From: Brazil Windpower 2010
Date: Mon, Feb 8, 2010
Subject: Brazil Windpower 2010

 http://www.zonaeletrica.com.br/nwlt2/bwp…

GWEC | 63-65 Rue d’Arlon | Brussels | Belgium | 1040 | Belgium

 http://ipsterraviva.net/UN/currentNew.as…

South-South Cooperation Key to MDGs
IPS Correspondents

UNITED NATIONS, Feb 7 (IPS) – Member states meeting here Thursday called for the immediate implementation of development commitments made during the Nairobi high-level U.N. conference on cooperation between developing countries.

UNDP Administrator Helen Clark highlighted the importance of the Nairobi meeting on South-South cooperation in sharing information, technologies, and experiences across the South. The Nairobi outcome document calls for concrete measures to mainstream support for South-South and triangular cooperation in the U.N.’s work.

“I can assure you that we in UNDP have received that loud and clear message,” Clark said. “We have long proudly hosted the Special Unit for South-South Cooperation and fully supported its work.” On the heels of Thursday’s General Assembly High-level Committee on South-South Cooperation (HLC) meeting, focal points of South-South cooperation at 29 U.N. agencies met Friday at headquarters to discuss follow-up to the Nairobi conference.

“South-South cooperation is an expression of solidarity that has proven its relevance by a rapid growth,” said Ambassador Abdullah M. Alsaidi of Yemen, the chair of the Group of 77 developing countries.

“Cooperation across the South has been transformed by the growth of the emerging economies,” Clark explained.

The share of global GDP generated by low and middle income countries has grown from 15 percent to 25 percent over the last 50 years according to UNDP estimates, and analysts predict that emerging markets will outperform developed markets over the course of the next decade.

“Strengthening of regional integration and improved networking among members of regional blocs and organisations has a multiplier effect to South-South cooperation,” said Ambassador Zachary Muburi-Muita of Kenya, who was elected president of the HLC meeting here.

“The emerging economies in the South are attracting international attention and will increasingly acquire the muscle to influence the course of economic growth and development,” said Ambassador Gyan Chandra Acharya of Nepal, stressing that the recent successes of the developing world are in danger of being reversed and are not being felt equally across countries or regions.

Despite the gains achieved through trade and finance, delegations noted the deepening economic asymmetries among developing countries, particularly in regard to the least developed countries (LDCs) and landlocked developing countries.

The HLC stressed that the current financial, food and energy crises have exacerbated the vulnerabilities of developing countries that lack the capacity to withstand shocks.

There is an “implementation gap” that has been looming over the recommendations of the major U.N. conferences in the economic and social areas, delegates agreed.

It is only with “political will towards fulfilling the commitments that parties have undertaken in Nairobi that we can make real progress,” an Egyptian delegate stressed.

“South-South cooperation is immensely important at this time for achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and other internationally agreed goals, and for tackling climate change,” said Clark.

Clark urged delegations to take a particularly close look at the gender aspects of achieving the MDGs.

“Progress is lagging behind particularly on MDG5 on maternal health; on MDG3 on empowering women; and on MDG2 with respect to gender parity in access to education,” Clark said, “To achieve the MDGs and indeed other internationally agreed development goals, women have to be an equal part of the equation.”

In order to effectively implement the Nairobi outcome with demonstrable results, stakeholders need to identify “quick wins” whose implementation should be devoid of unnecessary red tape and bureaucracy, said Muburi-Muita.

The government of Brazil and the International Labour Organisation (ILO) have signed agreements on South-South cooperation to prevent and combat child labour and to promote good practices and lessons learned in Latin America and Portuguese-speaking countries in Africa and Asia.

“This is an excellent example of how member states are able to engage entities of the U.N. system through a South-South and triangular partnership in support of their national development strategies,” according to the ILO delegation.

The HLC stressed local ownership of solutions as a key component of South-South cooperation.

“Now, as UNDP positions itself to be of the greatest possible relevance and support to developing countries in the 21st century, we see facilitating South-South exchanges of experience and knowledge as absolutely central to what we do,” Clark explained.

A growing priority of the U.N. will be to share experience on climate change adaptation and mitigation. This could include sharing knowledge on growing drought-tolerant crops, on reforestation, or on providing low-cost access to clean energy and transport technology.

Clark emphasised that a very wide range of developing countries make contributions to South-South cooperation. In the recent weeks “we have seen least developed and low-income countries, along with middle-income and net-contributing countries, digging deep into their pockets for Haiti,” she said.

At The Foreign Policy Association, New York, Wednesday, January 13, 2010, in the Grupo Santander building Auditorium, there was a meeting with Dr. Julia E. Sweig who wrote the book: “CUBA: WHAT EVERYONE NEEDS TO KNOW.”

Julia Sweig is Nelson and David Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin American Studies & Director for Latin American Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

She has authored several reports on Latin America and American Foreign Policy. Her book “Inside the Cuban Revolution: Fidel Castro and the Urban Underground” of 2002 received an award for the best book of the year by an independent scholar from the American Historical Association.

The meeting was chaired by Ambassador Viktor Polgar, Consul General of Hungary in New York City.

Dr. Sweig started out by saying that she was part of the US culture relating to Latin America – that educated in Spanish language also lots of Cuban students  and studies about Cuba but nothing in Portuguese or Brazil, implying that in the US Cuba got much too thigh attention then it deserved – and Brazil much less attention then it deserved. But even so, in effect Cuba was in a dormant state so far as US direct involvement, until the switch from Fidel to Raoul.

The discussion with Cuba was always difficult. Cuba was focusing on history while the US was looking to the future.

2006 – 2007 changes start in Havana and the Miami Cubans find this important – then 2007-2008 Raoul begins to look at domestic issues in Cuba and starts to talk of dirty laundry of the regime. On February 2008 he takes office in a 34 minutes speech – a novelty to who was used to the unending Fidel rhetoric. He skips the gov’t talk to improve the life and says that inefficiency will be removed. He eliminates control of Cubans travel abroad. There seems to be a new government, new people, new ways of doing things – and expectations started to be high. With the changes in the US – President Obama suggested in april 2009 to open a new chapter.

——-

In Miami, the last decade the Cuban Americans shift from the call for embargo to a people-to-people family oriented approach. This in South Florida more then in New Jersey. Miami is now for the first time ahead of Washington asking for change.

Since 2001 there were exchanges with Cuba, but then they were stopped by the Bush Administration – including the remittances. Then came the war on Iraq and the notion of regime change that ruffled Cuba. All what started before Bush years was now suspicious

President Lula and Spanish PM Zapatero are pushing Washington for change in regard to Cuba. Indeed, in Trinidad the US allowed the return of Cuba to the OAS, and in Congress there is now a bill to remove travel restrictions and to take Cuba of the terrorism lists.

Clearly, the US is not the final decider in Cuba – but it has a role to play in Cuba changing.

Former Congressman John Brandemas said that President Bush restricted Microsoft and Google in regards to Cuba, as Cuba also reacted with restrictions. In effect the same day as this meeting at the FPA, the New York Times had an article about a communications contractor who was arested in Cuba, Alan P. Gross, who was working with local groups to make sure they are capable of using internet communication.

Questions abunded about how long will it take to get to “YES WE CAN.” It was pointed out that $9,000 gets a Congressman’s vote and this is a reason for the bottleneck. The Cuban Americans still hold the game, even though they would like to see change.

The facts are that after the US and Canada, Cuba is third on medical issues in the hemisphere. Cuba helped Chavez consolidate his power and they like him to take out oxygen of Latin America.

—————

Further, let us recommens CUBA – La Isla Grande, Edited by Martino Fagiuoli, a 2007, Fall River Press, New York, printed in China, an album about Cuba with photos taken in the 1990s. The country seems to be ready to stick it out until the US changes its attitude towards the island.

from    lwarnars@gmail.com
date    Sat, Feb 6, 2010
subject   Yasuni-ITT: an equity mechanism?

A new document regarding the Yasuni-ITT Initiative (the innovative initiative of Ecuador to keep petroleum underground, protect biodiversity and indigenous peoples, and develop sustainably) is now available online: The Yasuni-ITT Initiative: an international equity mechanism? Master thesis.

The thesis aimed at analysing and assessing whether the Yasuni-ITT Initiative can be considered as an alternative pilot project to address not only environmental and climate justice, but also power imbalances. Current and proposed climate change mechanisms such as the CDM and REDD, as well as the history of Ecuador are being examined as motivations of the initiative. Such motivations include injustice aspects as well as how the petroleum industry has affected the country severely in terms of environment, society, economy and politics. These motivations and the Yasuni-ITT Initiative are therefore carefully examined in relation to environmental and climate justice as well as power imbalances.

The thesis is available through the link below. For any questions, be welcome to write me (also if you cannot access the file, please contact me so I can send it in an attachement).
 https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B59…

–
Lavinia Warnars,
Researcher for the Yasuní-ITT Initiative

www.ikbeneensportklimmer.nl/fien
 lwarnars at gmail.com
tel nl: +31650887172

Shackleton’s Whiskey Found Buried Near South Pole.

Lauren Frayer
Contributor to aol.com
(Feb. 6, 2010) — It’s probably the most sought-after scotch in history – crates of whiskey buried in Antarctica by the famed explorer Ernest Shackleton a century ago. He abandoned them on a failed attempt to reach the South Pole in 1909, and they’ve been on ice – literally – ever since.

Researchers from New Zealand found the crates while restoring a hut Shackleton built and used during the expedition. He and his team were forced to cut short the trip and abandon supplies, including their booze, to sail away before winter ice trapped them there.

The New Zealand team first spotted two crates underneath the hut’s floorboards in 2006, but they were too deeply embedded in ice to be salvaged. Researchers returned to the site this past week, and finally extracted the crates after drilling into the ice around them. The surprise was that there were three more crates than expected – one more of whiskey and two of brandy.

The second trip was backed by the same Scottish company that distilled Shackleton’s whiskey, Mackinlay’s Rare Old Scotch. It could be the longest booze run in history. The Whyte and Mackay distillery hopes to replicate the whiskey, which hasn’t been made in a lifetime after the original recipe was lost.

