Friday, March 19, 2010

Honda looks to give hybrids a lithium-ion charge
Bloomberg

Honda Motor Co., the nation’s second-largest carmaker, plans to introduce lithium-ion battery-powered hybrid cars as it struggles to narrow Toyota Motor Corp.’s lead in sales of gasoline-electric cars.

Honda plans to use lithium-ion batteries in its Civic compact “within the next two to three years,” as well as in its Acura luxury cars and other models, Executive Vice President Koichi Kondo said earlier this week.

Honda has failed to match Toyota’s success with hybrids, led by the top-selling Prius. Lithium-ion batteries can store as much as twice the energy of the nickel-metal hydride batteries that currently power the Prius and Honda’s Civic, Insight and CR-Z hybrid models, said Takeshi Miyao, a supply-chain analyst for auto consultant Carnorama in Tokyo.

“Lithium will become a lot more prevalent,” Kondo said at the company’s headquarters in Tokyo. The lithium-ion batteries will be produced with Honda’s joint-venture partner, Kyoto-based GS Yuasa Corp., starting in the second half of this year, he said. The venture is 49 percent owned by Honda.

Honda’s Insight fell short of the company’s global sales target of 200,000 units in the first year after its February 2009 debut. Deliveries totaled 143,015 as of last month.

Toyota’s third-generation Prius replaced the Insight as the best-selling car in Japan after its release last year. Toyota sold 27,008 Priuses in February, compared with Honda’s 3,517 Insight deliveries.

In the U.S., Toyota sold 7,968 Prius cars last month, compared with Honda’s 2,014 Insights. The hybrid version of the Civic sold 346 units. The larger Prius is more fuel-efficient than Honda’s hybrids, according to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data.

Honda Chief Executive Officer Takanobu Ito said in July the carmaker is developing a new hybrid system to be installed in midsize and large vehicles. The company will also add a hybrid version of its Fit subcompact later this year, using nickel-metal batteries.

While similarly sized lithium-ion batteries may cost 30 percent more than nickel-metal hydride cells, carmakers may be able to find savings by using smaller packs because of their higher energy density, Miyao said.

Lithium-ion costs will also decline as technical advances are made and production increases, according to research company Fuji Keizai Group.

Nissan Motor Co. will roll out its first battery-powered car, the Leaf, this year in Japan, the U.S. and Europe. Chief Executive Officer Carlos Ghosn predicts electric vehicles will account for 10 percent of global car sales by 2020.

Reuters from Berlin, where President Mubarak, 81 years of age, had a gallbladder operation, reports that his health is improving. The problem is that 30 years in office and having made sure there is no number 2 to him, the fact that he went for an operation plunged the Egyptian economic benchmark by 2.4%. We posted the information about Japanese and Kuwait funds made available to the stagnant economy of Egypt, for purpose of green, and perhaps nuclear energy. With this new information we wonder about the meaning of that that previous posting. Is investment in Egypt these days indeed a safe idea or do the foreign banks believe that Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, former head of the IAEA, will  be the winner in the upcoming elections in Egypt?

———————-

Egypt To Secure $430 Mln Loan For Wind Farm: Agency
Date: 15-Mar-10

by Alexander Dziadosz, Reuters from Egypt.

Egypt is set to secure a $430 million loan from Japan to fund a 220-megawatt wind farm as it tries to boost its renewable energy output, the state news agency MENA said on Friday.

Egypt, an oil and gas producer, has been developing wind power along its eastern Red Sea coast. It aims to generate 12 percent of its power from wind and 20 percent from renewables overall by 2020.

The loan, inked this week, will be used to build a wind farm in Gebel el Zeit on the Gulf of Suez, the report said.

Officials say Egypt’s combined oil and gas reserves will last it roughly three decades, pushing it to develop alternative energy sources, including nuclear and solar.

Last week Egypt said it would receive a $100 million loan from the Kuwait Fund for Arab Economic Development to fund a 1,300 megawatt power plant in the Red Sea coastal town of Ain Sokhna, east of Cairo.

Elephants or Ivory — Amazing response!

The worldwide UN ban on ivory trading could soon be lifted — a decision that could wipe out Africa’s vulnerable elephants. But a number of a African nations are pushing to uphold the ban. Let’s send them a stampede of support to save the elephants. Sign the skyrocketing petition below, and forward this email widely:

Wow — the petition to protect endangered elephants from ivory poachers is exploding — in just over 72 hours, more than 300,000 of us have signed the call to the UN to uphold the ban on ivory trading and save whole populations of these magnificent animals. The crucial UN vote is expected this week.

Tanzania and Zambia are lobbying the UN for special exemptions from the ban, but this would send a clear signal to the ivory crime syndicates that international protection is weakening and it’s open-season on elephants. Another group of African states have countered by calling to extend the trade ban for 20 years.

Our best chance to save the continent’s remaining elephants is to support African conservationists. We only have days left and the UN Endangered Species body only meets every 3 years. Click below to sign our urgent petition to protect elephants, and forward this email widely — the petition will be delivered to the UN meeting in Doha:
 http://www.avaaz.org/en/protect_the_elep…

Over 20 years ago, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) passed a worldwide ban on ivory trading. Poaching fell, and ivory prices slumped. But poor enforcement coupled with ‘experimental one-off sales’, like the one Tanzania and Zambia are seeking, drove poaching up and turned illegal trade into a lucrative business — poachers can launder their illegal ivory with the legal stockpiles.

Now, despite the worldwide ban, each year over 30,000 elephants are gunned down and their tusks hacked off by poachers with axes and chainsaws. If Tanzania and Zambia are successful in exploiting the loophole, this awful trade could get much worse.

We have a one-off chance this week to extend the worldwide ban and repress poaching and trade prices before we lose even more elephant populations — sign the petition now and then forward it widely:
 http://www.avaaz.org/en/protect_the_elep…

Across the world’s cultures and throughout our history elephants have been revered in religions and have captured our imagination — Babar, Dumbo, Ganesh, Airavata, Erawan. But today these beautiful and highly intelligent creatures are being annihilated.

As long as there is demand for ivory, elephants are at risk from poaching and smuggling — but this week we have a chance to protect them and crush the ivory criminals’ profits — sign the petition now:
 http://www.avaaz.org/en/protect_the_elep…

——————–

Our idea – if Tanzania and Zambia get their way it would be right to start a campaign to boycott tourism to these countries.      Did anyone think that Canada and Japan might also be helped to changing behavior by similar means when traditional killing of seals and whales is what they do? The US has said that it will prosecute and penalize a sushi restaurant that served whale-meat, so invoking penalties might work. If nothing else it will make us feel good for having reacted to someone’s lack of honesty.

Honda Drives Toward Home Solar Hydrogen Refueling
Date: 15-Mar-10

Author: Mary Milliken, Reuters from California.

{Jon Spallino (L) with his wife Sandy (R) and their daughters Anna (2L) and Adrianna accept their new 2005 Honda FCX fuel cell powered vehicle in Los Angeles on June 29, 2005.
Photo: by Mario Anzuoni}

Coming not so soon and probably not to a house near you is the home solar hydrogen refueling station — Honda Motor Co’s latest idea in its drive to make hydrogen the fuel of choice for zero emission cars.

The Japanese auto giant believes hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles offer the best long-term alternative to fossil fuels and the company showed on Friday a refueling breakthrough that it says points to a home version down the road.

Most major automakers have spent billions of dollars in researching hydrogen-powered fuel cells, tempted by the idea of a car that uses no gasoline and emits only water vapor. But Honda is widely seen as the hydrogen leader, while others like General Motors put more effort into battery-powered electric vehicles like the upcoming Volt.

One of the big barriers to hydrogen car deployment is the lack of refueling infrastructure, leading Honda to bet that the future lies in combining a public station network with a more modest home option.

Honda’s home option will comprise a solar-powered hydrogen refueling station using solar panels.

“Customers can choose how they interact with both of them based on their annual miles and their habits,” said Stephen Ellis, fuel cell manager at the Honda’s North American headquarters in Torrance, California.

‘BIGGEST PROGRESS’

“The key thing to remember is that with five-minute refueling you are good for another 240 miles,” Ellis added.

That range comes from the “fast-fill” public station, of which there are just a handful in Southern California, where Honda leases 15 FCX Clarity hydrogen-powered vehicles and is set to distribute more in coming months.

Eight hours of home solar refueling would guarantee a smaller range of 30 miles or about 10,000 miles (16,000 km per year — enough for an average commuting car.

At the Los Angeles R&D center, engineers refueled the sleek FCX Clarity sedan with a new single-unit station connected to a solar array that replaces a two-unit system, cutting costs and improving efficiency by 25 percent.

“This is wonderful progress, the biggest progress,” said Ikuya Yamashita, the chief engineer of the station.

The station uses a 6-kilowatt solar array, composed of 48 panels and thin film solar cells developed by a Honda subsidiary. It breaks down the water into hydrogen in what Honda calls a “virtually carbon-free energy cycle.”

The FCX Clarity’s hydrogen “stack” — or the electricity generator — is around the size of an attache case, tucked between the two front seats, and is a fifth of the stack size developed a decade ago.

The car is likely to be sold commercially around 2018 in the luxury large sedan category, while the solar hydrogen refueling system could move beyond the research stage and into the market-ready phase around 2015.

“A lot of this work is not necessarily for today’s economic situation,” said Ellis. “This is for tomorrow, when most people feel energy prices will be higher.”

Sunday, Feb. 28, 2010, Kyodo News of Japan:

Six-party talks up to North: Bosworth.

U.S. special envoy to North Korea Stephen Bosworth said Saturday in Tokyo he hopes to see “fairly soon” the resumption of the stalled six-party talks on Pyongyang’s nuclear programs, but added whether that is realized depends on the North.

“Five of the six parties are prepared to move very quickly. And we would hope that the sixth, that is to say the DPRK, will also decide to move ahead very quickly,” Bosworth told reporters, referring to North Korea by its official name of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

But the U.S. point man for North Korea policy also said, “In the end, of course, the decision as to whether they are going to come back and when, it is up to the DPRK.”

While admitting that there is no agreement yet on when to resume the multilateral talks involving North and South Korea, China, Japan, Russia and the United States, Bosworth said, “I hope that, in the not too distant future, but fairly soon, we will see a resumption of the talks.”

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

UN-North Korea talks hint at a peace treaty on the Korean Peninsula
Source: Global Times ,  February 21 2010
By Ronda Hauben also of www.taz.de/blogs/netizenblog

This June 25 marks the 60th anniversary of the beginning of the Korean War in 1950. Only an armistice and a temporary agreement, not a peace treaty, are in place to help prevent a renewed outbreak of hostilities.

A four-person delegation from the office of the UN Secretary-General which included B. Lynn Pascoe and Kim Won-soo recently returned to the UN after their visit to North Korea, between February 9 and 12, 2010.

This was the first delegation to establish official relations between North Korea and the UN Secretariat since Maurice Strong acted as an envoy of Kofi Annan to North Korea in 2004.

At the press conference at the UN, held on the return of the UN delegation, only minimal information was provided about the issues that North Korea raised.

In his brief presentation, Pascoe, Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, mentioned some of the issues discussed, including a statement that there had been back-and-forth talks about a peace treaty.

Pascoe said, however, that he was not going to get into details. A little later in the press conference, a question was asked about what issues North Korea had brought up. Pascoe’s response included that North Korea did talk about a peace treaty and why they saw it as an important way to build trust.

Much of the press conference, focused on questions about North Korea returning to the Six-Party Talks.

A purpose of the UN secretariat trip was to convey messages from other parties of the Six-Party Talks to North Korea, and to convey the Secretary- General’s view that talks need to begin without preconditions.

At the end of WWII, Korea was artificially divided into two separate entities: the Republic of Korea in the south, or South Korea, and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in the north, or North Korea. This division was initially regarded as temporary. Instead, it was maintained and reinforced by various actions of the UN. Then during the Korean War, the United Nations flag and name were used.

North Korea sees the need for a peace treaty to help calm the tension that exists because currently there is only the temporary armistice agreement.

North Korea proposes that three parties to the armistice, the US (for the UN command), North Korea, and China (the Chinese People’s Volunteer Army) to negotiate for the peace treaty. It also proposes to include South Korea.

This is proposed as the means to build confidence among these four parties so as to be able to return to the Six- Party Talks with experience to make possible reaching an agreement on the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

The actual denuclearization will be a task that will involve both North Korea giving up its nuclear weapon capability and South Korea giving up the protection that the US offers it by including it under the US’s nuclear umbrella.

The press conference at the UN, however, didn’t discuss the issue of the peace treaty or the need to consider the denuclearization of both nations on the Korean Peninsula.

Instead, the majority of questions concerned whether North Korea would return to the Six-Party Talks.

North Korea has criticized the talks as not helpful to solving the disputes that continue to breed hostility in the region. Recent talks have focused on removing the nuclear capability of North Korea, rather than similarly considering North Korea’s claim that it needs its nuclear capability as a security measure as long as hostile actions continue by other members of the Six-Party process.

In previous talks between North Korea and the US, one of the negotiators explained the most difficult part of the negotiations was determining how to phrase the issue of the talks so that it recognized the interests of different parties to the controversy. He said that North Korea made the reasonable request that the issue be phrased in a way satisfactory to both North Korea and the US.

One would expect a similar problem will need to be solved to facilitate discussion among the parties to the Six-Party Talks, or to facilitate negotiations toward a peace treaty to end the Korean War.

After the press conference, Kim Won-soo, Deputy Chef de Cabinet of the UN, said the dispute over how to get back to negotiations could be seen as a difference over what sequencing was acceptable.

