Killing Them Softly: Pope Francis Condemns Income Inequality, Sanctions Gender Inequality
Exclusion of the poor from full participation in society is rightly portrayed as an evil, while exclusion of women from full participation in the church is defended as necessary.
December 6, 2013 | The following story first appeared on RH Reality Check.
Not long after the white puffs of smoke blew through St. Peter’s Square in March to announce his election as head of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Francis set many a progressive heart aflutter, especially with regard to his oft-stated concern for the poor of the world.
The release on Tuesday of Evangelii Gaudium, the pope’s manifesto for the renewal of the church, has set off a pandemic of swooning among liberals, particularly because of the pope’s welcome critique of so-called “free market” ideology and the gaping income inequality it creates. Overlooked is the internal inconsistency of the document, in which exclusion of the poor from full participation in society is rightly portrayed as an evil, while exclusion of women from full participation in the church is defended as necessary.
When it comes to inequality of the sexes, Pope Francis enthusiastically embraces Rome’s status quo, using his great treatise on his dream of a kinder, gentler church to sanction the exclusion of women not just from leadership, but from performing the most holy of its rites: celebration of the Mass.
“The reservation of the priesthood to males … is not a question open to discussion,” Francis writes.
While, in the same document, the pope also reiterates the church’s rejection of abortion as a moral choice and implicitly condones the marginalization of LGBTQ people, it is his blessing of a male-only priesthood that is arguably the most damaging, for it renders the church as a model justification for the view of women as subhuman—a view that lends cover to the rapist, the pimp, the bigot, and the chauvinist whose works the pope decries, even as he advances stereotypes about the “feminine genius” that women have to offer in acts of compassion and intuition.
As Sister Maureen Fiedler observes, Pope Francis “seems to think of women as a different species of human.” And it is from this “othering” of women from rest of humanity, I believe, that the church’s cruel and sometimes murderous denial of women’s reproductive prerogatives stems.
For Catholics, the Mass is a mystical, not just a representational, rite. The priest is believed to be the conduit, a channel of God’s grace, for the transformation of bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. That’s an awesome power to have—rather god-like, in fact.
The church’s denial of priestly ordination to women is based on a trumped-up piece of theology known as the “natural resemblance” rationale. Simply put, since Jesus was a man, then only men can be priests. Fiedler, explaining and rejecting this theory, suggests that “to say that only males may image Jesus sacralizes masculinity.”
Put another way, Gloria Steinem, speaking at the National Press Club last week, quipped: “When God looks like the ruling class, the ruling class becomes God.”
Re-Branding the Church
Despite its tortured logic with regard to the rights and role of women, both as human beings and as members of the Roman Catholic Church, Evangelii Gaudium (“Joy of the Gospel”) is a papal tour de force, both as a piece of literature, and for the institution Pope Francis puts forth as the church of his dreams.
The most radical changes called for by the pope in his exhortation have little to do with the critique of capitalism that has grabbed the headlines, but rather a proposed shift in the power dynamic of the existing hierarchy—he envisions a less centralized power structure—and a purge of corruption (described as “spiritual worldliness”) in the Vatican bureaucracy. But it is the change he seeks in the church’s image, which he has already set about by famously refusing to live in the sumptuous setting occupied by his predecessors, that has dazzled journalists and commentators.
In Evangelii Gaudium, the pope’s language is vernacular and, in its English translation, at least, pleasing in cadence. It is quite a departure from the prose that ordinarily fills official Vatican documents. In it, Francis speaks of himself in the first person, and admits certain faults of the church. In confirming the church’s opposition to abortion, for instance, Francis states:
Precisely because this involves the internal consistency of our message about the value of the human person, the Church cannot be expected to change her position on this question. I want to be completely honest in this regard. This is not something subject to alleged reforms or “modernizations”. It is not “progressive” to try to resolve problems by eliminating a human life. On the other hand, it is also true that we have done little to adequately accompany women in very difficult situations, where abortion appears as a quick solution to their profound anguish, especially when the life developing within them is the result of rape or a situation of extreme poverty. Who can remain unmoved before such painful situations?
Such an admission of the church’s shortcomings in tending to the needs of the desperate pregnant woman would have been unthinkable by this pope’s recent predecessors; in doing so, Francis casts himself in a more favorable light while doing nothing to change the doctrine that robs women of their full agency, and hence, their full humanity. It is also a doctrine that can rob a woman of her life.
The entire document, in fact, advances little change in the substance of church teaching, and more a change in style and tone. It is, at its essence, a blueprint for winning converts to the faith, and reeling in disaffected Catholics back to the church. It is a survival playbook for a church abandoned by its European flock, and losing substantial numbers among its North American constituency. In Latin America, the church faces steep competition with evangelical Protestant sects, and in Africa, it’s competing with those sects and with Islam. The stern and condescending Father-knows-best condemnations of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI—who launched a holy war against Latin America’s native liberation theology movement—proved to be deeply alienating.
A nice pope who seems to be of the people, who writes in an accessible style, who appears to understand the difficulties faced by those wriggling under the boot of global capitalism can only help the church’s predicament. And so Francis recasts the church’s social teaching on ministering to the poor in the language of progressive economists and the Occupy movement, and challenges unnamed Catholic politicians and business leaders (Rep. Paul Ryan [R-WI], House Budget Committee chairman and former vice presidential candidate, comes to mind) to abandon “trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world.”
Such theories, Francis writes, pointedly, have “never been confirmed by the facts.”
Yet, in his defense of the faceless poor, Francis seems to miss the fact that women are more likely than men to be in poverty, and that is because of the very kind of structural inequality that his church models for the world as an image of holiness.
Doing Well by Doing (Some) Good?
I do not mean to suggest that the pope is insincere in his call to defend the poor. I believe that he is. And his pronouncement certainly does put those Catholics who advance the cause of Ayn Rand and the fortunes of the Koch brothers in an uncomfortable position. If that helps to save the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps, from the chopping block, that’s all to the good. If the bishops put more of their diocesan budgets into bringing real services and comfort to the poor, that would be outstanding. But it would be naive not to note that Francis’ call to serve the poor also serves the pope’s obvious effort to re-brand the church, still suffering the moral bankruptcy of its child-abuse scandal, as a force for good.
So, too, does the pope’s admonishment, apparently aimed at members of the Curia (the Vatican bureaucracy), to avoid going on “witch hunts” of those deemed doctrinally impure. Although again, the pope declines to provide examples, it’s hard not to think of the Vatican’s 2012 attack on the Leadership Conference of Women Religious for facilitating the spread of “radical feminist ideas,” when reading those lines. The bishops and the Vatican lost big in the court of public opinion on that one, when it was revealed that American Catholics like their nuns much better than they do their prelates.
Francis cites the withholding of the sacrament of Communion from the impure—as has been done to punish pro-choice Catholic politicians—as not particularly helpful. He urges priests to stress the joy of the Gospel in their homilies, and advises them not to deliver sermons that comprise lists of obligations.
In an interview given earlier this year to the Jesuit journalist, Rev. Antonio Spadaro, Francis suggested that church officials stop harping on church teaching that opposes abortion and condemns homosexuality. He didn’t suggest that any change was warranted to those doctrines; just that it was not really helping the church to keep emphasizing them. (Interestingly, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker [R], who is Roman Catholic, recently told a press gathering organized by the Christian Science Monitor that while he is anti-choice and personally opposed to marriage equality, he preferred to talk about fiscal issues.)
“Exclusion, Mistreatment and Violence”
In the section of Evangelii Gaudium titled “The Inclusion of the Poor in Society,” Pope Francis throws this bone, without irony, to women in poverty:
Doubly poor are those women who endure situations of exclusion, mistreatment and violence, since they are frequently less able to defend their rights.
All women, of course, “endure situations of exclusion” from the leadership of the church, and that very exclusion sows the seeds of their mistreatment both within the church and in the greater society. A powerful message, marginalizing women as creatures unworthy of respect and incapable of authority, is inherent in the very image of the church’s leadership.
Women are to content themselves with whatever grace trickles down to them via the transformative powers invoked by the male priest.
The Roman Catholic Church, with its own nation-state, temporal power around the world, and command of media attention, is arguably the most visible religious institution in the world. Any entity that treated any other class of people as the church treats women would rightly, in the 21st century, be a pariah institution. But since it’s women we’re talking about, it’s all right. And the sad thing is, I don’t think the pope even sees the internal contradiction in his words.
Surely you can give the pope some props for his comments on the evils of free-market economics, one liberal male friend said to me, when I expressed my disgust at the kudos raining upon the pope with the publication of his magnum opus. Wow, said another, you’re really going to lay into him for not making changes yet on the position of women in the church?
So here are my props on the economics section of the pope’s treatise. This from Evangelii Gaudium is just terrific:
Just as the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say “thou shalt not” to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills.
But by that same logic, an honest person must then say “thou shalt not” to a theology of gender exclusion and inequality.
The R20-Regions of Climate Action is a non-profit organization founded in 2010 by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and other global leaders in cooperation with the United Nations.
The R20 is a coalition of partners led by regional governments that work to promote and implement projects that are designed to produce local economic and environmental benefits in the form of reduced energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions; strong local economies; improved public health; and new green jobs. These local actions can help the world achieve our shared global environmental and economic goals.
” R20 is not just another NGO or network of regions, it is much more than that. It is a real coalition of forces which believe that climate change and green economic development can be tackled at the subnational level.” — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, in the Global Journal, May-June 2011. Official Arnold Schwarzenegger website
R20 Members
Note: Bold denotes founding member.
Africa
Wilaya of Oran, Algeria
Northern Region, Burkina Faso
Region des Haut Bassins, Burkina Faso
Republic of Mali
Region Oriental, Morocco
Region of Taza-Al Hoceima-Taounate, Morocco
Delta State, Nigeria
Western Province, Rwanda
Region de Dakar, Senegal
Region de Matam, Senegal
Ville de Thies, Senegal
Asia-Pacific
Gujarat State, India
State of Cebu, Phillipines
Gyeonggi Provincial Government, South Korea
Europe
City of Vienna, Austria
Region of Lower Austria, Austria
City of Gussing, Austria
Region of Istria, Croatia
Région de l’Ile de France, France
Région de la Réunion, France
Region de Azores, Portugal
Alba County, Romania
Region of Donetsk, Ukraine
Region of Flevoland, Netherlands
North America
Province of British Columbia, Canada
State of Baja California, Mexico
State of Campeche, Mexico
State of Chiapas, Mexico
Municipio de Villa de Alvarez, State of Colima, Mexico
State of Sinaloa, Mexico
State of Quintana Roo, Mexico
State of California, USA
State of Connecticut, USA
State of Michigan, USA
Municipalidad de Novolato, Sinaloa, Mexico
South America
State of Acre, Brazil
State of Mato Grosso, Brazil
State of Pichincha, Ecuador
State of Sao Paulo, Brazil
State of Rio, Brazil
State of Para, Brazil
City of Santiago de Surco, Peru
Municipalidad Distrital de la Molina, Peru
Municipalidad de Miraflores, Peru
Municipalidad de Santiago, Peru
National Agencies
Direccion Nacional de Construccion (MVCS), Mexico
——————————————————————————–
Schwarzenegger flexes green muscles in Geneva.
Arnie also visited the 82nd Geneva International Motor Show to put the spotlight on the latest green cars (Reuters)
by Simon Bradley in Geneva, swissinfo.ch March 9, 2012
The war against climate change must become “hipper” to interest more people, says former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The Hollywood action hero was in Geneva this week in his latest role as green activist to inaugurate his R20 non-profit environmental group, which has established a headquarters at Versoix, on the city outskirts.
During his three-day visit Schwarzenegger broke Geneva University audience records at a public conference on his latest “crusade” – climate change and the economy. On Wednesday night 2,000 people packed into the main university auditorium and two separate conference rooms were opened especially to broadcast the Governator’s live performance. “I won’t stop until we’ve spread our green revolution everywhere,” he told the audience. Schwarzenegger served as governor of California from 2003 until 2011, during which time he became steadily more committed to green policies. In 2006, California became the first US state to place a cap on greenhouse gases. The 64-year-old hammered home his message about better communication on climate change and greenhouse gases. “We have to make the environment movement sexier, more attractive and hipper so everyone takes part,” he said. “And we have to banish the word ‘impossible’ from our vocabulary.” Communication should be like a “four-legged stool” and not the current one-legged version based solely on climate change, said Schwarzenegger. The second leg should be about jobs, as “the green economy is a growing economy”, and the third and fourth must focus on national security and health. “Clean economies can save millions of lives,” he pointed out. Citing Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi in his speech, he said citizens could not hang around waiting for governments to seal an international climate change accord. “There are countries, states, cities and people who think they can’t create a green energy future without an international agreement. I’m on a crusade to change that,” he declared.
Regional importance
Schwarzenegger’s R20 brings together a diverse alliance of 30 city and regional governments and partners “to develop, finance, implement, evaluate and replicate low-carbon and climate-resilient projects on a worldwide scale”. The long-term objective is to increase that to 200 regions with green investments worth $100 billion by 2017. Members include regions in Mexico, Nigeria, India, Brazil, South Korea, California, British Columbia, and the Parisian Ile-de-France area.
Launched in December 2009, the public-private group, which held its first general meetings in Geneva this week, is all about action, said Schwarzenegger. “Our task is a daunting one which is growing exponentially. But there are fantastic things happening all over the world. It’s about moving ahead on the subnational level instead of waiting on the sidelines,” he added. Michel Jarraud, secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), agreed that regions had a “key role to play” in climate change efforts. “No country can do it alone. Everyone needs to cooperate with everyone else,“ he said. “This is why I’m happy with the R20 initiative.”
Best practices
One of the R20’s aims is to spread knowledge of the benefits of clean energy. “We will make sure the people of Delhi to know about the great things being done here in Switzerland and we want to help provinces in Morocco learn about technologies from California,” said the former governor.
A number of projects are underway, such as more efficient public lighting, and a “cool roofs” initiative – the installation of white roofs, which reflect the sun and keep houses cool.
Martin Beniston, head of the Institute of Environmental Sciences at Geneva University, said the R20 was a “key example of actions in favour of the environment that open up opportunities for local and national economies”. The R20 is also behind the ‘Sustainia’ collaborative project, a virtual model of the world that could be created if ready and available solutions are implemented to existing cities, homes, energy systems and transport.
‘Sustainia’ will be presented to world leaders in June at the Rio+20 Summit in Brazil, alongside “Sustainia100”, a catalogue of 100 ideal solutions and technologies. “Sustainia is all about showing how easily the future could be different from, and better than, today. It’s based on facts: we have clean technologies right now, and science tells us that using them would bring all kinds of benefits,” Sam Smith, global leader of WWF’s Climate and Energy Initiative, told swissinfo.ch.
Green hub
Versoix was chosen as the R20 headquarters due to the concentration of United Nations specialist environmental agencies, as well as NGOs like the WWF, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and the World Economic Forum, as well as private banks. Canton Geneva will assume the R20’s rental costs for the first two years under a policy of encouraging NGOs to establish themselves in the region. The group plans to open offices in China and Rio de Janeiro.
Franz Perrez, head of international affairs at the Federal Environment Office, said he was delighted Schwarzenegger had chosen Geneva.
“It has the potential to play an important role, particularly in resource efficiency which is crucial to achieving climate change goals,” he told swissinfo.ch. “This is a signal that reflects the fact that Geneva has become a critical hub for environmental issues.”
He agreed that there was a “desperate need” for bottom-up approaches, but added that looking at those alone would not be sufficient.
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Born in Austria on July 30, 1947, he holds dual Austrian-US nationality. He stormed the world of bodybuilding winning the Mr Universe title at the age of 20 and went on to hold the Mr Olympia title seven times.
He gained world fame as an action film icon in movies such as Conan the Barbarian, The Terminator, Last Action Hero, The Running Man, Twins, True Lies, Batman & Robin. He is back working on a series of new films.
He was governor of California from 2003 to 2011 serving two terms. In 2006, California became the first US state to place a cap on greenhouse gases. The law set new regulations on the amount of emissions utilities, refineries and manufacturing plants are allowed to release into the atmosphere.
Schwarzenegger also signed a second global warming bill that prohibits large utilities and corporations in California from making long-term contracts with suppliers who do not meet the state’s greenhouse gas emission standards.
The two bills are part of a plan to reduce California’s emissions by 25 per cent to 1990s levels by 2020. In 2005, Schwarzenegger issued an executive order calling to reduce greenhouse gases to 80 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050.
CO2 emission cuts
As a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, Switzerland in 1997 committed itself to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
In an initial phase CO2 emissions were to be reduced ten per cent over 1990 levels by 2010.
The government foresees raising the target to at least a 20 per cent cut in emissions by 2020, partly through a CO2 tax, an emissions trading system and compensation measures outside Switzerland.
Parliament approved the 20 per cent target, but wants cuts to be achieved through measures within Switzerland only.
Discussions are continuing on extending the CO2 tax from heating oil, gas and coal to also include petrol.
Environmental groups collected enough signatures for a nationwide vote on separate proposals for a 30 per cent cut in emissions.
The EU, which does not include Switzerland, has also set 20 per cent emission cut targets.
The “joint plan of action” agreed on by six world powers and Iran on Nov. 24 is in a short time proving to be a catalyst for a regional trend toward diplomacy and realism.
The mood is already shifting in the Gulf, where there had been resistance if not downright opposition at times to the negotiations with Iran. UAE Foreign Minister Abdullah Bin Zayed Al Nahyan visited Tehran this week for meetings with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, while the Kingdom of Bahrain invited Zarif to participate in the Manama Dialogue Regional Security Summit, organized by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, to be held Dec. 6-8, as reported by Ali Hashem for Al-Monitor.
In perhaps the most substantial shift, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia released a statement on Nov. 25 welcoming the joint plan of action, saying, “Saudi Arabia views the agreement as a primary step toward a comprehensive solution to the Iranian nuclear issue provided it leads to a Middle East and Gulf region free of all weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons.”
In Israel, despite a skeptical public and statements of alarm by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, there is also awareness among national security leaders that the deal with Iran may have its advantages, and that Israel is poorly served by putting itself at odds with the international coalition that forced Iran to negotiations.
Akiva Eldar captured the broader context of the Iran deal for Israel, writing, “The agreement with Iran was signed a short time after the agreement between the United States and Russia that brought about the removal of chemical weapons from Syria. Thus a much more concrete and immediate threat than the Iranian one was removed from the borders of Israel. The decision of the powers to wave a stick instead of landing a blow on the Iranian protectorate in Damascus should have signaled to Netanyahu that this would also be the route they chose to take in the talks with Tehran. It stands to reason that Iran will now be invited to contribute to a renewed effort to end the cruel civil war in Syria. We are witness to the beginning of Iran’s emergence from the international solitary confinement it entered following the revolution in 1979.”
Ben Caspit reports from Jerusalem, “There’s no panic at all among Israel’s professional military echelons. Nobody talks about a catastrophe or an imminent second Holocaust. People discuss the merits of the agreement with levelheadedness and discretion. After all, doomsday prophecies are not their thing. For this, we have Netanyahu.”
Dan Meridor, a member of the Likud Party and former deputy prime minister and minister of intelligence and atomic energy under Netanyahu, told Al-Monitor’s Mazal Mualem this week, “It’s a mistake to pick a fight with partners when we’re in the midst of a campaign against Iran, in which the Americans have the main role. Embarking on an offensive of attacks, criticism and scorekeeping harms the common struggle of large parts of the world, the United States, Europe and the Arab countries. The disputes do not help the struggle, but just give the Iranians a reason to gloat. Nothing is achieved by public disputes. The alliance between Israel and the United States is an important component of our powerful image. … Israel needs to be part of the world, to be a partner in this campaign.”
In the United States, there is popular support for the agreement with Iran. A Reuters/Ipsos poll released this week revealed that 44% of Americans support the interim agreement with Iran and only 22% oppose.
In Congress, while there is still skepticism about the deal, there also seems to be a trend toward legislation that emphasizes a congressional role in Iran’s compliance with the terms of the deal, rather than the introduction of new sanctions, during the six-month negotiation period. The Iran Nuclear Compliance Act of 2013, introduced Nov. 21 by Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is now pending before the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, which has Senate jurisdiction on sanctions bills.
As reported here last week, the man to watch is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who told NPR’s Diane Rehm that the interim agreement is an “important first step” and that he will look to both Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, and Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, on whether the Senate should hold hearings and consider more sanctions.
The conversations that have begun about Iran’s nuclear program are already having consequences beyond the nuclear file, including the Gulf, Turkey and Syria. While Kadri Gursel writes that the Turkish “reset” from its failed sectarian policies may require even deeper political changes, Ankara’s shift, which is a work in progress, is already good news for a political solution in Syria, especially with the Geneva II conference to be held on Jan. 22. A real peace process in Syria would mean relief for Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq, those countries most affected by the spillover of the war, the spike in terrorism and the flood of refugees.
A stable Syrian government, resulting from a successful Geneva II political process, perhaps following elections, would offer a chance for an Israel-Lebanon-Syria peace process. This would mean the eventual demilitarization of Hezbollah, whose raison d’etre is resistance to Israel’s occupation. The reintegration of Hezbollah forces into the Lebanese army and the normalization of Hezbollah solely as a Lebanese political party, and not an armed resistance force, would be a giant step toward solving Lebanon’s perpetual national crisis.
Any deal on Hezbollah would run through Damascus and Tehran, via Moscow’s good offices, en route to Jerusalem, as this column reported last week. While the United States cannot broker this deal, the future of Hezbollah is directly connected to the nuclear negotiations with Iran. For Iran to get relief from US oil and financial sanctions under the Iran Sanctions Act, the president must certify to Congress that Iran no longer seeks weapons of mass destruction, is no longer a state sponsor of terrorism and no longer represents a significant threat to US national security interests and allies. Hezbollah is considered a terrorist group by the United States. So questions about Iran’s nuclear program and its role in the region, including support for Hezbollah, are the endgame in any discussion of a comprehensive agreement.
The Rio meeting decided to close the non-performing Commission on Sustainable Development and with the help of an eminent group of people, who appointed an Open Ended Working Group to come up with the list of suggestions for Sustainable Develoment Goals. Their Fifth Session meeting just finished in the UN Headquarters’ building in new York. There will be three more Sessions.
It is at these Sessions and at the lunch-time break out programs, that the subject may indeed show some progress. In effect, with the stalling Climate Change meetings – that at the 19th COP in Warsaw did practically produce nothing of substance, it is these New York Session tha are the last UN hope to fight poverty and help the environment.
Yes, the UN Secretary General continues to make uplifting and hopeful presentations but these find no echo by the time the UN puts its best foot forward at a PRESS Conference where it seems the UN hides from the Press. In the end – the Press comes back with questions about a nuclear Iran or the price of oil as it just happened in New York right before the closing of the Fifth Session.
WAFUNIF was active as much as an NGO like ours is allowed breathing space at the UN.
At first I participated at the preparatory day of The Major Groups where I am proud to say we still take a pro-UN position without bowing whatsoever to the International Chambers of Commerce. We may see an advantage of private enterprise being part of solution searching for a non-fossil fuel and non-nuclear future – but we also see that being sponsored by big business is not what will get us there. In effect it is a man or woman with the mentality of Jigar Shah who created SunSolar Corporation who is going to carry the day.
