
• Asad Farooq – Organization & Registration
• Florence Rivero – Organization & Design
• Yvonne Feiger – Logistics & Fundraising
• Mustafa Jalil Qureshi – Head of chairs
• Daniel Gallner – Finance
• Abdul Niazi – Ambassador for the MJC
• Stefanie Andruchowitz – Head of Department Support
• Valerie Prassl – Head Public Relations
• Akshay Ganju – Chair
• Eyal Raviv – Chair
• Magdalena Kloss – Chair

————————————————————————————

When we researched the internet, we found that The Muttahidda Jihad Council (MJC), an alliance of Muslim Kashmiri freedom fighters as they call themselves, or terrorists, as we call them, is what the web knew as MJC before the start of this new Austrian effort. Things get even worse as there are other Abdul Niazi on the web. Whatever, we hope that the Austrian effort grows to become a success and we remember the role Chancellor Kreisky had in starting Israeli-Palestinian negotiations years ago.

Further, Karl Kahane and Bruno Kreisky , with other Kreisky friends, created in 1991 through the Karl Kahane Foundation also the Bruno Kreisky Forum in order to continue the Kreisky’s work on Human Rights, the Middle Eastern Peace Process,  Europe after the Cold War, and other issues close to him – we assume that the powerful ongoing Kreisky Forum had something to do with the organization of this new effort at tackling the Middle East peace process issue from a longer term understanding base.

The involvement of Rabbi Marc Schneier from the US is proof that his three year old  ongoing effort, on which our website reported several times,  of  bringing Jewish and Muslim communities in the US to a closer contact with meetings in homes as well as within religious centers, intended to listen to each others deep concerns rather then professing to shout at each other their frustrations, is part of the concept of the new effort.
 http://www.karlkahanefoundation.org/inde…

Also, New Generations – Crossing Borders.
In 1994 the Middle East Youth Peace Forum together with the Bruno Kreisky Forum for International Dialogue started the project New Generations – Crossing Borders. A group of young Palestinians, Israelis, Jordanians and Austrians met regularly over a period of four years in order to establish personal relations, overcome stereotypes, gain skills in conflict resolution and acquire leadership qualities.

The experiences of the participants were documented in the German/English publication Crossing Borders by Margit Schmidt et al, published by Picus Verlag, Vienna, 1999.

This comes to show that the young may eventually achieve what the older generation was not able to achieve.

??http://www.karlkahanefoundation.org/index.php?36

———————————————————————————-

Jüdisch-muslimisches Treffen.

Muslim Jewish Conference von 1. bis 6. August in Wien.

Wien. 60 muslimische und jüdische Studierende aus aller Welt treffen von 1. bis 6. August in der Uni Wien bei der “Muslim Jewish Conference” (MJC) zusammen. Das Ziel: eine gemeinsame Sprache zu finden und Vorurteile zu überwinden, sagt MJC-Generalsekretär Ilja Sichrovsky. Der 27-Jährige studiert in Wien “Internationale Entwicklung”.

Sichrovsky hat mehrmals an der “World Model United Nations Conference” teilgenommen, bei der eine Uni-Delegation ein Land verkörpert. Dabei ist der Wiener Jude mit muslimischen Studenten in Kontakt gekommen und musste feststellen, dass die Vorurteile auf beiden Seiten groß sind, man aber vieles im intensiven Gespräch ausräumen kann. “Ich habe gemerkt: Wir sind gar nicht so verschieden, wie es uns Medien und auch unsere Eltern zu vermitteln versucht haben.” So kam ihm 2008 erstmals die Idee für die Konferenz.

Gemeinsames Papier

Organisator ist Ehab Bilal (25). Der bekennende, aber nicht streng praktizierende Moslem kommt aus einer libyschen Familie, wuchs in Wien auf und studierte in England. Seit 9/11 hat er das Gefühl, “dass ich schon ein bisschen unterdrückt werde wegen meiner Religion”. Wenn er reise, werde er drei Mal gefragt, mit welchem Ziel er komme. Ihn ärgert, dass wegen einiger Extremisten die gesamte Religion in Verruf kommt.

Zu drei Themen werden die Studenten im August eine gemeinsame Deklaration veröffentlichen:

“Antisemitismus und Islamophobie” – Sichrovsky betont, dass es sich um eine Aufzählung, nicht um eine Gleichstellung beider Begriffe handelt – sowie die Rolle der Bildung und der Medien im Abbau von gegenseitigen Stereotypen.

Der Nahostkonflikt wird beim ersten Mal bewusst ausgeklammert. Man müsse zuerst eine gemeinsame Sprache finden, bevor man ein Thema angehe, “wo man weiß, dass man anderer Meinung ist”, so Sichrovsky.

Die Konferenz wird großteils von der Karl Kahane Foundation finanziert, Bundespräsident Heinz Fischer übernahm den Ehrenschutz. 120 Studenten hatten sich beworben, die besten wurden ausgewählt. Ihr Spektrum reicht von sehr religiös bis säkular.

http://www.mjconference.org

Fareed Zakaria on CNN/GPS – Sunday August 1, 2010 – suggests that this do very little US Congress – indeed do nothing when it comes to renewing the G.W. Bush Tax Cuts. Letting them lapse decreases the deficit by 30% annually – or $300 Billion/year!

He implores Congress – Please Let the Bush Tax-Cuts Expire this year – do not vote to renew them!

Half of Americans do not pay taxes and though the cuts went for what on paper seems like all – the effect was that the rich got most of the money anyway and rather then return the money to the economy put the money into savings. This is the main reason that led to the major crisis we and most of the world, suffered – because of the US of Bush!

The US expenditures are in Middle Class Programs. If one were to cut these social programs it will lead to further unemployment and misery. The UK under David Cameron is going for cuts in services and further taxation – the US could instead cut all the Bush tax-cuts and increase benefits like unemployment benefits. All what the US has to do is to turn the wheels back to the Clinton Presidency! That is when there was surplus and not galloping debt. Fareed had the graphs to prove his points.

The trick is that when the poor get money they go out and buy things like providing an engine to the economy. What Bush did was to allow further hording of money by the rich, and this took out money from the economy. This is so simple that even former President Bush could have grasped had he only reviewed the policies that the interests put before him.

So, let us repeat – Fareed says that doing nothing now on the Bush tax cuts will do a lot for the Nations Future.

———–

Fareed had also a panel of journalists on the program right – left and center - Ross Douthat, Columnist of the New York Times from the right, also film critic for National Review, he was senior editor of The Atlantic; Chrystia Freeland who is a global editor at large for Reuters and formerly she was U.S. managing editor of the Financial Times; and Hendrik Hertzberg, a senior editor and staff writer of The New Yorker Magazine.

The topic was: WALL STREET vs. OBAMA vs. MAIN STREET.

There was quite a consensus – it is incredible to hear the venom towards Obama on the Hill. After all – he went to Harvard and has credentials – he is just as smart as any of the Wall Street people.

The Obama problem is the fantasy people have about the Presidency. On foreign affairs he gets some leeway, but on the oil spill they wanted him to go and fix it. Then – all is covered by the filibuster.

Obama did already a health care bill, a financial regulation bill, but nothing is seen yet – clearly, the effects will not appear during his first term in office. The economy collapsed just when he came in, so the suffering is under him – the collapse was organized by his predecessor.

Criticism from Ms. Freeland – The White House has not put forward yet a clear vision for the economy.

Fresh Miscanthus Rhizomes	Precision Planting	Miscanthus Harvesting	High Density Baling	Biomass Energy Crop Fuel

News -