What order of actions would the parties agree to with regard to discussing a peace treaty, ending the UN sanctions, or returning to the Six-Party Talks process, could be considered an issue to be discussed, rather than phrasing the problem in terms favorable to one side or the other. This is the basis for further discussion and negotiation among North Korea and the other countries.

The UN is technically still at war with North Korea. These current developments raise the question of whether Ban Ki-moon is willing to use the good offices of his position as Secretary-General to offer what help he can to facilitate a peace treaty to end the Korean War.

Even this first step of an official visit by the four-member UN Secretariat delegation and the mere mention that the North Korea referred to the desire for a peace treaty can be seen as a step forward.

The Secretary-General is endeavoring to help solve the stalemate among the parties regarding the continuing tension on the Korean Peninsula.

————–
The author is an award-winning US journalist covering the United Nations.  netizenblog at gmail.com
 http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/commentary…

————–

Global Times appears in English and originates from Beijing.

Contact the Global Times (GT) newspaper:
Add.  7/F Topnew Tower, 15 Guanghua Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, CHINA PC:100026
Tel.+86-10-52937565
Fax.+86-10-52937584
Email:  editor at globaltimes.com.cn

Mongolia is an unassuming country, sandwiched in between Russia and China and has sworn to stay nuclear free and made known it is no danger to anyone. This is Mongolia’s highest contribution to its region and it could be an example to North Korea when that State decides to attempt change. Mongolia can smooth the way to the six parties talks.

Mongolia is the 19th largest and the most sparsely populated independent country in the world, with a population of about three million people. It is also the world’s second-largest landlocked country after Kazakhstan. The country contains very little arable land, as much of its area is covered by steppes, with mountains to the north and west, and the Gobi Desert to the south. Approximately 30% of the population are nomadic or semi-nomadic. The predominant religion in Mongolia is Tibetan Buddhism, and the majority of the state’s citizens are of the Mongol ethnicity, though Kazakhs, Tuvans, and other minorities also live in the country, especially in the west. About 20% of the population live on less than US$1.25 per day. Global warming has had a serious impact on Mongolia and its land became even drier with very active further desertification; but Mongolia is rich in minerals and exporting minerals such as Coal, Uranium, Lithium, Copper, Molybdenum, Tin, Tungsten, Gold and oil provide it with cash flow. Companies and Financing from China, Japan, South Korea, Germany, Russia, Canada are active in Mongolia.

In Mongolia during the 1920s, approximately one third of the male population were monks. By the beginning of the 20th century about 750 monasteries were functioning in Mongolia. The Stalinist purges in Mongolia beginning in 1937, affected the Republic as it left more than 30,000 people dead. Japanese imperialism became even more alarming after the invasion of neighboring Manchuria in 1931. The Soviet threat of seizing parts of Inner Mongolia induced China to recognize Outer Mongolia’s independence. So – the mutual distrust between China and the Soviets allowed for an independent Mongolia.

The introduction of perestroika and glasnost in the USSR by Mikhail Gorbachev strongly influenced Mongolian politics leading to the peaceful Democratic Revolution, and the introduction of a multi-party system and market economy. A new constitution was introduced in 1992, and the “People’s Republic” was dropped from the country’s name. The transition to market economy was often rocky, the early 1990s saw high inflation and food shortages. The first election wins for non-communist parties came in 1993 (presidential elections) and 1996 (parliamentary elections). So, Mongolia, an ex-communist country moved to a market economy.

The evolution of Mongolia is now of special interest to those that would like to see movement in efforts to solve the Korean peninsula schism. Mongolia could be an example for North Korea if it becomes interested in dropping its attachment to the former Soviet way of managing a country – and that is what brought a high level Mongolian group to The Korea Society in New York City, for breakfast, today, February 23, 2010.

The speaker was H.E. Damdin Tsogtbaatar, State Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Next to him sat the Mongolian Permanent Representative to the UN H.E. Enkhtsetseg Ochir. Also present was the Deputy Permanent Representative Sodnom Gankhuyag.

The presentation started with the geopolitics and the paradox that both neighbors – China and Russia – are conservative cultures but when changing they are revolutionary. Being enclosed in that sandwich, the Mongolian Foreign Policy has to be an open policy and with both neighbors nuclear  – it had to mean for Mongolia that it can only be free of nuclear weapons. From here he looked at the other two countries that started out in similar conditions like Mongolia – Cuba and North Korea. While Mongolia developed a democracy romanticism – this was not the case with the other two. In effect North Korea looked down at Mongolia and closed its embassy in 1999 and used the excuse that they do so because of economy conditions. Mongolia watched the South Korean Sunshine Policy towards North Korea and as regional Mongolian expats live in South Korea, and Mongolia’s interest to help stabilize the region in its own interest, they started to get more and more interested in what goes on on the Korean Peninsula and in Japan. For one thing – North Korea was interested in Petroleum. North Korea is isolated by its own choice – but someone must get interested in North Korea. In fact in the 1970’s North Korea was ahead of South Korea – more developed – but se now. During the Korean War – only the Russian and Mongolian Ambassadors were left in North Korea. Mongolia also helped by taking in the N. Korean orphans and returned them when hostilities stopped.

Mongolia does not think that the North Koreans are totally irrational, even though he told of some instances that you real wonder – one such was the idea of developing an ostrich farm in N. Korea. Mongolia initiated cultural exchanges that include also Japanese groups. The idea is that Mongolia can try to prepare the ground on which the meetings of the six parties could be restarted.

Mongolia does not believe that sanctions will work – they only punish the people who then clam up and there is no progress. That is when I noted that the two Mongolian men in the room both had purple ties, and I wandered if this is an effort not to look blue or red? Further – Acquiring nuclear technology is not the end – he said – see Kazakhstan and the Ukraine – they had nuclear and gave them up – eventually comes a government and changes of a sudden are possible.

North Korea – the transition of power is supposed to happen in 2012, but considering the health of the leader it could happen earlier. About money reform -That had an impact only on those that had money. It affected people in the cities – not the countryside.

John Delury, an Associate Director at the Asia Society Center on US-China Relations, said that when he spoke to North Koreans when asked why they do not evolve according to the China model, they answered that they are on the China track. See, China first got nuclear, then only formalized relations with the US after they became nuclear. Only then kicked in stage three that was economical.

The answer was – That it is so – Mao Tse-Tung got nuclear first, on account of Stalin. Mongolia does not want to be any-body’s model – “we avoid the word.”

Mongolia was able to put at one table North Korea and Japan but to bring together both Koreas is more difficult. First, with President Lee the Sunshine policy was ended, and a strong anti-North Korean approach was established. The feeling is that the South Koreans, like any democracy, became tired to wait. The situation is now such that both Koreas say – we know what to do – thanks – no – thanks.

Mongolia does no believe in treaties and going to court like lawyers when you deal with nuclear weapons. One can push the button and it is over – but then he said earlier that the belief is there that eventually people are rational – so what is it? Do we must be careful to avoid such situation by stopping a country like Iran from getting nuclear, in order to avoid later dilemmas? Anyway – Iran was not the Issue here but North Korea – so let us say that Mongolia can nevertheless provide an example to North Korea, even if not a model – that changing from threat to agreement could help economically. In effect the day before, the Mongolian envoy had an hour-long meeting with UNSG Ban Ki-moon.

Kenya to get ¥29 billion in Yen – for power plants. (about $213 million, at today’s exchange rate, out of a $5 billion foreign aid allocation for 2010 climate expenditure by Japan.)
Kyodo News, Sunday, Feb. 21, 2010

Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama has unveiled plans to provide Kenyawith ¥29.5 billion in yen-denominated loans for a thermal power plant project there as part of Tokyo’s support for the east African country’s efforts on climate change.

Hatoyama and visiting Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga agreed Friday in their talks in Tokyo to cooperate in building momentum for the next key U.N. climate conference to be held in Mexico from late November to early December.

Japan plans to implement the loan by the end of next month, a Foreign Ministry official said.

Odinga praised Hatoyama for Tokyo’s $15 billion offer for poor, vulnerable nations to tackle climate change over the three years through 2012 under the Hatoyama Initiative, calling it a voice of reason that emerged amid clashing interests and discord.

He said a nonbinding accord reached at the key U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen in December has become a good starting point and the foundation for the next round of talks in Mexico.

“I was very encouraged by hearing that Kenya approved the Copenhagen accord,” Hatoyama was quoted by the official as telling his Kenyan counterpart, adding he wants to cooperate with Odinga in working to produce a binding accord at the next talks.

Odinga said in June Kenya plans to host the next summit of the so-called Climate Vulnerable Forum, which groups 25 countries facing the threat of climate change impacts such as rising sea levels.

The Kenyan leader called for Japanese support and invited Hatoyama to take part in the June event.

We congratulate Mr. Ban Ki-moon for finally taking this initiative as
his first term at the UN has entered its last year. We have advocated
this move from the first day he won the UN contest for the job he
holds. It was obvious to us that a success there, against the odds
that none of the powers involved likes to see a united Korea on their
global bloc – I mean the US, China, and Japan – this will cover for
all the other impossible jobs that were his lot. Compared to these
other topics, a well programmed approach by his right-hand man -
Ambassador Kim Won-soon – at a time North Korea is really down, has a
good chance of success, if he can just get full backing from his home
government in Seoul.

In the global economic conditions of today, building from scatch North
Korea could become the greatest thing for South Korea – and the united
Korea has the potential of being the united Germany of the Far East.
This requires the acceptance of North Korea leadership as part of the
United Korea leadership according to a Federal construct of the State.

In the process – a denuclearized Korean Peninsula can be established
and threats against China and Japan avoided.The Obama US
Administration, with its own economical problems today, has no reason
to insist on guarding the two Koreas from each other, while it could
be a clear winner when being able to pull the major part of the US
troops out of Korea. China, on its part, will be relieved of the
danger of an imploding nuclear Korea and the mass migration of Koreans
into China. The only remaining resistance might come from Japan that
might fear the economic competition from the United Korea. Even that
can be handled with economic agreements that will bind the two
countries by providing cheap labor also for Japanese industry that
moves into Korea.

Will now the Korean UNSG make this as the main topic to deal with in
the coming few months? Will the US President, he also seeking a
break-through this year, give him his blessing for going ahead with
this effort? It seems that such an agreement exists when judging the
composition of the three people group that will handle the approach to
North Korea. If on this team is also Mr. Lynn Pascoe is an american.
The third member seems to be the Chef de Cabinet – Mr. Vijay Nambiar -
an Indian.
 http://www.innercitypress.com/unban2kore…

As UN’s Ban Rolls Dice on N. Korea Trip, Kim Won-soo Is Asked to Brief Press.

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 3 — UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, returning from a brief trip during which protesters in South Sudan told him to “repent before judgment” while he was snubbed in Cyprus by four political parties, is said by close observers to be “rolling
the dice” on a trip to North Korea.

“Ban wants to be remembered as the S-G when the Koreas reunited,” the close insider said. “If it happens, all the other failures will be forgotten.”
The importance of the upcoming trip to Ban’s closest inner circle is reflected by on the record quotes that his main advisor Kim Won soo — Ban’s Karl Rove, as some put it — gave to the JoongAng Daily. Inner City Press asked Ban’s spokesman Martin Nesirky, with his own Korean connections, about the quote at Wednesday noon briefing, UN transcription here, video here:

Inner City Press… You said the other three members; who are the other three members of Mr. Pascoe’s team?

Spokesperson Nesirky: Kim Won-soo, the Deputy Chef de Cabinet is one of them, and two other members of staff.

Inner City Press: Of DPA or of the Executive Office of the Secretary General?

Spokesperson: One of each.

Inner City Press: Okay. I had asked earlier about when it was first announced that Kim Won-soo was quoted in Joong Ang Daily, describing the trip, saying it may have a nuclear component, as well as humanitarian. So, I was wondering, I mean, those are his quotes, right? That he spoke on the record Joong Ang?

Spokesperson: Well, you have to ask Kim Won-soo.

Inner City Press: That’s why I asked. When it first came up, I actually asked whether he could be a part of the briefing with Lynn Pascoe, since I don’t think he’s ever briefed the media on the record, but he seems to have a pretty important role within the Executive Office of the Secretariat, and obviously he is willing to speak on the record to at least some media. Is that possible to convey thatrequest?

UN’s Kim, at left, with UN’s Ban and Munoz, on glaciers

Spokesperson:
I will certainly convey it.
Hours later when Ban and his entourage, including Vijay Nambiar and Lynn Pascoe,
passed the Press at the Security Council stakeout, Kim Won-soo waved over. Correspondents recounted anecdotes from Ban’s trip last month to Haiti. There was general agreement: Mister Kim must brief the press, and on the record. We’ll see. Watch this site.
================

Monday February 8, 2010 UPDATE with information from the UN.

UN POLITICAL CHIEF HEADS TO DPR KOREA FOR TALKS WITH DPRK SENIOR OFFICIALS.

The top United Nations political official will arrive in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) tomorrow for talks with senior Government officials after wrapping up meetings in Beijing and Seoul.

As the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General, Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs B. Lynn Pascoe will depart the Chinese capital tomorrow morning to hold comprehensive talks on all issues of mutual interest and concern with the DPRK during his visit to Pyongyang, slated to run from today through Friday.

While in the DPRK, he also plans to meet with the UN country team and foreign diplomats, as well as visit several UN project sites.

Over the weekend in Seoul, Mr. Pascoe held talks with officials from the Republic of Korea – including Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan and the country’s chief negotiator to the Six-Party Talks, which also involve Japan, China, Russia and the United States – on its relationship with the UN as well as the DPRK, among other topics.

Mr. Pascoe also conferred with UN-related civil society leaders, including former prime minister Han Seung-soo, who is now president of the World Federation of UN Associations (WFUNA), before travelling to Beijing for talks with officials from that country.