In this respect I found the evening time break-out session of Tuesday November 26, 2013, by the Asia-Europe Environment Forum, backed by Singapore and presenting the work of Profesor Laszlo Pinter and Ms. Dora Almassy of the Central European University in Budapest, had a very interesting triangle that had at its pinacle – something I saw for the first time at a UN futuristic event - WellBeing & Happiness.
The triangle dealt with 11 further topics divided in four zones.
It was the Ultimate End to achieve Poverty and Inequality Eradication. A solution to Health and Population Problems, and Education and Learning. This via an Intermediate Goal (4) of Quality of Growth and Employment.
The Intermediate means are: (5) Settlements, infrastructure and transport;
(6) SCP (Sustainable Consumption and Production) and Economic Sectors, (7) Food Security, Sustainable Agriculture;
(9)Water availability and Access; with (10) Biodiversity and Ecosystems – and all of this siting on (11) Good Governance.
That day, at the meetings, South Africa’s delegate asked – “What are the Indicators of Good Governance? His words still ringing in my ears.
I suggested then to Dr. Pinter to switch his graph so that Governance, Biodiversity, Ecosystems, Sustainable Water and Sustainable Energy are THE ULTIMATE ENDS in a system that starts with Education and learning, Health and population management and Poverty and inequality eradication.
If we start with these first we will get to the ultimate goals and Happiness and Well-being. It is the means that must lead to the goals and we must start with understandable improvement in means so we reach the goal of Happiness via Sustainability.
At the lunch break-out that same day we had the Vienna based SE4All team and the shortened version of the “ENERGY and THE SDGs Panel”
Though Chaired by Dr. Kandeh K. Yumkellah with Norway’s State Secretary Hans Brattskar, World Bank’s Energy Unit Manager Vivien Foster, and the President of WWF and a Brazilian Minister present – missing were The President of Iceland who chairs the Arctic Circle Council and the Executive Director of UNEP. Also I missed in the audience Mr. Jigar Shah who told me he will come. I proceeded nevertheless with my double headed question intended for President Olafur Ragner Grimsson and Mr. Jigar Shah.
My question was about the melting ice of the Arctic that uncovers hidden riches of oil and minerals that if put to use will put us all back of our search for non-polluting solutions. Mr. Shah, with his Sun Edison Company has proven that the only natural resource needed is the grey brain-matter and that going for arctic oil really makes no sense. I did get some answers from members of the panel and a clear view that Dr. Yumkella knows this as well – but to me it was more important to get reactions afterwards and to hope I can introduce Jigar Shah to the SE4All team.
Is the Pope Getting the Catholics Ready for an Economic Revolution? (Maybe He Read Marx)
Photo Credit: shutterstock.com - A specter is haunting the Vatican.
November 27, 2013
by Lynn Stuart Parramore, AlterNet
In 1992, the Catholic Church officially apologized for persecuting 17th-century astronomer Galileo, who dared to assert that the Earth revolved around the sun. In 2008, the Vatican even considered putting up a statue of him.
Could a certain 19th-century atheist philosopher be next?
It is true that in 2009, a Vatican newspaper article put a positive spin on one Karl Marx. The author, German historian Georg Sans, praised Marx for his criticism of the alienation and injustice faced by working people in a world where the privileged few own the capital. Sans suggested that Marx’s view was relevant today: “We have to ask ourselves, with Marx, whether the forms of alienation of which he spoke have their origin in the capitalist system….” Indeed.
Pope Benedict XVI certainly sang a different tune, denouncing Marxism as one of the great scourges of the modern age (of course we must always distinguish the “ism” from the man). But Francis is a pope of a different feather. His recent comments on capitalism suggest that he is a man who understands something about economics — specifically the link between unbridled capitalism and inequality.
In an 84-page document released Tuesday, Pope Francis launched a tirade against a brutally unjust economic system that Marx himself would have cheered:
“Just as the commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’ sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say ‘thou shalt not’ to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills….As long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation and by attacking the structural causes of inequality, no solution will be found for the world’s problems or, for that matter, to any problems.”
Whoa! Where did that come from? To understand the answer, you need to know something about liberation theology, a movement that originated in Pope Francis’s home region of Latin America. Liberation theology, a Catholic phenomenon centered on actively fighting economic and social oppression, is the fascinating place where Karl Marx and the Catholic Church meet.
Though Marx was certainly an atheist, Catholics who support liberation theology understand that his attitude toward religion was nuanced. He saw it as a coin with two sides: a conservative force that could block positive changes as well as a reservoir of energy that could resist and challenge injustice. In the United States, religious movements such as the Social Gospel movement, seen today in the Reverend William Barber’s Moral Monday crusade against right-wing oppression of the poor in North Carolina, express the protest potential of Christianity.
Gustavo Gutiérrez, a Peruvian Catholic priest who grew up in abject poverty, used Marx’s ideas about ideology, class and capitalism to develop a perspective on how Christianity could be used to help the poor while they were on here on Earth rather than simply offer them solace in heaven. As Latin America saw the rise of military dictatorships in the 1960s and ‘70s, Gutiérrez called on Catholics to love their neighbor and to transform society for the better. Followers of the new liberation theology insisted on active engagement in social and economic change. They talked about alternative structures and creative, usually non-violent ways to free the poor from all forms of abuse.
The official Church hierarchy has had a tense relationship with liberation theology, but some Francis watchers detect that a new chapter in that history is opening. In early September, the new Pope had a private meeting with Gutiérrez. Reacting to the event, the Vatican newspaper published an essay arguing that with a Latin American pope guiding the Church, liberation theology could no longer “remain in the shadows to which it has been relegated for some years, at least in Europe.”
The Catholic world has now snapped to attention as the faithful pore over the Pope Francis’s recent communication, which calls upon politicians to guarantee “dignified work, education and healthcare” and blasts the “idolatry of money.” The flock is on notice: Francis will be talking a great deal about economic inequality and defending the poor. Unfortunately, his opposition to women as priests indicates that he is not yet ready to embrace equal treatment for women, something that would greatly enhance progress on both of those issues, but Francis did take a step forward in saying that women should have more influence in the Church.
While the Vatican has become a cesspool for some of the most shady financiers and corrupt bankers on the planet (see: “ God’s Racket”), Pope Francis has made clear his abhorrence of greed, eschewing the Apostolic Palace for a modest guest house and recently suspending a bishop who blew $41 million on renovations and improvements to his residence, including a $20,000 bathtub.
Catholics, particularly in the United States and Europe, are not sure what to make of all this solidarity with the poor and anti-capitalist rhetoric. For a long time now, many have considered Marx and his critique of capitalism over and done with. But others have watched deregulation, globalization and redistribution toward the rich unleash a particularly nasty and aggressive form of capitalism that seems increasingly at odds with Christian values. Instead of becoming more fair and moderate, capitalism has become more brutal and extreme. Marx, who predicted that capitalism would engender massive inequalities, is looking rather prescient just about now.
Pope Francis may prove himself open to considering Marx’s ideas in order to think about a more human-centered economic system. The American press is already buzzing nervously with the idea: “It would make for some pretty amazing headlines if Pope Francis turned out to be a Marxist,” wrote Helen Horn of the Atlantic, before quickly concluding that, no, “happily for church leaders,” such a thing couldn’t be true.
Maybe not. What is true is that, like his fascinating predecessor, Pope Leo XIII (who presided from 1848-1903), Francis has specifically denounced the complete rule of the market over human beings — the cornerstone of the kind of neoclassical economic theory embraced by Milton Friedman, Alan Greenspan and much of the American political establishment. He wrote:
“Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.”
That’s a pretty good start. We’ll take it.
Lynn Parramore is an AlterNet senior editor. She is cofounder of Recessionwire, founding editor of New Deal 2.0, and author of ‘Reading the Sphinx: Ancient Egypt in Nineteenth-Century Literary Culture.’ She received her Ph.d in English and Cultural Theory from NYU, where she has taught essay writing and semiotics. She is the Director of AlterNet’s New Economic Dialogue Project.
“NOW it’s your turn to be part of the loyal opposition,” a fellow Catholic journalist said to me earlier this year, as Pope Francis’s agenda was beginning to take shape.
The friend was a political liberal and lifelong Democrat, accustomed to being on the wrong side of his church’s teaching on issues like abortion, bioethics and same-sex marriage.
Now, he cheerfully suggested, right-leaning Catholics like me would get a taste of the same experience, from a pope who seemed intent on skirting the culture war and stressing the church’s mission to the poor instead.
After Francis’s latest headline-making exhortation, which roves across the entire life of the church but includes a sharp critique of consumer capitalism and financial laissez-faire, politically conservative Catholics have reached for several explanations for why my friend is wrong, and why they aren’t the new “cafeteria Catholics.”
First, they have pointed out that there’s nothing truly novel here, apart from a lazy media narrative that pits Good Pope Francis against his bad reactionary predecessors. (Many of the new pope’s comments track with what Benedict XVI said in his own economic encyclical, and with past papal criticisms of commercial capitalism’s discontents.)
Second, they have sought to depoliticize the pope’s comments, recasting them as a general brief against avarice and consumerism rather than a call for specific government interventions.
And finally, they have insisted on the difference between church teaching on faith and morals, and papal pronouncements on economic issues, noting that there’s nothing that obliges Catholics to believe the pontiff is infallible on questions of public policy.
All three responses have their merits, but they still seem insufficient to the Francis era’s challenge to Catholics on the limited-government, free-market right.
It’s true that there is far more continuity between Francis and Benedict than media accounts suggest. But the new pope clearly intends to foreground the church’s social teaching in new ways, and probably seeks roughly the press coverage he’s getting.
It’s also true that Francis’s framework is pastoral rather than political. But his plain language tilts leftward in ways that no serious reader can deny.
Finally, it’s true that there is no Catholic position on, say, the correct marginal tax rate, and that Catholics are not obliged to heed the pope when he suggests that global inequality is increasing when the statistical evidence suggests otherwise.
But the church’s social teaching is no less an official teaching for allowing room for disagreement on its policy implications. And for Catholics who pride themselves on fidelity to Rome, the burden is on them — on us — to explain why a worldview that inspires left-leaning papal rhetoric also allows for right-of-center conclusions.
That explanation rests, I think, on three ideas. First, that when it comes to lifting the poor out of poverty, global capitalism, faults and all, has a better track record by far than any other system or approach.
Second, that Catholic social teaching, properly understood, emphasizes both solidarity and subsidiarity — that is, a small-c conservative preference for local efforts over national ones, voluntarism over bureaucracy.
This Catholic case for limited government, however, is not a case for the Ayn Randian temptation inherent to a capitalism-friendly politics. There is no Catholic warrant for valorizing entrepreneurs at the expense of ordinary workers, or for dismissing all regulation as unnecessary and all redistribution as immoral.
And this is where Francis’s vision should matter to American Catholics who usually cast ballots for Republican politicians. The pope’s words shouldn’t inspire them to convert en masse to liberalism, or to worry that the throne of Peter has been seized by a Marxist anti-pope. But they should encourage a much greater integration of Catholic and conservative ideas than we’ve seen since “compassionate conservatism” collapsed, and inspire Catholics to ask more — often much more — of the Republican Party, on a range of policy issues.
Here my journalist friend’s “loyal opposition” line oversimplified the options for Catholic political engagement. His Catholic liberalism didn’t go into eclipse because it failed to let the Vatican dictate every jot and tittle of its social agenda. Rather, it lost influence because it failed to articulate any kind of clear Catholic difference, within the bigger liberal tent, on issues like abortion, sex and marriage.
Now the challenge for conservative Catholics is to do somewhat better in our turn, and to spend the Francis era not in opposition but seeking integration — meaning an economic vision that remains conservative, but in the details reminds the world that our Catholic faith comes first.
With the US insisting on leaving the position of World’s policemen – a job anyhow it did not do well in the last couple of decades – skimming over the news, we find plenty to worry about.
We read about China scrambling its jets over islands it claims as they think they have oil there, and the US advising passenger liners to submit to the the Chinese requests even though backing the other side in this land and sea grab which is just as obnoxious as the spreading of Russia’s flag under the Arctic polar ice cap.
Further, Russia is threatening again the Ukraine it raped last century – this while a large part of the Ukrainian population wants to rejoin their European identity. Russia has in its power to cut the energy supply to the Ukraine and leave them to the throes of a cold winter. What can the EU do?
At the UN, where the Secretary General Ban Ki-moon grew in understanding of subjects like Sustainable Development, Climate Change/Global Warming and for a while was steering the organization towards sun-light, it is the permanent staff – there on behalf of nay-sayer governments – that just continues to hide information about the possibility you can live in a world less dependent on nature’s saved fossil carbon. It is this permanent staff that turned the organization to its freeze and true to inaction on mostly everything. Previously this bureaucracy was run directly by those close to the Oil barrels and now just by their students that learned from their old masters how you stay on by making sure you do absolutely nothing worthwhile.
North Korea? They flex a muscle from time to time – just to make sure their mischief is not forgotten and their thunder taken over by others envious of the success they had in their past advances. Will one ever use nuclear bombs?
Obviously, from all of the above, we are most concerned with the way the World continues its march downhill with water spreading uphill – the melting of the three ice-caps and the foreseeable increasing misery in the 100 poorest countries – the UN Member States that already cry environment-uncle and see how the UN institution is of no help to them. Nothing has changed from the days Ahmad Fawzi and his henchman Gary Fowlie had the audacity to tell Grenada Ambassador August Friday on whom to invite to his Press Conference and to cow UNFCCC head Yvo de Boer into submission. Now it is Mr. Kandeh Yumkella and his blossoming SE4All which are being cowed by the UN Headquarter Staff bent to freeze this new attempt at UN progress and fit it to their own designs. This is the freeze that lets the ice melt undisturbed and gloats at the uncovering of resources that will enrich some corporations planted at the UN and allowed free hand by its staff.
—————————————————————–
In the case of Russia there is hope thanks to 80% of the Ukrainian people. How does this play out at the UN? Are the people of any consequence?
Ukrainians are in the EU, even if Ukraine isn’t.
Slawomir Sierakowski30 November 2013, posted by openDemocracy – translated from Ukrainian.
If Brussels doesn’t learn its lesson from a tactical defeat by Russia and prepare a plan for secure economic integration with Ukraine, tens of millions of Europeans will remain outside of the EU’s borders.
Demotix/Zoya Shu. Some rights reserved.
The European Union has let itself be outplayed by Russia in the struggle over Ukrainian integration. The EU Partnership Summit in Vilnius did not result in the signing of the Association Agreement with Ukraine. It is hard to believe that all it took was so open and primitive a ploy as the embargo imposed by Russia on certain Ukrainian goods several days ago.
Moldova, placed in a similar situation, is bravely hanging on. Ukraine’s trade with Russia is of a similar volume to its trade with the EU, and EU investments in Ukraine are ten times larger than Russia’s. Of course the EU has nothing to be afraid of, which is why it lost. It also lost because it failed to take Ukraine seriously and offer assistance at an adequate level. EU politicians’ stories to the effect that ‘integration is not a trade fair’, contain about as much truth as Yanukovich’s pronouncements that he is upholding human rights. Everyone knows that the greatest marketplace in Europe is not Kapal?çar?? in Istanbul, but the headquarters of the European Commission in Brussels.
Proposing Ukrainian integration with the EU at the cost of ruining hundreds of companies and a sudden drop in competitiveness, with a concurrent loss of Russian markets (and, at the same time, fulfilling IMF loan conditions, that involve freezing wage growth, implementing significant budget cuts, and increasing consumer gas prices by 40 percent), is like inviting a poor man for dinner at the most expensive restaurant in town and informing him that he will be responsible for his own bill.
This time around Poland was defeated, but not alone. Putin also thumbed his nose at Berlin and Brussels. And this might be the “positive minus” of the Vilnius summit. There were declarations – strong ones, coming from Jose-Manuel Barroso – such as, “We know how much ordinary Ukrainians feel themselves to be Europeans! We will not abandon them,” or Herman van Rompuy’s words: “We must not submit to Russian pressure.”
We will see. After the Vilnius summit, the ball is definitely in Brussels’ court. If the EU wants to take its own intentions seriously, it should prepare a plan for secure economic integration with Ukraine. This is a basic precondition for fulfilling the EU’s fundamental mission, that is, ensuring lasting peace in Europe.
A Russia swallowing Ukraine is fodder for imperialism and an obliteration of realistic prospects for democratizing the Kremlin. A Russia without Ukraine is a farewell to empire and an end to the Russian authorities’ disregard for their own citizens, who must be distinguished from Putin and his Putinoids. This also represents the only chance for good EU-Russian relations, contrary to the hopes of some European politicians, who believed that they could reach a direct agreement with Russia over the heads of smaller nations.
Integration with Moldova and Georgia without Ukraine is geopolitical nonsense. Nevertheless, Rompuy and Barroso have announced that the just-initialed agreements should be signed as quickly as possible. This is a source of constant friction in relations between Moscow and Brussels, and so represents hope that the EU can avoid embracing Putin at the cost of Ukraine, although assuming anything other than cynicism confronted by today’s politics is self-delusion.
Putin has outplayed the politicians, but he has lost with the Ukrainians themselves. All of a sudden, about 20 per cent of the population wants integration with Russia, far fewer than those who want integration with the EU. And this is the greatest achievement of the recent negotiations. Ukraine has not yet signed the Association Agreement with the EU. But it has been signed by the country’s active citizens, without Yanukovich.
Rezension: Christian Moser [Müller, Jan-Werner (2013): Das demokratische Zeitalter. Eine politische Ideengeschichte Europas im 20. Jahrhundert. Berlin: Suhrkamp Verlag, ISBN 9783518585856, Preis: € 41,10]
Politische Ideen bewegen die Menschen
Das 20.Jahrhundert war das Zeitalter der Ideologien. Der deutsche Politologe Jan-Werner Müller definiert Ideologien als Formen eines leidenschaftlichen, mitunter auch fanatischen Glaubens an Ideen und Entwürfe zur Perfektionierung der Gesellschaft. Nach dieser Lesart stiften Ideologien nicht nur Sinn und versprechen innerweltliche Erlösung, sondern manche „politische Religionen“ wie der Nationalsozialismus oder der Kommunismus erheben den Anspruch, einen „neuen Menschen“ erschaffen zu können.
We wrote about these issues when we participated at the Arctic Circle Assembly in Reykjavik a month ago – we smelled there rat. Now the issue is hitting main-shore USA.
We said in Reykjavik that the analogy with the DISCOVERY DAYS of Columbus and Balboa are no comparison with the UNCOVERY DAYS when our warming sins that melted the ice allow us easy access to oil, gas, minerals, transportation – you name it.The subject is worthy indeed of a good academic threshing out.
———————————————–
Fueling Our Future: The Geopolitics and Economics of Energy in the 21st Century The Last Frontier: Security, Resources, and Politics in the Arctic
With 7 billion people in the world (9 billion projected by 2050), many of whom live in rapidly developing countries, the need for modern technologies with their attendant energy demands is increasing at an exponential rate. Will it be possible to provide sufficient energy for this generation and the next? How will the energy race change global economies and politics? Join CGA Academic Director and Clinical Associate Professor Carolyn Kissane, and experts in the field to discuss the changing landscape of global energy: its potential, challenges, and its impact on how we live today.
Special Event at NYU Washington , D.C.! Note special location:
The NYU Washington, D.C. Center 1307 L Street NW, Washington, D.C.
The Last Frontier: Security, Resources, and Politics in the Arctic
The Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet. Diminishing sea ice and melting permafrost are expanding intercontinental shipping, increasing access to energy resources and minerals, and potentially igniting geopolitical and security challenges in what many consider the world’s final frontier.
Emerging from these new realities are increasingly complex challenges to sovereignty and security.
What current and future geopolitical and security issues stem from increased focus on this region, and what are the implications for nations holding territory there as well as other stakeholders?
Join the CGA at the NYU Washington, D.C. Center for a conversation about policy challenges and potential solutions for the future of the Arctic.
Henrik Ibsen 1828-1906 is for the Scandinavians what Shakespeare is for the Anglo-Saxons, Gogol and Chekhov for the Slavs or Cervantes for the Spaniards. These individuals saw man as he or she are and their writings become globalized. Take then a Bertolt Brecht “theater of ideas” approach to the staging of an Ibsen play – or a play of any of the great playwrights – get the acting up to an intelligent level so that there are hints to the daily live of the audience – don’t over-do it – let the audience participate directly – and the show turns into an event. That is great theater today and ever.
While on Broadway a Tennessee Williams great play – “The Glass Menagerie” – is these days over-staged, over-laud, over expensive – a must for tourists that can afford $300 for a seat, across the river in Brooklyn, at the incomparable masterpiece Harvey Theater – named after Harvey Lichtenstein – who was a former dancer who became arts administrator and for 32-year the executive director of the Brooklyn Academy of Music that he turned with his strong will from a struggling mainly unused opera house into a Mecca for new legitimate theater. At the Academy building started out people like Robert Wilson and the yearly New Wave Festival was just a natural outgrowth. Then there was the need of a second theater and The Harvey Theater Hall was born just one block away on Fulton Street. Now foreign directors bring their companies from overseas to teach America how to get back to the promise of good theater. We just got to witness there a truly great production of a play, for one tenth of the cost of the Broadway theater, and got to learn a lot about ourselves as well. These foreigners truly understood the US, while the US theater on Broadway showed very little understanding of the foreigners that leave the theater there with a feeling of being had.
Looking up via the internet we found – “The Enemy of the People” (1882), follows earlier Ibsen plays, where controversial elements were important and even pivotal components of the action, but they were on the small scale of individual households. In An Enemy, controversy became the primary focus, and the antagonist was the entire community. One primary message of the play is that the individual, who stands alone, is more often “right” than the mass of people, who are portrayed as ignorant and sheep-like. Contemporary society’s belief was that the community was a noble institution that could be trusted, a notion Ibsen challenged.
In An Enemy of the People, Ibsen chastised not only the conservatism of society, but also the liberalism of the time. He illustrated how people on both sides of the social spectrum could be equally self-serving.
An Enemy of the People was written as a response to the people who had rejected his previous work, Ghosts. The plot of the play is a veiled look at the way people reacted to the plot of Ghosts. In “Enemy” the protagonist is a physician in a vacation spot whose primary draw is a public bath. The doctor discovers that the water is contaminated by the local tannery. He expects to be acclaimed for saving the town from the nightmare of infecting visitors with disease, but instead he is declared an ‘enemy of the people’ by the locals, who band against him and even throw stones through his windows.
The play ends with his complete ostracism. It is obvious to the reader that disaster is in store for the town as well as for the doctor.
Then the source continues – As audiences by now expected, Ibsen’s next play again attacked entrenched beliefs and assumptions; but this time, his attack was not against society’s mores, but against overeager reformers and their idealism. Always an iconoclast, Ibsen was equally willing to tear down the ideologies of any part of the political spectrum, including his own.Ibsen thus liked more the interaction of positions rather then the taking of a position. In effect the whole society is being criticized by Ibsen.