“Given the original recipe no longer exists, this may open a door into history,” the company’s master blender, Richard Paterson, said in a release posted on the company’s Web site. He called the find “a gift from the heavens” for whiskey lovers.

“If the contents can be confirmed, safely extracted and analyzed, the original blend may be able to be replicated,” Paterson said.

Experts will try to extract the historic brew delicately. Some of the crates have cracked and ice has formed inside. Icebergs surrounding the crates smelled of whiskey, and there may have been leakage, according to Al Fastier, a restoration expert with the New Zealand Antarctic Heritage Trust who made the find.

He told the BBC he heard the slosh of liquid inside the crates when they were moved, and is confident that much of the liquor is still inside.

Shackleton’s expedition ran short of supplies on a long trek to the South Pole that began in 1907. He had to turn back about 100 miles from the pole in 1909. The team had to move quickly to escape as winter ice began to form, so they were forced to abandon all but essential equipment and supplies – including their whiskey. No lives were lost.

A Norwegian explorer, Roald Amundsen, was first to reach the South Pole two years later, in 1911.

As for what the future holds for Shackleton’s whiskey, there are international treaties preventing the removal of artifacts from Antarctica, but Paterson wrote on his blog that he hopes to get his hands on at least a sample of the whiskey, if not a couple bottles.

“What you all want to know is: How will it taste?” Paterson wrote. “To which the answer is: Cold.”

US Oil Imports From Western Hemisphere Countries To The US Are Dropping:

Mexico Petroleum Supply, Exports to U.S. and Net Exports. Source: EIA. Chart by Chris Nelder.

= = = =

Venezuela Petroleum Supply, Exports to U.S. and Net Exports. Source: EIA. Chart by Chris Nelder.

= = = =

Combined Annual Net Oil Exports From Canada, Mexico and Venezuela. Source: Jeffrey J. Brown, Samuel Foucher, PhD, Jorge Silveus.

= = = =

The Oil Export Crisis Has Unofficially Arrived.
By Chris Nelder | Friday, February 5th, 2010

Last March, his study of the effect of peak oil on U.S. imports had
brought Mexico to the forefront. “As our #3 source of imports, the
crashing of its supergiant Cantarell field had put the future of our
oil supply in serious jeopardy.”

The possibility that Mexico’s oil and gas exports to the U.S. could go
to zero within seven years looked very real.

As I explained in that piece, rising domestic consumption coupled with
declining supply puts an ever-tightening squeeze on imports. I have
found no evidence that policymakers are paying any attention to this
critically important dynamic, but it is the very point of the peak oil
spear.

Were it not for the market meltdown and recession, it would have
pierced our vital organs. Instead we felt a pinprick. Hardly anybody
realized what it really was, and most ran off on a wild goose chase
for evil oil speculators.

Now Venezuela has appeared on my radar for similar reasons… only
this time, we’re really going to feel it.

Let’s begin with a review of Mexico’s exports.

Mexico:

Shortly after publishing that article, I casually remarked to my
friend and fellow energy analyst Gregor Macdonald that Cantarell’s
production could fall to under 0.5 million barrels per day (mbpd) by
the end of the year.

I arrived at this somewhat startling conclusion by calculating the
effect of its decline rate — 38% at the time and accelerating — on
production of 0.77 mbpd in January, down precipitously from its 2.1
mbpd peak in 2003.

Gregor’s recent data sleuthing on Cantarell found its production in
December 2009 was 0.527688 mbpd, just a hair above my estimate.

To update the data on Mexico, it’s now our #2 source of imported
petroleum because Saudi Arabia has fallen from #2 to #4.

As of November 2009 (the latest data available) the U.S. imported 1.08
mbpd of crude and finished petroleum products from Mexico. Its exports
to the U.S. peaked at 1.46 mbpd in 2004, the same year as its
production peaked. Net exports (production minus consumption) fell to
1.06 mbpd in 2008.

For the years 2005-2008, Mexico’s exports to the U.S. declined by 0.51
barrels per day. In 2010, supply is expected to fall to 2.5 mbpd —
nearly half a million barrels per day less than 2009.

Mexico nationalized its petroleum operations in 1938 in a
constitutional amendment and handed over total control to the state
oil company Petróleos Mexicanos (PEMEX), with predictable results.

Oil now provides more than 40% of the country’s revenues, which have
been used to pay for a vast array of public services and line the
pockets of the oligarchy while starving investment in both upstream
activities (new oil supply) and downstream (finished products).

Consequently, Mexico’s oil reserves have decreased by more than 75% in
two decades (owing partly to the correction of a previous,
ridiculously inflated figure), production has begun to decline and
exports are falling fast.

It now imports $4.5 billion a year worth of gasoline, $10 billion a
year in petrochemicals, and 25% of its natural gas, mostly from the
U.S. This despite having nearly 13 billion barrels of proven oil
reserves and more than 50 billion barrels of (unproven) reserve
potential.

Mexico would be in a far better position, were it not for its hostile
stance on foreign participation. PEMEX simply lacks the technical
ability to develop its more difficult, remaining resources —
particularly deep water.

Venezuela:

As of November, the U.S. was importing 0.9 mbpd from Venezuela, making
it our #3 source. Its exports to the U.S. peaked at 1.8 mbpd in 1997,
the same year as its production peaked. Net exports (production minus
consumption) have fallen 38% from the 1997 peak of 3.1 mbpd to 1.9
mbpd in 2008.

Venezuela’s oil exports to the U.S. have been declining markedly since
2004, after a long period of relative stability. From 2004 through
2009, Venezuelan petroleum exports fell 0.7 mbpd.

Like Mexico, Venezuela is endowed with enormous energy resources and
could be producing at a far higher level. Estimates of its oil
reserves range from 153 billion barrels of certified proven; to 513
billion barrels technically recoverable in the USGS’ January estimate;
to 1.5 trillion barrels in offshore potential, if you believe the
effervescent Dr. Marcio Mello of Brazil.

Most of it is heavy oil, a low-grade which must be upgraded to synthetic crude.

And like Mexico, President Hugo Chavez has exiled the Western oil
companies who might have made the investment to bring those resources
to market.

A Nation in Free Fall

The good times rolled for Chavez in the first years after his election
in 1998. His socialist programs to rebuild the country and raise its
standard of living were popular but expensive, and soon began to fail
under the crush of declining energy supply.

Oil revenues make up 90% of Venezuela’s foreign earnings, so its
dependence on oil exports is extreme.

Billions of dollars in profits from the national oil company,
Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA) were diverted to welfare programs
and into the pockets of oligarchs, while investment in future
petroleum and power supply languished.

The precipitous drop in oil prices since mid-2008 only compounded the
revenue shortfall.

Oil production has fallen 25% since Chavez was elected, and a long,
devastating drought has cut into its hydropower supply, of which 73%
comes from the massive Guri Dam.

Chavez responded by nationalizing most of its petroleum operations and
its grid in 2007.

In 2009, another 76 oil services companies on the Maracaibo Lake were
taken over. The projects now sit abandoned, waiting for PDVSA to
compensate the displaced operators and put them back into operation.

Almost half a million hectares of land were seized in 2009 with the
rationalization that it was underused.

Measures to counter the declining hydro supply have been implemented
in a haphazard fashion, resulting in frequent, unscheduled blackouts,
including seven national blackouts since 2007. Malls and government
offices have had their hours of operation cut and water rationing has
been imposed.

“Some people sing in the bath for half an hour,” Chávez cried at a
cabinet session in October. “What kind of communism is that? Three
minutes is more than enough!”

In January, a wave of public protest erupted, prompting Chavez to
implement a rapid series of desperate measures.

Rolling blackouts were imposed in the capital city of Caracas. After a
few days of protests, Chavez lifted the blackouts and fired the
electricity minister. Blackouts are expected to be reinstated in an
effort to keep hydro reservoir levels from falling to the point of
collapse.
A recent report gave the power shortage a paradoxical twist,
indicating that power from one of the state refineries may have to be
diverted to the grid, cutting distillate output by 200,000 barrels per
day — or more. This will result in less heating oil for China, who
will make up the loss by burning more coal.
Chavez devalued Venezuela’s bolivar currency by half; the president
went on to nationalize a chain of French-owned supermarkets over
alleged price gouging.
He ordered cutbacks in the operation of state-run steel and aluminum
manufacturing operations, which account for up to 20% of the country’s
power demand.
This week he turned to Cuba for help on how to cope with the power
shortage, since Cuba has been through similar problems. The island
nation is providing tens of thousands of energy-efficient lightbulbs
and cloud-seeding technology to Venezuela.
Last weekend, he forced six television channels off the air for
failing to broadcast one of his speeches — up to six hours in length —
in a continuation of his campaign for “communicational hegemony.”
Since December, all radio and television networks are required by law
to broadcast his speeches live, whenever he chooses to make one.
Nationwide student marches have been met by troops armed with rubber
bullets, and at least two deaths have been recorded.
Chavez has said he’s prepared to take “radical measures” should the
situation worsen, begging the unsettling question of what could be
more radical than what he has already done.

Looking East, Not North

Now Chavez is turning east for help in developing his nation’s oil and
gas resources. Recent agreements include a $20 billion joint venture
with Russia to develop the Junin 6 field in the Orinoco oil belt, with
a potential top production rate of 450,000 barrels per day.

China has agreed to build a refinery and develop the Orinoco heavy oil
fields, and Venezuela has guaranteed 560,000 barrels per day to China
this year.

Venezuela has launched its first major auction for drilling rights in
more than a decade, for access to areas east of the existing
operations in the Orinoco. Developing the leases will be expensive
because of their distance from the existing infrastructure, and
winning bidders are expected to make offers in the $10 billion-plus
range including early payments of at least $1 billion, financing
plans, and commitments to build the necessary roads, pipelines, ports,
and upgraders. Potential bidders include Spain’s Repsol, Japan’s
Mitsubishi, the UK’s BP, and Chevron.