In September, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon met with the DPRK’s Vice Foreign Minister Park Gil Yon at UN Headquarters in New York, where he discussed the country’s nuclear issue along with the humanitarian and human rights situations.

In a report to the General Assembly last year, Mr. Ban voiced concern over the impact of the humanitarian situation on human rights in the country, where more than one third of the nearly 24 million-strong population is in need of food assistance.

The Asian nation’s humanitarian problems – including food shortages, a crumbling health system and lack of access to safe drinking water – seriously “hamper the fulfilment of human rights of the population,” he wrote.

Monday, Feb. 8, 2010

Abbas begins Japan trip with visit to A-bomb museum.

HIROSHIMA (Kyodo) Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas arrived in Japan on Sunday for a four-day visit as part of his Asian tour and visited Hiroshima for the first time.

On the first day of his four-day visit to Japan, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas listens to an explanation of an exhibit at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum.

After offering flowers at the cenotaph for the victims of the 1945 U.S. atomic bombing of the city, Abbas went to the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum and wrote in a visitors’ book that his heart bleeds for the calamities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the other Japanese city to suffer an atomic bombing.

The Palestinian leader told reporters that the world should eliminate nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. He also said the Palestinians have been tormented by war and need support from other countries to achieve peace.

Abbas, who last visited Japan in May 2005, is scheduled to hold talks with Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyamaon Monday and with Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada on Tuesday before heading for South Korea on Wednesday.

During the talks, the Japanese side is expected to formally notify the Palestinian leader of its intention to provide $20 million in aid and build a solar power plant in the West Bank town of Jericho.
Tokyo is also likely to commit to providing support for the resumption of the Middle East peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians, which remains in a stalemate.

Sunday, Feb. 7, 2010

U.S. Afpak path comes full circle

By BRAHMA CHELLANEY
NEW DELHI, for the Japan Times online  — What U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration has been pursuing in Afghanistan for the past one year has now received international imprimatur, thanks to the well-scripted London conference. Four words sum up that strategy: Surge, bribe and run.

Obama has designed his twin troop surges not to militarily rout the Afghan Taliban but to strike a political deal with the enemy from a position of strength. Without a deal with Taliban commanders, the United States cannot execute the “run” part.

The Obama approach has been straightforward: If you can’t defeat them, buy them off. Having failed to rout the Taliban, Washington has been holding indirect talks with the Afghan militia’s shura, or top council, whose members are holed up in Quetta, capital of Pakistan’s sprawling Baluchistan province, including the one-eyed chief, Mullah Mohammad Omar. The talks have been conducted through the Pakistani, Saudi and Afghan intelligence agencies.

Obama, paradoxically, is seeking to apply to Afghanistan the Iraq model of his predecessor, George W. Bush, who used a military surge largely as a show of force to buy off Sunni tribal leaders and other local chieftains. But Afghanistan isn’t Iraq, and it is a moot question whether the same strategy can work, especially when Obama has not hidden his intent to end the U.S. war before he comes up for re-election in 2012.

In a land with a long tradition of humbling foreign armies, payoffs are unlikely to buy peace. All that the Pakistan-backed Taliban has to do is to simply wait out the Americans. After all, popular support for the Afghan war has markedly ebbed in the U.S., even as the other countries with troops in Afghanistan exhibit war fatigue.

If a resurgent Taliban is now on the offensive, with 2008 and 2009 proving to be the deadliest years for U.S. forces since the 2001 American intervention, it is primarily because of two reasons: the sustenance the Taliban still draws from Pakistan; and a growing Pashtun backlash against foreign intervention.

The Taliban leadership — with an elaborate command-and-control structure oiled by Wahhabi petrodollars and proceeds from opium trade — operates from the comfort of sanctuaries in Pakistan. Fathered by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency and midwifed by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency in 1994, the Taliban emerged as a Frankenstein’s monster.

Yet President Bill Clinton’s administration acquiesced in the Taliban’s ascension to power in Kabul in 1996 and turned a blind eye as the thuggish militia, in league with the ISI, fostered narco-terrorism and swelled the ranks of the Afghan war alumni waging transnational terrorism. With 9/11, however, the chickens came home to roost. The U.S. came full circle when it declared war on the Taliban in October 2001. Now, desperate to save a faltering military campaign, U.S. policy is coming another full circle as Washington advertises its readiness to strike deals with “moderate” Taliban (as if there can be moderates in an Islamist militia that enforces medieval practices).

In the past year, the U.S. military and intelligence have carried out a series of air and drone strikes and ground commando attacks from Afghanistan in Pakistan’s tribal Waziristan region against the Pakistani Taliban, the nemesis of the Pakistani military. The CIA alone has admitted carrying out a dozen drone strikes in Waziristan to avenge the bombing of its base in Khost, Afghanistan, by a Jordanian double agent, who in a prerecorded video said he was going to take revenge for the U.S. attack — carried out at Pakistan’s instance — that killed the Pakistani Taliban chief, Baitullah Mehsud.

Yet, the U.S. military and intelligence have not carried out a single air, drone or ground attack against the Afghan Taliban leadership in Baluchistan, south of Waziristan. The CIA and the ISI are again working together, including in shielding the Afghan Taliban shura members so as to facilitate a possible deal.

Obama’s Afghan strategy should be viewed as shortsighted and apt to repeat the very mistakes of American policy on Afghanistan and Pakistan over the past three decades that have come to haunt U.S. security and that of the rest of the free world.

Washington is showing it has not learned any lessons from its past policies that gave rise to monsters like Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar and to “the state within the Pakistani state,” the ISI, which was made powerful during Ronald Reagan’s presidency as a conduit of covert U.S. aid for Afghan guerrillas fighting Soviet occupiers.

To justify the planned Faustian bargain with the Taliban, the Obama team is drawing a specious distinction between al-Qaida and the Taliban and illusorily seeking to differentiate between “moderate” Taliban and those that rebuff deal-making.

The scourge of transnational terrorism cannot be stemmed if such specious distinctions are drawn. India, which is on the frontline of the global fight against international terrorism, is likely to bear the brunt of the blowback of Obama’s Afpak strategy, just as it came under terrorist siege as a consequence of the Reagan-era U.S. policies.

The Taliban, al-Qaida and groups like the Lashkar-e-Taiba are a difficult-to- separate mix of soul mates who together constitute the global jihad syndicate. To cut a deal with any constituent of this syndicate will only bring more international terrorism. A stable Afghanistan cannot emerge without dismantling the Pakistani military’s sanctuaries and sustenance infrastructure for the Afghan Taliban and militarily decapitating the latter’s command center in Baluchistan. Instead of seeking to achieve that, the U.S. is actually partnering the Pakistani military to win over the Taliban.

Even if the Obama administration managed to bring down violence in Afghanistan by doing a deal with the Taliban, the Taliban would remain intact as a fighting force, with active ties to the Pakistani military. Such a tactical gain would exact serious costs on regional and international security by keeping the Afpak region as the epicenter of a growing transnational-terrorism scourge and upsetting civilian reconstruction in Afghanistan, where Japan and India are two of the largest bilateral aid donors.

Regrettably, the Obama administration is falling prey to a long- standing U.S. policy weakness: The pursuit of narrow objectives without much regard for the interests of friends.

Brahma Chellaney, professor of strategic studies at the privately funded Center for Policy Research in New Delhi, is a regular contributor to The Japan Times.

“THE WINTER OF THEIR DISCONTENT: PYONGYANG ATTACKS THE MARKET.”

That was the title of a lunch event at The Korea Society Forum on Wedneday, January 27, 2010, and the speaker was Mr. Marcus Noland, Deputy Director at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington DC, and  Senior Fellow at the East-West Institute.He has held academic positions at Yale, Johns Hopkins, USC, Tokyo U, Saitama U, The U. of Ghana, and the Korea Development Institute. He was also a senior economist at the Council of Economic Advisers to the President of the USA.

The event was chaired by Mr. Evans Revere, President and CEO of the Korea Society. Both of them also old hands of the US Department of State – former Ambassadors with deep knowledge of Korea.

The paper that was presented was co-authored by Mr. Noland with Stephan Haggard with whom he also co-authored a book titled:  “Famine in North Korea: Markets, Aid, and Reform.” Other books he wrote are “Pacific Basin Developing Countries: Prospects for the Future and Korea after Kim Jong-il,” and he edited “Economic Integration of the Korean Peninsula.” His book “Avoiding the Apocalypse: the future of the Two Koreas,” won the Ohira Memorial prize.

The reason for having this meeting was the North Korea’s recent currency reform of November 30, 2009, that literally threw North Korea back to Stalinistic Days of unbelievable economy these days of the 21st century.

North Korea also declared a ban on the use of foreign currencies on top of having declared useless their own National currency account. The net result was a clear blow o the market – so there is literally no market – thus no real economy – only a barter system.

History: In the last 15-20 years there was a bottom up marketization of the North Korean economy. It started with households and local government offices. It somehow evolved in the 1990s into a highly distorted market economy and the State was not comfortable with this because of the private origin of this up-swell – it was outside the State Control. There was also some intrusion of foreign companies – such as an Egyptian Telecoms that provided for individuals and businesses a cellphone network. The recent currency reform is simply the outcome – a clamp down on private initiative – and as there are no civil society institutions there is also no way to channel the peoples unhappiness. What we have now said Noland – is a revival of the Stalinist economy of the 1950s.

There have been conventional currency reforms in many countries – Turkey, Romania, Ghana … usually you cut off three zeros from the currency and you get it exchanged – but not in North Korea. Here, on November 30, 2009, North Korea announced a reform to replace all currency in circulation with new bills and coins. You had to declare all what you have and you could only exchange a small part of what you had – so the rest became useless paper. It was thus a confiscatory measure. Businesses operated in cash – so this destroyed the financial basis of the economy that operated outside the government controlled system. Call it the return to State socialism for those that tried to make a living for themselves. The Chinese never entered this North Korean world – they just do not operate in this sort of environment anymore.

The inflation was spiralling out of control before this sort of reform, now people did not even know how to price their products – it did not make sense to obtain this new currency – so how do you run a market under these conditions?

Things even sound worse when you realize that most North Koreans are government employees. – People join the government system so they can participate in the corruption cycle. If you ask in North Korea someone -Have you ever been detained? Most likely the answer will be yes. Even in this case – the currency exchange law – it was several days before it happened and you felt there was a dollarization of the system. Many knew it is coming and did buy dollars for their soon to be devalued money.

Some information became available when mid January a North Korean defected from the Embassy in Ethiopia.

Look at the difference between North Korea and Vietnam. Both were hit by withdrawal of Soviet assistance in the 1980s. While Vietnam changed and took off – North Korea stagnated and rolled back.

China started its reforms in the 1970s – Vietnam in the 1980s – both started from a high agriculture society. They had parades of improvement and everybody participated and took advantage of the changes. THey did freeze State Planning and people improved. Now North Korea did the opposite – they froze the market and demonetized the economy and the society. There is no lending – there is no banking – nothing. NORTH KOREA IS A FAILED STATE! What about the nukes? {as we shall see this was only the last question and came from a Japanese Government official.}

Before November 30, 2009, if you had some drive – you did push yourself up, or you left for China. What now? If there is no market you cannot sell even if you make something.

It amounts to a militarized workers party regime. Being a conscript in the lower ranks of the army is no big deal – but then the further down the ladder you go in North Korea – the more sensible the people are! The closer you are to Pyongyang – the more ideological and worse people get.

Interesting – the word nuclear was not uttered by the speaker or by people asking questions – this until the last question that came from a Japanese Consulate person. Mr. Noland pointed out that he was already hoping, against his expectations, that nobody will touch upon this. Then he stressed that development assistance is important – but you must make sure that like food assistance, it goes for good purpose to the right people. Such efforts are fungible and might produce no results if you are not careful.

———–

At the end of the Forum, I stayed around to discuss issues with some of the people present – it was a roomful – maybe 40 people. My cklear question was about reunification of the Koreas and I got quite a few skeptical answers. It is obvious they thought that a united Korea will be nuclear and the Japanese official just had no interest in this. Others just did not trust the North Korean leadership of being ready to give up the reins for an unsafe future – that is as if today their future is safe.

What about the real huge internal market that would open up by reunification? Why not do it in such a way that some leadership position is left in the hands of the present leaders of the North, in the hope that an Angela Merkel type will emerge from among them also? It will be no big thing to award penssions and guarantee the condition of those that will have to give up power? No tribunals please – just future well behavior can be the link. Part of this generation will be non-productive, but the young people from the North will show talents that can help all of Korea.

The EU refuses to see the multi headed Hydra it has become and expects President Obama to play along. Reality calls – EU please get serious at becoming some sort of one headed entity! The US President is a busy man now with all that US Jazz.

It slowly starts sinking in – we said it a long time ago!

Battling the ‘Multilateral Zombie’ – EU climate strategy after Copenhagen.
LEIGH PHILLIPS

February 3, 2010, http://euobserver.com/9/29354/?rk=1,
 http://old.norden.org/analysnorden/defau…

EUOBSERVER / ANALYSIS – “The EU’s post-Copenhagen strategy should be
just to have a strategy, any strategy,” quips one Brussels think-tank
wag during an interview.

The rough hip-check Europe received in the Danish capital in December,
sidelining the bloc during the eleventh-hour huddle between major
powers that produced the Copenhagen Accord, has produced a wave of
despondency and cynicism amongst Brussels politicians, green
lobbyists, and analysts – and carbon traders across the continent to
boot. They’re all having a crack at how poorly the EU played its hand
during climate negotiations.