The Wild Duck (1884) that followed The Enemy is by many considered Ibsen’s finest work, and it is certainly the most complex. It tells the story of Gregers Werle, a young man who returns to his hometown after an extended exile and is reunited with his boyhood friend Hjalmar Ekdal. Over the course of the play, the many secrets that lie behind the Ekdals’ apparently happy home are revealed to Gregers, who insists on pursuing the absolute truth, or the “Summons of the Ideal”. Among these truths: Gregers’ father impregnated his servant Gina, then married her off to Hjalmar to legitimize the child. Another man has been disgraced and imprisoned for a crime the elder Werle committed. Furthermore, while Hjalmar spends his days working on a wholly imaginary “invention”, his wife is earning the household income.
Dr. Stockman is the idealist who naively believes he can win by being right, but then encounters the truth that all levels of society are corrupt. Some start on the corruption path knowingly and others backstep into it because circumstances might otherwise turn them into major losers.
Nobody is ready to lose intentionally.
The Enemy that hit the Harvey Theater comes from the Schaubuhne at the Lehniner Platz (The Lenin Square) in what used to be East Berlin. The artistic genius – Director Thomas Ostermeier - was responsible for this production as he was for several previous shows that were seen previously at the BAM.
The acting was impeccable – down to the facial expressions of the stage dog. There were minutes of talking without words and you knew exactly what they were saying. Only very seldom did the actors shout – and that was in cases of natural crescendo. I was able to understand the clear German and compliment it with the flashed English. The updates were in many cases just results on inflection and accent rather then as changes in wording. Nevertheless we understood that the closing of the bath would lead to unimaginable economic losses that the town will not allow. The vested interests were ready to fight back and had already prepared an alternate study that says there is nothing at fault with those waters – this sort of the Koch Brothers funded pseudo-scientific studies that say there is no man-made global warming.
Then, if one was going to do any changes to the water system it would cost money and nobody will want to pay higher taxes in order to pay-off the debt that the town will incur. In the end this becomes the common attitude to all those involved – just like in the USA of 2013. At this point some of the actors moved over to the audience and an exchange started that brought in regular members of the audience. When eventually Dr. Stockman is bombarded with paint balls the audience seems like having been wrestled down as well – though those balls originated from the theater hall.
YES – WE ARE ALL THE ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE – this because except for Dr. Stockman and his faithful wife nobody is left with ideals – and the young couple themselves have been presented with the shares of those baths, bought up by the father in law who invested in this the money that he had intended originally for them as inheritance. Now they can be rich if they only declare that they have a way to save those baths.
Published: October 30, 2013ew York Times, 33 Comments
MOSCOW — Gizem Akhan, 24, was about to begin her final year studying the culinary arts at Yeditepe University in Istanbul. Tomasz Dziemianczuk, 36, took a vacation from his job as a cultural adviser at the University of Gdansk in Poland that has now unexpectedly turned into an unpaid leave of absence.
Dmitri Litvinov, 51, is a veteran activist who as a child spent four years in Siberian exile after his father, Pavel, took part in the Red Square protest against the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968.
“I didn’t expect my son to get in their clutch,” the elder Mr. Litvinov said in a telephone interview from Irvington, N.Y., where he settled to teach physics in nearby Tarrytown after being expelled from the Soviet Union in 1974.
Dmitri Litvinov and the others are just three of the 30 people aboard a Greenpeace International ship, the Arctic Sunrise, who are now confined in separate cells in the far northern city of Murmansk after staging a high-seas protest last month against oil exploration in the Arctic. All face criminal charges that could result in years in prison as a result of having grossly underestimated Russia’s readiness to assert — and even expand — its sovereignty in a region potentially rich with natural resources.
The vigorous legal response by the authorities, including the seizure of the ship itself, appears to have caught Greenpeace off guard and left the crew’s families and friends worried that the consequences of what the activists considered a peaceful protest could prove much graver than any expected when they set out.
“Naturally, every time Gizem sets out on a protest I feel anxious,” Ms. Akhan’s mother, Tulay, said in written responses delivered through Greenpeace. “I’m a mother, and most of the time she doesn’t even tell us she is participating. I’ve known the risks but couldn’t have foreseen that we would come face to face with such injustice.”
Critics of the government of President Vladimir V. Putin have added the crew of the Arctic Sunrise to a catalog of prisoners here who have faced politically motivated or disproportionate punishment for challenging the state. Among them are the former oil tycoon Mikhail B. Khodorkovsky, the punk performers of Pussy Riot and the protesters awaiting trial more than a year after violence broke out on the day of Mr. Putin’s inauguration last year.
But there is one crucial difference: Most of those who were aboard the Arctic Sunrise are foreigners.
They hail from 18 nations. Two of them, Denis Sinyakov of Russia and Kieron Bryan of Britain, are freelance journalists who joined the crew to chronicle the ship’s voyage, which began in Amsterdam and ended on Sept. 19 when Russian border guards borne by helicopters descended on the ship in the Pechora Sea.
Alexandra Harris of Britain, 27, was on her first trip to the Arctic. Camila Speziale, 21, of Argentina, was on her first trip at sea. Others were veteran Greenpeace activists, including the American captain, Peter Willcox, who was skipper of the Rainbow Warrior in 1985 when French secret service agents bombed it at dockside in Auckland, New Zealand, leading to the drowning of a photographer, Fernando Pereira.
The activists knew the protest was risky. Two of them, Sini Saarela of Finland and Marco Weber of Switzerland, tried to scale the offshore oil platform in the Pechora Sea owned by Russia’s state energy giant, Gazprom.
They plunged into the icy waters after guards sprayed water from fire hoses and fired warning shots, and they were plucked from the sea by a Russian coast guard ship and held as “guests.” The next day, Sept. 19, however, the Arctic Sunrise was seized by border guards in international waters.
Greenpeace staged a similar but more successful protest in the summer of 2012. In that instance, activists, including Greenpeace’s executive director, Kumi Naidoo, scaled the same platform and unfurled a banner. After several hours, they departed, and the Russian authorities did not pursue any charges.
The authorities have shown little sign of leniency since the ship’s seizure, despite an international campaign by Greenpeace to draw attention to the prosecutions and even an appeal from Italy’s oil giant Eni, a partner of Gazprom, to show clemency for the crew, which includes an Italian, Cristian D’Alessandro.
The prosecution of the Arctic Sunrise crew has punctuated Mr. Putin’s warnings that he would not tolerate any infringement on Russia’s development in the Arctic. The region has become a focus of political and economic strategy for the Kremlin as its natural resources have become more accessible because of the warming climate.
When the government of the Netherlands, where Greenpeace International is based, filed an appeal to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to have the ship and crew released, Russia’s Foreign Ministry said it would not recognize the tribunal’s jurisdiction, citing the country’s sovereignty. The tribunal has scheduled a hearing on the Dutch claim anyway, but unless Russia seeks a compromise that would free the prisoners, the crew could be detained for months awaiting trial.
Greenpeace’s activists and their cause have not found much sympathy in Russia, their fate shaped in part by hostile coverage on state-owned or state-controlled television. The main state network, Channel One, recently broadcast an analysis that suggested that Greenpeace’s protest had been orchestrated by powerful backers with economic incentives to undermine Gazprom.
After their formal arrest on Sept. 24, the crew members appeared one by one in court and were charged with piracy and ordered held at least until Nov. 24. One by one their appeals for bail were denied. Last week, the regional investigative committee reduced the charges to hooliganism, a crime that nonetheless carries a penalty of up to seven years in prison.
The committee raised the possibility of new charges against some crew members that could result in longer sentences upon conviction.
According to Greenpeace and relatives, the prisoners have not been mistreated in the detention center where they are now held, next to Murmansk’s morgue. They have had access to lawyers and diplomats from their respective countries. They are allowed care packages delivered by Greenpeace, occasional phone calls and sporadic visits from those relatives who can make it to Murmansk. The captain and chief engineer were taken to visit and inspect the Arctic Sunrise, now moored in Murmansk’s port.
Conditions, though, are grim.
In letters or phone calls to their families, they have described small, unheated cells, unappetizing meals and Russian cellmates who smoke relentlessly. They spend 23 hours a day in their cells, with only an hour of exercise a day in an enclosed courtyard and the periodic visits with lawyers or trips to court for a hearing. “It’s very cold now,” Ms. Harris, the activist from Britain on her first Greenpeace operation in the Arctic, wrote in a letter to her parents and brother that was widely cited in the British press: “It snowed last night. The blizzard blew my very poorly insulated window open and I had to sleep wearing my hat.”
She went on to express a measure of resolve, saying she practiced yoga in her cell and tapped on the wall to the music piped in, but she also wrote of uncertainty in a confinement that she compared to slowly dying.
“I heard that from December Murmansk is dark for six weeks,” she wrote. “God, I hope I’m out by then.”
Reporting was contributed by Andrew Roth and Patrick Reevell from Moscow, Ceylan Yeginsu from Istanbul, and Joanna Berendt from Warsaw.
By JIM YARDLEY – same issue of the New York Times.
It rejected an Italian newspaper’s report that Russian spy agencies distributed special USB thumb drives to eavesdrop on participants at last month’s meeting in St. Petersburg.
“We don’t know the sources of the information,” said Dmitri S. Peskov, the spokesman for President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, according to RIA Novosti, the state news agency. “However, this is undoubtedly nothing but an attempt to shift the focus from issues that truly exist in relations between European capitals and Washington to unsubstantiated, nonexistent issues.”
European leaders have been outraged by reports that the National Security Agency spied on allies in Europe, including Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany. The American spying operation has created a diplomatic crisis for the Obama administration, stirring fury in France, Spain and Germany, while intensifying criticism in Washington about the scope and methods of American espionage.
On Wednesday, the focus shifted to Russia, as Corriere della Sera, a leading Italian newspaper, published allegations that the Group of 20 meeting was the scene of a major effort in Russian espionage. According to the paper, Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European Council, had a debriefing with security officials after returning from St. Petersburg. The report was swiftly picked up by news agencies and newspapers in other countries.
The security team then conducted an examination of the thumb drives, which the Russians distributed as gifts to the 300 foreign delegates, who also received stuffed teddy bears, cups, diaries and cables to connect smartphones with computers, the Italian paper reported. Later, the European Council’s security office sent a report to Group of 20 participants, warning that some of the USB drives, as well as the cables, appeared to have been tampered with, Corriere della Sera said.
The European officials then handed the devices to German intelligence services, which conducted more tests and concluded that the sabotaged electronic equipment could be used to intercept data from computers and mobile phones. Corriere della Sera also reported that Italian secret service agents were still examining some of the devices distributed to Italy’s delegation.
In Brussels, a media official in Mr. Rompuy’s office declined to comment on Wednesday. “There are always measures in place to protect the infrastructure of the council and, as a rule, there is a cooperation with member states,” said the official, Nicolas Kerleroux. “But we won’t comment on any specific matter.”
The following was sitting as a draft since January 13, 2013 and somehow it came to my attention today – coincidentally as the October 22nd elections for Mayor of Jerusalem are now news. Jerusalem is indeed a city central to global well-being. Here the impressions it left on a secular Jewish-American tourist.
As a traveler, I am not a particularly choosy person. I will go pretty much anywhere, anytime. Wander on horseback into the mountains of Kyrgyzstan? Why not? Spend the night in a sketchy Burmese border town? Sure! Eat my way through Bridgeport, Conn.? Loved it. Once, I even spent four consecutive Sunday nights in Geneva — in midwinter — an ordeal to which no rational adventurer would willingly submit.
In fact, of all the world’s roughly 200 nations, there was only one — besidesAfghanistan and Iraq (which my wife has deemed too dangerous) — that I had absolutely zero interest in ever visiting: Israel.
This surprised friends and mildly annoyed my parents, who had visited quite happily. As a Jew, especially one who travels constantly, I was expected at least to have the Jewish state on my radar, if not to be planning a pilgrimage in the very near future. Tel Aviv, they’d say, has wonderful food!
But to me, a deeply secular Jew, Israel has always felt less like a country than a politically iffy burden. For decades I’d tried to put as much distance between myself and Judaism as possible, and the idea that I was supposed to feel some connection to my ostensible homeland seemed ridiculous. Give me Montenegro, Chiapas, Iran even. But Israel was like Christmas: something I’d never do.
Then, last fall, my friend Theodore Ross — author of the forthcoming book “Am I a Jew?” — suggested I see Jerusalem. And suddenly feeling life calling my bluff, I booked a flight. I’d spend six December days in the holiest place on the planet and, surrounded by the Old City’s 500-year-old stone walls and legions of Christians, Jews and Muslims, I would be the lone unbeliever, walking a tightrope between belonging and individualism, observing not necessarily my faith but the faithful.
The Old City itself, however, turned out to be, at least in terms of geography and architecture, exactly the kind of place where I feel comfortable. Within those 40-foot-high walls was the dense warren I’d expected, laid out with seemingly no sense of order — or perhaps an order I couldn’t yet perceive. Either way, it was a visceral pleasure to master its paths, to dart down the covered, crowded market streets, past the char-grilled lamb-kebab shop (name? “Kebab Shop,” said its chef) and then up the easily missed stairs off Habad Street to the empty roofs above the market itself, where the noise of commerce barely filtered through. I loved the feeling of worn stones slipping under my sneakers, and the astringent smell of herbs as I passed Palestinian women selling bundles of sage near Damascus Gate.
The boundary between the modern and the medieval was shaky here. Cybercafes were ensconced in cavelike nooks; market stalls sold plush rams, lions and donkeys (actually Donkey, from “Shrek”); Israeli soldiers lurked with their machine guns inside ancient fortified gates. And just as fluid — to me, if not to residents — were the lines between neighborhoods. I’d turn a corner and suddenly find myself in the new construction of the Jewish Quarter, where informational plaques spelled out the history of rebuilt synagogues. Another corner, and I’d wind up in the too-quiet Armenian Quarter, whose closed-off courtyards allegedly held networks of secret streets I’d never penetrate.
My own secret hideout became the Austrian Hospice, a huge, mid-19th-century guesthouse visited by everyone from Franz Joseph I to the musician Nick Cave and whose unassuming ground-floor walls you’d pass right by unless you knew it was there. My room, up on the second floor, was a comfortably large space with black-and-white checkerboard floors, simple wood furniture and highly functional Wi-Fi. From its windows I’d gaze out at church towers to the west and — almost close enough to touch — the golden Dome of the Rock, reflecting the raw sun at midday and the moon at midnight. Every time I turned my key in the hospice door and ascended from the street, I marveled at my luck: The place had been recommended by a German doctor, Christoph Geissler, whom I’d met in the shared taxi from Tel Aviv airport. (When I asked his specialty, he’d told me, grinning, “I am anesthetized!”)
The Old City did present one problem: I couldn’t get out of it. Not that I couldn’t find the way, but I kept getting distracted, and happily so. I’d come to this place to wander its winding streets without benefit of map or guidebook to let me know what was where, and every discovery of a world-famous landmark stopped me in my tracks. The Church of the Holy Sepulcher? Holy cow, it was right here, mere steps from the Kebab Shop, a vast, stern emblem of Christianity, with none of that Renaissance sentimentality that turns me off churches in Western Europe. A tumult of visitors swarmed through — Poles and Spaniards and Greeks and Ukrainians. They rubbed their scarves on the Stone of Unction where Jesus’ body was said to have been prepared for burial, and they lighted candles next to the sepulcher itself before immediately snuffing them out. Why? Tradition, they explained without elaborating.
Nearby lay the Lutheran Church of the Redeemer, now my favorite church in the world. Built at the very end of the 19th century, it is impossibly elegant and spare, all pale gray stone arches, with almost no ornamentation aside from small, jagged, brightly colored stained-glass windows. Several times I returned to the church just to ogle its curves, and once to attend Sunday-morning services — in unfamiliar Arabic.
“All the languages are in God’s light,” said Rafiq, the old man who greeted me. Translation: Even if I didn’t understand the words, the meaning would filter through.
I don’t know what kind of exotic experience I expected, but when the prayers began, I was indeed transported — to the last place I’d attended Lutheran services: Decorah, Iowa. Apart from the linguistic differences, these two churches a world apart were strikingly similar: down-to-earth, ambling, devoid of theatrics. In Jerusalem the occasional flubs of the organ player, the reedy voice of the hymn-singing woman behind me and the squabbles of children in the pews were oddly comforting.
As often as I got sidetracked by things to see, I was also waylaid by human beings. Sometimes I’d just watch them, fascinated. The woman crying as she sang and prayed in Mandarin along the Via Dolorosa. The somber men carrying polished wooden crosses. The Orthodox Jews swaying at the Western Wall. The blond woman, a white scarf wrapped around her neck, who simply stopped on the street and turned her face to the sun, her eyes closed, her expression enraptured.
Some believers tried to explain themselves to me. Near the Austrian Hospice, two Muslims in long robes instructed me to ask God, not Jesus, for forgiveness.
“Beware of intermediaries!” they said.
Over in the Jewish Quarter, in the square surrounding the gorgeous domed Hurva Synagogue, I encountered Rabbi David Stern, a Californian transplant who wanted me to put on tefillin, the leather straps that some observant Jews wind around their arms during prayers. I’d done it once before, in Lithuania, and while it wasn’t for me, I told the rabbi I could be persuaded to try again.
“Do you believe in God?” he asked. “O.K., do you believe in a higher power? Because most people do.” Sorry, I said. Anyway, he explained, the tefillin creates a spiritual connection between mind and heart when you pray, and to do so in the land of my ancestors would be especially sacred. Still unpersuaded, I declined. We shook hands and I walked away, a little disappointed.
I could navigate the Old City half-drunk (more on this later), but it was becoming clear that I couldn’t find my way into the believers’ world.
Sometimes, I felt condemned to interact only with the lowest rungs of the tourism industry, the salesmen, touts, hucksters and guides — people like Joseph, a round man with bad teeth who approached me one day in the Jewish Quarter and offered, in the needling way of unlicensed tour guides everywhere, to show me the Ramban Synagogue, which I had, I said truthfully, just come from. Thinking me rude, he stormed off. I chased after him and explained, as politely as possible, that I hadn’t meant to blow him off. Joseph grumbled forgiveness, and we parted.
But a day or two later, I bumped into him again. We greeted each other with a great show of friendliness, chatted about nothing for a few minutes and then went our separate ways. When it happened the next day, too, he told me that in Jerusalem, when you encounter each other three times you buy the other person an ice cream, or he buys one for you. I was up for it — was I starting to like the guy? — but then he abruptly wandered off to look for clients.
Nebbishy, noodgy Joseph functioned as a human alarm clock, a reminder that I really needed to get out of the Old City and meet people who were neither tour guides nor fervent believers.
The transition from Old City to new was striking. Exiting through one of the 16th-century gates that still control access — touristy Jaffa Gate, busy Damascus Gate, historic Zion Gate, where Israeli soldiers entered in 1967 — I leapt forward into a distinctly modern world of crosswalks and traffic lights, 19th-century buildings and chunky apartment towers, green parks and municipal offices, falafel joints, cellphone stores and a brand-new light-rail system. Here secular society predominated, although many college types wore yarmulkes and otherwise fashion-forward girls were dressed in long skirts. Amid the frozen-yogurt parlors and focaccerias, under the bright sun, with Hebrew signage everywhere, Jerusalem could feel like a forgotten city in California populated entirely by Jews.
But as I wandered around I could sense that this image was, in many ways, a facade. I was not in California. The low beige buildings of Arab East Jerusalem covered the hills in the near distance, and on clear days I could see the sinuous, ominous wall separating Israel from the West Bank. Closer up, other differences became apparent. Sometimes only a block from Jaffa Street — one of the first neighborhoods built just outside the Old City in the 19th century, now a center of dining and night life — the streets suddenly turned Orthodox, with hardly an uncovered head in sight. One area, Mea Shearim, was festooned with signs warning visitors, in English and Hebrew, “Please do not pass through our neighborhood in immodest clothes.” My dark sweater, I was sure, was modest, but without a yarmulke, I felt like an interloper. What was I doing there anyway?
Nor were secular neighborhoods entirely angst-free. One Friday, I rode the light rail 20 minutes to Yad Vashem, the Holocaust museum, in the western hills of Jerusalem. I’d been to other Holocaust-related sites before — the Berlin memorial, the killing pits outside Vilnius — and had not been much affected. In the dark, twisty confines of this hellaciously detailed museum, however, I was utterly unnerved, terrified that I’d come across the identity card of a long-lost relative or the photo of someone I somehow recognized. When I finally emerged from the primary hall, it was a relief. There before me was a picture-perfect valley, a white-washed village clinging to the far slope. I stared at it a long time before I could move on. Mostly, though, my time in the new city, and especially around Jaffa Street, was devoted to one thing: eating well. (Partly because the Old City, always touristy, shut down after dark.) Some meals were simple, like falafel from Moshiko, bundled into a pita with approximately 20 or 30 other ingredients — cucumbers fresh and pickled, cabbage in its many guises, the whole cleaned and chopped contents of a backyard vegetable garden. Quite often, however, I was tempted toward more ambitious offerings. My very first night, following a tip from the manager of the boutique Harmony Hotel (just off Jaffa Street), I popped into Adom, a lively restaurant in the stone-arched basement of an 1895 building, and over a couple of glasses of Israeli cabernet, I had my mind blown by a platter of seared veal sweetbreads with artichokes, cherry tomatoes and cauliflower cream. It hit every mark: lush and crusty, vegetal and tart, smooth and filling
On the Sabbath, when most restaurants close, I found Adom’s cozy neighbor, Barood, still open — and packed except for a single seat remaining at the bar. I bellied up, ordered the excellent Palestinian “upside-down” chicken-and-rice dish, and quizzed the bartender — Shelly, who was playing great American-songbook jazz on the stereo — about local bars. I’d been to a couple already, Shoshana and the Lion’s Den, but felt out of place among their crowds of Israeli college students and skullcapped kids from Los Angeles and Baltimore. Does Jerusalem, I asked, have an underground?
“The underground is mainstream,” Shelly said, meaning that Jerusalem was so small that the funkier alternatives were instantly visible. Then she drew me a map to all the worthy bars, including Uganda, where the D.J.’s were spinning old Iggy Pop and ’80s New Wave, and Sira, whose dark, rough-stone interior and soundtrack of Radiohead and Devendra Banhart evoked memories of similar spots in Berlin, Budapest and my home, Brooklyn.
Sira instantly became my favorite nighttime destination. I could (and did) sit there for hours talking to the bartender, Yonaton, fresh from five years in the military and ready for university, and to Michael, a photographer, tech expert and alleged cousin to Abe Vigoda, and to Hannah, a Canadian immigrant with whom I discussed our complex feelings about Judaism over enough Goldstar lagers that I don’t recall precisely what those feelings were.
In the city I never thought I’d visit, I had found a place I didn’t want to leave.
But leave I did, often well after 1 a.m., late enough that the Israeli guards in the Old City would interrogate and search me on my way back to the guesthouse. As an occasional experience, the security measures were fascinating, much more thorough and intelligent than the cursory T.S.A. sweeps I’m used to. I could also sense the tension they created, and again found myself amazed at what true believers will do, and submit to, in the name of their faith. All of this, alien to me, was their normal. But my life here — the daytime angst, the nighttime revelry — was normal, too. I hadn’t been alone in those bars.
My final morning in Jerusalem I woke uneasily, struggling to recover from another night of seared goose breast and good wine. I checked Facebook and noticed my friend Pauline had swung into Jerusalem from New York; we arranged to meet for lunch at Abu Taher, a market nook home to sublime, sweet hummus. Afterward, we wandered through the Old City, looking at this and that, before deciding to leave for the new city. And on our way out of the Jewish Quarter, who should we run into but — inevitably — Joseph.