Given the sheer size of its resources, it’s too soon to declare the
end of Venezuela’s glory days in the oil patch. However, it does seem
likely that the new barrels it brings to market will be headed east —
not north — and Western producers will have very little stake in the
projects.

Chavez will put exports to the U.S. on a short path to zero the first
chance he gets.

—————–

Oh Imports, Where Art Thou?

The combined decline in imports from Mexico and Venezuela for 2005
through 2008 is 0.89 mbpd. If the trend continues in 2009, then over 1
mbpd will have disappeared from the U.S. import stream in the last
five years — a decline of 8% from 2004 levels.

Since 2007, the loss of production from Cantarell alone was 0.7 mbpd,
but the recession cut U.S. demand by 2 mbpd, effectively masking the
decline. This raises the question: If U.S. demand rises from here,
where will those barrels come from… and how much will they cost?

The U.S. is not only in first place worldwide in its demand for oil,
but in paying the market rate for it. Nobody else buys 8.5 mbpd of
crude at retail.

Drivers in Venezuela are still filling up for 25 cents a gallon, even
as their exports decline.

Mexico’s gasoline prices are more on par with the U.S., but its
consumption has been rising steadily since 1997 and continues to cut
into exports.

Saudi Arabia’s domestic consumption is currently growing at the rate
of 7% per year, following a trend of more than three decades. It uses
a whopping 1.5 mbpd — 1.8% of total world oil supply! — to desalinate
water, at the equivalent of 7 cents a gallon.

Before the OPEC cuts of 2009, its exports to the U.S. had essentially
flatlined at 1.5 mbpd since 2004.

Exports from our #5 source, Nigeria, have also declined — from 1.17
mbpd in 2005 to 0.98 mbpd in 2008.

In fact, of the top five oil exporting countries to the U.S.,
representing 63% of our crude imports, only Canada posted an increase
(of 0.2 mbpd).

The combined annual net oil exports from our top three exporting
countries — Canada, Mexico and Venezuela — illustrate our situation:

Given the very modest increases from unconventional domestic production and Canada, the decline of imports from Mexico and Venezuela means the U.S. will be increasingly forced to depend on suppliers farther afield — the very same suppliers that China has been buying into in size. The “collision course with China” that I wrote about in July 2005 has nearly reached the point of impact.

It also means that when oil prices rise again, the pain will be far greater for the U.S. than it is for our top suppliers. Next time, the spear of declining oil exports will puncture a lung.

The oil export crisis has arrived… We just haven’t felt it yet.

Production, consumption, and export data herein is the latest available from the EIA.

Until next time,
Chris

Thanks to the following individuals for their contributions to this
article: Venezuelan oil expert Carlos Rossi for sharing excerpts from
his forthcoming book, The Completion of the Oil Era: The Economic
Impact; Gregor Macdonald for sharing his data on Cantarell; and
Jeffrey Brown and Samuel Foucher, for their work on net exports data
and the Export Land Model.

Investor’s Note: While declining oil imports from Mexico and Venezuela
paint a nightmare scenario for meeting future U.S. demand, all hope
isn’t lost… In fact, one U.S. oil play is developing at a breakneck
pace. You’re likely aware of the Bakken oil formation. But you may not
realize fully how the Bakken has single-handedly thrust North Dakota
into the international investment spotlight.

Of course, members of the $20 Trillion Report know how profitable the
Bakken oil formation is. So far, they’ve raked in gains of 305%, 249%
and 130%! We want you to share in their success.

—————————-

Our reaction to the above goes in two directions:

To every straights there is also the possibility for an answer that provides for new opportunities. in this case:

(1) it becomes even clearer that the US has here an opportunity to make policy accommodations with its neighbors to the south.

(2) the US does not have to – and will not – continue its dependence on oil alone as its source for energy. The US can go for novel and mostly renewable sources of energy, then the Saudis might also discover sun and wind as good replacement for this insanity of using 25% of their oil to provide their water needs. Whatever – energy independence – or at least oil imports reduction for the US – is not an excuse for  a “drill baby drill” US energy policy. Actually, put a carbon tax on the use of oil in the US as a good way to tell the world that the US is capable to detoxify from its addiction to oil imports.

The problem was the 51 cents/gallon of ethanol from sugar-cane tariff, the US imposes against imports from international producers of bioethanol – so they do not compete with US agro-ethanol.

We are cynics by nature and wonder if the release today has anything to do with Shell Oil Company having announced last weekend that they will invest over a billion dollars in the production of sugar-cane ethanol in Brazil. So, did we have to wait until an oil company steps heavily into this area – so we finally allow US door to be opened to a non-petroleum liquid fuel?

WE ARE VERY PARTIAL TO THIS TOPIC BECAUSE BACK IN 1978 AT UNIDO IN VIENNA, AND IN 1979 IN NEW ORLEANS, I WAS PERSONALLY INVOLVED IN BRINGING THIS SUBJECT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LIQUID FUEL HUNGRY WESTERN WORLD. IN VIENNA WE SHOWED THE CUBAN EXPERIENCE AT A UN – AUSTRIA – SWEDEN EVENT. IN NEW ORLEANS THIS WAS “THE FIRST INTER-AMERICAN CONFERENCE ON RENEWABLE SOURCES OF ENERGY” THAT I HELPED ORGANIZE. OBVIOUSLY – TO LOUISIANA WE COULD NOT BRING THE CUBANS – BUT BRAZIL, ARGENTINA AND MANY OTHERS WERE PRESENT UNDER THE FRIENDLY EYES OF THE US DEPARTMENT OF STATE. ETHANOL BECAME A RECOGNIZED FUEL, BUT US AGRICULTURE MADE SURE IT WILL BE US CORN AS FEEDSTOCK. WE COULD NOT EVEN GET PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT FOR IMPORTS FROM FRIENDLY COUNTRIES BECAUSE OIL AND AGRICULTURE – SOME OF THE STRONGEST LOBBIES IN WASHINGTON – WOULD NOT ALLOW IT , EVEN AFTER THE INTERVENTION OF US REPUBLICAN SENATORS LIKE FRANK CHURCH, JACOB JAVITS, CHARLES PERCY – SO WHAT WILL IT BE NOW? WILL THOSE TARIFFS COME OFF?

—————-
EPA Reaffirms Sugarcane Biofuel is Advanced Renewable Fuel with 61% Less Emissions than Gasoline.
Brazil Sugarcane Update – Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Welcomes U.S. EPA’s Renewable Fuels Rules.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has confirmed that ethanol made from sugarcane is a low carbon renewable fuel, which can contribute significantly to the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As part of today’s announcement finalizing regulations for the implementation of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2), the EPA designated sugarcane ethanol as an advanced biofuel that lowers GHG emissions by more than 50%.

“The EPA’s decision underscores the many environmental benefits of sugarcane ethanol and reaffirms how this low carbon, advanced renewable fuel can help the world mitigate against climate change while diversifying America’s energy resources,” said Joel Velasco, Chief Representative in Washington for the Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA).

Sugarcane ethanol is a renewable fuel refined from cane that grows typically in tropical climates. Compared to other types of ethanol available today, using sugarcane ethanol to power cars and trucks yields greater reductions in greenhouse gases and is usually much cheaper for drivers to purchase. Brazil has replaced more than half of its fuel needs with sugarcane ethanol – making gasoline the alternative fuel in that country and ethanol the standard.  Many observers point to sugarcane ethanol as a good option for diversifying U.S. energy supplies, increasing healthy competition among biofuel manufacturers and improving America’s energy security.

The RFS2 will help the United States meet energy security and greenhouse gas reduction goals sought by the Energy Security and Independence Act of 2007 (EISA). The new regulations establish minimum biofuels consumption in the U.S. of more than 12 billion gallons (45 billion liters) in 2010, rising to 36 billion gallons (136 billion liters) in 2022, of which 21 billion gallons per year would have to be one of three types of advanced biofuels: cellulosic, biomass diesel, and “other advanced,” that meet required GHG reduction thresholds as determined by the EPA.

Today, EPA affirmed that sugarcane ethanol meets the “other advanced” category in the RFS2, although with a GHG reduction level that exceeds the requirement for all categories as well.  Specifically, EPA’s calculations show that sugarcane ethanol from Brazil reduces GHG emissions compared to gasoline by 61%, using a 30-year payback for indirect land use change (iLUC) emissions.

“We are pleased that EPA took the time to improve the regulations, particularly by more accurately quantifying the full lifecycle greenhouse emission reductions of biofuels. EPA’s reaffirmation of sugarcane ethanol’s superior GHG reduction confirms that sustainably-produced biofuels can play a important role in climate mitigation. Perhaps this recognition will sway those who have sought to raise trade barriers against clean energy here in the U.S. and around the world. Sugarcane ethanol is a first generation biofuel with third generation performance,” noted Velasco.

Last year, UNICA submitted comments to EPA with abundant scientifically credible evidence showing that – even including indirect emissions – sugarcane ethanol has a reduction of GHG emissions of 73-82% compared with gasoline, on a 30- or 100-year time horizon respectively. The RFS2 requires the use of at least 4 billion gallons (over 15 billion liters) of “other advanced” renewable fuels a year by 2022. In 2010, the RFS requires 200 million gallons of this type of advanced renewable fuels.

“While we are reviewing the final rule, it is clear that EPA has incorporated many of the comments that UNICA and other stakeholders made during the public process. EPA should be congratulated for the way it upheld the Obama’s goals of transparency and scientific integrity in the environmental rulemaking. And we hope that other governments should take note of the manner that EPA has handled this process,” concluded Velasco.

Brazil is a leader in the production of sugarcane ethanol, which is widely considered as the most efficient biofuel available today. In 2009, Brazil produced over 7 billion gallons of sugarcane ethanol, most of which is used in Brazil in flex fuel vehicles. As a result of Brazil’s innovative use of sugarcane ethanol in transportation and biomass for cogeneration, sugarcane is the leading source of renewable energy in the nation, representing 16% of the country’s total energy needs. In fact, gasoline has become the alternative in Brazil, reducing the country’s dependence on fossil fuels lowering emissions. A recent study in the November 2009 edition of the journal Energy Policy indicated that since 1975, over 600 million tons of CO2 emissions have been avoided thanks to the use of ethanol in Brazil.