For the last three years, if it hasn’t been the institutional reform
of the Lisbon Treaty, it’s been the bloc’s obsession with climate
change that has dominated the EU agenda. Even if the EU is well off
the at least 40 percent cut in emissions that science demands if we
are to avoid catastrophic climate change, it remains the case that as
a result of its 2008 climate and energy package, Europe remains the
most advanced rich-country power on the planet in terms of its binding
CO2 reduction commitment.

With its climate boy-scout badge afixed to its sleeve, Brussels headed
off to Camp Copenhagen expecting at least to see its self-proclaimed
leadership reflected in winning something along the lines of a broad
commitment from other powers to at least a 20-percent cut in carbon
emissions below 1990 levels by 2020.

But in the end, the EU ended up the goody-two-shoes pupil who’s top of
the class, but yet, when he invites all the other kids over for a
party, glumly watches as they end up playing among each other instead
of with him. It was the US, China, India, Brazil and South Africa that
cobbled together the last-minute three-page-long Copenhagen Accord
without the EU even in the room, while most of the developing world
complained throughout the two weeks that Brussels was at best just a
cat’s paw for Washington.

Denmark’s Connie Hedegaard, now incoming EU
climate commissioner, was repeatedly attacked for favouring rich
countries over the developing world.

“It was the strangest conference I have been at in my life, from all
points of view,” Mr Barroso told a pow-wow of the leading European
think-tanks in early January.

Typical of the initial EU reaction were comments from Swedish
environment minister Andres Carlgren, who, when meeting in Brussels in
late December with his EU counterparts to debrief after the UN summit
and begin the discussion of what to do next, slammed the result as a
“disaster.”

“It was a really great failure and we have to learn from that,” he
said at the time. { but the gentleman forgot to say whose failure it was!}

Glass half full!

However, after the holidays, a clutch of pollyanna-ish EU officials
have since fervently urged everyone to consider the Accord’s silver
lining. Both President Barroso and the bloc’s chief climate
negotiator, Artur Runge-Metzger, in various venues have emphasised
that many of the things the EU had been pushing for were contained in
the final result – developed countries agreed for the first time a
concrete sum for climate finance, a target maximum average global
temperature increase of two degrees was embraced and a review,
allowing for a ratcheting up of targets if necessary, is foreseen for
2015.

Ms Hedegaard during the parliamentary hearing to confirm her
appointment as commissioner gave a robust defence of the document.

“I would very much have liked to have seen more progress in
Copenhagen, but finance was delivered; all the emerging developing
nations have accepted co-responsibility [for reducing emissions] and
Brazil, South Africa, China, India and the US, all of whom were not
part of the Kyoto Protocol, have now set targets for domestic action,”
she told MEPs mid-January.

But even as the EU begins to view the Copenhagen glass as half full,
elsewhere, support for the document is beginning to unravel.

Last week, realising that only around 20 countries had listed their
emissions reductions commitments in a schedule attached to the Accord,
UN climate chief Yvo de Boer quietly abandoned the 31 January deadline
for states to have done so.

At the same time, EU member states that have never been comfortable
with the bloc’s climate ambitions have used the opportunity to delay
or block European plans to boost its CO2 emissions reduction
commitment from 20 percent on 1990 levels to 30 percent. On 18
January, environment ministers met in Seville, to assess, for the
second time, the reasons for the failure in the Danish capital. UK,
France, Germany, Belgium and Spain continued to push for the increased
pledge, while Italy and Poland said now was not the time given the
poverty of ambition by other states at Copenhagen.

As of this week, the consensus in the bloc is to maintain its target
of 20 percent and conditional offer of 30 percent if other powers make
comparable efforts – in other words exactly the same position the EU
has held for the last year, although Ms Hedegaard has publicly said
she hopes to see a move to 30 percent “by Mexico,” meaning the next UN
climate summit in the Central American nation at the end of 2010.

At the same time, the commission itself is in the ‘twenty-percenter’
camp, pushing this position in Copenhagen, “afraid to be naked” with
nothing left to put on the table in the game of climate strip poker.
Moreover, crucially, the executive’s goal of a transatlantic emissions
trading system is unworkable with cuts pledges that are wildly
divergent and without legally binding commitments from Washington.

The US is looking to a 17 percent emissions reduction on 2005 levels,
which works out to be just three percent when using the same 1990
baseline year as the EU. Watch for the US, if legislation gets
through, at some point to somehow nudge up its cut to 20 percent and
the EU to stick to the same figure, dressed up in language about how
the two targets are now comparable, with a fudge over the differing
baseline years.

Support unravelling:

Separately, four of the five architects of the Accord, Brazil, South
Africa, India and China, have themselves gone lukewarm on the project,
smarting from accusations from much of the rest of the developing
world that these four richest of the poor countries had broken ranks
after a year of unprecedented global south unity.

Last weekend, meeting in New Delhi, the four so-called Basic countries
described the accord as merely a “political understanding” without any
legal basis and that action should instead proceed on the basis of the
two documents to come out of the official UN process – one outlining
the second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol and the other
dealing with climate actions by the US and emerging economies.

Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh said: “We support the
Copenhagen Accord. But all of us were unanimously of the view that its
value lies not as a standalone document but as an input into the
two-track negotiation process under the UNFCCC.”

“The two-track negotiating process …is the only legitimate process
to reach a legally binding treaty in Mexico,” he added.

Meanwhile, the cornerstone of the Accord, an understanding that
however limited America’s commitment, Washington would at least be
able to deliver on this promise.

But with the surprise election to the US Senate of Massachusetts
Republican Scott Brown on an anti-climate-bill ticket, killing the
Democrat’s filibuster-proof majority, the country’s climate
legislation is threatened. A defeated or heavily watered down bill
only engenders further reservations in the minds of Chinese, Indian
and even European leadership about promising tough reduction targets.

For all the public talk of Latin American, Chinese and African climate
“villains” blocking the process in Copenhagen, privately, there is
frustration with Washington as well. A senior EU policy official
speaking to EUobserver described President Obama’s position as the
same as that of George Bush. “We are willing but only if others move,”
the official said, attributing the position to both the current and
former US leaders.

One EU climate voice {?}

A popular post-Copenhagen analysis from the Brookings Institute, the
centrist US think-tank, that has made the rounds of officialdom and
NGO-land warns of a slow-motion failure scenario similar to the Doha
round of WTO talks, a process it describes as a “multilateral zombie”
in which climate negotiations “stagger on piteously, never making much
progress while never quite dying either.”

Nevertheless, despite the dark days and the cynicism of some
onlookers, we can already begin to sense the outlines of a European
strategy.

EU Council President Herman Van Rompuy has already said he hopes to
see a common climate strategy emerge from an 11 February extraordinary
EU summit originally scheduled to deal with the economy. Angela
Merkel, as well, has upgraded a climate meeting in Bonn in June from
expert to ministerial level and the European Commission is preparing a
series of proposals that it is to put to the member states.

One of the main lessons the European Commission has drawn from the
Copenhagen failure is that European representation in climate change
talks needs to be streamlined in order to project its position more
effectively, even if the commission is not awarded the task of
negotiating on behalf of the bloc, as it does in trade talks,

“We are fragmented from a negotiating point of view,” President
Barroso said in his first public appearance of the year. “In trade
matters, this is different. The European Commission is the voice.”

Ms Hedegaard is of the same mind. In her parliamentary hearing, her
top message concerned European disunity: “In the last hours, China,
India, Russia, Japan each spoke with one voice, while Europe spoke
with many different voices.”

“A lot of Europeans in the room is not a problem, but there is only an
advantage if we sing from same hymn sheet. We need to think about this
and reflect on this very seriously, or we will lose our leadership
role in the world,” she told MEPs.

In a similar vein, the commission president has also suggested that
the new EU External Action Service – the bloc’s diplomatic corps born
of the Lisbon Treaty – be given more leeway to engage in climate
bargaining.

Until now, this sort of bilateral pressure has been left up to the
member states, with Paris tasked with winning over Francophone Africa,
London with arm-twisting the Commonwealth and Berlin given the job of
seducing Pacific islands.

Before last autumn’s federal election in Germany,
then-foreign-minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier was meeting regularly
with the Association of Small Island States and 20 Aosis ministers
visited the country last year specifically to discuss climate issues,
while Ethiopia’s surprise intervention at Copenhagen proposing a deal
that mirrored almost word for word a European Commission proposal from
September came as the result of UK and French behind-the-scenes
intercession.

While this sort of member-state activity is likely to continue, the
Lisbon Treaty has given the commission a powerful new diplomatic
weapon it intends to use to the fullest.

Sidelining the UN:

Related to this, the major task will be to break the remarkable unity
shown by developing nations. The UNFCCC’s principle dating back to
Kyoto of “common but differentiated responsibility,” is understood by
developing nations to mean that those countries that caused the
problem should pay for solving it and make binding commitments to CO2
reductions.

The third world has said that it would be happy to develop along a
low-carbon path itself, but that the rich north will have to pay for
this and that their emissions cuts should in any case be voluntary.
The World Bank, unhelpfully, has estimated the cost of all this to be
$400 billion a year. Meanwhile, wealthy nations, would rather that the
developing world, but specifically China and to a lesser extent India,
agree to binding, verifiable CO2 cuts without the price tag.

The key advantage of the Copenhagen Accord for rich countries is that
it “weakens or even does away with the principle of common but
differentiated responsibilities,” as the South Centre, a Geneva-based
think-tank close to developing world governments, warns – another
reason why the Basic countries, upon reflection, have taken a distance
from the deal.

In many ways, Copenhagen was a victory for the developing world, in
that it managed to hold off against pressure to junk the Kyoto
Protocol and in the end ensured that the Copenhagen Accord was only
“noted” by the UN plenary instead of endorsed, making it a document
floating in a legal limbo.

For this reason, the US has called for a junking of the UN process,
hoping that it can win other countries to its perspective via more
manageable arenas such as the G20 or the Major Emitters Forum, where
there are far fewer than the UN’s 192 nations to deal with and the
‘awkward squad’ of left-wing Latin American nations and the G77 group
of nations are absent. Both Jonathan Pershing, America’s chief
negotiator, and US climate envoy Todd Stern have said the UN should be
sidelined.

EU leaders however “are less neurotic about the UN than the Americans
are,” in the words of the Centre for European Policy Studies’ climate
specialist, Christian Egenhofer.

At the same time that President Barroso admitted to pulling his hair
out at the UN process, he also said there is no other option. “We need
to have a more efficient and results-oriented process in the future
…With unanimity, it is easier for one country to block – it’s the
basic logic of the system,” he said in early January, adding however:
“It’s very easy to criticise the UN …but the UN is what the members
make out of it.”

Although some Spanish presidency officials at one point said that
climate negotiations should pass through the G20 instead, everyone
else, from Mr Runge-Metzger to Ms Hedegaard believe this cannot be
done. “Some ask: ‘Shouldn’t we give up on the UN process?’ I say:
‘No.’ We would waste too much work,” she told the European Parliament.

Instead, according to Mr Runge-Metzger: “The next step for the EU is
to get the accord translated into the UN process,” to try to lock in
agreement in other fora and then feed this into the main UN
negotiations. The key is to appear to be endorsing the UN process
while still pushing for other fora to do the heavy lifting.

One arena in particular that climate watchers should keep an eye on is
the UN High-Level Panel on Climate Change and Development, announced
by Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon last September and to be launched
early this year. Made up of a handful of current heads of government,
along with experts, senior government officials and community leaders,
the panel will be a much more manageable entity, but will also have
the imprimatur of the UN.

Border tariff:

Meanwhile, EU officials are briefing heavily against the awkward
squad, attempting to paint them as obstructionist and
unrepresentative. Reporters are reminded of G77-chair Sudan’s
authoritarian government, while Ethiopia, which has authoritarian rule
but is on side, is never criticized. With Yemen, the birthplace of the
infamous underpants bomber, holding the 2010 presidency of the group,
this will be an even easier public relations hatchet job.

But it was not just a handful of countries, but the entire Africa
Group of Nations that forced a suspension of proceedings when they
twice walked out of the UN complaining of rich country shenanigans.
Latin America and the loudmouthed-or-eloquent (depending on who you
asked) Oxford-educated G77 negotiator Lumumba di-Aping, famous for his
line that an offer of $10 billion in climate finance “is not enough to
buy us coffins,” were only the most vocal of a host of frustrated
countries.

At the same time, even ardent developing world advocates privately
express their discomfort at the wealthy elites of China and India
using the poor of their own countries to advance an agenda of growth
that primarily benefits them. And it is true that the developing world
is not all of one mind. Tuvalu is bitterly opposed to the Copenhagen
Accord while the Maldives embraces it as the best it can get while the
tides are rapidly rising.

Elsewhere, the EU is also almost certain to take a fresh look at
slapping carbon tariffs on goods entering the bloc. There is no way
industry would allow a move to a 30 percent emissions reduction pledge
without such protection. “I will fight for a carbon tax levied on EU
borders,” French President Nicolas Sarkozy said earlier this month.

It’s always easy to dismiss such ambition when expressed by a man
known for his crafting of public policy by press conference, and EU
commissioner-designate for trade, Karel de Gucht has ruled a carbon
border tariff out, saying: “it will …lead to an escalating trade war
on a global level.”

But this is what a trade commissioner has to say. Many analysts
believe that a carbon tariff is inevitable and even WTO-compatible if
multilaterally agreed. The US climate bill already includes a carbon
tariff provision and, crucially, this is the stick that could be used
to force China, India and other nations to submit to its preferred
climate regime of binding reduction commitments for emerging
economies.

The EU is still essential here. Washington could not move ahead with a
tariff without Brussels on board.

It should also be remembered that many other major powers were
sidelined at Copenhagen. Japan and Russia were also absent from
Copenhagen’s endgame. In many ways, the EU’s limited influence has
been largely a product of its own climate success. Although Europe is
the world’s third largest emitter, this will likely change in the near
future. Ironically, if the continent isn’t going to be as much of a
problem in absolute (as opposed to per capita) terms as China or India
by 2030, it doesn’t have much of a bargaining chip. Washington was
always going to be far more interested in Beijing.