He was ebullient. We greeted each other like old friends, then I introduced him to Pauline. As he shook her hand, he leaned in and said to her, “You’re a lucky woman!”
“Oh, I’m marri — ” she started to say.
“You’re a lucky woman!” he said again, then his voice dropped to a near-whisper. “This guy” — pointing at me — “is a mensch.”
For nearly a week I’d been struggling to feel what visitors to Jerusalem — Jews, Christians and Muslims — have felt for millennia, and I’d just about given up. It was an experience for other people, not for me. But, corny as it is, at Joseph’s words my heart melted. Here I was, being seen not as a Jew or as a non-Jew, an American or a tourist, but as a mensch: a good and honorable man.
And so we went our separate ways, Pauline to the new city’s market, me to the airport, Joseph to hunt for tourists — one of whom, I hoped, would be good enough to buy him an ice cream cone.
IF YOU GO
THE OLD CITY
It feels ridiculous to point out the sights in Jerusalem’s Old City: the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the Western Wall, the Temple Mount; heard of them? Still, certain bits of advice pertain. Security checkpoints are common, and also efficient. Lines for the Temple Mount are long, and opening hours limited for non-Muslims, so come early. Churches tend to be welcoming, though the priests and monks — Armenian, Greek, Russian, Catholic and so on — may be standoffish. Many sites are sex-segregated, or require modest dress. Tours of the Hurva Synagogue are well worth the 25-shekel (about $6.50 at 3.75 shekels to the dollar) fee. The Old City’s winding streets and mysterious stairways invite exploration and discovery. As a tourist, you should feel free to wander. This is not a dangerous place.
For atmosphere, spend nights here. I loved the Austrian Hospice (37 Via Dolorosa; 972-2-626-5800; austrianhospice.com; doubles from 57 euros, or $73 at $1.27 to the euro, per person); friends loved the Lutheran Guest House (St. Mark’s Road; 972-2-626-6888, luth-guesthouse-jerusalem.com; doubles from 39 euros). Lunches can be great, particularly at Abu Taher (16 Al-Lahamin Market; 972-2-627-7893). The Austrian Hospice also has a “kaffeehaus” that serves Viennese-style coffees and pastries. At night, all but the most touristy Old City restaurants shut; flee for the new city.
THE NEW CITY
The rest of Jerusalem is almost like any other metropolis. The light rail (6.40 shekels for a 90-minute ticket) goes from the northeast to Mount Herzl, a five-minute walk to Yad Vashem (HaZikaron, 972-2-644-3400; yadvashem.org; free entry). Taxis ply the streets and buses depart from the Central Bus Terminal and the Arab bus station, outside Damascus Gate.
The bustling Jaffa Street neighborhood, however, can easily be reached on foot from the Old City. My favorite restaurants, Adom (972-2-624-6242) and Barood (972-2-625-9081), are both located in Feingold House
(31 Jaffa Street). A minute or two away is Moshiko Falafel (5 Ben Yehuda Street; 972-50-535-6861), as are the bars Sira (4 Ben Sira Street; 972-2-623-4366) and Uganda (4 Aristobolus Street; 972-2-623-6087, uganda.co.il). The Harmony Hotel (6 Yoel Moshe Salomon Street; 972-2-621-9999; atlas.co.il; doubles from $183) is a tidy, beautiful, well-run boutique hotel with a big breakfast buffet and daily happy hours for guests.
Farther up Jaffa Street is the sprawling Jerusalem market, a place to buy endless varieties of feta, olives and dry spices. There are plenty of shawarma and falafel stalls, but for home-style Mediterranean-Jewish cuisine centered on kubeh (dumplings stuffed with meat or vegetables) take a stool at the market lunch counter Ima (972-2-538-5668;imarestaurant.com).
MATT GROSS, the former Frugal Traveler, is writing a book about independent travel, to be published by Da Capo Press.
We met in Reykjavik Dr. Neil T. M. Hamilton, Senior Political Advisor – Polar for Greenpeace International. I learned from him that though Greenpeace were among the original funders of the Arctic Circle Assembly in Reykjavik, they were not to be part of the Plenary Sessions of the conference. After all – the conference was about the mining of the resources of the region and much less about global environment concerns.
Dr. Hamilton gave me a FREE THE ARCTIC 30 square “rainbow” button which I put on. Several other people sported these buttons as well. Strangely, a Russian scientist who at first told me that the Greenpeace were just “Hooligans” as per their actions, by the time of the last day had a button as well.
I had tried to explain to the Russian – the first day of the conference – that their actions are plain political theater – harmless as per the action, but quite influential in swaying opinion politically – at least in the West. What they are doing is they highlight a problem – in this case the issues environment-related that endanger the local environment where the drilling is done, and the general global environment, because it continues reliance on fossil fuels. I also told him that in the West, jailing such protesters is an issue of human rights , and the on-going affair is viewed with disagreement in the West well beyond if it is right to drill there for oil.
Now we hear that the Russians decided to reduce charges from what could have led to a 15 years jail term – now to a 7 years in jail verdict. The paper says that Greenpeace is not seeing in this a true change and their lawyers will fight to free the 30 members from any such accusation. Under the UN approved Law Of The Sea it seems that the Greenpeace vessel was not even in Russia territorial waters so the accusation of piracy could in effect be inverted.
MOSCOW — Russian investigators on Wednesday dropped piracy charges against the crew members of a Greenpeace International ship who staged a protest against oil exploration in the Arctic Ocean last month, but said they would still face lesser charges of hooliganism.
The announcement by Russia’s Investigative Committee appeared to be the first step toward de-escalating a growing diplomatic confrontation over the fate of the ship, the Arctic Sunrise, and the 30 crew members, activists and journalists aboard, but it did little to resolve it.
All 30 are being held in the northern city of Murmansk in what Greenpeace officials describe as grim prison conditions, and they could still face prison sentences as long as seven years if convicted of hooliganism. Piracy convictions carry a maximum penalty of 15 years.
Until Wednesday evening, Russia had shown no sign of bending to criticism from human rights and environmental organizations on the case. Only hours earlier, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs rejected an appeal by the Netherlands, where the ship is registered, to have the matter resolved by a tribunal under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Greenpeace rejected the reduction of charges, saying that the investigation was meant to stifle debate and peaceful protests. It again called for the immediate release of all the crew members.
“The Arctic 30 are no more hooligans than they were pirates,” Vladimir Chuprov of Greenpeace Russia said in a statement. “This is still a wildly disproportionate charge that carries up to seven years in jail. It represents nothing less than an assault on the very principle of peaceful protest.”
The ship and its crew were seized by helicopter-borne border guards in the Pechora Sea on Sept. 19, a day after two of its activists scaled the side of Russia’s first offshore oil platform in the Arctic. Russian troops cut their cables and fired warning shots.
Greenpeace staged the action, similar to one a year before that ended without arrests, to call attention to what the organization says are the dangers of oil drilling in the fragile Arctic environment. The crew members include citizens from 18 nations, including two from the United States.
The ship and its crew were towed to port in Murmansk, where each person was charged with piracy and denied bail. It was not immediately clear how the change in charges would affect the legal proceedings already under way.
The reduction of the charges appeared to reflect remarks made by President Vladimir V. Putin at a conference on the Arctic a month ago. He suggested that those onboard were clearly not pirates, but vigorously defended the actions of the border guards and said Russia would not tolerate any infringement on its sovereignty in the Arctic.
The protest focused on the Prirazlomnaya offshore oil platform, not far from the island of Novaya Zemlya, the former nuclear test range for the Soviet Union that was a target of Greenpeace actions in the 1990s. The platform is owned by the state-controlled energy company Gazprom and represents the manifestation of Russia’s ambitions to exploit the natural resources of the Arctic, made more and more accessible by the changing climate.
Gazprom completed it last year, though it has delayed actual production until next year amid safety and environmental concerns of the sort Greenpeace has sought to highlight.
The investigative committee also raised the possibility of bringing new charges against some of the crew members, including using violence against the authorities, even though both Greenpeace and the Russian authorities have said no one onboard was armed or resisted when the ship was seized.
Via Expo is an organizer of high level international exhibitions and conferences in Bulgaria ( www.via-expo.com ) We will highly appreciate including in your listing the information and new dates of our events to be held in Sofia (Bulgaria) during 5-7 March 2014:
10th Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Congress and Exhibition for South-East Europe – via-expo.com/en/pages/ee-re-exhibition. It corresponds to the world trends and presents latest energy efficient solutions,technologies for the production of bio-, hydro, solar, geothermal and wind energy, energy from waste and electric vehicle innovation. The EE & RE Congress will bring together all relevant players from the Region: from the energy sector, grid operators and utilities, building industry, finance and state administration.
Save the Planet- 5-th Conference and Exhibition on Waste Management, Recycling, Environment for South-East Europe – via-expo.com/en/pages/waste-management-recycling-exhibition. The event encourages the waste and recycling technology transfer to South-East Europe. It will be again a meeting place for executives from the sectors: waste management, recycling, ecology and related industry branches, investors and entrepreneurs; municipal representatives e.g. government officials, mayors, ecologists; branch associations.
SEE Solar – South-East European Solar PV & Thermal Exhibition - via-expo.com/en/pages/see-solar. In line with recent trends, the 2014 edition will put the focus on the building-integrated photovoltaics and autonomous solar systems in industrial and residential buildings, energy storage products, as well as innovative home appliances.
‘Smart Cities’ -South-East European Exhibition & Forum – via-expo.com/en/pages/smart-cities. The event will focus exclusively on Intelligent Energy, Intelligent Mobility & Transport, Intelligent Emergencies Management and ICT, Intelligent Waste Management. Smart Cities Exhibition and Conference are the logical successor of Smart Buildings 2013 Expo. The event will be held in parallel to the 10th Forum and Exhibition on Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, Waste Management & Recycling and Solar PV & Thermal Exhibition.
LiftBalkans – South-East European Exhibition on Elevators and Escalators – via-expo.com/en/pages/liftbalkans . ‘LiftBalkans’ is the only specialized show in Bulgaria devoted to elevators, escalators, components and accessories, monitoring and safety systems, etc. The event will shape the forthcoming priority directions in the industry development – safety, accessibility and energy efficiency improving. A parallel Seminar will strengthen the networking between attendees and exhibitors which will debate on the new Lift Directive, safety rules and security solutions, noise prevention, retrofitting of the existing lifts, etc. LiftBalkans will be held parallel to events covering close related topics: Energy Efficiency and Smart Cities.
This week – Iceland’s leader, President Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, talks about Climate Change – First in Reykjavik and thenn in Senator Harkins’ Des Moines, Iowa
Sorry to say – we found no internet postings yet of content from the Reykjavik meeting but interesting material comes out from DesMoines. Mainly by Joel Aschbrenner of the DesMoines Register.
October 16, 2013
The Bacon Board meets the president of Iceland: Blue Ribbon Bacon Festival organizers met with President Olafur Ragnar Grimsson during his visit to Des Moines
Icelandic President Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson envisions a day when his island nation will be a net exporter of tomatoes.
Making the inaugural address at Drake University’s Harkin Institute, Grímsson made a case for combating climate change with clean energy. His country now gets more than 85 percent of its power from renewable sources, like geothermal energy used to heat homes, drive power plants and even warm the greenhouses’ tomatoes.
“You could do the same thing in Alaska,” Grímsson joked. “And you could sell those Alaskan tomatoes at Whole Foods. It’s a great marketing idea.”
Produce aside, Grímsson focused on the importance of slowing the melt of glaciers around the globe. Melting glaciers are poised to raise sea levels, shift global weather patterns and alter rivers that provide water for crops that feed nearly a third of the world’s population, scientists say.
The challenge, Grímmson said, is erasing the perception that climate change affects only those who live near glaciers or ice caps, in places like Iceland.
“We live in an ice-dependent world,” he said. “In every country in every continent, our weather, our climate, our cities are dependent in way or another on what happens to the ice.”
Grimsson and Sen. Tom Harkin have been friends for decades. Harkin spoke last week at the inaugural Arctic Circle Assembly in Reykjavik, Iceland’s capital city.
The event drew participants from dozens of countries to discuss climate change, economic development and shipping lanes in the Arctic.
In the 1980s, the two worked together in Moscow with Parliamentarians for Global Action, an international network of legislators, to advocate for nuclear treaties.
Iceland, a country with fewer residents than the Des Moines area, has positioned itself as a leader in green energy. The nation is working with giants China and India, helping them develop strategies for reducing the greenhouse gas emissions.
The addition of China, which has long been lamented as a major polluter, to the conversation about climate change represents a crossroads in global policy, Grímsson said.
“China has been used as an excuse for non-action,” the president said. “But now we are witness to what I believe is an undeniable shift.”
The following I learned, Thursday October 10, 2013, coincidentally at a breakfast meeting of the new series at he Green Tech Investors Forum run by Dr. Gelvin Stevenson and hosted by the New York Offices of the International law Firm Crowell & Moring.
I said coincidentally because that day I was traveling to Reykjavik, Iceland, for the First International Conference of the Arctic Circle Nations, October 11-14, 2013. This Conference, as it turned out, was mainly concerned in the creation of wealth in the old way, but viewing now on how it will be possible to using the access to the newly un-covered-of-ice waters and lands of the Arctic.
There could not have been a more contrasting set of visions then those exposed at the Manhattan event and the general spirit that drove the organizers of the Harpa Conference Center at the Reykjavik event. These two events will bring me back to post about pure SUSTAINABILITY after having lately been focused rather on the melt-down of the United States that to me was a much more frightening perspective then the climate change induced melting of the ice-caps at the three poles.
In the present posting I will be dealing with concepts put forward by Mr. Jigar Shah, the Star speaker at the Manhattan event. This will follow material from the other presenters before the Green Tech Investors Forum. Then, in following postings, I will be dealing with specifics from the Reykjavik meeting, and I foresee a series of postings about what can create Sustainable Wealth and what can be seen rather as a throw-back to past mistakes.
and the full program of the Conference/meeting as provided several days before the event and which we posted October 10th so I could provide the link to the people present at the Manhattan event:
The Manhattan meeting was about a new company that has new proprietary technology or billing purpose – “Simply Grid” – it provides a solution for on-demand access to electricity.
The company’s proprietary technology includes a custom engineered controller which is deployed either within industry standard electric charging stations or as an augmentation to standard in-wall electrical outlets, and an Internet based management and billing system which allows for the automated initiation/termination of electric service via mobile app or text message, monitoring of usage, and billing.
Simply Grid focuses on three markets: the mobile food industry, marinas and RV parks, and personal electronics in cafes and other public spaces.
There are over 25,000 food carts and food trucks in the US, and they are expanding rapidly. Their legacy source of energy, gas or diesel powered generators, is expensive, polluting and noisy. Simply Grid’s solution – usually a four-foot high pedestal – enables private lot managers and municipalities to provide electricity to these vendors at a significant cost savings while providing a more pleasant environment for their customers.
Simply Grid has a pilot in Union Square, midtown Manhattan, – with a food-cart vendor – Rafiqi’s – on the north side of the Square – in conjunction with the Mayor’s Office, ConEd, and NYC Department of Transportation. Additionally, the company has already deployments at food truck parks in Austin, TX and Atlanta, GA.
Food carts’ portable generators—used by about 60% of all food carts—emit twenty times more particulate matter and other asthma-causing pollutants than NYC’s electric supply.
Simply Grid’s technology allows lot owners and municipalities to provide grid electricity to them, which makes them cleaner, quieter, and more profitable.
Electricity is made available to these vendors via outlets in industry standard electricity pedestals which have been customized with proprietary metering controllers. The controllers connect wireless to Simply Grid’s cloud-based platform which manages customer accounts, metering, and billing.
The system allows vendors on city streets and RV lots to initiate service with their mobile phones and connect to the electric grid with cables they already use with their generators.The food vendors will be able to sell electricity to electric vehicles – cars, bikes etc. This will help clean up the air in cities by making it more feasible to use electric vehicles. Obviously, the electricity supply is a separate topic – but the decreased dependence on diesel and gasoline is clear. In this respect it is a company that does not only owe its success to efforts to decrease effects that cause global warming i.e. the use of petroleum products, but it also provides new lines of income to vendors of other services, and economically thus creates “CLIMATE WEALTH.”
The speakers at the meeting were SIMPLY GRID officials -Mike Dubrovsky; CEO, Jeffrey Hoffman,COO; Samuel Abbay, Co-Founder and Co-CEO. Present, and separate speaker, was partner and initiator of the “CREATING CLIMATE WEALTH” concept Jigar Shah who made already a lot of money when he created “SunEdison” – now a very successful company with billions in sales, and which he sold so he can go on creating new ideas and companies.
Creating Climate Wealth guru, Jigar Shah, is the real focus of this posting, and his just released manual – the book that is part autobiography and part blue-print for the future is:
“CREATING CLIMATE WEALTH: UNLOCKING THE IMPACT ECONOMY” caries ISBN: 978-0-9893531-0-6 – ICOSA publishing - www.icosamedia.com/publishing. It costs $21.95 and is a true manual.
Carl Pope, the former Executive Director of Sierra Club, writes among those that recommend this book – “Shah shows that a new massive wealth opportunity is at our fingertips, linking sustainability and economic development.”
We completely subscribe to this and must remark that Jigar Shah was able to show that the innovative management ideas that he promotes are not dependent on new technologies but rather on the imagination that frees us to use beneficially existing technologies in novel ways – this without government subsidies and rather in a pure private enterprise way. Obviously, this can be made possible only if government does not insist in interfering by supporting existing interests opposed to change.
“Creating Climate Wealth” introduces the general idea that natural resources fail us if we do not start a development with the concept that we want to answer a need, rather then pushing the sale of an exhaustible stash of resources – i.e. found fossil fuels or minerals.
Following that, we get the example of the creation of the SunEdison Company that came about to answer the need for cheap locally produced electricity, and eventually leads to the creation of the new company, the subjet of the October 10th meeting – “SimplyGrid” – that will eventually sell Renewable Energy via a smart grid. All this to be done by private investors that all what they need is non-interference from the government.
The important thing is that Jigar Shah is an entrepreneur who grew up in a home where his parents were already steeped in the spirit of entrepreneurship. JIGAR IS OUT TO MAKE MONEY IN A CLEVER WAY – AS SAID BY INNOVATING MANAGEMENT SO HE ANSWERS A TRUE NEED EFFICIENTLY AND AT LOWER COSTS THEN THE COMPETITION. Further, he structures his business plan so that all what he needs is a good client and he does not involve the client in his building the company.
SunEdison takes advantage of the vast roof space of large companies and puts there photovoltaics built with -off-the-shelf parts.
No waiting here for improvements that might take years, and no talk here of experimentation.
The client does not invest a penny – only agrees to buy the electricity at a price well below what it costs him today. Jigar finds the investors outside the product buying company and totally without government help except that he must make sure that existing electricity production companies do not cause the government to grant them a monopoly that would not allow this upstart to sell electricity. This is not a theoretical comment – it is rather a description of the sick US economy.
To get the details of this innovative way of doing business. and to realize the deep thoughts that went into Jigar’s choice of companies which he approached first, and the financial backers which he approached so that this will be a growing company with ever increasing revenues and financing, rather then a one time shot by a wise guy – please go to the sources which I presented here.
I read the book on the plane ride to Reykjavik, so it helped me be a little more critical of what I heard there.
ON THE SAUDI UN EVENT – FROM INSIDE THE UN – by MATTHEW RUSSELL LEE of INNER CITY PRESS:
On October 17th:
For Security Council – Saudi Where Women Can’t Drive Loses 10 Votes – got only 176 votes out of the 191 states present.
Afterward Inner City Press asked Syrian Permanent Representative Bashar Ja’afari about Saudi Arabia’s election to the Security Council, which now has chemical weapons in Syria on its agenda. Ja’afari shook his head and hearkened back to when Qatar was elected to the Security Council, and then got the President of the General Assembly position. Money.
Next posting – on October 18th:
After Saudi Arabia announced it would not take the UN Security Council seat to which it was elected yesterday without competition, in front of the Security Council Friday morning most Ambassadors entering for day’s meeting declined comment or said, we are trying to figure it out. (This was from UK Deputy Permanent Representative Peter Wilson.)
But France’s Permanent Representative Gerard Araud used the announcement in the way it appears the Saudis wanted. He said France understands the Saudis frustration. He said 120,000 people have been killed in Syria, most by the “Assad regime.”
When a reporter asked about the recent Council “unity” around the Syria resolution, Araud said dismissively that is only about chemical weapons.
Inner City Press checked with a well-placed UN Secretariat source, who told it exclusively that Qatar’s foreign ministry reached out “in the middle of the night” (New York time), right after the Saudi announcement, to ask what the next step will be.
So does Qatar want the seat? They recently had it. And since they compete with Saudi Arabia in which Syrian rebels to arm, and in Egypt, if Saudi has any role in picking a replacement, look for United Arab Emirates, for example.
The source told Inner City Press that “nothing starts until Saudi Arabia sends a note verbale to the Secretary General.” Ban Ki-moon, going into the Council to speak on Women, Peace and Security (while his UN Peacekeeping continues supporting the Congolese Army units implicated in 135 rapes in Minova last November) had no comment.
Neither did US Ambassador Samantha Power, last seen tweeting about the Red Sox and Detroit.
Some are predicting that the US will try to talk Saudi Arabia out of it, trying to make nice after the Saudis were miffed by President Barack Obama’s telephone call to Iran’s Hassan Rouhani.
But either way, the Saudi’s look “bad,” as one Ambassador put it to Inner City Press. “Their Perm Rep thanked us for our vote,” the Ambassador continued. “So did he not know?” See tweeted photos here, and of Saudi gift box here. Watch this site.
Update of 1:20 pm — A Deputy Permanent Representative told Inner City Press that Saudi Arabia would meet the President of the General Assembly today. But then, from closer sourcing, Inner City Press is informed that the meeting is canceled.
At Friday’s noon briefing, Inner City Press asked Ban’s spokesperson for any rules on gifts (he referred the question to the PGA’s office) and when Ban last spoke with the Saudi government or ruling family.
From well-placed Arab Group sources comes the name: Kuwait. These sources, when Inner City Press asked of the possibility that Saudi Arabia will find a way to reverse its reversal said no.
“This is what happens when a country is run by one family,” one observer put it, likening it to a decision made in Pyongyang.
Given the way Saudi Arabia’s Permanent Representative spoke at the UNTV stakeout after his country’s election yesterday, either he didn’t know or he deserves an Academy Award for acting.
The Saudi mission has been getting training for this seat for some time. And now, not.
One of his staffers is re-tweeting the stories of Saudi Arabia’s rejection of the seat, and expressing pride.
What will happen with Saudi Arabia’s candidacy for the Human Rights Council? In the future, how can their candidacies be taken seriously? At least, debate should be required, at which the question can be asked: are you serious?
Inner City Press asked UN spokesperson Martin Nesirky if there are any rules on the gifts given in the General Assembly for votes, as Saudi Arabia did. He said to ask the office of the President of the General Assembly, which now tells Inner City Press there is no cap, no procedure, this is not under the scope of any GA rule so gifts of any size can be given. Ah, the UN.