———

ABOUT UNICA. The Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA) represents the
top producers of sugar and ethanol in the country’s South-Central region, especially the
state of Sao Paulo, which accounts for about 50% of the country’s sugarcane harvest
and 60% of total ethanol production. UNICA develops position papers, statistics and
specific research in support of Brazil’s sugar, ethanol and bioelectricity sectors. In 2008,
Brazil produced an estimated 565 million metric tons of sugarcane, which yielded 31.3
million tons of sugar and 25.7 billion liters (6.8 billion gallons) of ethanol, making it the
number-one sugarcane grower and sugar producer in the world, and the second-largest
ethanol producer on the planet, behind the United States.

—————-

Brazil Hopes Shell-Cosan Can Boost Ethanol Exports

Date: 04-Feb-10, Reuters from Brazil
Author: Inae Riveras – Analysis

SAO PAULO – Brazil’s ethanol industry, which invested heavily to boost output of the cane-based biofuel, is counting on a tie-up between sugar and ethanol producer Cosan and Royal Dutch Shell Plc to revive its prospects after exports fell short of expectations.

The $21-billion-a-year ethanol joint venture announced by the two companies on Monday will enable Cosan, Brazil’s biggest ethanol maker, to move product more efficiently thanks to Shell’s global fuel distribution and retail system.

Cosan views the venture as a way to make Brazil’s ethanol a global commodity.

But whether that happens will depend largely on outside factors: whether oil is costly enough to make ethanol competitive; whether Brazil’s mills can provide a steady stream of biofuel; and whether key markets such as the United States will be more open to ethanol imports.

“Shell chose ethanol as the renewable fuel they want to be in and it chose Brazil. Whether this will mean more exports will depend on a series of circumstances beyond the companies’ control,” said ethanol expert Eduardo Pereira de Carvalho.

The slow rate of growth for ethanol exports has disappointed Brazil, where more than 450 mills joined the ethanol sector’s expansion drive in recent years.

Some analysts say any growth in ethanol exports will depend on oil prices more than other factor.

“The deal itself does not raise or reduce the economic viability of blending anhydrous ethanol in gasoline. This will be determined by the oil market,” said sugar and ethanol analyst Julio Maria Borges, director at Job Economia.

In 2008, when oil prices reached record highs of $147 per barrel, Brazil exported 5.1 billion liters of ethanol, up sharply from 3.5 billion liters the previous year. Countries simply bought more of the fuel to replace gasoline.

High oil prices together with environmental woes were then feeding discussions about a broader adoption of biofuels as an alternative to fossil fuels.

But oil prices tumbled as the global credit crisis intensified, and there was a similar decline in foreign interest for the cane-based fuel. Brazilian ethanol exports in 2009 slipped to 3.3 billion liters despite extremely low prices on the Brazilian market.

STEADY SUPPLIES, TARIFFS

If ethanol is economically viable compared to oil, however, Brazilian ethanol exports should benefit from Shell’s global infrastructure, commercial relationships and know-how.

Shell, with distribution centers and 45,000 filling stations around the world, will have access to annual supplies of 2 billion liters of Cosan ethanol.

“Shell will be able to strike long-term deals with clients around the world, something that currently hardly exists, as it will be backed by a big provider,” Borges said.

But the lack of steady supplies from Brazil, which produces 26 billion liters of ethanol a year that are mostly consumed domestically, may trouble potential long-term buyers.

Futures markets for ethanol have been incapable of minimizing producers’ risks. Deals are largely done on a spot basis — both in and outside Brazil. This makes it difficult for buyers and sellers to hedge against market volatility.

Brazil’s government has worked on ways of softening this problem by providing financing to mills to build stocks, which also smoothes out local prices over the year. But the system remains stubbornly inefficient.

“The same old problem will continue. Mills say they will expand production if there’s demand but demand will only be created if there’s the certainty of stable supplies,” said an ethanol expert based in the United States.

A U.S. tariff on imports of cane-derived ethanol is another roadblock to Brazil’s expansion goals. Some in the industry have suggested Shell’s entry into ethanol production in Brazil could mean extra pressure for removal of the tariff.

But it is not clear whether there could be a move in that direction.

“The oil industry was always against the U.S. tariff. The news is that it is now seeing a solution in cane,” said Joel Velasco, the North American representative for Brazil’s Sugarcane Industry Association, Unica.

But the announcement that the biggest-ever foray into biofuels by an oil major would happen in Brazil was a clear sign of preference for the fuel over other options.

“It’s difficult to predict (when exports could rise)… but the strategic meaning of a company the size of Shell to invest here is the most important point,” Carvalho said.

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.”

The kernel of the future – the projected five world leaders – are in trouble. With the US and China in a tiff because of Taiwan (arm sales by US manufacturers) and Tibet (a visit with the Dalai Lama), now South Africa, one of the three IBSAs that met with the G2 in Copenhagen, shows sings of 21st century immaturity. You just cannot go on living by Zulu rules if you want to lead your people out of poverty. Tiger Woods learned that very very fast that the limelight of world media will do you in, and even oil rich monarchs do not father now 20 children anymore. The stories about Zuma’s ascent in South Africa were plenty and his people we know told us so when it was rumored that he is in line to take over his country’s helm. It seems that Mandela’s South Africa deserves better – so does the 15 States group of Southern Africa { http://www.sadc.int }, and black Sub-Sahara Africa at large. We said before, South Africa is the third IBSA not alone, but as the symbol of all that immense Sub-Sahara black chunk of resources rich land and its one billion people that have the potential of evolving into next great consumers market to drive their own economy and the world economy. To this mass of people, the South African President must be an example and our prejudice that we knowingly attempt to show by this posting, calls for an exemplary leader for South Africa – someone fit to try on Mandela’s shoes.

This week the African Union rejected the attempt of Libya’s rambling Gaddafi to hold on to the chairmanship of Africa for another year, and voted instead to give the position to Malawi President Bingu wa Mutharika. We attach the story about that event at the end of this posting, as we focus on the further ramblings by a Libyan-sponsored group of African traditional leaders from an unnamed French speaking African country, who crowned Qaddafi “King of Kings.” Africa seems to react indeed with understanding to the fact that the world is changing into a 7 to 10 countries structure and that Africa wants one of its own, and that means not Qaddafi, to be part of this structure – a modern man rather then a traditional chieftain – neither do they think anymore that the position of leader in Addis Ababa belongs to a Mediterranean North African settler. They want a black leader – but hiding under a Zulu mantle, and invoking rules of the desert, simply  can not do anymore.

——————–
South Africa’s President Sows (Another) Sex Scandal.

Theunis Bates
 http://abbaymedia.com/News/?p=3699
By JASON McLURE

ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia — Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, the Libyan leader, delivered a rambling rebuke of fellow African heads of state Sunday after they chose to replace him as chairman of the African Union and failed to endorse his push for the creation of a United States of Africa.

“I do not believe we can achieve something concrete in the coming future,” said Colonel Qaddafi, before introducing President Bingu wa Mutharika of Malawi as his successor at the African Union’s annual summit meeting, held in Addis Ababa. “The political elite of our continent lacks political awareness and political determination. The world is changing into 7 or 10 countries, and we are not even aware of it.”

South Africa, Ethiopia and Nigeria were among the countries opposing Colonel Qaddafi’s attempts to form a continental government, which many view as impractical given the political and economic disparities in Africa.

Colonel Qaddafi argued that individual African states are too weak to negotiate with major powers like the European Union, the United States and China. His efforts to become the first African leader to win another one-year term as chairman of the African Union were thwarted by a push for Mr. Mutharika, 75, by the 15-member Southern African Development Community.

The Libyan leader also complained that such summit meetings were boring, that his colleagues were too long-winded and that he often was not informed of African Union decisions.

Colonel Qaddafi did not leave the lectern before giving the microphone to an unnamed representative of a Libyan-sponsored group of African traditional leaders who had crowned him “King of Kings” in a ceremony in 2008.

The representative, bearing a golden scepter and trailed by an aide fanning him with a large feather, spent much of his address praising Colonel Qaddafi.

“You have the African people with you,” said the man, who spoke in French and did not identify himself. “This is what is important, not politicking. It is politicians who have destroyed us.”

From Kim Coetze

You are invited to apply to attend the conference: “PUTTING A PRICE ON CARBON: Economic instruments to mitigate climate change in South Africa and other developing countries” to be held at the University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa on 23 and 24 March 2010.

The objectives of this conference are to:
* Build on discussions undertaken at a side-event and a workshop at the Climate Change Summit 2009
* Contribute to the development of climate policy in South Africa, by further exploring practical options for putting a price on carbon,
* Deepen the understanding of economic instruments, through a conference with peer-reviewed papers,
* Broaden the community of experts working in this emerging field, by having attracted papers from researchers and analysts in cognate disciplines that are not currently working on carbon pricing
* including economics and environmental economics, but also
* researchers working on institutional and political dimensions
* Draw on experiences and lessons from other countries, in particular
* other developing countries in their exploration of the same issues in similar contexts, and
* experiences of implementation in developed countries examining the applicability in the context of development.

Further details can be found on the conference website – a link to which is on the ERC website http://www.erc.uct.ac.za. Or direct queries to Meagan Jooste at  erc-climatechange at uct.ac.za.
Participation is free, but no costs will be covered.

Regards,
Kim Coetzee
Energy Research Centre
University of Cape Town

The Auschwitz Album

This Album memorializes the arrival of Hungarian Jews to Auschwitz in May of 1944.

It is the only one of its kind, and it is solely due to this album that we have a visual history of what occurred in the Auschwitz-Birchenau death camp.

The album was discovered after the war by an Auschwitz survivor, Lily Jacob, who donated it to Yad Vashem in 1980.

As food distribution improves, Haitians want U.S to ‘take over’

By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
PORT-AU-PRINCE, HAITI, Monday, February 1, 2010

International relief organizations backed by American soldiers delivered hundreds of tons of rice to homeless residents of the Haitian capital Sunday, laboring to ease a food shortage that has left countless thousands struggling to find enough to eat.