Copenhagen was very much the US and China show, but it won’t always be.

——–

This feature was originially written for the Nordic Council’s Analys
Norden website.

{ We wonder at the last sentence of the article because we think that unless the EU does in fact unite under  one leadership it will not amount to much when the US continues to deal with the BASICs – I mean the countries that are form the basic future. The EU should aim at becoming the G3 to be added to China and the US in future global negotiations that will include also the IBSA and one or two more states. See please next article.}

——————————————————————————-

US blames Lisbon Treaty for EU summit fiasco. Mr Obama – the Madrid summit decision is being seen as a diplomatic snub to Spain.
by ANDREW RETTMAN from Brussels.

February 3, 2010, http://euobserver.com/9/29398/?rk=1
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS  writes -  The US State Department has said that President Barack Obama’s decision not to come to an EU summit in Madrid in May is partly due to confusion arising from the Lisbon Treaty.

State department spokesman Philip J. Crowley told press in Washington on Tuesday (2 February) that the treaty has made it unclear who the US leader should meet and when. { that sounds very clear to me.}

“Up until recently, they [summits] would occur on six-month intervals,
as I recall, with one meeting in Europe and one meeting here. And that
was part of – the foundation of that was the rotating presidency
within the EU. Now you have a new structure regarding not only the
rotating EU presidency, you’ve got an EU Council president, you’ve got
a European Commission president,” he said.

“We are working through this just as Europeans themselves are working
through this: When you have a future EU-US summit meeting, who will
host it and where will it be held?” he added. “All of this is kind of
being reassessed in light of architectural changes in Europe.”

The Lisbon Treaty came into force on 1 December, 2009. It created the post
of a new EU Council president and EU foreign relations chief in order
to give the union a stronger voice abroad.

It kept the institution of the six-month rotating EU presidency as
well, with the member state holding the chairmanship to do the bulk of
behind-the-scenes policy work in Brussels.

The Spanish EU presidency is being closely watched to see how the EU
manages the transition to the new power structure. The EU Council
president has so far taken charge of summits in the EU capital. But
Madrid was to share the limelight with a few top-level events at home.

The state department’s Mr Crowley said the US and Spain have been in
touch “directly” to discuss Mr Obama’s decision after Madrid learned
about it through the media on Monday.

“Obviously, there’s been some disappointment expressed by the
government of Spain, and we understand that and we’ll be working with
them on that,” he said.

Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero and Mr Obama are both
expected to attend the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington on
Thursday. But no bilateral meeting has been announced so far.

The informal event sees some 3,500 celebrities, businessmen,
politicians and religious leaders get together in the US capital each
year. It is organised by the Fellowship Foundation, a Christian
fundamentalist pressure group.

Mr Zapatero, a centre-left secularist, has taken flak for his trip in
Spanish media, with the El Pais daily calling his decision to attend
the prayer event “shocking.”

On November 1, 2005, SIXTY YEARS SINCE THE END OF WORLD WAR II, THE LIBERATION OF THE AUSCHWITZ EXTERMINATION CAMP BY THE SOVIET ARMY, AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE UN, finally, the UN that in major part came about because of the fact that the world realized that walking in the ashes caused by anti-Semitism and other isms, is not the will of the human race; the UN was created to learn from that experience – but did it? It took 60 years, the creation of the State of Israel, the travails of Zionism is Racism abomination, and one strong Ambassador of humanity to the organization – US Professor/ Senator/Ambassador Moynihan, to start to beat the anti-Semitic UN steel into compliance.

—————

UN Designates International Holocaust day
November 1, 2005, release:

The UN General Assembly has decided by acclaim to designate January 27 as international Holocaust Day.

This is the first time ever that a resolution introduced by Israel has been adopted by the UN General Assembly. Some not inconsiderable distance has been traveled from the infamous “Zionism is Racism” resolution to this resolution. At least, the world can be united in condemning genocide, even if “Zionists” propose the initiative. The vision of Austria and Germany co-sponsoring and approving of such a resolution is certainly heartening to the surviving victims of Nazi persecution, to the Jews, gypsies and others whose families died in the Holocaust and to the state of Israel.

Unfortunately, it is not at all certain how some countries will mark this day. Some of the rhetoric of the UN discussion is ominous: Several Muslim and Arab governments expressed “reservations.” Some countries believe that the Holocaust, in which a state turned against noncombatant civilians, was the same as bombing the cities of enemy countries at war. In many of the countries that approved of this resolution and even among those whose representatives spoke kind words about humanitarianism, Mein Kampf and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are best sellers. Some of those countries have been accessories after the fact to genocide, or committed it themselves. In those countries, every day is Holocaust day. From the remarks of the Ukrainian representative, you would not know that the Jews of the Ukraine were rounded up by Ukrainian SS, or that the gas chambers at Auschwitz were run by a Ukrainian nicknamed “Ivan the terrible.”

What public activities will mark Holocaust day in Iran, where President Ahmedinejad has called for a world without Zionism and America? In Syria, a book about the Blood Libel (the accusation that Jews kill Christian children in order to use their blood for baking Matzot) was written by the former minister of Defense. Syria also made notable contributions to the history of racial persecution in its treatment of the Kurds. Will Syria mark this day in sympathy with the victims, or will they celebrate it by showing, perhaps, a screening of Lenni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will? Will this day become an occasion for so-called “anti-Zionists” to trot out Holocaust denial and accusations that Israel is committing a Holocaust against the Palestinians, or that the Zionists collaborated with the Nazis?

Will the world again stand aside at the next genocide, as it did in Rwanda, and as it did for a very long time in Darfur, and as it continues to do in Tibet? In the discussion, each state was quick to accuse others of genocide, but unwilling to accept responsibility for crimes of their own states and governments. The Venezuelans spoke about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Chinese alluded to Japanese crimes. The Ukrainians alluded to Soviet crimes. The discussion would have more meaning if the Americans had spoken about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Chinese had spoken about their activities in Tibet, the Japanese had spoken the rape of Mongolia and the Turks had spoken of the Armenian genocide.

The implementation of the resolution will be of more consequence than the paper or the words themselves,  and the reality of the actions of states will be more important than either.

The proliferation of vile Web sites and articles about the “Holocaust Myth,” claiming the Holocaust never happened and is yet another Jewish plot, points up the urgent need for this day of remembrance.

Alert readers of what was said that say will note some bitter ironies in the remarks of representatives of some states, whose people and governments were active collaborators or passive accessories in the crime of the Holocaust.

The date – January 27 – was picked as that was the date the Auschwitz-Birkenau extermination machine was closed by the Soviet army. http://www.zionism-israel.com/news/holocaust_day.htm

The first commemoration was held at the UN in 2006 and this year we have thus the fifth such event – or actually a series of events, that traditionally start on the Saturday before the actual date with a ceremony at the Park East Synagogue located on Manhattan’s East Side – Midtown.

The list of this year’s events at the UN, as provided to parties outside the UN – and published on our website is:
 http://www.sustainabilitank.info/2010/01…

But besides the UN itself, the fact that the UN has thrown the light upon the Holocaust atrocities, and the world’s need to remember these atrocities by having an International day of Remembrance, it is now that even in unexpected places in the civilized world, we find events being organized for the purpose of remembering and of learning from that experience. We thought thus to mention here one such event in a place we hardly expected to find it – the main Carnival city of the North-East of Brazil – Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil.
 http://www.sustainabilitank.info/2010/01…

We will be reporting on this year’s week-long series in several postings that will involve also other related events – for now we will put up the clear Jewish angle to the comemoration – as it reflected in the Park East Sybagogue events and in the political official presentation at the UN main event of January 27, 2010

REMARKS AT PARK EAST SYNAGOGUE IN MEMORY OF THE VICTIMS OF THE HOLOCAUST

by H.E. Srgjan Kerim President of the 62nd session of the United Nations General Assembly.

Park East Synagogue
New York, 26 January 2008

Rabbi Schneier,
Excellencies,
Members of Park East Synagogue,
Dear Friends,

I am very grateful to Rabbi Schneier for inviting me to the Park East
Synagogue – a historic architectural treasure in the heart of
Manhattan.

I am sure that you are all very proud of Rabbi Schneier for his
commitment and spiritual leadership that has brought this synagogue
international recognition.

It was only five years ago that I had my first opportunity to attend
and participate in a Jewish ceremony, here at the Park East Synagogue.
The experience inspired me to write a poem entitled ‘Temple’. I would
like to share a short extract with you today. I hope you will
appreciate it;

Nowhere in the world is it possible
To find such a grandiose temple
That would keep for ages
The layers of human sin
And all our shame.

I’ve always believed
There’s nothing greater in a temple
Than the final sounds melting
In the concluding Amin
Until I heard the word
Of a great friend of mine
Who walked in the steps of Moses
And is called a Rabbin.

Park East Beit Knesset,

I wish there would not have been such an occasion for me to address
you today. However, as we all know the Holocaust happened. It is
definitely one of the darkest pages in the history of mankind.

Unfortunately, we are still facing some lonely, desperate attempts to
blur the horrifying dimensions of the Holocaust.

We gather here today to remember and pay homage to those who lost
their lives in the Holocaust; the atrocities that they were subjected
to can never be forgotten.
The perpetrators of the Holocaust fed man’s ego with delusions of
supremacy and tried to erase the bonds that all human beings share.

The liberation of the Nazi concentration camps over 60 years ago
revealed one of the most evil crimes against humanity. The
consequences still reverberate in the present.

Elie Wiesel – Nobel Laureate, a Holocaust survivor and champion of
moral responsibility – has best put this into perspective:

“Let us remember, let us remember the heroes of Warsaw, the martyrs of
Treblinka, the children of Auschwitz. They fought alone, they suffered
alone, they lived alone, but they did not die alone, for something in
all of us died with them.”

We must also remember to pay tribute to those who survived and bravely
carried on with their lives – and in doing so inspired others. I would
like to salute the strength and perseverance of all Holocaust
survivors and their families.

I know that some of you are with us today.

Not only have you survived, but you have rebuilt communities all over
the world, become stronger, and enabled future generations to thrive.
You just have to look around at all the people gathered here today to
recognize this fact.

The recognition of this day of Holocaust remembrance by the
international community heralded a change of tide at the United
Nations; and, a step forward in the collective memory and conscience
of our world.

Dear Friends,
Remembrance of the Holocaust is more than the recognition of a tragic
past – or the darker side of human nature.

Remembering is an ethical act; it has ethical value in itself.

Remembrance is also a means through which we can understand ourselves:
an engine for change that should enable us to create and sustain a
better, more just future.

I am reminded of my father and his family. During the Second World War
he bravely helped to save and protect the family of Isac Sion – his
school friend – amidst the terror of occupation.

At the age of twenty my father and Isac subsequently joined the
National Liberation Movement of Macedonia to fight for freedom,
against the Nazi dictatorship, alongside the Allies.

Isac Sion subsequently went on to become Vice-governor of the Central
Bank of the Former Yugoslavia and following this was appointed as
Yugoslavia’s trade representative to the United Kingdom.

My father and many others like him served the Jewish people in their
hour of need. Their actions epitomize the practical meaning of
something profound that the famous Irish politician and philosopher
Edmund Burke once said, and I quote;

“All that is needed for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

When I had my first opportunity, in some small way, to redress the
atrocities committed during the Holocaust – as foreign Minister of
Macedonia – in 2000, I appointed Elie Wiesel as our first Special
Envoy and Goodwill Ambassador. He then became the United Nations
Messenger of Peace for Human Rights and the Holocaust.

And, in honour of the Jewish community, my country will soon complete
the construction of a Holocaust Memorial Centre. This is a symbolic
gesture to bring back the memory of the victims from Treblinka to
Skopje.

Looking back at the turbulent history of the Balkan region there are
some bitter lessons that we must learn: war begins when the perception
of the pain of others ends. We can also turn this around to say that
when the perception of the pain of others begins there is no room for
war.

We must remember that every religion and culture must be tolerant of
the legitimate right for others to assert their difference in freedom.

Furthermore, intolerance of other religions or cultures is often a
sign of the degree of intolerance within a particular religion or
culture.

Dear Friends and members of Park East Beit Knesset,

The United Nations was founded on the ashes of the Holocaust, when the
world was in need of hope for a better future.
It was created to embody that hope as a promise to humanity. However,
most disturbingly, since the Holocaust there have been genocides and
serious crimes against humanity in Cambodia, Rwanda, and Yugoslavia.

That these atrocities occurred is not necessarily the failure of the
United Nations as an organization; but rather, represents the lack of
collective will of its Member States to take the decision to act or
intervene.

Even while we gather here, there are places – like Darfur – where
people suffer from the very crimes, which, time and time again, we
have vowed would never again happen.

For the dignity of all humanity, we must strengthen our ability – our
collective resolve – to prevent such atrocities, whenever and wherever
they might occur.

Indeed, terrorism, violence, rape, murder, poverty and discrimination
on the grounds of race or religion continue to be part of the everyday
lives of many people. This fact alone should jar us with indignation.

Despite the tragic failures of the international community to prevent
crimes against humanity since the founding of the United Nations,
there is hope – failure is not an option.

In 2005, the General Assembly passed a resolution that included the
‘Responsibility to Protect’. In doing so, all nations signaled their
commitment to take action – to hold themselves accountable – to
recognize that with sovereign rights come responsibilities to their
peoples.

In fact all of us here today can add our voice, with the United
Nations, to ensure that this new paradigm within international
relations comes to life.