After Syria’s Permanent Representative Bashar Ja’afari gave a speech Friday in the UN Security Council saying “the French regime” should give up its permanent seat on the Council, and slamming Qatar and Saudi Arabia, Inner City Press asked him what he thought the reason was for Saudi Arabia renouncing the Security Council seat it won Thursday without competition.
Ja’afari made some expected points — that Saudi Arabia does not allow women to drive and so is not qualified for the Council, for example, and that its mission does not have the capacity to serve on the Council. But this is true of others too, Inner City Press noted. What changed?
Then Ja’afari offered this explanation, as an exclusive to Inner City Press: now that the Security Council has passed a resolution, and the push is on for the so-called Geneva Two talks, Saudi Arabia “cannot” (or does not want to be) part of that consensus. Even France cannot vote against Geneva Two. But could Saudi Arabia stand to be seen voting against it, isolated 14 to 1?
This is something that changed, and recently – the coming together of the Council to vote for the chemical weapons mission, and singing from the same choir book about Geneva Two.
It is not implausible, that as the date of starting on the Council grew closer, and the sides on the Security Council grew closer together and not farther apart, Saudi Arabia or someone in its royal family saw serving on the Council in a different light.
Kuwait, Ja’afari told Inner City Press, is no different.
But Kuwait is not as aligned publicly – voting for a Geneva Two would not be seen as contradicting its positions or, as for Saudi Arabia, those it funds. We’ll see.
And on the Saudi event from inside the UN by Matthew Russell Lee pf Inner City Press.On October 17th:
For Security Council – Saudi Where Women Can’t Drive Loses 10 Votes – got only 176 votes out of the 191 states present. Afterward Inner City Press asked Syrian Permanent Representative Bashar Ja’afari about Saudi Arabia’s election to the Security Council, which now has chemical weapons in Syria on its agenda. Ja’afari shook his head and hearkened back to when Qatar was elected to the Security Council, and then got the President of the General Assembly position. Money.
Next posting – October 18th:
After Saudi Arabia announced it would not take the UN Security Council seat to which it was elected yesterday without competition, in front of the Security Council Friday morning most Ambassadors entering for day’s meeting declined comment or said, we are trying to figure it out. (This was from UK Deputy Permanent Representative Peter Wilson.)
But France’s Permanent Representative Gerard Araud used the announcement in the way it appears the Saudis wanted. He said France understands the Saudis frustration. He said 120,000 people have been killed in Syria, most by the “Assad regime.”
When a reporter asked about the recent Council “unity” around the Syria resolution, Araud said dismissively that is only about chemical weapons.
Inner City Press checked with a well-placed UN Secretariat source, who told it exclusively that Qatar’s foreign ministry reached out “in the middle of the night” (New York time), right after the Saudi announcement, to ask what the next step will be.
So does Qatar want the seat? They recently had it. And since they compete with Saudi Arabia in which Syrian rebels to arm, and in Egypt, if Saudi has any role in picking a replacement, look for United Arab Emirates, for example.
The source told Inner City Press that “nothing starts until Saudi Arabia sends a note verbale to the Secretary General.” Ban Ki-moon, going into the Council to speak on Women, Peace and Security (while his UN Peacekeeping continues supporting the Congolese Army units implicated in 135 rapes in Minova last November) had no comment.
Neither did US Ambassador Samantha Power, last seen tweeting about the Red Sox and Detroit.
Some are predicting that the US will try to talk Saudi Arabia out of it, trying to make nice after the Saudis were miffed by President Barack Obama’s telephone call to Iran’s Hassan Rouhani.
But either way, the Saudi’s look “bad,” as one Ambassador put it to Inner City Press. “Their Perm Rep thanked us for our vote,” the Ambassador continued. “So did he not know?” See tweeted photos here, and of Saudi gift box here. Watch this site.
Update of 1:20 pm — A Deputy Permanent Representative told Inner City Press that Saudi Arabia would meet the President of the General Assembly today. But then, from closer sourcing, Inner City Press is informed that the meeting is canceled.
At Friday’s noon briefing, Inner City Press asked Ban’s spokesperson for any rules on gifts (he referred the question to the PGA’s office) and when Ban last spoke with the Saudi government or ruling family.
From well-placed Arab Group sources comes the name: Kuwait. These sources, when Inner City Press asked of the possibility that Saudi Arabia will find a way to reverse its reversal said no.
“This is what happens when a country is run by one family,” one observer put it, likening it to a decision made in Pyongyang.
Given the way Saudi Arabia’s Permanent Representative spoke at the UNTV stakeout after his country’s election yesterday, either he didn’t know or he deserves an Academy Award for acting.
The Saudi mission has been getting training for this seat for some time. And now, not.
One of his staffers is re-tweeting the stories of Saudi Arabia’s rejection of the seat, and expressing pride.
What will happen with Saudi Arabia’s candidacy for the Human Rights Council? In the future, how can their candidacies be taken seriously? At least, debate should be required, at which the question can be asked: are you serious?
Inner City Press asked UN spokesperson Martin Nesirky if there are any rules on the gifts given in the General Assembly for votes, as Saudi Arabia did. He said to ask the office of the President of the General Assembly, which now tells Inner City Press there is no cap, no procedure, this is not under the scope of any GA rule so gifts of any size can be given. Ah, the UN.
After Syria’s Permanent Representative Bashar Ja’afari gave a speech Friday in the UN Security Council saying “the French regime” should give up its permanent seat on the Council, and slamming Qatar and Saudi Arabia, Inner City Press asked him what he thought the reason was for Saudi Arabia renouncing the Security Council seat it won Thursday without competition.
Ja’afari made some expected points — that Saudi Arabia does not allow women to drive and so is not qualified for the Council, for example, and that its mission does not have the capacity to serve on the Council. But this is true of others too, Inner City Press noted. What changed?
Then Ja’afari offered this explanation, as an exclusive to Inner City Press: now that the Security Council has passed a resolution, and the push is on for the so-called Geneva Two talks, Saudi Arabia “cannot” (or does not want to be) part of that consensus. Even France cannot vote against Geneva Two. But could Saudi Arabia stand to be seen voting against it, isolated 14 to 1?
This is something that changed, and recently – the coming together of the Council to vote for the chemical weapons mission, and singing from the same choir book about Geneva Two.
It is not implausible, that as the date of starting on the Council grew closer, and the sides on the Security Council grew closer together and not farther apart, Saudi Arabia or someone in its royal family saw serving on the Council in a different light.
Kuwait, Ja’afari told Inner City Press, is no different.
But Kuwait is not as aligned publicly – voting for a Geneva Two would not be seen as contradicting its positions or, as for Saudi Arabia, those it funds. We’ll see.
But France’s Permanent Representative Gerard Araud used the announcement in the way it appears the Saudis wanted. He said France understands the Saudis frustration. He said 120,000 people have been killed in Syria, most by the “Assad regime.”
When a reporter asked about the recent Council “unity” around the Syria resolution, Araud said dismissively that is only about chemical weapons.
Inner City Press checked with a well-placed UN Secretariat source, who told it exclusively that Qatar’s foreign ministry reached out “in the middle of the night” (New York time), right after the Saudi announcement, to ask what the next step will be.
So does Qatar want the seat? They recently had it. And since they compete with Saudi Arabia in which Syrian rebels to arm, and in Egypt, if Saudi has any role in picking a replacement, look for United Arab Emirates, for example.
The source told Inner City Press that “nothing starts until Saudi Arabia sends a note verbale to the Secretary General.” Ban Ki-moon, going into the Council to speak on Women, Peace and Security (while his UN Peacekeeping continues supporting the Congolese Army units implicated in 135 rapes in Minova last November) had no comment.
Neither did US Ambassador Samantha Power, last seen tweeting about the Red Sox and Detroit.
Some are predicting that the US will try to talk Saudi Arabia out of it, trying to make nice after the Saudis were miffed by President Barack Obama’s telephone call to Iran’s Hassan Rouhani.
But either way, the Saudi’s look “bad,” as one Ambassador put it to Inner City Press. “Their Perm Rep thanked us for our vote,” the Ambassador continued. “So did he not know?” See tweeted photos here, and of Saudi gift box here. Watch this site.
Update of 1:20 pm — A Deputy Permanent Representative told Inner City Press that Saudi Arabia would meet the President of the General Assembly today. But then, from closer sourcing, Inner City Press is informed that the meeting is canceled.
At Friday’s noon briefing, Inner City Press asked Ban’s spokesperson for any rules on gifts (he referred the question to the PGA’s office) and when Ban last spoke with the Saudi government or ruling family.
From well-placed Arab Group sources comes the name: Kuwait. These sources, when Inner City Press asked of the possibility that Saudi Arabia will find a way to reverse its reversal said no.
“This is what happens when a country is run by one family,” one observer put it, likening it to a decision made in Pyongyang.
Given the way Saudi Arabia’s Permanent Representative spoke at the UNTV stakeout after his country’s election yesterday, either he didn’t know or he deserves an Academy Award for acting.
The Saudi mission has been getting training for this seat for some time. And now, not.
One of his staffers is re-tweeting the stories of Saudi Arabia’s rejection of the seat, and expressing pride.
What will happen with Saudi Arabia’s candidacy for the Human Rights Council? In the future, how can their candidacies be taken seriously? At least, debate should be required, at which the question can be asked: are you serious?
Inner City Press asked UN spokesperson Martin Nesirky if there are any rules on the gifts given in the General Assembly for votes, as Saudi Arabia did. He said to ask the office of the President of the General Assembly, which now tells Inner City Press there is no cap, no procedure, this is not under the scope of any GA rule so gifts of any size can be given. Ah, the UN.
After Syria’s Permanent Representative Bashar Ja’afari gave a speech Friday in the UN Security Council saying “the French regime” should give up its permanent seat on the Council, and slamming Qatar and Saudi Arabia, Inner City Press asked him what he thought the reason was for Saudi Arabia renouncing the Security Council seat it won Thursday without competition.
Ja’afari made some expected points — that Saudi Arabia does not allow women to drive and so is not qualified for the Council, for example, and that its mission does not have the capacity to serve on the Council. But this is true of others too, Inner City Press noted. What changed?
Then Ja’afari offered this explanation, as an exclusive to Inner City Press: now that the Security Council has passed a resolution, and the push is on for the so-called Geneva Two talks, Saudi Arabia “cannot” (or does not want to be) part of that consensus. Even France cannot vote against Geneva Two. But could Saudi Arabia stand to be seen voting against it, isolated 14 to 1?
This is something that changed, and recently – the coming together of the Council to vote for the chemical weapons mission, and singing from the same choir book about Geneva Two.
It is not implausible, that as the date of starting on the Council grew closer, and the sides on the Security Council grew closer together and not farther apart, Saudi Arabia or someone in its royal family saw serving on the Council in a different light.
Kuwait, Ja’afari told Inner City Press, is no different.
But Kuwait is not as aligned publicly – voting for a Geneva Two would not be seen as contradicting its positions or, as for Saudi Arabia, those it funds. We’ll see.
WASHINGTON — Saudi Arabia stunned the United Nations and even some of its own diplomats on Friday by rejecting a highly coveted seat on the Security Council, a decision that underscored the depth of Saudi anger over what the monarchy sees as weak and conciliatory Western stances toward Syria and Iran, Saudi Arabia’s regional rival.
The Saudi decision, which could have been made only with King Abdullah’s approval, came a day after it had won a Security Council seat for the first time, and it appeared to be unprecedented.
The Saudi Foreign Ministry released a statement rejecting the seat just hours after the kingdom’s own diplomats — both at the United Nations and in Riyadh, the Saudi capital — were celebrating their new seat, the product of two years of work to assemble a crack diplomatic team in New York. Some analysts said the sudden turnabout gave the impression of a self-destructive temper tantrum.
But one Saudi diplomat said the decision came after weeks of high-level debate about the usefulness of a seat on the Security Council, where Russia and China have repeatedly drawn Saudi anger by blocking all attempts to pressure Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad. Abdullah has voiced rising frustration with the continuing violence in Syria, a fellow Muslim-majority nation where one of his wives was born. He is said to have been deeply disappointed when President Obama decided against airstrikes on Syria’s military in September in favor of a Russian-proposed agreement to secure Syria’s chemical weapons.
And Saudi officials made no secret of their fear that a nuclear deal between Iran and the West, the subject of multilateral talks this week in Geneva with another round scheduled for early November, could come at their expense, leaving them more exposed to their greatest regional rival.
The Saudi decision may also reflect a broader debate within the Saudi ruling elite about how to wield influence: the Saudis have long resisted taking a seat on the Security Council, believing it would hamper their discreet diplomatic style.
Still, the sudden about-face came across as a slap to the United Nations and the United States, one of Saudi Arabia’s strongest Western allies. On Thursday evening, the American ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, had issued a statement congratulating the five new nonpermanent members — Chad, Chile, Lithuania, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia. Officials at the United States Mission to the United Nations had no immediate comment.
Russia was sharply critical of the Saudi gesture. “We are surprised by Saudi Arabia’s unprecedented decision,” the Foreign Ministry said in a statement from Moscow carried by news agencies. “The kingdom’s arguments arouse bewilderment and the criticism of the U.N. Security Council in the context of the Syria conflict is particularly strange.”
There was shock and dismay in Riyadh, too, where the Saudi political elite had seemed thrilled at the prospect of a shift to a more public and assertive diplomatic stance.
Late on Thursday, the spokesman for the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Osama Nugali, forwarded a message on his Twitter account celebrating the kingdom’s election to the Security Council. The message was written by Jamal Khashoggi, a journalist with links to the ruling elite. Many other prominent Saudis also forwarded the message, which congratulated the kingdom for winning a seat it had “sought for more than two years with the help of a team of the best Saudi diplomats to represent the kingdom.”
Many experts had assumed that Saudi Arabia’s pursuit of a Security Council seat signaled a new desire to be more public and assertive in its stances toward the Syrian civil war and the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Saudi ambassador to the United Nations, Abdallah Y. al-Mouallimi, was clearly elated after the General Assembly vote on Thursday.
“We take this election very seriously as a responsibility to be able to contribute to this very important forum to peace and security of the world,” he told reporters. “Our election today is a reflection of a longstanding policy in support of moderation and in support of resolving disputes by peaceful means.”
The statement on Friday struck a far different tone, calling for changes to enhance the Security Council’s contribution to peace. It did not say what those should entail.
“Allowing the ruling regime in Syria to kill and burn its people by the chemical weapons, while the world stands idly, without applying deterrent sanctions against the Damascus regime, is also irrefutable evidence and proof of the inability of the Security Council to carry out its duties and responsibilities,” the statement said.
The statement accused the Security Council of failing to find a “just and lasting solution” to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and of failing to free the Middle East of “all weapons of mass destruction,” an apparent reference to Israel’s presumed nuclear arsenal.
“This is very bad for the image of the country,” said one Saudi political insider, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the decision was assumed to be by the king, whose judgment is rarely questioned in public. “It’s as if someone woke up in the night and made this decision.”
But some others in Riyadh said they were not entirely surprised, given the kingdom’s long ambivalence about assuming a position that would strain friendships and alliances, particularly against the backdrop of the high profile and volatility of the Security Council’s recent decisions.
The kingdom has seen its reputation suffer in some quarters in recent years, in part because of the perception that it was combating the democratic aspirations of the 2011 Arab uprisings. On Thursday, the Pew Research Center released a poll indicating that Saudi Arabia’s popularity had declined in several Middle Eastern countries since 2007.
“The Saudis no doubt quickly realized that being on the U.N.S.C. would mean they could no longer pursue their traditional back seat and low-key policies and therefore decided to give it up,” said Bernard Haykel, a professor of Middle East studies at Princeton University and an authority on Saudi Arabia.
“Regardless of the short-term costs, a seat on the U.N.S.C. may have also meant that Saudi Arabia would be more constrained in backing the Syrian opposition,” Mr. Haykel said.
Diplomats at the United Nations said they did not believe the Saudi decision would be reversed, given its unequivocal and accusatory language. It also was unclear when the 193-member General Assembly would take a vote on a replacement.
As of late Friday, the Saudis had not officially notified the United Nations of their decision. Afaf Konja, a spokeswoman for John W. Ashe, the ambassador for Antigua and Barbuda, who is the current president of the General Assembly, said he had not received formal notification nor had held any meetings with Saudi representatives. Given the nature of the Saudi announcement, the spokeswoman said in an e-mail, “the next steps are yet to be determined and will be based on formal language from Saudi Arabia.”
The council has met before without a full membership. Diplomats recalled that in 1950, the Soviet Union refused to sit at the council table, though it did not repudiate its seat.
President Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson; Special Envoy of President Vladimir Putin to the Arctic, Artur Chilingarov; Greenland Premier, Aleqa Hammond,; U.S. Senator, Tom Harkin; U.S. Senator from Alaska Lisa Murkowsky; Google Executive Chairman, Eric Schmidt, The Presidents of Iceland and Breenland and the Prime Minister of the Faroe Islands, a former Prime Minister of France – Mr. Michel Rocard representing President Hollande and more.
Anticipated to be the largest and most diverse gathering of its kind, this event will include participants from Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bhutan, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greenland, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Italy, the Republic of Korea, Monaco, Nepal, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Rwanda, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Vatican City State. As of now there are 900 registrants and there is a large confirmed program.
The Arctic is now playing a significant role in issues such as globalization, economic development, energy exploration, environmental protection and international security. Plans for resource use and new sea routes linking Asia to Europe and America have led to an increased focus on the region.
The mission of the Arctic Circle is to facilitate dialogue and build relationships to address rapid changes in the Arctic. The Assembly will strengthen the decision-making process by bringing together international partners to interact under one large “open tent.” This is a new mechanism for existing institutions to reach a global audience in an efficient way.
WHEN
The meetings – October 12-14, 2013
PROGRAM DRAFT | CONFIRMED SESSIONS AND SPEAKERS
(Last updated on October 7, 2013.)
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 11
18:00–20:00
WELCOME RECEPTION
Reykjavík Art Museum
Hosted by Arctia Shipping
Music by Guitar Islancio
SATURDAY, OCTOBER 12
07:30–08:30
COFFEE SOCIAL
Hosted by Olgoonik Corp. and Pt Capital08:30–10:10PLENARY SESSIONS
•PLENARY SESSION 1: OPENING SESSION (08:30–10:10)
SPEAKERS:
Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, President, Iceland
Aleqa Hammond, Premier, Greenland
Kaj Leo Holm Johannesen, Prime Minister, Faroe Islands
Lisa Murkowski, U.S. Senator
Patrick Borbey, Chair, Senior Arctic Officials, Arctic Council, and President, Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency (CanNor)
Anton Vasiliev, Ambassador at Large, Arctic Cooperation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Russia
CHAIR:
Alice Rogoff, Publisher, Alaska Dispatch
VIDEO MESSAGES:
Hillary Rodham Clinton, Former Secretary of State, United States
Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General, United Nations
HSH Prince Albert II of Monaco
10:10–10:25COFFEE BREAK
Hosted by Esri10:25–13:10PLENARY SESSIONS
•PLENARY SESSION 2: CLIMATE CHANGE: A PLAN FOR ACTION? (10:25–11:45)
VIDEO MESSAGE:
Al Gore, Former Vice President, United States, and Nobel Laureate
SPEAKERS:
Enric Sala, Explorer-in-Residence, National Geographic Society
Tom Harkin, U.S. Senator
Mark Halle, Vice President, International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)
Sergio C. Trindade, President, SE2T International, and Nobel Laureate
Johan van de Gronden, Chief Executive Officer, World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Netherlands
Ghislaine Maxwell, Founder, The TerraMar Project
CHAIR:
Olav Orheim, Member, Scientific and Technical Committee, Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation
•PLENARY SESSION 3: SHORT FILM: “LAST HOURS” (11:45–11:55)
“Last Hours” is the first in a series of short films from Tree Media Foundation that explore the perils of climate change and the solutions to avert climate disaster.
•PLENARY SESSION 4: ARCTIC ICE MELT: GLOBAL WEATHER EVENTS (11:55–13:10)
VIDEO MESSAGE:
Rajendra K. Pachauri, Chair, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and Nobel Laureate
SPEAKERS:
Li Yuansheng, Deputy Director, Polar Research Institute of China (PRIC)
Karin Lochte, Chair, Alfred Wegener Institute
Minik Rosing, Professor, Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen
Helgi Björnsson, Research Professor, Institute of Earth Sciences, University of Iceland
Ingibjörg Jónsdóttir, Associate Professor, Faculty of Earth Sciences, University of Iceland
CHAIR:
Alexander Borodin, MHC (Services) Ltd.
VIDEO MESSAGE:
James Balog, Photographer, National Geographic (“Chasing Ice”)
13:10–13:40LUNCH13:40–16:10PLENARY SESSIONS
•PLENARY SESSION 5: SINGAPORE IN THE ARCTIC (13:40–14:15)
SPEAKER:
Sam Tan Chin Siong, Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Singapore
•PLENARY SESSION 7: ARCTIC ENERGY COOPERATION (14:45–16:00)
Arctic Energy Summit Report
SPEAKER:
Nils Andreassen, Executive Director, Institute of the North Oil and Gas: Problems and Possibilities
SPEAKERS:
Heiðar Már Guðjónsson, Chairman of the Board, Eykon Energy
Rúni M. Hansen, Vice President, Arctic Unit, Statoil
Anthony Hodge, President, International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM)
Jörg Ranau, Deputy Director-General for Economic Affairs, Federal Foreign Office, Germany
Bae Sung-Ho, Senior Researcher, Global Energy Cooperation Center, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Korea
CHAIR:
Charles K. Ebinger, Director, Energy Security Initiative, Brookings Institution
•PLENARY SESSION 8: LAUNCH OF ARCTIC YEARBOOK 2013: THE ARCTIC OF REGIONS VS. THE GLOBALIZED ARCTIC (16:00–16:10)
SPEAKER:
Lassi Heininen, Professor, University of Lapland, and Editor, Arctic Yearbook
Heather Exner-Pirot, Post-Doctoral Fellow, Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, University of Saskatchewan, and Co-Managing Editor, Arctic Yearbook
16:10–19:00BREAKOUT SESSIONSThese and the other breakout sessions in this agenda are organized by the participating organizations.
•BREAKOUT SESSION A: ARCTIC SECURITY
Organized by the Northern Research Forum (NRF) and the UArctic-NRF Thematic Network on Geopolitics and Security Changes in a State of Security in the Arctic
SPEAKERS:
Lassi Heininen, Professor, University of Lapland
Heather Exner-Pirot, Post-Doctoral Fellow, Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, University of Saskatchewan
Michal Luszczuk, Faculty Member, Jan Kochanowski University in Kielce
Steven Lamy, Professor of International Relations and Vice Dean for Academic Programs, Dana and David Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, University of Southern California The Nexus of Extractive Industries, the Environment and Climate Change: An Arctic (Security) Paradox
SPEAKERS:
Margrét Cela, Project Manager, Centre for Arctic Policy Studies (CAPS), University of Iceland, and Ph.D. Candidate, University of Lapland
Sóley Kaldal, Ph.D. Candidate, University of Iceland
Baozhi Cheng, Research Fellow, Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (SIIS)
Aki Tonami, Researcher, Nordic Institute of Asian Studies (NIAS), University of Copenhagen
Matthias Finger, Professor, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL)
•BREAKOUT SESSION B: BUSINESS COOPERATION: INDUSTRY LEADERSHIP AND COLLABORATION FOR RESPONSIBLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE ARCTIC
Organized by the World Ocean Council
SPEAKERS:
Sarah Barton, Chief Strategy Officer, Arctic Fibre Inc. and Quintillion Networks
Robert J. Blaauw, Senior Advisor, Global Arctic Theme, Shell International Exploration and Production B.V.