But even as food-aid workers enjoyed their most successful day since the Jan. 12 earthquake, the increasingly prominent role of U.S. troops and civilians in the capital is creating high expectations that the Obama administration is struggling to contain.

The needs are extraordinary, and the common refrain is that the Americans will provide.

“I want the Americans to take over the country. The Haitian government can’t do anything for us,” said Jean-Louis Geffrard, a laborer who lives under a tarp in the crowded square. “When we tell the government we’re hungry, the government says, ‘We’re hungry, too.’ “

Added Canga Matthieu, a medical student whose school was destroyed: “The American government should take care of us.”

“They’re well organized. The United States is the richest country in the world, and they can help.”

But help has its limits, U.S. officials emphasize in their public statements and in their interactions with Haitians. “You will have a friend and partner in the United States of America today and going forward,” President Obama said the day after the earthquake. But U.S. officials here make it clear that the American government is not responsible for rebuilding the ravaged country.

“The military forces . . . are not here to do any reconstruction. That is not our mission,” said Col. Rick Kaiser, a U.S. Army engineer overseeing emergency repairs to the Port-au-Prince docks, the electrical and water systems, and other battered infrastructure in the hemisphere’s poorest country.

Administration officials, including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, describe virtually every activity here as “Haiti-led,” although the government is barely functioning and its record was checkered even before the earthquake killed more than 110,000 people and leveled an array of government ministries.

Louis Lucke, the senior U.S. Agency for International Development official in Haiti, stood in an American-run medical complex Saturday with President René Préval and told reporters that “the Haitians are leading the process in all the areas that are necessary” — including food distribution, despite strong evidence to the contrary.

U.S. officials are doing what they can to bolster the stature of Préval and Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive and to promote international assistance efforts for the more-daunting work that lies ahead. In the meantime, they are deploying personnel to support projects from food delivery to the erection of a temporary hospital near Port-au-Prince.

Sgt. 1st Class Jason Jacot, an Army engineer, drove to a critical power station in the Delmas neighborhood Sunday morning to assess repairs made by Haitian and Dominican workers.

Markestre Theolien, a supervisor with Haiti Electricity, the national utility, lamented the condition of the 27-year-old transformers and asked for new ones. Asked where the help should come from, he smiled and said, “U.S.A.”

“So they’re expecting us to take over?” Jacot asked a translator. “No, no, no. How can we assist without completely rebuilding? We’re not here to rebuild.”

The discussion went back and forth cordially. Jacot said he would be talking with the utility’s director to learn what was needed. Theolien defined his bottom line: “What we really want is the United States to rebuild it, to modernize.”

U.S. soldiers, whose numbers within Haiti have risen to 6,500, played a central role in Sunday’s food distributions, working alongside U.N. peacekeepers to prevent the pushing, shoving and occasional melees that have severely hampered deliveries. Where U.S. troops have been present in recent days, relief workers say, deliveries have gone smoothly.

By day’s end, the U.N. World Food Program calculated that roughly 400 metric tons of rice had been delivered to nine sites. Five more locations will be running early in the week, a spokesman said, but increased gang violence in the Cité Soleil slums made deliveries too risky.

The generally smooth deliveries on Sunday, based on a new system of ration cards, were met with pleasure at the Place du Canape Vert, an impromptu settlement where several hundred families received large sacks marked “Product of USA” or “USA Best Rice.” Yet some asked when there would be something more than rice, while others wanted to know why they were left out.

Deliveries will resume Monday as the World Food Program, bolstered by an $80 million U.S. contribution, seeks to reach 2 million people in the next two weeks. The agency hopes the system will lead to distribution of other badly needed food and relief supplies.

At the ramshackle encampment, some residents were boiling water for rice within an hour of the delivery. Some had beans or root vegetables to add, and a few had meat. Those who could afford neither complained that rice alone would not be enough.

“It’s there, but we can do nothing with it. We only got rice. No oil, nothing. And it’s not easy to find water,” said Flore Laurent, who is eight months pregnant. But she had nothing but praise for the role of the American soldiers. “I vote for the help of the U.S., 100 percent.”

A throng of people in the square discussed their lack of faith in Haitian authorities. One after another, they said their only hope is the United States.

“The Haitian government has been here for a while, and they give us nothing. The United States should take over the country,” said Andrelita Laguerre, shepherding four children and a grandchild at the camp. “Most of my friends expect the United States to take over. I wish!”

Morocco, in bold moves shows the Islamic World That It Does Not Agree With The Ahmedi-Nejad Dictum That There Was No Holocaust – But Do  Arabs Note This, and can Morocco do it all by itself?

Ariele Nahmias is a Jewish teacher in France and she organizes courses for French and Belgium teachers about Jewish issues. She also heads the French Desk at the International School for Holocaust Studies of the Yad Vashem.   http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/educatio…

Having looked up The Yad Vashem Jerusalem Quarterly Magazine of January 2010, I found on page 4 an article by Ariele Nahmias:

“From Morocco to Jerusalem: First-Ever Seminar for Moroccan Educators.”
 http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/pressroo…

The article tells about 18 teachers from Morocco that came to the Yad Vashem International School for Holocaust Studies to participate in a tailor-made seminar on Holocaust Education. This effort started when one of those teachers heard about the School’s Mario Sinai – the European Director – lecturing in Spain – and approached him to organize a special seminar for Moroccan teachers. Eventually – the group that came to Jerusalem included Berber community social activists. In Israel they met and listened among others to two Members of the Israeli Parliament (the Knesset) that originate from Morocco – Yaacov Edri of Kadima and Daniel Ben Simon from Labor – who also is a known Journalist. There are 600,000 Jews originating from Morocco living now in Israel. They came in the early 1950s – after the establishing of the State of Israel in 1948 – as there was a strong reaction against the Jewish State that was fueled by Arab Nationalists everywhere.

The Moroccan Group Leader that came to Israel December 2009, is Boubaker Outaadit who said that he got interested in the Holocaust while studying German History at the University of Casablanca. Others looked at it from sociology angles. Moroccan poet Ali Khadaoui – one of the participants – already expressed his sentiments in writing  and said he will continue to be involved in an effort by educators back home who “informally teach students the History of the Holocaust.

—————

Short History of Morocco:  Morocco´s location at the northwest corner of Africa, at the straights or the mouth of the Mediterranean opposite Spain, has attracted invading many forces and settlers. Phoenicians came to trade and settle, about that time arrived also the first Jews – that is 3,000 years ago. Then successive waves of Romans, Vandals, Visigoths, and Byzantine Greeks arrived to dominate and rule.

The Arabs began bringing their civilization in the 7th century, and the Alaouite dynasty, which claims descent from the Prophet Mohamed, is ruling  Morocco since 1649.

The Portuguese controlled the Atlantic coast in the 15th century and the French arrived in 1830.

In 1904 Morocco was divided into spheres of French and Spanish influence and a 1912 treaty established these zones as protectorates.

Morocco began to assert its independence after World War II with the formation of the Istiqlal (Independence) Party. Active opposition to foreign domination erupted in 1953 after France deposed the highly respected Sultan Muhammad V and replaced him with his unpopular uncle.

France allowed Muhammad V to return in 1955 and granted political independence on March 2, 1956. In 1956 and 1958, Morocco reach agreements to gain authority over the Spanish-controlled areas and Tangier, an international zone since 1923, was also reintegrated with Morocco.

Muhammad V was Sultan of Morocco from 1927 to 1953, exiled from 1953-55, where he was again recognized as Sultan upon his return, and was declared King from 1957 to 1961. His full name was Sidi Mohammad ben Yusef, or Son of (Sultan) Yusef, upon whose death he succeeded to the throne.

Muhammad VI is the current King. He was born in 1963  and became King of Morocco in 1999 upon the death of his father King Hassan II who was King of Morocco from 1961 to 1999.

Formerly Muhammad ben Al-Hassan, crown prince Sidi Muhammad, he studied at Muhammad V Univ., Rabat, where he received bachelor’s (1985) and master’s (1988) degrees in law, and at the Univ. of Nice, France, where he obtained his doctorate in law (1993). In the 1990s, as the health of his father King Hassan II declined, the crown price assumed a greater role in the government. In 1994 he was promoted to general and became coordinator of the Royal Armed Forces, and in 1998 he initiated a wide-ranging antipoverty program.  He has worked toward various social and economic improvements and has established a reputation as a generally moderate monarch.

In foreign policy, Morocco is officially non-aligned but generally sympathetic to the West. Its long-term goals are to strengthen its influence in the Arab world, Africa, and the Maghreb (Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco), while maintaining close ties to Europe and the United States.

Its major foreign-policy problem involves its absorption of Western Sahara when Spain relinquished its claim in 1976. This claim has entailed a long and costly war against the Algeria-based Polisario Front and for many years caused the rupture of diplomatic relations with Algeria. Diplomatic relations – as well as rail links, air links, and a gas pipeline deal – are back in place and agreements to negotiate a final solution have been reached.

In 1975, thousands of Moroccans crossed the border into Spanish Sahara to support Moroccan claims to the northern part of the territory. Mauritania then occupied the southern half of Spanish Sahara. After Spain pulled out, Algeria supported Spanish Saharan claims to self-determination and backed the Polisano Front guerrillas.

Mauritania made peace with the insurgents in 1979, but Polisano resistance to Moroccan occupation of the north and hostility between Algeria and Morocco continue.

Relations with other North African states improved significantly in the late 1980s. In May 1988 Algeria and Morocco agreed to re-establish diplomatic relations. (Diplomatic relations with Mauritania had been suspended in 1981 and resumed in April 1985).

In February 1989 North African Heads of State, meeting in Marrakesh, signed a treaty establishing the Union of the Arab Maghreb. The new body, which included Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Mauritania and Tunisia, aimed to promote trade by allowing the free movement of goods, services and workers.