Rabbi Schneier offers us an example of what we can do. He has been a
great advocate for human rights, and the promotion of religious and
ethnic tolerance. He has worked tirelessly to strengthen ties with
communities from different faiths and backgrounds through his good
works and publications.

In 2003 we jointly organized the first ever South East European
regional conference on ‘Dialogue among Civilizations’, at Lake Ohrid
in Macedonia.

In this spirit, and as we have just celebrated the life of the great
Martin Luther King Jr., I think it is fitting that I should recount
something he once said. It captures the same call to action that needs
to be instilled in the world today if we are to prevent a repeat of
the Holocaust;

“injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere….. Whatever
affects one directly, affects all directly.”

Dear Friends,

On the occasion of the International Day of Commemoration in memory of
the victims of the Holocaust, as well as of the 60th Anniversary of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, let us embrace our
diversity, and honor our interdependence, as the only path to peace
and justice.

Together, it is our common challenge to eliminate all distorted
notions that deepen barriers and widen divides: for they all originate
in the discriminatory practices of the mind.

We can achieve this by promoting intercultural dialogue and
cooperation for peace as a means to replace misunderstanding with
mutual respect and acceptance.

But we must also move from words to action, from principled intentions
to deeds that promote human security, human rights, the responsibility
to protect and sustainable development. For herein lies the hope of a
new culture of international relations with the United Nations as its
centerpiece.

Members of Park East Beit Knesset,
And, all those gathered here today,

Let me wish all of you and the wider community peace, health and prosperity.

Let all our thoughts honour the victims of the Holocaust, and let us
spare no effort to ensure that we never again witness such evil. We
may not be able to change the past, but we must have the courage and
vision to change the future.

In order to do so, it is not enough to reiterate solemn gestures; we
must do everything possible to transform our attitudes to have full
regard for the dignity of all individuals, communities and nations.

Thank you. Shalom.

————–

But that was the last President of the UN General Assembly to be welcome

to speak before a Jewish Audience – in those 5 years. Before him were: Mr. Jan Eliasson of Sweden #60,

and Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa of  Bahrain #61.

Now it is UNGA’s 64th session: On 10 June 2009, Ali Abdussalam Treki

of Libya was elected by acclamation at a plenary meeting of the

192-member body of the United Nations General Assembly.

Treki assumed office as president of the 64th session on 15 September 2009,
succeeding General Assembly president, Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann of
Nicaragua who was 63rd President of the UNGA. Both these gentlemen
have made anti-Israeli statements and were also mentioned in this
context as plain anti-Semites, thus making it impossible to listen to
their linguistic expressions when it comes to the commemoration of the
liberation of Auschwitz. Thus, these last two years, the presentations
at the UN, it was Vice Presidents of the UNGA that spoke in their
place, and the UN General Assembly as such was not represented at the
Saturday pre-commemoration service at the Park East Synagogue.

But in 2009, The Park East Congregation had the honor to host the UN
Secretary General.

—————-
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon
24 January 2009

Remarks at Holocaust Remembrance Day Ceremony at the Park East Synagogue:

Thank you very much, Rabbi [Arthur] Schneier, for that kind introduction.

I especially appreciate you for calling me a mensch. With apologies to
those of you who do not speak Yiddish, I have to say: thank goodness
he didn’t call me meshugenah.

To all, I wish you Shabat Shalom.

Excellencies, distinguished Ambassadors to the United Nations,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Today we mark the International Day of Commemoration honoring victims
of the Holocaust. This is a most important and solemn occasion.

As you know, my friend, the late Tom Lantos, died shortly after last
year’s observance. Some of you may have met him when he came to this
Synagogue. He was dear to me, as he was to you. He made an
extraordinary journey from a Nazi labor camp to the halls of Congress.
He became a leading champion of truth and justice. Like those of you
who also lived through the Holocaust, he was never defeated by the
unspeakable horrors that he survived.

I can only imagine what he endured. Yet I, too, have witnessed man’s
inhumanity to man. I have seen it as Secretary-General, traveling in
places torn by war. And I saw it as a six-year old boy fleeing to the
mountains to escape fighting in my own country.

The UN helped South Korea to recover. Like Tom Lantos, like many of
you, I came to believe in the transformative power of the United
Nations.

Today, the UN is on the cusp of a great transition. Never have global
challenges been so large. Climate change, terrorism, the global
financial crisis – these troubles transcend borders. They affect all
countries, rich and poor. They will be overcome only when all
countries come together in response. That’s why we have a United
Nations.

Yes, the UN has its imperfections. It’s not perfect. Because of this,
from day one since I took office, I have pushed to change it. I have
insisted on a new culture of transparency and accountability. I have
worked to make the UN more efficient, effective, modern. In short, we
have tried to make it a better instrument to serve mankind.

We are here to mark the Holocaust. Like you, the United Nations is
determined to tell its timeless lessons.

Precisely two years ago, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution
condemning, without reservation, any denial of the Holocaust. I quote:
“Ignoring the historical fact of those terrible events increases the
risk they will be repeated.”

With you, I stand in saying: never again. Never. When I paid tribute
to Holocaust victims at Yad Vashem, I wrote in the book there, “Never
again. Never.”

Memory speaks. That is why it must be preserved and passed to future
generations.

Our Holocaust Outreach Program sponsors exhibits, workshops and panel
discussions. The aim: to confront deniers, or those who would minimize
the importance of the Holocaust.

When President Ahmadinejad of Iran declared that Israel should
“disappear,” or be “wiped off the map,” I strongly condemned his
remarks – twice.

We at the United Nations stand for human rights.

We stand for democracy and the rule of law. By working for economic
and social development, we build the foundations for peace.

We have a new instrument in our hands. It is called the Responsibility
to Protect – the idea that every nation has a legal obligation to
protect its people from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and
crimes against humanity. Where nations fall short, the international
community has the right to take collective action.

Yes, it is difficult in practice. But I assure you. This is a major
advance in safeguarding mankind from crimes against humanity.

My friends,

Today is not simply a time for remembering. The Holocaust has lessons
for us, here and now. Let us heed them.

My job can sometimes be terribly painful. I see unbelievable hardship,
the worst human suffering. You are familiar with the grim catalogue of
names and places: the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Darfur,
Somalia and, of course, the Middle East.

I am just back from the region. I went to push for a cease-fire. More,
I went in search of a lasting peace.

The recurring violence between Palestinians and Israelis is a mark of
collective political failure – by both sides and by the international
community.

I saw first-hand what most people saw on television. I met a child and
his parents in Sderot, southern Israel, traumatized by falling
rockets. Never for one moment have I forgotten that a million people
in southern Israel live in a daily state of terror and fear.

In Gaza, I saw the most appalling devastation. I saw the UN compound,
still burning.

I said to all I met, on both sides: This must stop.

I left the region more determined than ever to work toward a world
where two States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace and
security. War can never be an answer. We need to strengthen the forces
of peaceful coexistence and dialogue.

No one sees this more clearly than your own Rabbi Schneier. He has
devoted his life to overcoming hatred and intolerance.

You all know him as the founder and president of the Appeal for
Conscience Foundation. What you may not know, and what I am very
grateful to him for, is his pioneering work for the UN’s Alliance of
Civilizations.

He knows first-hand that no one man or nation has all the answers. He
knows the sacred value of tolerance. He has survived the greatest
trials that life can hurl at a man or a woman and emerged not only
with his humanity and spirit intact but stronger. He survived the
Holocaust. Like others among you, he never lost sight of man’s
essential humanity, our capacity for good, our inherent dignity.

So, let us be frank. We must recognize the limits of power and
goodwill. We here know that we can never entirely rid the world of its
tyrants and its intolerance. We cannot turn all extremists to the path
of reason and light. We can only stand against them and raise our
voices in the name of our common humanity.

Tom Lantos was fond of saying that even the littlest actions, the
smallest of our daily deeds, can do much to leave this earth better,
less evil, less selfish, less monstrous than we found it. And he
stressed that doing these things, even in a modest way, gives you the
energy to keep moving forward. On this day of days, that seems to me
to be good advice.

As we remember the victims of the Holocaust, let us reaffirm our faith
in the dignity of humankind and our extraordinary resilience – our
moral strength – even amid history’s darkest chapters.

Thank you very much.

—————–

On January 23, 2010, before a full house at Park East Synagogue, the
main speaker for Saturday Pre-Commemoration of the International
Holocaust Remembrance Day was  Ambassador Susan Rice of the USA, and
at the actual ceremony at the UN General Assembly Hall was German
Ambassador to the UN H.E. Peter Wittig.

The remarks were:
 http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statement…

 http://www.newyorkun.diplo.de/Vertretung…

At the Park East Service this year, a further Honored Guest was Rabbi Ricardo Di Segni, the Chief Rabbi of Rome, who has been visited at his Synagogue by the Pope, also as part of this year’s Holocaust Remembrance.

Also present were Ambassador Thomas Mayr-Harting of Austria, Ambassador Peter Wittig of Germany, Ambassador Gerard Araud of France, Ambassador Anastassis Mitsialis of Greece, Ambassador Marta Horvathne Fekzi of Hungary, H.E. Most Reverend Celestino Migliore the Permanent Representative of the Vatican, Ambassador Yukio Takasu of Japan, Ambassador Cesare Maria Ragaglini of Italy, Ambassador Mohamed Loulichki of Morocco, Ambassador Jim McLay of New Zealand, Ambassador Andrzey Towpik of Poland, Ambassador Juan Antonio Yanez-Barnuevo of Spain, Ambassador Rayko S. Raytchev of Bulgaria, Ambassador Kim Won-soo, from the UN Secretary General’s Office, and about further twenty top Diplomatic Representatives. But I must remark that from all the Islamic and African Countries only Morocco was present – and from the newly emerging States only Brazil and China were present.

The will to succeed Kyoto: Working out a treaty to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 international treaty intended to curb greenhouse gas emissions, is a big item on the global diplomatic agenda for 2010. But currently the momentum to get negotiations moving is not very strong.
EDITORIAL, THE JAPAN TIMES online, Saturday, Jan. 23, 2010

The 15th United Nations Climate Change Conference (or COP15), held in Copenhagen in December, failed to conclude a new treaty, although leaders of some 120 countries went to the trouble of coming to the conference and joining the talks. Instead, COP15 only came up with an agreement, known as the Copenhagen Accord, which urges — but does not require — deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by major polluters and provides billions of dollars in aid to poor countries, to help mitigate the impact of climate change and also enable them to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions.

The Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. Under that treaty, developed countries are obliged to reduce their total greenhouse gas emissions by 5 percent from 1990 levels by 2012. However, since the United States, a big polluter, withdrew from the treaty under the Bush administration, it currently has no obligation to reduce emissions.

In addition, the treaty exempts developing polluters, including rapidly industrializing countries like China and India, from the emissions-reduction obligation.

Countries that are subject to the reduction targets of the Kyoto Protocol are collectively responsible for only about 30 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. In contrast, the U.S. and China together are responsible for some 41 percent.

The U.S. has announced that it will cut emissions 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. This goal is modest compared with Japan’s target of a 25 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2020, as announced by Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama in his speech at the U.N. in September. Nevertheless, U.S. President Barack Obama and his administration will still have a hard time getting Congress to enact a bill to deal with climate change.

China has announced that it will reduce emissions per unit of gross domestic product by 40 percent to 45 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. But in real terms, China’s emissions are expected to increase even if this formula is satisfied, because of the anticipated rapid expansion of its economic activity.

The Copenhagen Accord aims to continue and strengthen the efforts begun with the Kyoto Protocol, but it has no binding power on any nation. If the prospects of producing a new treaty diminish, calls for extending the Kyoto accord beyond 2012 may arise. This would be an unwelcome development.

Parties to talks on emissions reduction need to work out a new treaty. It is clear that, under the Kyoto Protocol, the economic and social burden that comes with working toward this vital goal is not shared equitably among advanced, emerging and undeveloped countries. Also, any arrangement that simply relies on extending the conditions of the Kyoto accord will not be effective in addressing global warming.

The Copenhagen Accord is also insufficient on its own. Under the accord, developed nations must submit quantifiable emission-reduction targets for 2020 and developing nations, their action plans, by Jan. 31. However, the accord does not guarantee that participating countries will take serious efforts to achieve their stated goals.

The Japanese government takes the view that the COP15 accord serves as an equitable and effective foundation for a new emissions-reduction treaty, in which major emitters including the U.S. and China will take part. But this view may be too optimistic. It is possible that the Copenhagen Accord will in time turn out to be a hollow document that pushes participating nations to do no more than list voluntary emission-reduction targets and action plans, on which they may or may not actually follow through. Japan should do its utmost to ensure negotiations produce a new treaty with binding power.

Japan should find ways to use its own declared emissions-reduction target as a vehicle for progress toward a new global framework. Although industry in Japan is resisting the target of a 25 percent reduction in emissions, the Hatoyama administration should stand firm. The challenges of meeting a stringent reduction target could spur technological innovation. This would not only create employment, but also reduce Japan’s dependence on fossil fuels, especially oil, thus boosting its resilience to fluctuations in price and supply.

Japan should also consider taking full advantage of the clean development mechanism allowed for by the Kyoto Protocol. Exploiting this would see Japan export low-carbon technologies to developing countries, and receive carbon credits when greenhouse gas emissions in those countries are reduced. At home, the government should fully prepare to introduce a carbon tax and emissions trading.

Plants sprout in Fuji permafrost thaw.

Kyodo News, Saturday, Jan. 23, 2010.
Researchers said Friday they have found at the summit of Mount Fuji grass and other seed plants that used to be unable to grow there, probably because the permafrost is ebbing due to rising temperatures.