Sven-Olof Lindblad, President and Founder, Lindblad Expeditions
Gylfi Sigfússon, President and Chief Executive Officer, Eimskip
Mikael Thinghuus, Chief Executive Officer, Royal Greenland A/S
CHAIR:
Paul Holthus, Chief Executive Officer, World Ocean Council Arctic Industry Panel: Industry Perspectives on Responsible Economic Development in the Arctic and the Value of Business Cooperation
MODERATOR:
Hans Christian Krarup, Denmark Country Director, Golder Associates
Panel Discussion: Further Developing an Arctic Business Leadership Council and Multi-Industry Collaboration and Leadership on Responsible Business Development in the Arctic Region
MODERATOR:
Tim Lunel, Support and Development Director, International Tankers Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF)
Open Forum Discussion with the Arctic Business Community: Advancing Business Cooperation and Developing the Structure and Process for Fostering Cooperation
MODERATOR:
Theodore L. Rockwell, Alaska Regional Coordinator, Business Development, Energy and Environment, Battelle Memorial Institute
•BREAKOUT SESSION C: HUNTERS AND FISHERMEN: FIRST-HAND OBSERVATIONS AND PERSPECTIVES
SPEAKERS:
Tønnes Berthelsen, Deputy Manager, KNAPK (Association of Fishermen and Hunters in Greenland)
Raychelle Daniel, Senior Associate, U.S. ArcticProgram, Pew Environment Group
Anders J. H. Eira, Economist and Reindeer Herder
Steinar Pedersen, Associate Professor, Sámi University College, and Subsistence Salmon Fisherman
•BREAKOUT SESSION D: ARCTIC LESSONS FOR THE HIMALAYAN/THIRD POLE REGION
Organized by the Climate Research Fund, the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) and the Skoll Global Threats Fund
PARTICIPANTS:
Frederik Paulsen, Founder, Paulsen Editions
Yao Tandong, Director, Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Mihir Shah, Member, Planning Commission, Government of India
David James Molden, Director General, International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD)
Pema Gyamtsho, Member, Parliament of Bhutan
Linxiu Zhang, Professor and Deputy Director, Centre for Chinese Agricultural Policy, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Anil Kulkarni, Scientist, Indian Institute of Science
Eklabya Sharma, Director, Programme Operations, International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD)
Anil Gupta, Director, Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology
Ghulam Rasul, Chief Meteorologist, Pakistan Meteorological Department
Ravi Singh, Secretary-General and Chief Executive Officer, World Wildlife Fund (WWF) India
Arunabha Ghosh, Chief Executive Officer, Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW)
Mahmood Akhtar Cheema, Country Representative, International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Pakistan
Ravindra Kumar Shakya, Vice Chairman, National Planning Commission of Nepal
Napa Bikram Kishore Tripura, Secretary, Ministry of Chittagong Hill Tracts Affairs of Bangladesh
Atiq Rahman, Executive Director, Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies
Qazi Kholiquzzaman Ahmad, Chairman, Palli Karma-Sahayak Foundation
Karma Toeb, Glaciologist, Department of Geology and Mines, Bhutan
Ganesh Pangare, Head, Water Programme, International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Thailand
•BREAKOUT SESSION E: UNIVERSITY OF THE ARCTIC: BOARD OF GOVERNORS MEETING
Closed Meeting (By Invitation Only)
UArctic is a cooperative network of more than 150 universities, colleges and other organizations dedicated to education, research and the promotion of indigenous and local capacities and sustainable development in the circumpolar North.
•BREAKOUT SESSION F: THE SCIENCE OF ICE: GLOBAL RESEARCH COOPERATION
Organized by the Icelandic Centre for Research (RANNIS) and the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC)
Participants from RANNIS, the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC), the Alfred Wegener Institute, the Polar Research Institute of China, the U.S. Arctic Research Commission, Le Cercle Polaire, the Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs (COMNAP) and other Arctic organizations and scientific institutions
SPEAKERS:
Edward Itta, Commissioner, U.S. Arctic Research Commission
Li Yuansheng, Deputy Director, Polar Research Institute of China (PRIC)
Karin Lochte, Chair, Alfred Wegener Institute
Laurent Mayet, Director, Le Cercle Polaire, and Special Advisor to Michel Rocard
Olav Orheim, Member, Scientific and Technical Committee, Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation
CHAIR:
Thorsteinn Gunnarsson, Head, Division of Evaluation and Analysis, Icelandic Centre for Research (RANNIS), and Council Member, International Arctic Science Committee (IASC)
RAPPORTEUR:
Amy L. Wiita, President and Principal Research Scientist, Cinza Research LLC
•BREAKOUT SESSION G: ICE2SEA CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE REPORT: UNDERSTANDING ICE LOSS AND SEA-LEVEL RISE
Organized by the British Antarctic Survey
SPEAKERS:
David Vaughan, Science Leader, British Antarctic Survey
Guðfinna Aðalgeirsdóttir, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Earth Sciences, University of Iceland
•BREAKOUT SESSION H: BUILDING CAPACITY IN ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES: RELEVANT AND ACCESSIBLE EDUCATION IN THE NORTH
Organized by Yukon College
SPEAKERS:
Tosh Southwick, Director, First Nation Initiatives, Yukon College
Karen Barnes, President, Yukon College
•BREAKOUT SESSION I: FILM SCREENING: “VANISHING POINT”
Organized by Meltwater Media
This documentary tells the story of two Inuit communities—one on Canada’s Baffin Island, the other in Northwest Greenland—and explores the consequences of rapid social and environmental change. The screening will be followed by a question-and-answer session with the director.
19:00OPEN RECEPTION AT HARPA19:30–22:30RECEPTION AND DINNER (BY INVITATION)
Hosted by Guggenheim Partners
SUNDAY, OCTOBER 13
07:30–08:30
COFFEE SOCIAL
Hosted by Arion Bank08:30–10:15PLENARY SESSIONS
•PLENARY SESSION 9: NORTHERN SEA ROUTES: A NEW ERA IN GLOBAL SHIPPING (08:30–09:45)
SPEAKERS:
Yunpeng Li, President, China Ocean Shipping (Group) Co. (COSCO Group)
Dmitry Pourim, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, Sovfracht
Gylfi Sigfússon, President and Chief Executive Officer, Eimskip
Nils Andersen, Group Chief Executive Officer, A.P. Moller-Maersk
Organized by the Northern Research Forum (NRF) and the UArctic-NRF Thematic Network on Geopolitics and Security Future History of (State) Sovereignty and (National) Security in the Globalized Arctic
SPEAKERS:
Sandra Maria Rodrigues Balão, Assistant Professor, Technical University of Lisbon
Andreas Raspotnik, Research Fellow, University of Cologne
Alexander Sergunin, Professor, School of International Relations, St. Petersburg State University
Organized by Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF), the biodiversity working group of the Arctic Council
Presentation, film screening and question-and-answer period
SPEAKER:
Tom Barry, Executive Secretary, Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF)
Lawrence Hislop, Head, Polar Division, GRID-Arendal, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
•BREAKOUT SESSION P: THE EMERGING RISKS AND THE ARCTIC BIOECONOMY
Organized by Matís and the University of Iceland’s Research Centre in Suðurnes, Iceland
SPEAKERS:
Guðmundur Halldórsson, Research Coordinator, Soil Conservation Service of Iceland
Halldór Pálmar Halldórsson, Director, Suðurnes Research Centre, University of Iceland
Hrönn Ólína Jörundsdóttir, Project Manager, Matís
Sigrún Elsa Smáradóttir, Research Group Leader, Matís
CHAIR:
Helga Gunnlaugsdóttir, Research Group Leader, Matís
•BREAKOUT SESSION Q: ARCTIC RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT AND INDIGENOUS RELIGIOUS RIGHTS
Organized by the Canada Research Chair in Indigenous Rights in Constitutional and International Law at the University of Saskatchewan
SPEAKERS:
Michelle Biddulph, Juris Doctor Candidate and Researcher, University of Saskatchewan College of Law
Lorelle Binnion, Juris Doctor Candidate and Researcher, University of Saskatchewan College of Law
CHAIR:
Dwight Newman, Professor and Canada Research Chair in Indigenous Rights in Constitutional and International Law, University of Saskatchewan College of Law
•BREAKOUT SESSION R: SELLING THE CLIMATE CRISIS MESSAGE
SPEAKER:
Richard Greene, Author and Communication Coach
15:15–18:00PLENARY SESSIONS
•PLENARY SESSION 14: A CONVERSATION WITH ERIC SCHMIDT (15:15–16:15)
SPEAKER:
Eric Schmidt, Executive Chairman, Google
CHAIR:
Alice Rogoff, Publisher, Alaska Dispatch
•PLENARY SESSION 15: ARCTIC LESSONS FOR THE HIMALAYAN/THIRD POLE REGION (16:15–18:00)
SPEAKERS:
Yao Tandong, Director, Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Larry Brilliant, President, Skoll Global Threats Fund
Kuupik Kleist, Member, Parliament of Greenland
David James Molden, Director General, International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD)
CHAIR:
Arjun Gupta, Founder and Managing Partner, TeleSoft Partners
MONDAY, OCTOBER 14
07:30–08:30
COFFEE SOCIAL
Hosted by EFLA Consulting Engineers08:30–10:50PLENARY SESSIONS
•PLENARY SESSION 16: THE FUTURE OF ARCTIC COOPERATION (08:30–09:50)
SPEAKERS:
Gunnar Bragi Sveinsson, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Iceland
Michel Rocard, Former Prime Minister of France and Special Envoy of President François Hollande
Kuupik Kleist, Member, Parliament of Greenland
Aqqaluk Lynge, Chair, Inuit Circumpolar Council
CHAIR:
Alice Rogoff, Publisher, Alaska Dispatch
•PLENARY SESSION 17: THE FUTURE OF ARCTIC TOURISM (09:50–10:50)
Bob Herron, Representative, Alaska House of Representatives
Lesil McGuire, Senator, Alaska Senate
•BREAKOUT SESSION T: ARCTIC TRANSPORTATION AND RESPONSE INFRASTRUCTURE: BUILDING HUMAN CAPACITY
Workforce Development, Training and Education for Maritime and Response Activities
Organized by the Institute of the North
SPEAKERS:
Captain David (Duke) Snider, Vice President, Nautical Institute
Lawson Brigham, Professor, Geography and Arctic Policy, University of Alaska Fairbanks
CHAIR:
Nils Andreassen, Executive Director, Institute of the North
•BREAKOUT SESSION U: THE DYNAMIC NORTH: SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Organized by the School of Engineering and Natural Sciences at the University of Iceland
SPEAKERS:
Árný Erla Sveinbjörnsdóttir, Research Scientist, Institute of Earth Sciences, University of Iceland
Þóra Ellen Þórhallsdóttir, Professor, Faculty of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Iceland
Snæbjörn Pálsson, Professor, Faculty of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Iceland
Gunnar Stefánsson, Professor, Faculty of Industrial Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Iceland
Anna Karlsdóttir, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Iceland
Ármann Höskuldsson, Research Professor, Institute of Earth Sciences, University of Iceland
Bryndís Brandsdóttir, Research Scientist, Science Institute, University of Iceland
Björn Karlsson, Associate Professor, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Iceland
CHAIR:
Ingibjörg Jónsdóttir, Associate Professor, Faculty of Earth Sciences, University of Iceland
•BREAKOUT SESSION V: EMERGING TRENDS IN THE WEST-NORDIC ARCTIC: SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL-HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES
Organized by the Centre for Arctic Policy Studies (CAPS) at the University of Iceland
SPEAKERS:
Guðni Th. Jóhannesson, Assistant Professor of History, University of Iceland
Sigríður Huld Blöndal, International Relations, University of Iceland
Kristinn Schram, Director and Postdoctoral Researcher, Centre for Arctic Policy Studies (CAPS), University of Iceland
Lára Jóhannsdóttir, Postdoctoral Researcher, School of Business, University of Iceland
Egill Þór Níelsson, Researcher, Polar Research Institute of China (PRIC)
Þórður Þórarinsson, Secretary-General, West Nordic Council Secretariat
Aðalheiður Guðmundsdóttir, Associate Professor of Folkloristics and Ethnology, University of Iceland
CHAIR:
Margrét Cela, Project Manager, Centre for Arctic Policy Studies (CAPS), University of Iceland, and Ph.D. Candidate, University of Lapland
•BREAKOUT SESSION W: ARCGIS: A MAPPING PLATFORM FOR ARCTIC RESEARCH
Organized by Esri
SPEAKER:
Drew Stephens, Oceans Manager, Esri
•BREAKOUT SESSION X: OIL, GAS AND MINING DEVELOPMENTS IN THE WESTERN (NON-RUSSIAN) ARCTIC
Organized by the Icelandic Joint Committee on Arctic Affairs, the Icelandic Arctic Cooperation Network, the Icelandic-Arctic Chamber of Commerce and the Arctic Services
SPEAKER:
Hákon Gunnarsson, Chief Executive Officer, Gekon
Thorsteinn Gunnarsson, Head, Division of Evaluation and Analysis, Icelandic Centre for Research (RANNIS), and Council Member, International Arctic Science Committee (IASC)
Heiðar Már Guðjónsson, Chairman of the Board, Eykon Energy
Thorvaldur Ludvik Sigurjonsson, Managing Director, Eyjafjordur Business Development Agency
CHAIR:
Pétur Reimarsson, Director of Policymaking and Communications, Confederation of Icelandic Employers
•BREAKOUT SESSION Z: CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE ARCTIC
Organized by the University of Akureyri
SPEAKERS:
Thomas H. McGovern, Professor, City University of New York
Jón Haukur Ingimundarson, Associate Professor, University of Akureyri and Stefansson Arctic Institute
Kristinn P. Magnússon, Professor, University of Akureyri and Icelandic Institute of Natural History
Hreiðar Þór Valtýsson, Assistant Professor, University of Akureyri
CHAIR:
Guðrún Rósa Þórsteinsdóttir, Director, University of Akureyri Research Centre and Northern Research Forum Secretariat
•BREAKOUT SESSION AA: ARCTIC FORUM FOUNDATION
Invitation-Only Meeting for Arctic Business Round Table Partners
•BREAKOUT SESSION BB: MITIGATING RAPID CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE CRYOSPHERE: BLACK CARBON AND SHORT-LIVED POLLUTANTS
Organized by the International Cryosphere Climate Initiative (ICCI)
Preview of the Cryosphere and Development Report, to be released by the World Bank and the ICCI for the 19th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 19)
SPEAKERS:
Pam Pearson, Director, International Cryosphere Climate Initiative (ICCI)
Lars Nordberg, Senior Advisor, Atmospheric Brown Cloud Project, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
Speakers from the Arctic Council, ICIMOD and Others
13:00–14:30LUNCH
MUSICAL PERFORMER:
Paul D. Miller (DJ Spooky)
INTRODUCTION:
Ross A. Virginia, Director, Institute of Arctic Studies, Dartmouth College
Following the performance, Mr. Miller will sign copies of “The Book of Ice,” which explores the impact of climate change on Antarctica through the prism of digital media and contemporary music compositions14:30–16:15PLENARY SESSIONS
•PLENARY SESSION 21: THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA IN THE ARCTIC (14:30–15:15)
SPEAKERS:
Ahn Chong-Ghee, Deputy Minister for Economic Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Korea
Kim Jong-Deog, Research Fellow, Korea Maritime Institute
•PLENARY SESSION 22: GREENLAND’S PERSPECTIVE ON THE ARCTIC (15:15–16:15)
SPEAKERS:
Klaus Georg Hansen, Head of Institute, University of Greenland
Tønnes Berthelsen, Deputy Manager, KNAPK (Association of Fishermen and Hunters in Greenland)
Johan Rasmussen, Royal Arctic Line
Naja Carina Steenholdt, Student, University of Greenland
CHAIR:
•BREAKOUT SESSION A: ARCTIC SECURITY (CONTINUED AS NEEDED)
Organized by the Northern Research Forum (NRF) and the UArctic-NRF Thematic Network on Geopolitics and Security
•BREAKOUT SESSION D: ARCTIC LESSONS FOR THE HIMALAYAN/THIRD POLE REGION (CONTINUED AS NEEDED)
Organized by the Climate Research Fund, the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) and the Skoll Global Threats Fund
•BREAKOUT SESSION J: POLAR LAW (CONTINUED)
Organized by the Symposium on Polar Law Environmental Law, Including Access to Justice and the Aarhus Convention
SPEAKERS:
Sébastien Duyck, Researcher, Northern Institute for Environmental and Minority Law, Arctic Centre, University of Lapland
Rachael Lorna Johnstone, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Akureyri
Simon Marsden, Associate Professor, Flinders Law School, Flinders University
CHAIR:
Timo Koivurova, Research Professor and Director, Northern Institute for Environmental and Minority Law, Arctic Centre, University of Lapland
•BREAKOUT SESSION U: THE DYNAMIC NORTH: SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (CONTINUED AS NEEDED)
Organized by the School of Engineering and Natural Sciences at the University of Iceland
•BREAKOUT SESSION V: EMERGING TRENDS IN THE WEST-NORDIC ARCTIC: SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL-HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES (CONTINUED AS NEEDED)
Organized by the Centre for Arctic Policy Studies (CAPS) at the University of Iceland
•BREAKOUT SESSION CC: ARCTICCIRCLE: EVALUATION AND NEXT STEPS
Meeting of Representatives from Participating Organizations
•BREAKOUT SESSION DD: ICE NAVIGATOR PROJECT: FINAL STEPS TO A GLOBAL STANDARD
Organized by the Nautical Institute
SPEAKER:
Captain David (Duke) Snider, Vice President, Nautical Institute
•BREAKOUT SESSION EE: ALEUTIAN ISLANDS RISK ASSESSMENT: REDUCING HAZARDS AND CONSEQUENCES OF MARITIME TRANSPORTATION NEAR THE ARCTIC
Organized by Nuka Research and Planning Group
SPEAKER:
Sierra Fletcher, Senior Program Manager, Nuka Research and Planning Group
•BREAKOUT SESSION FF: AN OPEN-SOURCE DECISION MODEL FOR STRATEGIC PLANNING FOR THE ARCTIC REGION
Organized by Reykjavík University
SPEAKERS:
Þórður Víkingur Friðgeirsson, Assistant Professor, School of Science and Engineering, Reykjavík University
Páll Jensson, Professor, School of Science and Engineering, Reykjavík University
þorgeir Pálsson, Professor, School of Science and Engineering, Reykjavík University
Hlynur Stefánsson, Assistant Professor, School of Science and Engineering, Reykjavík University
•BREAKOUT SESSION GG: EDUCATIONAL AND SCIENTIFIC ARCTIC EXPEDITION OF THE FAR EASTERN FLOATING UNIVERSITY
Organized by Maritime State University Named After Admiral G.I. Nevelskoi
PARTICIPANTS:
Pavel Salyuk, Maritime State University and V.I. Il’ichev Pacific Oceanological Institute, Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Denis Burov, Maritime State University
Ekaterina Sokolova, Maritime State University and Institute of Automation and Control Processes, Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
19:00MEETING OF ARCTICCIRCLE HONORARY AND ADVISORY BOARDS
Outcomes and Next Steps
PROGRAM DRAFT | CONFIRMED SESSIONS AND SPEAKERS
(Last updated on October 7, 2013.)
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 11
18:00–20:00
WELCOME RECEPTION
Reykjavík Art Museum
Hosted by Arctia Shipping
Music by Guitar Islancio
SATURDAY, OCTOBER 12
07:30–08:30
COFFEE SOCIAL
Hosted by Olgoonik Corp. and Pt Capital08:30–10:10PLENARY SESSIONS
•PLENARY SESSION 1: OPENING SESSION (08:30–10:10)
SPEAKERS:
Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, President, Iceland
Aleqa Hammond, Premier, Greenland
Kaj Leo Holm Johannesen, Prime Minister, Faroe Islands
Lisa Murkowski, U.S. Senator
Patrick Borbey, Chair, Senior Arctic Officials, Arctic Council, and President, Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency (CanNor)
Anton Vasiliev, Ambassador at Large, Arctic Cooperation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Russia
CHAIR:
Alice Rogoff, Publisher, Alaska Dispatch
VIDEO MESSAGES:
Hillary Rodham Clinton, Former Secretary of State, United States
Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General, United Nations
HSH Prince Albert II of Monaco
10:10–10:25COFFEE BREAK
Hosted by Esri
10:25–13:10PLENARY SESSIONS
•PLENARY SESSION 2: CLIMATE CHANGE: A PLAN FOR ACTION? (10:25–11:45)
VIDEO MESSAGE:
Al Gore, Former Vice President, United States, and Nobel Laureate
SPEAKERS:
Enric Sala, Explorer-in-Residence, National Geographic Society
Tom Harkin, U.S. Senator
Mark Halle, Vice President, International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)
Sergio C. Trindade, President, SE2T International, and Nobel Laureate
Johan van de Gronden, Chief Executive Officer, World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Netherlands
Ghislaine Maxwell, Founder, The TerraMar Project
CHAIR:
Olav Orheim, Member, Scientific and Technical Committee, Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation
•PLENARY SESSION 3: SHORT FILM: “LAST HOURS” (11:45–11:55)
“Last Hours” is the first in a series of short films from Tree Media Foundation that explore the perils of climate change and the solutions to avert climate disaster.
•PLENARY SESSION 4: ARCTIC ICE MELT: GLOBAL WEATHER EVENTS (11:55–13:10)
VIDEO MESSAGE:
Rajendra K. Pachauri, Chair, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and Nobel Laureate
SPEAKERS:
Li Yuansheng, Deputy Director, Polar Research Institute of China (PRIC)
Karin Lochte, Chair, Alfred Wegener Institute
Minik Rosing, Professor, Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen
Helgi Björnsson, Research Professor, Institute of Earth Sciences, University of Iceland
Ingibjörg Jónsdóttir, Associate Professor, Faculty of Earth Sciences, University of Iceland
CHAIR:
Alexander Borodin, MHC (Services) Ltd.
VIDEO MESSAGE:
James Balog, Photographer, National Geographic (“Chasing Ice”)
13:10–13:40LUNCH13:40–16:10PLENARY SESSIONS
•PLENARY SESSION 5: SINGAPORE IN THE ARCTIC (13:40–14:15)
SPEAKER:
Sam Tan Chin Siong, Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Singapore
•PLENARY SESSION 7: ARCTIC ENERGY COOPERATION (14:45–16:00)
Arctic Energy Summit Report
SPEAKER:
Nils Andreassen, Executive Director, Institute of the North Oil and Gas: Problems and Possibilities
SPEAKERS:
Heiðar Már Guðjónsson, Chairman of the Board, Eykon Energy
Rúni M. Hansen, Vice President, Arctic Unit, Statoil
Anthony Hodge, President, International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM)
Jörg Ranau, Deputy Director-General for Economic Affairs, Federal Foreign Office, Germany
Bae Sung-Ho, Senior Researcher, Global Energy Cooperation Center, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Korea
CHAIR:
Charles K. Ebinger, Director, Energy Security Initiative, Brookings Institution
•PLENARY SESSION 8: LAUNCH OF ARCTIC YEARBOOK 2013: THE ARCTIC OF REGIONS VS. THE GLOBALIZED ARCTIC (16:00–16:10)
SPEAKER:
Lassi Heininen, Professor, University of Lapland, and Editor, Arctic Yearbook
Heather Exner-Pirot, Post-Doctoral Fellow, Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, University of Saskatchewan, and Co-Managing Editor, Arctic Yearbook
16:10–19:00BREAKOUT SESSIONSThese and the other breakout sessions in this agenda are organized by the participating organizations.