—————

Regarding the topic of our present posting – the nature of relations the Moroccan Kings nurtured in regard to their Jewish citizens, World Jewry, and Israel let us start by noting that King Muhammad V, though bound to the Vichy French Rulers by the Protectorate agreement, made nevertheless efforts to mellow the impact of the Nazi anti-Jewish laws and now King Muhammad VI is trying to distance himself from the general anti-Israeli stands popular on the streets under most other Islamic ruling governments. In so far as the 2010 UN led International Holocaust Remembrance week, we noted the presence and good words, “Remember We Must” at the Saturday, January 23, 2010 Park East Synagogue event organized by Rabbi Arthur Schneier.  Present and speaking at the luncheon were both – the Moroccan Ambassador to the UN, Mohamed Louichki, as well as   Serge Berdugo who has the title of Itinerant Ambassador, and is actually also the Head of the Jewish Community and a former Minister of Tourism.

Later in the week, Thursday January 28, 2010, a second event with Moroccan participation, was arranged as a UN DPI briefing to the NGOs and the UN somehow managed to avoid the much more useful potential had they arranged to have this event also broadcasted to the UN community at large. After all, the fact that Morocco is more open to the Jewish people then any other Arab or Islamic State should be taken as an example to the rest of the UN membership – an act more important then just try to enhance the image of this State with the Civil Society as represented by the NGOs.

Whatever the case, our website has picked up the presentation by Itinerant Ambassador, or is it Ambassador to the Civil Society and World Jewry, with tourism implications, Mr. Serge Berdugo, at
 http://www.sustainabilitank.info/2010/01…

Here we will look at the second presenter – Mr. Andre Azoulay, Counsellor to His Majesty the King, who spoke via videoconference on an OECD screen, and answered questions.

There were two more speakers. – both from the Jerusalem-based program of KIVUNIM – New Directions – The Institute of Experimental Learning for Israel and World Jewish Communities Studies the head of the organization, Mr. Peter Geffen, a well known educator  who founded the Abraham Heschel School in New York City, and American Student Micha Stettin who dedicated himself to Middle East Studies, Hebrew and Arabic, now at Mc Gill after having spent a year in Israel with Kivunim. His presentation was dubbed as “Voices of Youth,” and this is correct in the sense that the grandchildren of the Holocaust can now start looking at the events of the 30s-40s of last century and start asking new questions. Micha’s question is – “Why did we not find anywhere in our studies what happened during the Holocaust to the Jews of Morocco?” He said that while learning about the good and the bad we must also learn about the collective identity as viewed in the Arab lands. What happened between Jews, Berbers, and Arabs in Morocco of that time – and King Muhammad V should be recognized as the right man he was.

Peter Geffen created first a project under the Shoa Foundation on memories from the Holocaust, and with King Muhammad VI embarked on the Morocco project. He did not make a presentation and left the Kivunim presentation to Micha, but read a special letter from the King:

“Praise be to God – May peace and blessings be upon His Prophets and Messengers.” “None of us can claim to have an understanding of the Holocaust that is-all-encompassing, absolute and without concession or compromise.” “Amnesia has no effect on my understanding of the Holocaust, or that of my people – in fact we perceive it as a wound to the collective memory, which we know is engraved in one of the most painful chapters in the collective history of mankind,” was the way the King started his message to the panel. Then he passe on to make a real complaint:

“In what history or civic education textbooks used in the West is it taught that Morocco had opened its doors, as early as in 1930s, to European Jewish communities who had seen the peril looming on the horizon?”

“In what institutes or intellectual forums, in Europe or the United States, is the exemplary and historic attitude of ny late grandfather – His Majesty King Muhammad V – blessed be his soul – discussed? Notwithstanding the implacable realities of the French protectorate., which severely constrained his power, His Majesty managed to oppose the enforcement of racist Vichy laws against Moroccans -  citizens of Jewish faith.”

The King continues beyond above admonition with an important call to reality – and asks us to look at the potential of what he is up to:

“Each of you will understand that when I call for exhaustive and faithful reading of the history of this period, I do not merely do justice to actual facts, ” he said and continues – “We live in a time that is not neutral. A time in which the collective imagination of all of our societies is also fueled by the prospect of exclusion and failure when it comes to the promises of dialogue between civilizations, our cultures and our religions,” and gets to the real point in the last lines: “in its depth as much as in its tragic specificity, this duty of remembrance strongly imposes ethical, moral and political standards which will, tomorrow, be true guarantors of this peace – based on equally shared justice and dignity – and for which most Palestinians and Israelis yearn.”

So, what we have here is a complaint that Europe oriented attention by the world, when dealing with the Holocaust, has forgotten (amnesia – he said) the fact that in an Arab country the Muslim ruler – at the time Sultan and later, upon full independence, King Muhammad V – his grandfather -  did what he could, under Vichy France “protectorate,” to save his Jewish citizens from the worst of Nazi treatment. Then he said that the recognition that there was a history of good relationship between Jews and Muslims in Morocco – this has to become the motor for a solution of the Palestinian – Israeli fight in the Middle East. This line was seconded via videoconference by his Jewish Councellor Andre Azoulay and these statements were then the base for a lively Q&A exchange with Mr. Azoulay answering from the screen.

Mr. Azoulay did not mince words when saying that while in Christian Europe barbarian Nazism was raging, it was a Muslim Sultan in Morocco who told his Vichy French “Protectors” that his Jews will not wear a yellow star – they are Moroccans like all other Moroccans. He said this was no accident nor coincidence – it was rather the recognition that the Jews were in the country had a 3,000 year history and they arrived 1,500 years before the arrival of Arab Islam. There were here many centuries of mutual respect and knowledge. He stated: “We are proud Jews and proud of Morocco being part of the Arab civilization, Muslim culture and related to Middle East cultures – we feel ourselves enriched by all these three dimensions and we feel having a special role and responsibilities – we are Jews in Morocco and as Moroccan citizens we have responsibility as Jewish activists in the Arab World. That is also why we want to emphasize the role Morocco played in the Shoa and we want to break through the amnesia on this topic.

Looking back at the duality of being Jews and Moroccans, and what was achieved there during the days of the Nazis in Europe, he feels that the coexistence in Morocco brings him to the Arab cause for a logic of coexistence of living in TWO STATES IN PALESTINE AND ISRAEL – for the people there with all the measures of Human Rights and respect. WE REACT STRONGLY TO RESIST THE TRIVIALIZATION OF THE HOLOCAUST TRAGEDY – MOROCCO DOES NOT BELONG TO THE CLUB OF THE HOLOCAUST REJECTIONISTS – he said then followed up by saying that I am the only member of that Club that has Jews in an Arab country with all their rights – it is the Moroccan specificity in face of the Holocaust and this leads him to fight for the rights of the Palestinians and Israelis to live side by side.

The Chairman of the Panel was UN Director for Outreach – Mr. Eric Falt. It seems that his taking over by himself as moderator of the panel was a later decision as the first announcement that reached me mentioned the introducer, Maria-Louisa Chavez, Chief, NGO Relations, Department of Public Information (DPI) as Moderator, but seemingly there was some rethinking about this allowed at DPI. Mr. Falt was obviously a more appropriate choice for an event that should have been intended for a wider audience to include even the UN itself. This became obvious at the interesting Q&A time.

The background of this meeting was not presented in full by the panel. Indeed there was a history of peaceful coexistence in Morocco and high level of achievements during thousands of years, and colonial anti-Semitic policies imposed upon Moroccan Jews by the Vichy-regime of German-occupied France were opposed by the local leader of the country – the future King Muhammad V – but then, with the creation of the State of Israel, tensions  in the country arouse with riots against the Jews and Moroccan Jews fleeing to France and Israel as Arab – Israeli wars broke out in the Middle East. In spite of everything, and the inter-Arab solidarity, King Muhammad V and his son Hassan II still managed to protect the remaining Jews and tried to play intermediary roles in the Arab-Israeli peace process.

The present King – His Majesty King Muhammad VI faced by 2003 suicide bombing incidents against Jewish institutions in Casablanca,  did indeed step out  against Arab perpetrators of these crimes, and continued the historic mainly tolerant attitude towards Jews in Morocco.  I visited the place that included a Jewish social club close to after it happened, with 57 members of a family of Moroccan Jews living in Israel that went to see their place of origin. We were received royally even though it was clear that there was an implied reason for that visit – the question of real estate that the family left behind when fleeing the country. Even so – I witnessed friendly encounters that included even two visits with people living then in the former Levy family owned homes. One of the Levy brothers had a grocery store and a bakery – and these business were still functioning – we were honored with freshly backed bread by the new operator who was from a family of friends of the Levys. I did not follow what happened to the potential claim – but it was obvious to me that in the context of a settlement of claims former Palestinian  owners have over properties in Israel, these claims will be clearly part of the counter-claims in a balanced solution – and there is no rejection of this idea by Morocco – even though Morocco shows interest in helping find a solution for the Middle East conflict – that might mean its own financial loss of sort.

Thinking of the above – the importance of this Thursday, January 28, 2010, panel at the UN International Holocaust Remembrance week, at the UN Headquarters, takes an even higher level of importance and deserved maximum visibility and exposure.

Mr. Abdelkader Abbadi, originally from Tunisia, former UN official, and now a UN-DPI accredited correspondent, asked the first question, and it was about the position about Jews in the larger Arab context – the position of the Moroccan Jews in a larger reconciliation between the Muslim and Jewish Worlds. The answer was that Morocco is still playing a major role to give peace a chance. It was during the 60-80s they were the main place of contact. Mr. Azulay, from the screen, said: “We are still in total coherence in what can bring a feature of security for the State of Israel. By keeping alive the historical Moroccan legacy – the role played by the King and the message sent to the Nazi barbarity, and applying to the denial of the Holocaust in parts of the region, we are showing Morocco as it is. He added “Let me also say that when fighting for the above we also fight Islamophobia – the new anti-Semitism we see in Islamophobia. It is the same legacy that pushes us to say how Morocco can show the chance of coexistence between Muslims and Jews.