The 3,776-meter summit could only grow moss about 20 years ago, but Takehiro Masuzawa, a Shizuoka University professor on plant physiological ecology, and his team recently found plants usually seen at an altitude of about 2,500 meters growing there.

Permafrost on Mount Fuji was found at an elevation of around 3,100 meters at the lowest level in 1976 and at around 3,200 meters in 1998, but the team found its edge had further receded and was even partially lost around the summit in 2009.

With low temperatures, strong winds and ultraviolet light as well as soil lacking water and nutrients, the mountaintop environment was thought to be too harsh to allow the growth of seed plants.

Masuzawa’s team will report its findings Sunday at the University of Tokyo.
 http://search.japantimes.co.jp/mail/nn20…

Friday, Jan. 22, 2010 – Stop the presses — foreign media pulling out of Japan.
With China rising and revenues falling, priorities have changed.

By MARIKO KATO
Staff writer, The Japan Times online

Major foreign media outlets are leaving Japan in droves, a sign of financial difficulties at home as the news industry struggles with falling advertising revenue. But observers note that Japan is also losing its appeal as the most newsworthy country in Asia, with China now the hot spot.

Read all about it: U.S. news magazines Time and Newsweek are among the major foreign media companies that have recently closed or scaled down their presence in Tokyo.

In the latest withdrawal from Japan, the news magazine Time closed its editorial branch in Tokyo earlier this month. Last year, Newsweek shut down its editorial section in Tokyo while the editorial staff of BusinessWeek merged with Bloomberg after the financial news service announced it would buy the magazine last October.

Among newspapers, The New York Times, The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times have been reported to have drastically reduced their forces in Japan.

“When I heard about Time I thought foreign media coverage in Japan has really finished,” Takashi Uesugi, a freelance journalist and expert on journalism who used to be a reporter at the Tokyo branch of The New York Times, told The Japan Times.

Observers agree that a big reason for the force reduction here is the decrease in ad revenue at home, due partly to the effects of the global financial crisis and partly to consumers increasingly turning to the Internet for news.

But Uesugi said there are other reasons for the foreign media’s flight that are rooted in Japan.

“The financial situation of the companies in their own countries is a big factor,” he said. “But the second reason is (the decrease in) Japan’s national power. Foreign media are becoming increasingly more interested in China and setting up offices there, while they withdraw from Japan.”

According to Uesugi, The New York Times office in Tokyo had 13 full-time employees covering much of Asia and Russia when he worked there from 1999 to 2002. Now there are only three, while the newspaper has opened offices in Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong, he said.

The Washington Post office in Tokyo has only one reporter left and the Los Angeles Times branch has closed, according to Uesugi.

Numbers reflect the trend. According to the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Japan, its foreign members numbered around 250 during the late 1980s and early 1990s when the booming economy provided both interesting news and an attractive home for overseas correspondents. The count was more than 300 if Japanese staff employed by foreign media companies were included.

However, the ranks have since been decreasing steadily, with only 144 foreign members registered as of March 2009.

“This means that news about Japan becomes more dependent on news wires. Even if (those media that have left Japan) hire temporary staff here, only correspondents are actually eligible to write stories, which would lead to lack of depth or analysis,” Uesugi said.

For correspondents elsewhere in Asia to visit Japan and report news, the event would need to be as big as Aum Shinrikyo’s sarin attack on the Tokyo subway system or the Great Hanshin Earthquake, which both happened in 1995, or last year’s Lower House election that led to the first major change in government since the 1950s, he added.

But others say it is not all bad news. According to Hiroshi Kakiyama, regional director of the Tokyo sales office for BusinessWeek, the magazine is stronger now that Bloomberg reporters can contribute articles.

“It’s been reported that the U.S. media (are) disappearing, but that image doesn’t apply to us,” he said.

BusinessWeek used to have two correspondents and one reporter in Tokyo, of which only one correspondent remained to join forces with Bloomberg.

“When there were only three members of staff, the articles they could write on Japan were very limited, but from now on we will be able to cover a wider range,” Kakiyama said, adding that four Bloomberg reporters in Tokyo contributed to the New Year’s issue.

BusinessWeek’s main target is businessmen, according to Kakiyama, while Bloomberg staff have the experience of accommodating a slightly different audience that includes investors and government financial officials.

While financial difficulties are a key reason for the foreign media’s retreat, the government is also at fault for not extensively opening up news conferences to foreign reporters, according to Uesugi.

Major news organizations that are members of press clubs attached to government offices and industries have easy and quick access to breaking news and off-the-record information. This has been a long-term problem for foreign journalists as well as local free-lancers and magazine writers who, as nonmembers, are refused entry into news conferences and briefings.

Uesugi said the hostile setup has served to encourage foreign correspondents to move elsewhere in Asia.

“Japanese tend to think it’s only the West that has open news conferences, but it’s the whole world except Japan,” he said, giving as examples South Korea, India, Brazil and China, although Beijing places other restrictions on the press.

There was a glimmer of light for journalists locked out of the press club system when the Democratic Party of Japan won the August election. DPJ leader Yukio Hatoyama, now prime minister, had said he would open up news conferences if his party took power.

But while some Cabinet members — including Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada and Shizuka Kamei, the state minister for financial and postal issues — have taken the initiative to even the playing field, the change has not been extensive throughout government.

“The current government has the desire to communicate more with the outside world, but it needs to do more,” Uesugi said.

He acknowledged it is already too late to woo the foreign press back to Japan, except for the unlikely event that Japan’s national power increases or China’s politics becomes too unstable to remain there.

“But opening up press conferences is a start, and the only way forward. If you’re switched off at the source, then there’s no point in wondering why the telephone doesn’t connect,” Uesugi said.

We post this also because of the mention of Google in this appeal.
OpenDemocracy is not about business!

Many thanks to those who have already donated, we’re now aiming to
raise a final £3,000 to meet our target of the £15,000 we need to
raise in this campaign. Please read on if you can support
openDemocracy in 2010…

Dear openDemocracy reader

As openDemocracy enters its second decade, please take two minutes to
assess this message.
Soon after 9/11 attacks, when we were barely six months old, our
founding editors argued that America might “try to impose by military
force the unilateral global order it sought to establish through
economic hegemony alone after 1989″.

They warned of the dangers. Today Susan Richards co-edits our Russia
section and Anthony Barnett our UK section. They helped to start
openDemocracy, committed to a global conversation for openness,
democracy and human rights. The debate launched after 9/11 made us a
world brand and a valued source of great content.

Democracy does not have to be war conducted by (supposedly) peaceful
means or a nightmarish majority tyranny. It can be more than
Churchill’s “least bad system”. We believe fervently there can be a
democracy of justice, liberty and human rights provided it is an open
democracy. But we also know that to bring this about will require a
leap of trust: a wager that wisdom, judgment and knowledge can be
preserved when our lives and political systems become truly open.

We’re asking you to make this wager with us.

And to show your commitment by donating to openDemocracy.

It is not just that we need the money – which we certainly do – it is
that we want it to come from readers’ donations.

Because this is how the democratic economy needs to work: you pay
because you can, if you can, when you can, because it is valuable to
you, or your work, and because if no one gives, openDemocracy will
cease to be an open resource.

If you say to yourself “Others will donate, why should I?” the result
will be that openDemocracy will not remain free.

By showing your commitment to openDemocracy we can ensure our survival
in a world buffeted by the tactical whims of Google and Microsoft and
the political predilections of Rupert and James Murdoch.

You won’t be wasting your money by backing openDemocracy. We are
asking our regular readers to send us £50 or $100 or €100. Please do
so now if you can.

PLEASE DONATE. (click on this link to take you to online payment
methods and addresses for cheques).

With many thanks for you time and, I hope, for your support,

And best wishes for the new decade

Tony Curzon Price
Editor-in-chief
openDemocracy

China is the size of a continent, has 1.3 billion people, with a quite high percentage who are indeed participating in a growing economy, and show thus blooming numbers of internet connections that have increased from 100 million in 2005 to over 300 million in 2009; but China’s leaders demand control over internet content if you want to do business in the country.

China established its own Baidu.com – censored to the best of their capabilities – and will end up having this system as their main selective search engine that has already a 58% of the China market.  Google had 36% of the market, but obviously was more trusted by the Chinese – this because when agreeing to self-censorship in order to be allowed to participate in this market,  Google insisted to let the reader know that what they see is not all what there is – it has been censored. This last arrangement seemingly is not good anymore in the eyes of some China leaders, and we do not know yet what will be the position of the other outside operators like Microsoft and Yahoo.

So far as our own website goes, we have felt that readings dropped at the time of the Olympics, and as we are not a commercial enterprise, we could shrug it off. Will Google be ready to forget that small percentage of their revenue that comes from China? Do they hope that by decreeing their China problem for all to hear, they actually will return to themselves the credibility they lost when allowing censorship in the first place? What will this do to other business and institutional involvements of China? Will some in Western economies rethink their deals with China?

But this is not just about business – it is even much more about flow of information – inside China to its own people, and internationally.

What about Chinese nationals that occupy, using various long term nationality quota appointments, information positions in International organizations like the UN? Or in various financial, economic, scientific, educational … multinational institutions? Will one have now to look at the possibility that these are plants by China put there so that they interfere with free flow of information content as this happens on the internet? Are they there so they can interfere with the internet at source? Do we have to look over our shoulders and say to ourselves – that person is here because their old government put him/her in this position when they had strong interest in hindering the spread of information about climate change, addiction to oil, use of coal, infringement on human rights, problems of indigenous minorities and mind you – even indigenous peoples that might be majorities? We had our suspicion about some of these people, obviously not just from China, but also including China! As long as China was playing the chief developing country role – we might yet have believed that the changing country will outgrow this sort of things – but now with the clear claim to be the first half in a G2 relationship with the US, China and its riot control forces, China and its huge money reserves, China that may try to develop further without loosening its stands on freedom of speech and human rights, might be using such old plants also to deflect any possibility for a free press – an internet press – that might effect its own people who, in our opinion, justifiably believe that their life has improved during these last years of Chinese growth. Is this a first sign of China overconfidence?

——————
 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ba665a50-00ad-…

‘We’re being kept in the Stone Age’
By Kathrin Hille in Beijing
Published The Financial Times: January 14 2010

Google’s threathas heightened fears among Chinese internet users that the country could be on its way out of the global network.

“This is not an issue of Google abandoning China, but one of China abandoning the world,” one prominent blogger, Hecaitou, said on Twitter. Hecaitou’s blog was recently blocked in a growingclampdown.

Beijing has increased surveillance and regulation of the web during the past year. Last month, the Ministry for Industry and Information Technology announced that it would start requiring all sites to register their domain names with the government. Analysts say the move could transform China’s web into a vast intranet.

It is not yet clear how fully the regulators intend to implement the new rule. But strict enforcement would amount to creating a list of “allowed” websites inside China. It would put all foreign content appearing on domain names registered in other countries out of reach of Chinese users.

“The Chinese are being kept in the internet’s Stone Age,” said Xie Wen, a prominent web commentator.

Although Google’s China-based service filters its search results according to the requirements of the Chinese government, its self-censorship has been less strict than the one applied on many Chinese search engines or portals.

Observers believe that Beijing would be likely to block Google.com at least partially, as it did before the US company agreed to operate a censored service from servers in China in 2006. If the new rules on domain names are strictly enforced, Google.com and other foreign sites would be totally blacked out.

Mr Xie said: “We are not allowed to play along with web 2.0. Maybe the Chinese will become second-class citizens of the internet world. That is a real possibility. To put it more straightforward, some want to transform the internet into a national intranet.”

Daimler eyes alliance with Nissan, Renault.
DETROIT (Kyodo), January 13, 2010,  The head of Daimler AG says the German carmaker is considering forming a partnership with Nissan Motor Co. if it can reach a deal on a proposed technological tieup with Renault SA.

“We have confirmed that we are in discussions with Renault. It is not just discussion, but there are other discussions going on as well,” Daimler Chairman Dieter Zetsche said Monday at the North American auto show in Detroit.

“If the discussions (with Renault) would come to any results, then obviously the potential expansion with Nissan is something to consider,” he said.

Zetsche said Daimler wants to strike a deal with Renault in the first half of this year.

Nissan and French maker Renault formed a capital tieup in 1999. If Daimler ties up with Nissan, the two are likely to work together on environmentally friendly vehicles, including electric cars, according to industry watchers.

—————————–

Earlier in the day, Ford Motor Co. Chief Executive Officer Alan Mulally said his firm will maintain the current capital and business alliance with Mazda Motor Corp.

“We treasure our relationship with Mazda. It’s been very useful and beneficial for both of us even though we had to take down our equity position,” Mulally said.

Ford has had an 11 percent equity stake in Mazda since selling part of its shareholding in fall 2008.

The share sale was due to Ford’s financial plight amid the recession, Mulally said.

“Our relationship with Mazda will keep going,” he added.

When you go to www.SustainabiliTank.info and type in to the search function the word “Hydrogen” you get many postings  – starting from December 2003 – about the time we started this website. There was always talk about this perfect fuel – the kind of fuel that when it burns emits only water vapors, turning into  a good answer to our energy needs. From time to time we had also some practical ideas to report.

2010 started for us with a strange combination of invitations involving Hydrogen. Some may think that the following posting is
frivolous – but to us it seems rather the essence of what its all about – the strange combination of culture and technology – this
because we strongly believe that if technology does not come to serve cultural and social needs – then really who needs it. This belief allows us to exist in this miserable world where we are led to witness how Wall Street misleads the White House leaving us, this country, and the world at large, in that corner that forces us to shed our pants for security inspection so that the financial institutions’ managers can rake in those huge bonuses paid out by the poor suckers.

There really was nobody better then poet and philosopher Allen Ginsberg to see this with clarity, even if he had to get high in order to have the courage to face this vision. We always had high esteem for him, even though we are rather square and conventional, but open enough to have recognized his value.