•BREAKOUT SESSION A: ARCTIC SECURITY
Organized by the Northern Research Forum (NRF) and the UArctic-NRF Thematic Network on Geopolitics and Security Changes in a State of Security in the Arctic
SPEAKERS:
Lassi Heininen, Professor, University of Lapland
Heather Exner-Pirot, Post-Doctoral Fellow, Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, University of Saskatchewan
Michal Luszczuk, Faculty Member, Jan Kochanowski University in Kielce
Steven Lamy, Professor of International Relations and Vice Dean for Academic Programs, Dana and David Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, University of Southern California The Nexus of Extractive Industries, the Environment and Climate Change: An Arctic (Security) Paradox
SPEAKERS:
Margrét Cela, Project Manager, Centre for Arctic Policy Studies (CAPS), University of Iceland, and Ph.D. Candidate, University of Lapland
Sóley Kaldal, Ph.D. Candidate, University of Iceland
Baozhi Cheng, Research Fellow, Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (SIIS)
Aki Tonami, Researcher, Nordic Institute of Asian Studies (NIAS), University of Copenhagen
Matthias Finger, Professor, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL)
•BREAKOUT SESSION B: BUSINESS COOPERATION: INDUSTRY LEADERSHIP AND COLLABORATION FOR RESPONSIBLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE ARCTIC
Organized by the World Ocean Council
SPEAKERS:
Sarah Barton, Chief Strategy Officer, Arctic Fibre Inc. and Quintillion Networks
Robert J. Blaauw, Senior Advisor, Global Arctic Theme, Shell International Exploration and Production B.V.
Sven-Olof Lindblad, President and Founder, Lindblad Expeditions
Gylfi Sigfússon, President and Chief Executive Officer, Eimskip
Mikael Thinghuus, Chief Executive Officer, Royal Greenland A/S
CHAIR:
Paul Holthus, Chief Executive Officer, World Ocean Council Arctic Industry Panel: Industry Perspectives on Responsible Economic Development in the Arctic and the Value of Business Cooperation
MODERATOR:
Hans Christian Krarup, Denmark Country Director, Golder Associates
Panel Discussion: Further Developing an Arctic Business Leadership Council and Multi-Industry Collaboration and Leadership on Responsible Business Development in the Arctic Region
MODERATOR:
Tim Lunel, Support and Development Director, International Tankers Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF)
Open Forum Discussion with the Arctic Business Community: Advancing Business Cooperation and Developing the Structure and Process for Fostering Cooperation
MODERATOR:
Theodore L. Rockwell, Alaska Regional Coordinator, Business Development, Energy and Environment, Battelle Memorial Institute
•BREAKOUT SESSION C: HUNTERS AND FISHERMEN: FIRST-HAND OBSERVATIONS AND PERSPECTIVES
SPEAKERS:
Tønnes Berthelsen, Deputy Manager, KNAPK (Association of Fishermen and Hunters in Greenland)
Raychelle Daniel, Senior Associate, U.S. ArcticProgram, Pew Environment Group
Anders J. H. Eira, Economist and Reindeer Herder
Steinar Pedersen, Associate Professor, Sámi University College, and Subsistence Salmon Fisherman
•BREAKOUT SESSION D: ARCTIC LESSONS FOR THE HIMALAYAN/THIRD POLE REGION
Organized by the Climate Research Fund, the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) and the Skoll Global Threats Fund
PARTICIPANTS:
Frederik Paulsen, Founder, Paulsen Editions
Yao Tandong, Director, Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Mihir Shah, Member, Planning Commission, Government of India
David James Molden, Director General, International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD)
Pema Gyamtsho, Member, Parliament of Bhutan
Linxiu Zhang, Professor and Deputy Director, Centre for Chinese Agricultural Policy, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Anil Kulkarni, Scientist, Indian Institute of Science
Eklabya Sharma, Director, Programme Operations, International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD)
Anil Gupta, Director, Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology
Ghulam Rasul, Chief Meteorologist, Pakistan Meteorological Department
Ravi Singh, Secretary-General and Chief Executive Officer, World Wildlife Fund (WWF) India
Arunabha Ghosh, Chief Executive Officer, Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW)
Mahmood Akhtar Cheema, Country Representative, International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Pakistan
Ravindra Kumar Shakya, Vice Chairman, National Planning Commission of Nepal
Napa Bikram Kishore Tripura, Secretary, Ministry of Chittagong Hill Tracts Affairs of Bangladesh
Atiq Rahman, Executive Director, Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies
Qazi Kholiquzzaman Ahmad, Chairman, Palli Karma-Sahayak Foundation
Karma Toeb, Glaciologist, Department of Geology and Mines, Bhutan
Ganesh Pangare, Head, Water Programme, International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Thailand
•BREAKOUT SESSION E: UNIVERSITY OF THE ARCTIC: BOARD OF GOVERNORS MEETING
Closed Meeting (By Invitation Only)
UArctic is a cooperative network of more than 150 universities, colleges and other organizations dedicated to education, research and the promotion of indigenous and local capacities and sustainable development in the circumpolar North.
•BREAKOUT SESSION F: THE SCIENCE OF ICE: GLOBAL RESEARCH COOPERATION
Organized by the Icelandic Centre for Research (RANNIS) and the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC)
Participants from RANNIS, the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC), the Alfred Wegener Institute, the Polar Research Institute of China, the U.S. Arctic Research Commission, Le Cercle Polaire, the Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs (COMNAP) and other Arctic organizations and scientific institutions
SPEAKERS:
Edward Itta, Commissioner, U.S. Arctic Research Commission
Li Yuansheng, Deputy Director, Polar Research Institute of China (PRIC)
Karin Lochte, Chair, Alfred Wegener Institute
Laurent Mayet, Director, Le Cercle Polaire, and Special Advisor to Michel Rocard
Olav Orheim, Member, Scientific and Technical Committee, Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation
CHAIR:
Thorsteinn Gunnarsson, Head, Division of Evaluation and Analysis, Icelandic Centre for Research (RANNIS), and Council Member, International Arctic Science Committee (IASC)
RAPPORTEUR:
Amy L. Wiita, President and Principal Research Scientist, Cinza Research LLC
•BREAKOUT SESSION G: ICE2SEA CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE REPORT: UNDERSTANDING ICE LOSS AND SEA-LEVEL RISE
Organized by the British Antarctic Survey
SPEAKERS:
David Vaughan, Science Leader, British Antarctic Survey
Guðfinna Aðalgeirsdóttir, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Earth Sciences, University of Iceland
•BREAKOUT SESSION H: BUILDING CAPACITY IN ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES: RELEVANT AND ACCESSIBLE EDUCATION IN THE NORTH
Organized by Yukon College
SPEAKERS:
Tosh Southwick, Director, First Nation Initiatives, Yukon College
Karen Barnes, President, Yukon College
•BREAKOUT SESSION I: FILM SCREENING: “VANISHING POINT”
Organized by Meltwater Media
This documentary tells the story of two Inuit communities—one on Canada’s Baffin Island, the other in Northwest Greenland—and explores the consequences of rapid social and environmental change. The screening will be followed by a question-and-answer session with the director.
19:00OPEN RECEPTION AT HARPA19:30–22:30RECEPTION AND DINNER (BY INVITATION)
Hosted by Guggenheim Partners
SUNDAY, OCTOBER 13
07:30–08:30
COFFEE SOCIALHosted by Arion Bank
08:30–10:15
PLENARY SESSIONS
•PLENARY SESSION 9: NORTHERN SEA ROUTES: A NEW ERA IN GLOBAL SHIPPING (08:30–09:45)
SPEAKERS:
Yunpeng Li, President, China Ocean Shipping (Group) Co. (COSCO Group)
Dmitry Pourim, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, Sovfracht
Gylfi Sigfússon, President and Chief Executive Officer, Eimskip
Nils Andersen, Group Chief Executive Officer, A.P. Moller-Maersk
Scott Borgerson, Chief Executive Officer, CargoMetrics Inc.
VIDEO MESSAGE:
Mark Begich, U.S. Senator
•PLENARY SESSION 13: RUSSIA AND THE ARCTIC (12:15–13:00)
SPEAKER:
Artur Chilingarov, Explorer and Special Envoy of President Vladimir Putin to the Arctic
CHAIR:
Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, President, Iceland
13:00–13:30
LUNCH
13:30–15:00
BREAKOUT SESSIONS (WORKING LUNCHES)Lunch will be provided
•BREAKOUT SESSION A: ARCTIC SECURITY (CONTINUED)
Organized by the Northern Research Forum (NRF) and the UArctic-NRF Thematic Network on Geopolitics and Security Future History of (State) Sovereignty and (National) Security in the Globalized Arctic
SPEAKERS:
Sandra Maria Rodrigues Balão, Assistant Professor, Technical University of Lisbon
Andreas Raspotnik, Research Fellow, University of Cologne
Alexander Sergunin, Professor, School of International Relations, St. Petersburg State University
Organized by Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF), the biodiversity working group of the Arctic Council
Presentation, film screening and question-and-answer period
SPEAKER:
Tom Barry, Executive Secretary, Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF)
Lawrence Hislop, Head, Polar Division, GRID-Arendal, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
•BREAKOUT SESSION P: THE EMERGING RISKS AND THE ARCTIC BIOECONOMY
Organized by Matís and the University of Iceland’s Research Centre in Suðurnes, Iceland
SPEAKERS:
Guðmundur Halldórsson, Research Coordinator, Soil Conservation Service of Iceland
Halldór Pálmar Halldórsson, Director, Suðurnes Research Centre, University of Iceland
Hrönn Ólína Jörundsdóttir, Project Manager, Matís
Sigrún Elsa Smáradóttir, Research Group Leader, Matís
CHAIR:
Helga Gunnlaugsdóttir, Research Group Leader, Matís
•BREAKOUT SESSION Q: ARCTIC RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT AND INDIGENOUS RELIGIOUS RIGHTS
Organized by the Canada Research Chair in Indigenous Rights in Constitutional and International Law at the University of Saskatchewan
SPEAKERS:
Michelle Biddulph, Juris Doctor Candidate and Researcher, University of Saskatchewan College of Law
Lorelle Binnion, Juris Doctor Candidate and Researcher, University of Saskatchewan College of Law
CHAIR:
Dwight Newman, Professor and Canada Research Chair in Indigenous Rights in Constitutional and International Law, University of Saskatchewan College of Law
•BREAKOUT SESSION R: SELLING THE CLIMATE CRISIS MESSAGE
SPEAKER:
Richard Greene, Author and Communication Coach
15:15–18:00
PLENARY SESSIONS
•PLENARY SESSION 14: A CONVERSATION WITH ERIC SCHMIDT (15:15–16:15)
SPEAKER:
Eric Schmidt, Executive Chairman, Google
CHAIR:
Alice Rogoff, Publisher, Alaska Dispatch
•PLENARY SESSION 15: ARCTIC LESSONS FOR THE HIMALAYAN/THIRD POLE REGION (16:15–18:00)
SPEAKERS:
Yao Tandong, Director, Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Larry Brilliant, President, Skoll Global Threats Fund
Kuupik Kleist, Member, Parliament of Greenland
David James Molden, Director General, International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD)
CHAIR:
Arjun Gupta, Founder and Managing Partner, TeleSoft Partners
MONDAY, OCTOBER 14
07:30–08:30
COFFEE SOCIALHosted by EFLA Consulting Engineers
08:30–10:50
PLENARY SESSIONS
•PLENARY SESSION 16: THE FUTURE OF ARCTIC COOPERATION (08:30–09:50)
SPEAKERS:
Gunnar Bragi Sveinsson, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Iceland
Michel Rocard, Former Prime Minister of France and Special Envoy of President François Hollande
Kuupik Kleist, Member, Parliament of Greenland
Aqqaluk Lynge, Chair, Inuit Circumpolar Council
CHAIR:
Alice Rogoff, Publisher, Alaska Dispatch
•PLENARY SESSION 17: THE FUTURE OF ARCTIC TOURISM (09:50–10:50)
Bob Herron, Representative, Alaska House of Representatives
Lesil McGuire, Senator, Alaska Senate
•BREAKOUT SESSION T: ARCTIC TRANSPORTATION AND RESPONSE INFRASTRUCTURE: BUILDING HUMAN CAPACITY
Workforce Development, Training and Education for Maritime and Response Activities
Organized by the Institute of the North
SPEAKERS:
Captain David (Duke) Snider, Vice President, Nautical Institute
Lawson Brigham, Professor, Geography and Arctic Policy, University of Alaska Fairbanks
CHAIR:
Nils Andreassen, Executive Director, Institute of the North
•BREAKOUT SESSION U: THE DYNAMIC NORTH: SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Organized by the School of Engineering and Natural Sciences at the University of Iceland
SPEAKERS:
Árný Erla Sveinbjörnsdóttir, Research Scientist, Institute of Earth Sciences, University of Iceland
Þóra Ellen Þórhallsdóttir, Professor, Faculty of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Iceland
Snæbjörn Pálsson, Professor, Faculty of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Iceland
Gunnar Stefánsson, Professor, Faculty of Industrial Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Iceland
Anna Karlsdóttir, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Iceland
Ármann Höskuldsson, Research Professor, Institute of Earth Sciences, University of Iceland
Bryndís Brandsdóttir, Research Scientist, Science Institute, University of Iceland
Björn Karlsson, Associate Professor, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Iceland
CHAIR:
Ingibjörg Jónsdóttir, Associate Professor, Faculty of Earth Sciences, University of Iceland
•BREAKOUT SESSION V: EMERGING TRENDS IN THE WEST-NORDIC ARCTIC: SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL-HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES
Organized by the Centre for Arctic Policy Studies (CAPS) at the University of Iceland
SPEAKERS:
Guðni Th. Jóhannesson, Assistant Professor of History, University of Iceland
Sigríður Huld Blöndal, International Relations, University of Iceland
Kristinn Schram, Director and Postdoctoral Researcher, Centre for Arctic Policy Studies (CAPS), University of Iceland
Lára Jóhannsdóttir, Postdoctoral Researcher, School of Business, University of Iceland
Egill Þór Níelsson, Researcher, Polar Research Institute of China (PRIC)
Þórður Þórarinsson, Secretary-General, West Nordic Council Secretariat
Aðalheiður Guðmundsdóttir, Associate Professor of Folkloristics and Ethnology, University of Iceland
CHAIR:
Margrét Cela, Project Manager, Centre for Arctic Policy Studies (CAPS), University of Iceland, and Ph.D. Candidate, University of Lapland
•BREAKOUT SESSION W: ARCGIS: A MAPPING PLATFORM FOR ARCTIC RESEARCH
Organized by Esri
SPEAKER:
Drew Stephens, Oceans Manager, Esri
•BREAKOUT SESSION X: OIL, GAS AND MINING DEVELOPMENTS IN THE WESTERN (NON-RUSSIAN) ARCTIC
Organized by the Icelandic Joint Committee on Arctic Affairs, the Icelandic Arctic Cooperation Network, the Icelandic-Arctic Chamber of Commerce and the Arctic Services
SPEAKER:
Hákon Gunnarsson, Chief Executive Officer, Gekon
Thorsteinn Gunnarsson, Head, Division of Evaluation and Analysis, Icelandic Centre for Research (RANNIS), and Council Member, International Arctic Science Committee (IASC)
Heiðar Már Guðjónsson, Chairman of the Board, Eykon Energy
Thorvaldur Ludvik Sigurjonsson, Managing Director, Eyjafjordur Business Development Agency
CHAIR:
Pétur Reimarsson, Director of Policymaking and Communications, Confederation of Icelandic Employers
•BREAKOUT SESSION Z: CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE ARCTIC
Organized by the University of Akureyri
SPEAKERS:
Thomas H. McGovern, Professor, City University of New York
Jón Haukur Ingimundarson, Associate Professor, University of Akureyri and Stefansson Arctic Institute
Kristinn P. Magnússon, Professor, University of Akureyri and Icelandic Institute of Natural History
Hreiðar Þór Valtýsson, Assistant Professor, University of Akureyri
CHAIR:
Guðrún Rósa Þórsteinsdóttir, Director, University of Akureyri Research Centre and Northern Research Forum Secretariat
•BREAKOUT SESSION AA: ARCTIC FORUM FOUNDATION
Invitation-Only Meeting for Arctic Business Round Table Partners
•BREAKOUT SESSION BB: MITIGATING RAPID CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE CRYOSPHERE: BLACK CARBON AND SHORT-LIVED POLLUTANTS
Organized by the International Cryosphere Climate Initiative (ICCI)
Preview of the Cryosphere and Development Report, to be released by the World Bank and the ICCI for the 19th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 19)
SPEAKERS:
Pam Pearson, Director, International Cryosphere Climate Initiative (ICCI)
Lars Nordberg, Senior Advisor, Atmospheric Brown Cloud Project, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
Speakers from the Arctic Council, ICIMOD and Others
13:00–14:30
LUNCHMUSICAL PERFORMER:Paul D. Miller (DJ Spooky)
INTRODUCTION:
Ross A. Virginia, Director, Institute of Arctic Studies, Dartmouth College
Following the performance, Mr. Miller will sign copies of “The Book of Ice,” which explores the impact of climate change on Antarctica through the prism of digital media and contemporary music compositions
14:30–16:15
PLENARY SESSIONS
•PLENARY SESSION 21: THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA IN THE ARCTIC (14:30–15:15)
SPEAKERS:
Ahn Chong-Ghee, Deputy Minister for Economic Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Korea
Kim Jong-Deog, Research Fellow, Korea Maritime Institute
•PLENARY SESSION 22: GREENLAND’S PERSPECTIVE ON THE ARCTIC (15:15–16:15)
SPEAKERS:
Klaus Georg Hansen, Head of Institute, University of Greenland
Tønnes Berthelsen, Deputy Manager, KNAPK (Association of Fishermen and Hunters in Greenland)
Johan Rasmussen, Royal Arctic Line
Naja Carina Steenholdt, Student, University of Greenland
CHAIR:
Kuupik Kleist, Member, Parliament of Greenland
16:15–17:00
NETWORKING BREAK
17:00–21:00
FINAL BREAKOUT SESSIONS
•BREAKOUT SESSION A: ARCTIC SECURITY (CONTINUED AS NEEDED)
Organized by the Northern Research Forum (NRF) and the UArctic-NRF Thematic Network on Geopolitics and Security
•BREAKOUT SESSION D: ARCTIC LESSONS FOR THE HIMALAYAN/THIRD POLE REGION (CONTINUED AS NEEDED)
Organized by the Climate Research Fund, the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) and the Skoll Global Threats Fund
•BREAKOUT SESSION J: POLAR LAW (CONTINUED)
Organized by the Symposium on Polar Law Environmental Law, Including Access to Justice and the Aarhus Convention
SPEAKERS:
Sébastien Duyck, Researcher, Northern Institute for Environmental and Minority Law, Arctic Centre, University of Lapland
Rachael Lorna Johnstone, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Akureyri
Simon Marsden, Associate Professor, Flinders Law School, Flinders University
CHAIR:
Timo Koivurova, Research Professor and Director, Northern Institute for Environmental and Minority Law, Arctic Centre, University of Lapland
•BREAKOUT SESSION U: THE DYNAMIC NORTH: SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (CONTINUED AS NEEDED)
Organized by the School of Engineering and Natural Sciences at the University of Iceland
•BREAKOUT SESSION V: EMERGING TRENDS IN THE WEST-NORDIC ARCTIC: SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL-HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES (CONTINUED AS NEEDED)
Organized by the Centre for Arctic Policy Studies (CAPS) at the University of Iceland
•BREAKOUT SESSION CC: ARCTICCIRCLE: EVALUATION AND NEXT STEPS
Meeting of Representatives from Participating Organizations
•BREAKOUT SESSION DD: ICE NAVIGATOR PROJECT: FINAL STEPS TO A GLOBAL STANDARD
Organized by the Nautical Institute
SPEAKER:
Captain David (Duke) Snider, Vice President, Nautical Institute
•BREAKOUT SESSION EE: ALEUTIAN ISLANDS RISK ASSESSMENT: REDUCING HAZARDS AND CONSEQUENCES OF MARITIME TRANSPORTATION NEAR THE ARCTIC
Organized by Nuka Research and Planning Group
SPEAKER:
Sierra Fletcher, Senior Program Manager, Nuka Research and Planning Group
•BREAKOUT SESSION FF: AN OPEN-SOURCE DECISION MODEL FOR STRATEGIC PLANNING FOR THE ARCTIC REGION
Organized by Reykjavík University
SPEAKERS:
Þórður Víkingur Friðgeirsson, Assistant Professor, School of Science and Engineering, Reykjavík University
Páll Jensson, Professor, School of Science and Engineering, Reykjavík University
þorgeir Pálsson, Professor, School of Science and Engineering, Reykjavík University
Hlynur Stefánsson, Assistant Professor, School of Science and Engineering, Reykjavík University
•BREAKOUT SESSION GG: EDUCATIONAL AND SCIENTIFIC ARCTIC EXPEDITION OF THE FAR EASTERN FLOATING UNIVERSITY
Organized by Maritime State University Named After Admiral G.I. Nevelskoi
PARTICIPANTS:
Pavel Salyuk, Maritime State University and V.I. Il’ichev Pacific Oceanological Institute, Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Denis Burov, Maritime State University
Ekaterina Sokolova, Maritime State University and Institute of Automation and Control Processes, Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
19:00
MEETING OF ARCTICCIRCLE HONORARY AND ADVISORY BOARDSOutcomes and Next Steps
The 68th United Nations General Assembly kicked off as what United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon described one of the highest turnouts in UN history. This Tuesday the United Nations General Assembly debate will begin with issues paramount to international security and peace. The Security Council, made up of five permanent members–US, Britain, France, Russia and China–will continue their meetings this week. Key matters being discussed include the Syria crisis and Iran’s nuclear weapons program. The meeting will begin with a statement from Ban Ki-Moon followed by remarks from the President of the 68th Session of the UNGA, John Ashe.
With over 130 representatives and leaders to attend the UNGA this year, Al Jazeera America profiles four world leaders to watch as the General Assembly and Security Council debates unfold.
Dilma Rousseff
Brazilian President Rousseff to speak first opening the UNGA general debate Tuesday
Evaristo Sa/AFP/Getty Images
Country: Brazil
Title: President
Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff is scheduled to open the 68th United Nations General Assembly debate on Tuesday. Her attendance coincides with mounting tension between her country and the United States, after it was revealed that the U.S. had spied on her personal communications and those of other Brazilian citizens. Last week, Rousseff called off a planned state visit to Washington, and she may use her speech to criticize the U.S.’ global intelligence gathering. On the other hand, Rousseff could completely ignore Obama for lack of a formal apology for or response to investigations into the U.S. spying in Brazil. She faced the most dramatic challenge of her presidency this past summer amid massive social protests that erupted nationwide, focused on bus-fare increases but also challenging government corruption. Her U.N. speech offers her an opportunity to move beyond a tough domestic political environment and assert Brazilian interests and leadership on the global stage.