A question from Mauricio of the Brazilian Mission to the UN brought from Mr. Azoulay the following answer: When I went to Brazil I feel at home.  In Salvador, Bahia  I saw all three cultures celebrating in one – the logic gives us strength. Yes, we had also black pages. When we think of the Inquisition of the 15th century – it killed millions of Jews. In the Arab world of that time we stood together on the page of humanity. We had the mathematicians and the philosophers together – we held them for the rest of  humanity. Jews in the Arab & Muslim World is not just cosmetics. We feel enough confident, committed, powerful to share it with you first – because it is true today and centuries ago.

Serge Berdugo added to this:  In Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil, there is a large Jewish community from Morocco since 1882. Last year we had 500 people that came to Morocco to look for roots.

A question on books: Mr. Azulay said the answer is in education. We published about the Shoa in Arabic as there is enough inflammatory material in Arabic like The Protocols of Zion. In March 2009 we took the initiative to translate “The Diary of Anne Frank” and books like Hitler and the Jews. This was immediately effective. We have the books on our website and they can be freely downloaded. We find that they are printed out also in Iran. This is the first real effective answer to feed the ignorants. We have to do our best to inform the people. WE MUST GIVE A CHANCE TO THOSE THAT DO NOT KNOW – TO KNOW. It is a unique opportunity for the rest of the world and for the Muslim community to get the information. We have to mobilize NGOs, Universities, Academics, Governments, States to the realization of relations between Jews & Muslims.

——

Eventually came the question I thought all the time that it will appear out there at any moment: What about Israel – why not live there Jews and Arabs as one community. Serge Berdugo answered without difficulty –

IN ISRAEL THESE ARE TWO SEPARATE COMMUNITIES – IN MOROCCO WE LIVE TOGETHER. IN ISRAEL – ISRAEL MUST GET SECURITY FIRST WITHOUT THAT NOTHING WILL HAPPEN!

Almost all bridges in the Middle East were made in Morocco. We have very good contacts with Palestinians & Israelis when they come to Morocco they speak to each other to find solutions. We are in the supermarket – security and realism – and we have the dreams.

——

Question from a former employee of Joint in Morocco: How do you transmit your experience to others?

Petter Geffen answered – About the Vichy – Morocco stands – I learned about this only 6 years ago – now I tell it to everyone. THE POWER OF MUTUAL RESPECT AND COEXISTENCE,

Some people have vested interests in keeping us separate – that does not lead to change.

He then told of Raphael David Almaleh who went to a village of Berbers that once had 400 Jews – Arazan – and asked children – Where was here a Synagogue? They did not know but said ask that old man at the top of the street. The 65 year old man knew – and more. He pulled out a key and took them to the Synagogue. “They left when we were children – the Rabbi gave me the key and said give it to the Jews when they come back” he said.

Geffen then continued saying that the amnesia was not on purpose  – it is rather a result of our Eurocentricity that caused us not to look at Africa. When we asked Mr. Azulay to get involved in our effort to bring some redress to the lost years, he had first to ask the King’s endorsement and given this endorsement helped bring it to the open. We should not go away without making this knowledge a way to lead to change.

Serge Berdugo added – “we feel we have a story for the rest of the world.” Our website feels he deffinitely has a story for the UN – actually this was the novelty in this year’s Holocaust Remembrance Week of the UN.

————–

Further, as our website is known for our interest in environmental issues such as the impact of burning fossil fuels on Global Warming, we could not resist to note here also that the Turkish head of the Organization of the Islamic Conference has called fot the first meeting of the OIC Executive Bureau on Environment and Climate Change for Rabat -  January 18-19, 2010.

This meeting was obviously not connected to the subject matter of above panel – but on a different level it surely is related nevertheless, and it is interesting  that  two non-oil exporters from among the Arab States, but the countries positioned at the two geographical ends of the Mediterranean divide between Europe and the main mass of the Islamic World, Morocco and Turkey – are involved in this growing -in-importance global issue.
 http://www.sustainabilitank.info/2010/01…

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.

Haiti revival after quake could take generations says UN chief: Bleak outlook for decades to come and fears of health calamity when rainy season starts in May.

Rory Carroll, Latin America correspondent, and Tom Phillips in Port-au-Prince
guardian.co.uk,     Friday 29 January 2010

Rebuilding Haiti will take generations because the earthquake-shattered country was starting from “below zero” and logistics remained a “nightmare”, the United Nations warned today.

The bleak long-term assessment came as basic medical supplies in Port-au-Prince ran dangerously low and concerns grew of a public health calamity with the onset of the rainy season.

Several hospitals and clinics reported shortages of painkillers and antibiotics for patients with fractures, amputated limbs and infections. Relief agencies said there was also an urgent need for tents.

Edmond Mulet, acting head of the UN mission in Haiti, warned that emergency relief efforts were the start of a commitment that would be much longer than the international community might realise. “I think this is going to take many more decades … this is an enormous backwards step in Haiti’s development,” he told the BBC. “We will not have to start from zero but from below zero.”

Foreign governments this week pledged to back a decade-long rebuilding effort but that timescale could need revising at a donor conference in the coming months.

The US military signalled plans to start transferring authority to the state and aid agencies within three to six months.

The magnitude-seven quake on 12 January caused the deaths of an estimated 200,000 people, left 1.5 million homeless and 3 million in need of aid. It destroyed much of Haiti’s infrastructure.

Some 200,000 heavy-duty tents have been ordered to cope with the rainy season, which typically begins in May, and the hurricane season soon after. Only about a 10th of that number of tents has reached Haiti. Salvage crews have started clearing rubble in Port-au-Prince but with ­three-quarters of the buildings mostly demolished the task is immense. There are plans for “tent cities” outside the capital and suggestions the city could be moved to a site less vulnerable to quakes.

Some relatively unscathed neighbourhoods show a semblance of normality: markets, shops and banks were working today and schools were due to open on Monday. Water, food and medicine is reaching more of the improvised camps.

Mullet, who is also the UN’s assistant secretary-general for peacekeeping, said coordination between Haitian police and UN troops was improving aid delivery but relief logistics remained a “nightmare”.

That was apparent in hospitals where doctors and nurses complained of scarce medical supplies as they struggled to treat 200,000 survivors in need of post-surgery medical care as well as an unaccounted number with untreated injuries.

Nancy Fleurancois, a volunteer doctor at Jacmel, told a visiting UN official her team desperately needed antibiotics and surgical supplies. “You see people come here and they are at death’s door,” she said. “More help is needed.”

Kathleen Sejour, a hospital administrator, told AP: “Malaria is becoming a big problem and we don’t have enough anti-malaria drugs. Most of the kids right now have it. We had a good supply but we can’t keep up.”

Large amounts of aid have reached Haiti but the need is so vast, and the infrastructure so ruined, many survivors have been left to cope on their own. The maternal mortality rate was expected to jump.

Unicef said the disaster was likely to have separated thousands of children from their parents or guardians, and the agency repeated warnings about the threat of child traffickers.

Bo Viktor Nylund, Unicef’s senior children protection adviser, said hospitals had been alerted. “We are informing all hospitals that they should not discharge unaccompanied children without getting in touch with us or the government.”

In Port-a-Prince, Solveig Routier, a Canadian child protection specialist from Plan International, said that her group had received reliable reports of at least 15 cases of children being snatched from hospitals.

Aid groups estimate that there were 300,000 orphaned children here even before the recent disaster, and the devastation of Port-au-Prince means things have now become much worse.

Following the earthquake dozens of children were taken to the Sunshine House, a cramped concrete social centre in Pétionville which is home to 44 orphaned or abandoned children.

Sultane Ganthier, the orphanage’s 77-year-old director, said she had had to turn away children for lack of space. “Many people have asked us to take children [since the quake]. But we can’t do it. I can’t handle it,” she said.

U.N. rights council’s Haiti parley is harmful diversion

January 27, 2010

GENEVA — Today’s 13th emergency session of the UN Human Rights Council, on Haiti, was a harmful waste of the organization’s precious time, resources, and moral capital.

Haiti is certainly a dire emergency, but the council, which is supposed to address human rights violations, has no budget, authority or expertise on humanitarian aid, and is simply the wrong forum.

According to one UN estimate, a day of conference and translation services can cost up to $200,000. Instead of being used for today’s questionable exercise, that money should have gone to Haiti’s needy victims.

Unlike other UN bodies, the Human Rights Council has neither the power of the purse nor of the sword, only the power to turn a spotlight on the worst abusers.

Tragically, however, the council has refused to hold special sessions to try and stop Iran from massacring student protesters, terrorists from killing civilians in Baghdad and Kabul, or China and Cuba from arresting bloggers, journalists and dissidents. Yet today it convened — to do what, exactly? Condemn the earth for quaking? It’s nonsensical.

Brazil, whose military has commanded the UN forces in Haiti for the past several years, was the one who requested today’s session. The leading power in South America, Brazil is determined to preserve its regional influence, with its rule over Haiti becoming a way to flex its muscles, as well as to gain UN credibility and one day win a seat on the Security Council.

The sudden, post-earthquake arrival of US forces and other actors challenges Brazil’s position. Hence today’s meeting, with Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim given an outsized role at the session. (Click here for summary of speeches.)

Also today, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva blamed wealthy nations for Haiti’s poverty and misery, saying he hoped the quake would shame world leaders into doing what they should have done decades ago.

Beyond Brazil’s use of the special session to jockey for international influence, the larger question is why the session won such wide and easy support, when requests for urgent meetings on massive abuses elsewhere are routinely ignored by the council members.

Dominated by repressive regimes like Saudi Arabia, Russia and China, the council majority prefers to waste time on an issue that involves no violation or perpetrator. It’s a public relations exercise that diverts attention from examining genuine human rights abuses, and aids member states that want the world to believe the council is nevertheless doing something.

The council was similarly misused last year with an urgent meeting on the financial crisis, and the year before that on the rise in food prices. Because it’s inherently the wrong forum, both meetings amounted to futile political exercises that produced nothing but paper.

The United States and the European Union should not have lent their names as co-sponsors to this equally futile exercise. It only takes the council further away from its stated mission of protecting individual human rights, and sends the wrong message.
Interestingly, the EU and other Western countries had previously demanded that all special sessions include a specific description of the human rights violations at issue (see par. 64 at p. 17 here). However, many of the same countries who took that position co-sponsored today’s session, despite the absence of any such description or violations.