See his poem AMERICA and tell us who else saw already in 1965 the mere
corner in which the US was put by its financial and political leadership?

I reread now AMERICA (Berkeley, 1956) and it has something terrific – prophetic:

“Asia is rising against me.
I haven’t got a chinaman’s chance.
I’d better consider my national resources.”

NOW – HE SAID NATIONAL RESOURCES – TRUST ME THIS DOES NOT MEAN OIL FROM ASIA!
You know, already in 1959, still years before my interest in the
environment, I spent four months in Spain researching what a country,
that did not want to be dependent on imported oil, was doing with its
oil shales resource.

But you will think I am crazy – Allen Ginsberg in 1956 did not talk
oil shales – he actually was talking hydrogen! He was no scientist
attempting to get a grant! He just was a visionary with the right visions!

In one of his most famous writings – in “Howl” (San Francisco
1955-1956) I found in part II -

“Moloch whose love is endless oil and stone!
Moloch whose sole is electricity and banks!
Moloch whose poverty is the specter of genius!
Moloch whose fate is a cloud of SEXLESS HYDROGEN!”

The way I understand the sexless hydrogen – is sort of a mere and
common – not exciting as such – but very useful and does not need the
Moloch or Wall Street love for oil and stone – those natural
resources we buy from overseas.

We also see that banks rule over the the conventional electricity -
who knows – maybe of nuclear provenance. Genius is rather in poverty
and sustainability. Can you accept this?

HOWL For Carl Solomon by Allen Ginsberg -
 http://cda.mrs.umn.edu/~beaversg/ginsber…

—————

Further, there is the Philip Glass opera with Allen Ginsberg libretto
- HYDROGEN JUKEBOX – the term came from HOWL – and evolved. Allen
Ginsberg further coined those words when saying -   “…who sank all
night in submarine light of Bickford’s floated out and sat through the
stale beer after noon in desolate Fugazzi’s, listening to the crack of
doom on the hydrogen jukebox.”

Does that mean that later hydrogen and electricity fused to the same
term in Ginsberg’s mind?
Had he also allusions to the Hydrogen bomb? So far as I can judge his
real grudge was with the
nuclear bombs that were let go over Hiroshima and Nagasaki – rather
then the later Hydrogen bomb.
The Philip Glass Opera was written starting 1988 and first performed
in 1990. The published version is of 1993.

 http://www.glasspages.org/hydrogen.html

the last songs are:

Song #11 from THE GREEN AUTOMOBILE
(Vocal ensemble)
Song #12 from N. S. A. DOPE CALYPSO
(Vocal ensemble)
Song #13 from NAGASAKI DAYS (EVERYBODY’S FANTASY)
(Vocal ensemble)
Song #14 AYERS ROCK/ULURU SONG and “THROW OUT THE YELLOW JOURNALISTS…”
(Vocal ensemble, Futral, Fracker, Hart, Watson, Ginsberg)
Song #15 FATHER DEATH BLUES (from DON’T GROW OLD)
(Vocal ensemble)

Of the project, Glass said:
“In 1988…I happened to run into Allen Ginsberg at St. Mark’s
bookshop in New York and asked him if he would perform with me. We
were in the poetry section, and he grabbed a book from the shelf and
pointed out Wichita Vortex Sutra. The poem, written in 1966 and
reflecting the anti-war mood of the times, seemed highly appropriate
for the occasion. I composed a piano piece to accompany Allen’s
reading, which took place at the Schubert Theater on Broadway.
“Allen and I so thoroughly enjoyed the collaboration that we soon
began talking about expanding our performance into an evening-length
music-theater work. It was right after the 1988 presidential election,
and neither Bush nor Dukakis seemed to talk about anything that was
going on. I remember saying to Allen, if these guys aren’t going to
talk about the issues then we should.”

The piece was intended to form a portrait of America covering the
1950s through the late 1980s. Glass and Ginsberg sought to incorporate
the personal poems of Ginsberg, reflecting on social issues: the
anti-war movement, the sexual revolution, drugs, eastern philosophy,
environmental issues. The six vocal parts were thought to represent
six archetypal American characters- a waitress, a policeman, a
businessman, a cheerleader, a priest, and a mechanic.

Ginsberg said:
“Ultimately, the motif of Hydrogen Jukebox, the underpinning, the
secret message, secret activity, is to relieve human suffering by
communicating some kind of enlightened awareness of various themes,
topics, obsessions, neuroses, difficulties, problems, perplexities
that we encounter as we end the millennium.

“The title Hydrogen Jukebox comes from a verse in the poem Howl:
‘…listening to the crack of doom on the hydrogen jukebox…’ It
signifies a state of hypertrophic high-tech, a psychological state in
which people are at the limit of their sensory input with
civilization’s military jukebox, a loud industrial roar, or a music
that begins to shake the bones and penetrate the nervous system as a
hydrogen bomb may do someday, reminder of apocalypse.”

The work premiered May 26, 1990 at the Spoleto Music Festival in
Charleston, SC. The concert version had premiered one month earlier at
the American Music Theater Festival Philadelphia, PA on April 29.
The Australasian premiere was given on April 17 2003 at the Mount
Nelson Theatre (Hobart, Tasmania) by the Tasmanian Conservatorium of

———

With above introduction in mind, let’s see the two invitations I
received – these to such seemingly different events – and which I
dutifully posted on the web January 5th:

The Hydrogen Battery to be presented January 8, 2010, breakfast, at
Dickstein Shapiro LLP on Broadway Avenue – New York City.
Tuesday, January 5th, 2010
Posted in Future Meetings, Futurism, New York, Obama Styling,
Reporting from Washington DC |

http://www.sustainabilitank.info/2010/01/05/the-hydrogen-battery-to-be-presented-january-8-2010-breakfast-at-dickstein-shapiro-llp-on-broadway-avenue-new-york-city/

and

Hydrogen must be in fashion and coming up – see also – HYDROGEN
JUKEBOX COMES TO CORNELIA ST. CAFE TONIGHT FOR 2010!
Tuesday, January 5th, 2010
Posted in Art Performance reviews |

http://www.sustainabilitank.info/2010/01/05/hydrogen-must-be-in-fashion-and-coming-up-see-also-hydrogen-jukebox-comes-to-cornelia-st-cafe-tonight-for-2010/

Instinctively I made the connection between the two and HYDROGEN BECAME MY HERO.

———

The concert was first, so I will start with the larger horizons.

As I was told by by poet-composer Brant Lyon the curator of the series
- HYDROGEN JUKEBOX is a monthly reading series in New York City where
poets and musicians come together onstage to catalyze the spoken word
with improvisational music in ways that makes poetry explode on the
tongue!

Its inspiration (and moniker) are taken from the late great Beat poet
Allen Ginsberg’s 1956 epic poem, Howl, whose vision of America,
“…listening to the crack of doom on the hydrogen jukebox…”, warned
of society’s psycho-techno-militaristic sensory overload about to
detonate the apocalypse.

This year  HYDROGEN JUKEBOX moved to  The Cornelia Street Cafe, 29
Cornelia St. NYC in the Village, close to Sheridan Square, a place
rich in its own history. Previously, Hydrogen Jukebox was located at
the SOHO Playhouse.

————–

Tuesday, January 05, 2010    6:00PM  -  HYDROGEN JUKEBOX.
Brant Lyon, host with DAVID AVENDANO;  MOIRA T. SMITH

HYDROGEN JUKEBOX comes to Cornelia Street !!!
Popular Poetry-Music Reading Series comes to Cornelia in 2010!

January 5, 2010, kicking off the first season at the new location,
wher featured poets, David Avendano and Moira T. Smith, jamming with
the Hydro Juke improv band, The Ne’er-do-wells, and there was also an
“Open mic-sign up.”

As advertised:

“David Avendano, from Mexico City, started writing poetry at 11 years
of age, when a tsunami of feelings brought irreversible change to his
life, the use of words giving light to his nascent soul made easier to
feel, su aliento, la voz gritan al mundo mil palabras y demas,
utilizando letras con sentido, dejenos en paz…

Moira T. Smith is a poet/singer-songwriter/artist who grew up
listening to her father’s inspired collection of 78s: blues, jazz and
traditional music of the 1920’s and ’30’s. She is, despite this, a
thoroughly modern girl on a mission to wholeheartedly embody the
fullness of her mythos–and do it in a cool-ass pair of boots, as she
flashes her darkly glittering musical gems and preaches the Victrola
blues in a ring-tone world gone screwy.”

BRANT LYON seems to be into – “Beauty Keeps Laying its Sharp KnifeAgainst Me”

as POEMusic – producing a a highly eclectic collection of contemporary
poets/spoken word artists integrating a wide range of musical genres
from hard-driving R&B / funk to ambient / soundscape.
He says that “When I think of these words by the great Sufi
mystic-poet, Hafiz, I am reminded that he also said Beauty itself
wields a sharp knife. It ever pierces through unreality to one’s core.
Everything in this world is helplessly reeling, he declared, stay
close to those sounds that make you glad you are alive. I hope the
voices and beautifully incisive visioning of the poets gathered here
at least makes you glad you listened. They speak truth and beauty, and
I think you’ll find the love that underlies that shines through, too.”

I told him that what brings me there is the effort to make bigger
connections and that I am after such issues as international energy
policy and global climate change. Lyon surprised me by actually
showing that he understood my search and that he was well aware of the
latest news about Copenhagen – I would say much more then members of
US Congress seem to be.

————–

The NY Funders Breakfast Hydrogen event announcement arrived before the New Year, and seemed a very good idea to start the year with. The actual breakfast was only Friday January 8th, and by the time you will get through reading this – if you are still at it – the surprise I will bring upon you, will be that the technology as presented is an excellent idea and if repackaged, so that hydrogen becomes subservient to the real issue, which is electricity, it could indeed be turned into a slum-dunk by the right people. Thanks Allen for the enlightenment that comes from you!

———–

From: Gelvin Stevenson, Ph.D.
Program Director, Center for Economic and Environmental Partnership, Inc.

Welcome to 2010,

We will kick off the new year with a hydrogen company.
Even though hydrogen is off the front pages and out of favor at the
Department of Energy, it is still a clean, efficient fuel.

The Hydrogen Battery, which we will hear about on January 8, produces
hydrogen fuel and heat on-site and on-demand through a safe chemical
reaction, eliminating the cost of transporting and storing the
combustible fuel. The technology captures and stores the electrical
power used in the production of aluminum (and therefore embodied in
the aluminum) and allows it to be released in the form of hydrogen,
when the aluminum is combined with certain industrial chemicals. The
technology stores the electricity until needed (decades if need be) in
a completely secure manner with absolutely no environmental risks. The
stored energy may be safely and widely transported (no special
handling – temperature, pressurization, etc.) and expended at a future
time and place through the creation of hydrogen, be it in a fixed or
mobile application, i.e. at a power plant or a fueling station.

Please register at www.ceepinc.org.

Happy New Year to one and all – Gelvin.

————-

The Hosting Sponsor was the Dickstein Shapiro LLP legal company -
 The presenter explained that the problem before us is that there is no efficient way to transport electricity in a vehicle – that is in both senses – in order to operate the electrical vehicle and in order to plainly move the electricity from one place to another.

The actual presenter was John P. Mayo, the founder of the company.

He explained that at present Hydrogen is made of 95% from Natural Gas – a method that is accompanied with CO2 emissions.

Further, we have the problem of how to get the hydrogen to a motor vehicle engine; We have already the vehicles that can be fueled with hydrogen, but then we have this problem of how to supply them with Hydrogen.

What the company is proposing is to prepare an Aluminum gel that when extruded into a chamber where it is mixed with water it produces Hydrogen, a Na Aluminate and high temperature. We can thus use on demand the Hydrogen and the heat. The Na Aluminate can be seen as a byproduct, and in stage I can be sold to an existing $600 million existing market in the paper & pulp production and for water treatment. It sells for $700/ton. The NaOH sells for $277/ton.

The presenter suggested that after the stage I market for this byproduct has been exhausted, the stage II of the implementation of this technology will involve recycling via Aluminum smelters operated with electricity. The electricity to come from solar towers or wind mills.

Asked how do you collect the Na Aluminate residue in case you use the Aluminum gel to fuel automotive engines, really no satisfactory answer was provided. But that should not doom this technology – in effect we believe that the idea is excellent – but it calls out for repackaging.

—————

The Hydrogen Battery concept came about because of the devise supplying us with Hydrogen upon demand – but this is really not the major achievement of the devise. What this cycle that uses  hydrogen in an electric engine released by using an Aluminum gel – Na Aluminate – then recycling via input of electric power does, is no less then what a lithium battery can do. What it in effect  executes is, what we have here is, storage of electricity in a mobile devise – and its release when needed – with aluminum and Hydrogen intermediaries. Further, the recycling of the Aluminum gel can be done at times convenient to us when wind and sun are available and we store their power in that Aluminum gel.

To be most efficient, and in order to avoid environmental hazards, like poisoning of underground water resources, with Aluminum compounds, we can apply the technology first to captive fleets with central exchange locations – new gel in – old residue out. Further, in my excitement at the end of the presentation, I suggested to the presenter to buy himself a one way ticket to China and make sure that next high speed train in China will run efficiently on hydrogen released via Aluminum gel. I could even contemplate having this prototype paid from CDM carbon credits by the EU. With wind or solar electricity, and recycled Aluminum, water vapors being the only emissions in the process, this becomes a worthwhile memorial to Allen Ginsberg who foresaw the electricity in this sexless hydrogen.

I reached here the end of my own cycle – will only say that this was the brightest technology I heard described for many moons – the electric energy stored and transported in recyclable Aluminum gel!