The UN titled the meeting a “Special Session on Support to Recovery Process in Haiti: A Human Rights approach.”

Ranjit Devraj writes for IPS Terra Viva at the UN that the BASIC Group meeting concluded with an amazing – ‘Copenhagen Accord Not Legal, Kyoto Protocol Is.’ Nevertheless Brazil, South Africa, India and China – will submit their plans for voluntary mitigation actions by the Jan. 31, 2010 deadline stipulated by the Copenhagen Accord. That amounts to positive participation and denying it also.
 http://ipsterraviva.net/UN/currentNew.as…

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2010

‘Copenhagen Accord Not Legal, Kyoto Protocol Is’
Ranjit Devraj

NEW DELHI, Jan 26 (IPS) – While the BASIC bloc countries – Brazil, South Africa, India and China – will submit their plans for voluntary mitigation actions by the Jan. 31 deadline stipulated by the Copenhagen Accord, they have taken care to emphasise that the agreement, reached at the end of the December climate change summit in the Danish capital, has no legal basis.

Addressing a joint press conference after a meeting of concerned BASIC ministers on Sunday, India’s 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 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).”

Ramesh explained that the Accord was not a legal document and that the “understanding reached at Copenhagen was that the accord will facilitate the two-track negotiating process which is the only legitimate process to reach a legally binding treaty in Mexico.” The two-track negotiation process was agreed upon at the December 2007 Bali conference, pertaining to Long-Term Cooperative Action under the UNFCCC and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

The BASIC meeting and the press conference were attended by Carlos Minc, the Brazilian environment minister, his counterpart from South Africa, Buyelwa Sonjica, and the vice-chairman of China’s National Development and Reform Commission, Xie Zhenhua.

At the press conference, Xie said that the BASIC group’s objectives were consistent with the interests of the developing countries. “BASIC will take the lead in large-scale emission reduction and also stick to the policy of common but differentiated principle.” Sonjica said BASIC would not make any decision outside the Group of 77 (G-77) countries. “We see ourselves as adding value to the proposals of G-77,” she said.

Siddharth Pathak, a member of the international environmental group Greenpeace’s policy division, told IPS that the willingness of the BASIC group to support vulnerable countries by ensuring their participation in open and transparent negotiations and plans to provide technological and financial support was commendable. “We hope that this support will become tangible by the group’s next meeting in April.”

Pathak said that while BASIC appeared keen to consolidate itself as a group and also take along the G-77 countries, it needed to “demonstrate leadership, both in furthering negotiations on a fair, ambitious and legally binding agreement, and in terms of pushing industrialised counties to urgently reduce GhG (greenhouse gas) emissions and make their own appropriate contributions.”

Other analysts said the BASIC meeting had the potential of cementing differences both within and outside the bloc.

“What is crucial now is to see whether China and India will stick to carbon intensity figures in their action plans, as they announced before the Copenhagen meet,” said Siddharth Mishra, director at CUTS International, a leading economic policy and advocacy group. Carbon intensity is a measure of carbon dioxide emissions per unit of production.

“This will suit China well because it is already on a trajectory of lowering its energy intensity and it has voluntarily announced cuts of 40-45 percent before Copenhagen,” said Mitra. “India, too, can reduce the trend of the growth of its emissions and specify domestic regulations to ensure reductions in emissions from its dirty industries,” Mitra told IPS.

Mitra added: “We don’t know what the back-of-the-envelope calculations are, but both China and India may benefit from the pledge of 100 billion U.S. dollars by the end of the decade for developing countries to adapt to climate change and limit the global rise in temperatures, since industrialisation began, from exceeding two degrees Celsius.”

Denmark, as president of the Conference of Parties (CoP), has been asked by the BASIC ministers to convene immediately meetings of the two negotiation groups for the Kyoto Protocol and the Long-Term Cooperative Action in March and ensure that they meet on at least five more occasions before the 16th CoP in December.

After the BASIC countries joined hands with the United States in negotiating the Copenhagen Accord, at the end of the summit in the Danish capital, several developing countries expressed fears that the document would become legal and dilute the Bali two-track process.

BASIC ministers have also asked the rich nations to speedily distribute the 10 billion dollars they had pledged to the least developed countries and the islands to address climate change this year.

Brazil’s Minc said at the press conference that BASIC had decided to create its own fund to help small island states and the least developed countries. “The actual contributions will be decided at the next meeting of the BASIC in South Africa,” he said.

A day before the BASIC meet, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh let it be known that he had reservations over pressure from Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen and United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon for follow-up action on the Copenhagen Accord and get results by the Jan. 31 deadline.

While the Accord had called for “economy-wide emission targets” by 2020 by the Annex-1 (rich countries) and the other countries to submit “mitigation actions,” Rasmussen and Ban had written separately to all heads of state and governments on Dec. 30, urging them to submit their commitments by Jan. 31.

Their joint letter was silent on the Kyoto Protocol, raising suspicions. Mitra said that such suspicions first surfaced after the UNFCCC executive secretary, Yvo de Boer, failed to mention the Kyoto Protocol at a press conference held soon after the Copenhagen Accord. “The impression that there is a plan afoot to bury Kyoto is not helped by the fact that the European Union is pushing it as a first step to new negotiations.”

The Kyoto Protocol, the world’s only legally binding agreement, required 37 wealthy nations to cut GhG emissions by 2012, but asked for no commitments from developing countries. In contrast, the Copenhagen Accord does not talk of mitigation goals for the developed countries and is seen to be acting to lower the bar in climate negotiations when scientists warn that the climate is changing more rapidly than estimated earlier.

The Accord was opposed by Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua and Sudan on both substantive and procedural grounds. For that reason, it could not be accepted or endorsed by the CoP, which only “took note” of it, denying the document status at the U.N.

In an editorial on Tuesday, the respected ‘The Hindu’ newspaper commented that the response of BASIC “underscores the view of the developing world that the Copenhagen Accord chose to give insufficient importance to the central tenet of “common but differentiated responsibilities” outlined in the UNFCCC.

The Hindu editorial said one positive outcome of the “common strategy” adopted by BASIC countries was the fostering of “active South-South cooperation” to advance science. “Given that intellectual property rights on technology remain a major barrier to achieving higher energy efficiencies, such joint efforts involving India and China hold great promise.”

THAT IS AMAZING – EVEN THOUGH IT IS CARNAVAL 2010 TIME IN PERNAMBUCO,
BRAZIL THERE IS ALSO RECOGNITION THAT IT IS THE GLOBALLY RECOGNIZED
HOLOCAUST WEEK – SOMETHING FOR ALL DECENT PEOPLE OF THE WORLD TO TAKE
NOTICE.

>> “AO RECIFE O QUE O RECIFE NÃO CONHECE”
Durante toda esta semana, a história do Holocausto será lembrada no
Recife. A comunidade judaica de Pernambuco está à frente da exposição
“Ao Recife o que o Recife não conhece”, no Shopping Paço Alfândega,
devido à Semana Mundial de Lembrança ao Holocausto. Lá, o visitante
encontrará painéis do século 16 e 17, apresentação de vídeos, objetos
e uma maquete da rua do Bom Jesus. A exposição é organizada pelo
Arquivo Histórico Judaico de Pernambuco (AHBJ-PE) e pela Federação
Israelita de Pernambuco (Fipe).

Serviço:
Até o dia 31 de janeiro
De segunda a sábado, das 10h às 22h, e domingo, das 12h às 20h
Paço Alfândega – Bairro do Recife
Entrada gratuita
Mais informações: 81.3194.2100

—————–

EXPOSIÇÃO CONTA A HISTÓRIA DA GUERRA CIVIL ESPANHOLA
A história da Guerra Civil espanhola está sendo contada para os pernambucanos pela mostra “Cartales de la Guerra Civil Española: un grito en la pared (1936-1939)”. A exposição está no Centro Cultural Correios, no Bairro do Recife, durante o mês de janeiro, organizada pelo Instituto Cervantes do Recife, com apoio da Prefeitura do Recife. Lá, o visitante encontra uma coleção de 95 cartazes pertencentes à Fundação Pablo Iglesias, da Espanha.

Serviço:
Até dia 31 de janeiro
De terça a sexta, das 9h às 18h, e sábado e domingo, das 12h às 18h
Centro Cultural Correios: Avenida Marquês de Olinda, 262 – Bairro do Recife
Mais informações: 3224.5739 / 3424.1935

—————-

Carnaval 2010 – Baile Municipal
A tradicional festa que inicia o Carnaval do Recife, o Baile
Municipal já tem data marcada, dia 6 de fevereiro. Essa é a festa mais
esperada pelos os foliões da cidade, que preparam suas tradicionais ou
criativas fantasias para frevar e se divertir durante toda a noite. A
programação deste ano conta com a animação de Claudionor Germano, Spok
Frevo Orquestra, Elba Ramalho, Alceu Valença, Daniela Mercury e André
Rio. O baile também conta com a participação especial de Getúlio
Cavalcanti, homenageado do Carnaval Multicultural do Recife 2010,
junto com o artista plástico Vicente do Rego Monteiro (in memoriam).
Em sua 46º edição, o baile, além de divertir o folião, tem um
importante papel social, pois o que for arrecadado com a venda dos
ingressos será repassado para o Hospital Infantil Maria Lucinda e para
a Casa da Estância.

Serviço:
46º Baile Municipal do Recife
Chevrolet Hall
Dia 6 de fevereiro, a partir das 19h
Ingressos: R$ 35

View the program here: newsletter_impressao

Date: Mon, Jan 25, 2010
Subject: Win $1000 – Be’chol Lashon Media Awards

Be’chol Lashon
PO Box 591107
San Francisco, CA 94159

The 2010 Carnaval of Recife – January 21 – 27, 2010.   For Our Readers that want the information about the 2010 Carnival of Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil – please look at:

newsletter_impressao_201001211627

newsletter_impressao_201001221402