Rousseff, who began her career as a civil servant, and was arrested and tortured as a leftist guerilla fighter in the 1960s, became the first woman president of Brazil when she took office in 2011. The challenges Rousseff has faced lend credence to the reputation she has earned as Brazil’s ‘iron lady,’ characterized by her hard-hitting politics and assertive manner. In the past, she has held influential positions in municipal and state governments, eventually serving former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva as chief of staff. In that position, Rousseff worked closely with oil giant Petrobras and helped draft a legislative framework for offshore drilling.
In 2011, just months after taking office, Rousseff became the first woman to open the debate at the 66th U.N. General Assembly. This year, Forbes named her the second most powerful woman in the world – behind German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Hassan Rouhani
Iranian President Rouhani and President Obama anticipated to meet this week in New York
Country: Iran
Title: President
Hassan Rouhani, Iran’s newly-elected president, succeeded firebrand President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was known for his combative rhetoric and grandstanding hostility towards the West. Unlike the former president, Rouhani has adopted a more conciliatory posture towards the international community. Since entering office, he has made several diplomatic gestures, including an op-ed published in the The Washington Post asking world leaders “to respond genuinely to my government’s efforts to engage in constructive dialogue.”
Rouhani will address the assembly on Tuesday, but all eyes are on what he does on the sidelines of the event – specifically, whether he meets with President Barack Obama. They recently exchanged letters, igniting speculation that the two leaders will meet at the General Assembly. The meeting would be the first between a U.S. and Iranian president in more than 30 years, signaling a desire on both sides to find a diplomatic solution to the protracted standoff over Iran’s nuclear program.
The Glasgow-educated Rouhani’s experience working in Iran’s National Security Council and the backing for his diplomatic outreach by Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, could be useful in continuing a diplomatic approach.
Viewed as a moderate, Rouhani began his career as a revolutionary activist before the 1979 overthrow of the Shah, and after the founding of the Islamic Republic took key roles in the Political, Defense, and Security Committee of the Expediency Council. He also served as a nuclear negotiator as the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council for 16 years before assuming the presidency.
John Ashe
Ashe will play crucial role in sustainable development and Millennium Development Goals this session
Getty Images
Country: Antigua and Barbuda
Title: President, 68th United Nations General Assembly
The president of the 68th United Nations General Assembly, John Ashe hails from the tiny Caribbean island nation of Antigua and Barbuda. But while his country may not wield much international influence, Ashe takes on the responsibility of pressing the power players at the international body to focus on the pressing concerns of the majority of its members – most importantly, addressing climate change.
Ashe has been at the forefront of international efforts to address environmental challenges, and has made it an objective to push Goal 7, to ensure environmental sustainability on the Millennium Development Goals road map for the session this year.
The Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has said Ashe will lead one of the most important assemblies to push forward MDG’s and sustainability with confidence. “He shares my passion for sustainable development — and my concern about the problem of climate change,” Ban said. “He demonstrated his commitment by serving on the governing bodies of major U.N. environmental agreements.”
Ashe’s efforts this year could help promote MDG’s sustainability goals in partnership with the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, considered one of the largest in the history of the United Nations. In addition, his efforts this year could influence next year’s UN Conference on Small Island Developing States, set forth by a UNGA resolution to address key environmental concerns affecting island nations.
Ashe has served in many roles chiefly as a United Nations diplomat. Previously, he served as the Chairman of the 13th session of the Commission on Sustainable Development at the United Nations in 2005 and chair of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol.
Sergei Lavrov
Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov will play crucial role in the Security Council meetings over the crisis in Syria
Getty Images
Country: Russia
Title: Foreign Minister
Russian foreign minister Lavrov began serving in the Soviet foreign ministry in 1973, a year after graduating Moscow State Institute of International Relations. He has held positions for the Soviet mission to the United Nations in New York City in 1981 and since then, has continued to play an instrumental part in both the foreign ministryand Russia Permanent Mission for the past 30 years. Lavrov has functioned as the president of the Security Council seven times throughout his diplomatic career. His experience within the Security Council, Russia’s close relationship with Syria and its position as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council made Lavrov a key player in the Syria crisis, brokering the chemical-weapons deal that has, at least for now, avoided U.S. military action against the Assad regime.
The deal, however, remains fragile. On Saturday, Syria disclosed details of chemical weapons to meet the deadline Russia and the U.S. had set, but Moscow and Washington continue to struggle over whether force should be threatened if Syria fails to keep its obligations.
Lavrov has publicly stated on many occasions that Russia would veto any resolution approving the use of force in case of Syrian violations. Kerry is in strong support of a resolution for military reinforcement should Syria violate its compliance to destroy chemical weapons. The resolution would fall under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which allows the international body to approve military action. The five permanent members of the Security Council – Russia, United States, China, United Kingdom and France – will meet this week.
YEARS AGO I disclosed one of the biggest secrets about Iran: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was an agent of the Mossad.
Suddenly, all the curious details of his behavior made sense. His public fantasies about the disappearance of Israel. His denial of the Holocaust, which until then had been typical only of a lunatic fringe. His boasting about Iran’s nuclear capabilities.
Cui bono? Who had an interest in all this nonsense?
There is only one sensible answer: Israel.
His posturing depicted Iran as a state which was both ridiculous and sinister. It justified Israel’s refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention. It diverted attention from Israel’s refusal to discuss the occupation of the Palestinian territories or hold meaningful peace negotiations.
ANY DOUBT that I may have felt about this international scoop has evaporated now.
Our political and military leaders almost openly bemoan the demise of Ahmadinejad.
Obviously, the Supreme Guide, Ali Khamenei, decided that I was right and has quietly disposed of this clown.
Worse, he has reaffirmed his deadly enmity to the Zionist Entity by pushing forward a person like Hassan Rouhani.
Rouhani is the very opposite of his predecessor. If the Mossad had been asked to sketch the worst possible Iranian leader Israel could imagine, they would have come up with someone like him.
An Iranian who recognizes and condemns the Holocaust! An Iranian man who offers sweetness and light! An Iranian who wishes peace and friendship on all nations – even hinting that Israel could be included, if only we give up the occupied Palestinian territories!
Could you imagine anything worse?
I AM not joking. This is deadly serious!
Even before Rouhani could open his mouth after his election, he was condemned outright by Binyamin Netanyahu.
A wolf in sheep’s clothing! A real anti-Semite! A cheat out to deceive the whole world! A devious politician whose devilish aim is to drive a wedge between Israel and the naive Americans!
This is the real Iranian bomb, far more threatening than the nuclear one that will be built behind the smokescreen of Rouhani’s sweet talk!
A nuclear bomb can be deterred by another nuclear bomb. But how do you deter a Rouhani?
Yuval Steinitz, our failed former Minister of Finance and at present responsible for our “strategic thinking” (yes, really!) exclaimed in despair that the world wants to be deceived by Iran. Binyamin Netanyahu called it a “honey trap”. Commentators who are hand-fed by “official circles” (i.e. the Prime Minister’s Office) proclaim that he is an existential threat.
All this before he had uttered a word.
WHEN ROUHANI at long last made his Grand Speech at the UN General Assembly, all the dire forebodings were confirmed.
Where Ahmadinejad had set off a stampede of delegates from the hall, Rouhani packed them in. Diplomats from all over the world were curious about the man. They could have read the speech a few minutes later, but they wanted to see and hear for themselves. Even the US sent officials to be present. No one left.
No one, that is, except the Israelis.
The Israeli diplomats were instructed by Netanyahu to leave the hall demonstratively when the Iranian started to speak.
That was a stupid gesture. As rational and as effective as a little boy’s tantrum when his favorite toy is taken away.
Stupid, because it painted Israel as a spoiler, at a time when the entire world is seized by an attack of optimism after the recent events in Damascus and Tehran.
Stupid, because it proclaims the fact that Israel is at present totally isolated.
BY THE way, did anyone notice that Rouhani was constantly wiping his brow during his half-hour speech? The man was obviously suffering. Did another Mossad agent sneak into the UN maintenance room and shut down the air-conditioning? Or was it just the heavy robes?
I never became a priest, not only because I am an atheist (in common with many priests, I suspect) but also because of this obligation to wear the heavy clothes which all creeds demand. Same goes for diplomats.
After all, priests and diplomats are human beings, too! (Many of them, at least.)
ONLY ONE Israeli cabinet member dared to criticize the Israeli exit openly. Ya’ir Lapid. What has come over him? Well, polls show that the rising star is not rising any more. As Minister of Finance he has been compelled to take very unpopular steps. Since he does not speak about things like the occupation and peace, he is considered shallow. He has almost been pushed aside. His blunt criticism of Netanyahu may bring him back into the center.
However, he has put his finger on a central fact: that Netanyahu and his crew behave exactly as the Arab diplomats used to do a generation ago. Meaning, they are stuck in the past. They don’t live in the present.
Living in the present needs something politicians are loath to do: thinking again.
Things are changing. Slowly, very slowly, but perceptibly.
It is far too early to say much about the Decline of the American Empire, but one does not need a seismograph to perceive some movement in that direction.
The Syrian affair was a good example. Vladimir Putin likes to be photographed in judo poses. In judo, one exploits the momentum of one’s opponent to bring him down. That is exactly what Putin did.
President Obama has painted himself into a corner. He mouthed belligerent threats and could not retreat, though the US public is in no belligerent mood. Putin released him from the dilemma. For a price.
I don’t know if Putin is such an agile player that he pounced on a side remark by John Kerry about Bashar Assad’s chance of relinquishing his chemical weapons. I rather suspect that it was all arranged in advance. Either way, Obama got off the hook and Putin was in the game again.
I have very mixed feelings about Putin. He has done to his Chechen citizens very much what Assad is doing to his Sunni citizens. His treatment of dissidents, such as the Pussy Riot band, is abominable.
But on the international stage, Putin is now the peacemaker. He has taken the sting out of the chemical weapons’ crisis, and may quite possibly take the initiative in providing a political settlement for that dreadful civil war.
The next step could well be to play a similar role in the Iranian crisis. If Khamenei has come to the conclusion that his nuclear program may not be worth the economic misery of the sanctions, he may well sell it to the US. In this case, Putin can play a vital role, mediating between two tough traders who have a lot to trade.
(Unless, of course, Obama behaves like the American who bought a carpet in a Persian bazaar. The seller asked for 1000 dollars, and the American paid up without haggling. When told that the carpet was worth no more than a hundred dollars, he answered: “I know, but I wanted to punish him. Now he won’t be able to sleep, cursing himself for not asking 5000 dollars.”)
HOW DO we fit into this changing scene?
First of all, we must start thinking, much as we would prefer to avoid it.
New circumstances demand new thoughts.
In his own US speech, Obama made a clear connection between the Iranian bomb and the Israeli occupation. This linkage cannot be unlinked. Let’s grasp it.
The US is today a bit less important than it was yesterday. Russia is a bit more important than it was. As its futile attack on Capitol Hill during the Syrian crisis shows, AIPAC is also less powerful.
Let’s think again about Iran. It’s too early to conclude how far Tehran is moving, if at all.
But we need to try. Walking out of rooms is not a policy. Entering rooms is.
If we could restore some of our former relationship with Tehran, or even just take the sting out of the present one, that would be a huge gain for Israel. Combining this with a real peace initiative vis-a-vis the Palestinians would be even better.
Our present course is leading towards disaster. The present changes in the international and the regional scenes can make a change of course possible.
Let’s help President Obama change American policy, instead of using AIPAC to terrorize Congress into blindly supporting an outdated policy towards Iran and Palestine. Let’s extend cautious feelers towards Russia. Let’s change our public stance, as the leaders of Iran are doing with such success.
Are they more clever than us?
—————————————
FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES OF TODAY NOTES OF THE GOING ON AT THE UN:
The diplomatic breakthrough on Syria came as Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, said progress had been made toward a resolution of the nuclear dispute between his country and the West, suggesting it could happen in a year.
Mr. Zarif spoke optimistically after emerging from what he called a “very substantive, businesslike” meeting at the United Nations with representatives of the big powers. He also met face to face with Secretary of State John Kerry in one of the highest-level discussions between the estranged countries in years.
The Syria resolution was a major milestone for the United Nations after years of largely unproductive discussions in the Security Council over the civil war in Syria, which has killed more than 100,000.
Syria, the resolution states, “shall not use, develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile or retain chemical weapons, or transfer, directly or indirectly, chemical weapons to other states or nonstate actors.”
By November, international monitors are to inspect all of Syria’s declared sites, and equipment to produce and mix chemical weapons is to be destroyed, according to a so-called framework agreement that was negotiated by the United States and Russia this month and that is to be enforced by the new Security Council resolution.
Syria’s entire arsenal is to be eliminated by the middle of 2014, according to that accord, a process that Mr. Assad has said could take a year.
Skeptics worry that the process may become drawn out as it was during the 1990s when the United Nations sought to inspect Saddam Hussein’s arsenal in Iraq. Syrian compliance, they fear, may be only partial, and the Russians, they worry, may use their veto power in the Security Council to buy the Assad government more time.
Proponents of the measure say Russia may be cooperative because it shares the West’s concern about maintaining zero tolerance for chemical weapons use.
The diplomatic maneuvering over Syria came amid another drama at the United Nations
Mr. Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister, emerged smiling from a meeting with six world powers late Thursday afternoon as American and European officials announced that negotiations on “details” would be worked out in Geneva next month.
The meeting, led by the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, took place with the five permanent members of the Security Council, along with Germany. Mr. Kerry’s separate meeting with Mr. Zarif lasted 30 minutes.
Ms. Ashton said she envisioned an “ambitious timetable” of next steps that would be discussed when the group meets in Geneva next month. The details, she said, would address what Iran needs to do, how soon, and how the international community can verify whether Iran is keeping its word. “Twelve months is a good time frame to think about implementation on the ground,” she said.
Mr. Zarif said Iran hoped to reach a détente “in a timely fashion” that would preserve its right to enrich uranium and persuade the world community that it is for civilian use. “Now we see if we can match our positive words with serious deeds,” he said.
———
Those who watched Mr. Rouhani closest this week describe him as serious, controlled and single-mindedly focused on message. He prefers to be called Dr. Rouhani, for his doctorate in law, rather than by his clerical title. He seemed intent to convey that he was prepared to take concrete steps to normalize relations with the West, that he was reasonable and that he enjoyed the backing of the street and his country’s religious establishment. He also seemed to be in somewhat of a rush, even while saying events might have been moving too fast.
“He did not come to New York to negotiate with speeches or throw in the towel and surrender. He came to New York to start negotiations,” said Vali Nasr, dean of the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. “He is very clever, very pragmatic, but he’s also now showing himself to be bold, a risk-taker. He is taking the biggest risk any Iranian has in reaching out to the West.”
“He’s far from being a traditional Shia cleric,” said M. Hossein Hafezian, who worked with him for nearly 10 years at his Center for Strategic Research in Tehran. He described Mr. Rouhani as a political “insider” and a moderate, but one who has shunned being called “westernized or liberal, because that would be a curse.”
One diplomat here described him as so composed while meeting one of his Western counterparts that he seemed hard to grasp. The diplomat, who asked not to be identified because of the delicacy of the bilateral meeting, said he was struck by the fact that Mr. Rouhani “didn’t have advisers whispering in his ears the whole time.”
The contrast with his predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, could not be more stark. Mr. Ahmadinejad used his podium at the General Assembly to criticize Israel, deny the Holocaust and dangle the notion that Sept. 11 was the handiwork of Americans. Mr. Rouhani, in his public speeches, has mentioned Israel only once, calling on it to sign the Nonproliferation Treaty.
All the same, he has insisted on Iran’s right to build what he says is a civilian nuclear program. At a dinner for about 20 former diplomats and Iran scholars on Tuesday at the One UN New York, a hotel across the street from the United Nations building, one guest recalled that Mr. Rouhani was bluntly asked: What is Iran doing and why is it doing it?
“His answer was very simple,” said the guest, who could not be named because it was a confidential meeting. “We are enriching. We are doing it because it is our right.”
The only time the usually unflappable Mr. Rouhani was mildly exercised, the guest said, was when he spoke of Israel’s complaints about Iran’s nuclear program. Mr. Rouhani, he recalled, sharply pointed out that Israel itself had nuclear weapons.
The next morning, speaking at a meeting on disarmament, Mr. Rouhani called on Israel to give up its nuclear weapons.
Remarks like that prompted some critics to say that Mr. Rouhani was simply a camouflaged version of Mr. Ahmadinejad, pressing the same aims. “Rouhani came here today to cheat the world, and unfortunately many people were willing to be cheated,” Israel’s minister of intelligence and internal affairs, Yuval Steinitz, said Tuesday at the United Nations.
Gary Samore, a former Obama adviser, and now the president of United Against Nuclear Iran, said the substance was “very similar to Ahmadinejad’s, but he says it in a much kinder and gentler way.” “That’s the definition of a charm offensive,” he continued.
———
Mr. Rouhani’s interest in lowering tensions with the West is most directly helped by his closest aides. He has surrounded himself with men, who, like other Iranian bureaucrats, favor trim beards and suits without ties, but who speak the language of the American elite. Several, like his foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, were educated here.
Perhaps the most unexpected — and closely guarded — encounter this week was attended by Mr. Rouhani’s chief of staff, Mohammad Nahavandian. He attended a breakfast meeting on Tuesday, organized at his request, with about a dozen New York business leaders, most of them retired, from the banking and energy sectors. His message, according to the breakfast organizer, was that Iran is now pro-business and welcomes private investment, if and when sanctions are lifted.
“This was the beginning of exploring if something like that could happen,” the organizer said, asking to remain anonymous because of the delicacy of the gathering.
Still, said William H. Luers, a retired United States ambassador who now runs an advocacy group called The Iran Project, Mr. Rouhani’s greatest challenge would be to convince skeptics in Iran and the United States. “He has to demonstrate this is more than a charm offensive, that he means what he says, that if there’s a response he’s ready to be engaged,” Mr. Luers said.
The same applies to Mr. Obama, he added. “It’s too far along,” Mr. Luers said. “We’ve said too much on both sides. There’s too much distrust to just say we had a good conversation.”
He was the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran from 1951 until 1953, when his government was overthrown in a coup d’état orchestrated by the British MI6 and the American CIA. That was when the US and the UK derailed what could have been the start of a movement to bring the Muslim World up to Modern Times. It was all done in order to support the UK and the US Oil Interests. This ought to be remembered when looking at the Middle East of 2013.
WASHINGTON — As he conducts a high-profile good-will visit to New York this week, Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani, says he is bringing a simple message of peace and friendship. But on Wednesday, Mr. Rouhani set off a political storm here and in Iran, with an acknowledgment and condemnation of the Holocaust that landed him in precisely the kind of tangled dispute he had hoped to avoid.
President Hassan Rouhani of Iran addressing the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday. He walks a delicate tightrope, trying to calm hard-liners at home.
Mr. Rouhani, in an interview on Tuesday with CNN, described the Holocaust as a “crime that the Nazis committed towards the Jews” and called it “reprehensible and condemnable.” It was a groundbreaking statement, given that his predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, denied the systematic extermination of Jews during World War II. Mr. Rouhani largely repeated his comments in a meeting with news media executives on Wednesday.
But a semiofficial Iranian news agency accused CNN of fabricating portions of Mr. Rouhani’s interview, saying he had not used the word Holocaust or characterized the Nazi mass murder as “reprehensible.” Mr. Rouhani spoke in Persian; officials at CNN said they used an interpreter provided by the Iranian government for the interview, which was conducted by Christiane Amanpour.
The dispute over his comments reflects the extreme delicacy of the Holocaust as an issue in Iranian-American relations. More broadly, it speaks to the political tightrope Mr. Rouhani is walking, trying to negotiate a nuclear deal with the United States that will ease sanctions to please everyday Iranians, without provoking a backlash by hard-liners.
Such careful calculations prompted Mr. Rouhani to eschew a handshake with President Obama at the United Nations General Assembly. After weeks of conciliatory moves, including Iran’s freeing of political prisoners, Iranian and American officials said they believed Mr. Rouhani needed to placate hard-liners in Tehran, who would have bridled at images of an Iranian leader greeting an American president.
“Shaking hands with Obama would have won Rouhani huge points with the Iranian public, but it would have caused Iran’s hard-liners a conniption,” said Karim Sadjadpour, an expert on Iran at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Mr. Rouhani avoided other land mines at the United Nations. His comments to the General Assembly, though less inflammatory than those of Mr. Ahmadinejad, touched on similar themes and grievances: the lack of respect for Iran, the West’s refusal to recognize its right to enrich uranium, and the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory.
But when Mr. Rouhani sat down later with Ms. Amanpour, he moved into fraught territory. Asked whether he shared his predecessor’s belief that the Holocaust was a myth, Mr. Rouhani replied, according to CNN’s translation, that he would leave it to historians to judge the “dimensions of the Holocaust.”
But he added, “In general, I can tell you that any crime or — that happens in history against humanity, including the crime that the Nazis committed towards the Jews, as well as non-Jewish people — is reprehensible and condemnable, as far as we are concerned.”
The Iranian news agency Fars, which has ties to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, posted its own translation of Mr. Rouhani’s answer, and claimed that he did not use the word “reprehensible” and that he said historians should be left to judge “historical events,” not “the Holocaust.”
That translation resembles more closely the way Mr. Ahmadinejad used to discuss the issue. In an interview with CNN in 2012, he said: “Whatever event has taken place throughout history, or hasn’t taken place, I cannot judge that. Why should I judge that?”
In what appeared to be an effort to head off criticism of Mr. Rouhani, Iran’s official Islamic Republic News Agency reported Wednesday that the chief of staff of Iran’s armed forces, Maj. Gen. Hassan Firouzabadi, said the president had presented Iran’s clear and revolutionary stands in his United Nations speech.
Mr. Ahmadinejad’s refusal to recognize the Holocaust became a symbol of Tehran’s implacable hostility. For Israel, it is evidence that Iran is bent on its elimination, and this is why Israel is so determined to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
While American Jewish leaders characterized Mr. Rouhani’s remarks as a modest step forward, they remained deeply skeptical of Iran’s intentions and its readiness to abandon its nuclear ambitions.
“Assuming the accuracy of the translation, for me his comments are duly noted,” said David Harris, the executive director of the American Jewish Committee. “But he’s only acknowledging, and rather belatedly, the universally acknowledged truth of the last 70 years. That does not warrant a standing ovation.”
Israeli officials reject Mr. Rouhani’s claim that the factual details of the Holocaust are a matter best left to historians. In fact, some analysts say, even raising doubts about the scope of the genocide is itself a form of Holocaust revisionism.
A statement issued last week by the office of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared, “It does not take a historian to recognize the existence of the Holocaust — it just requires being a human being.”
Mr. Netanyahu, rattled by Mr. Obama’s desire to engage Iran, has warned that Mr. Rouhani, with his professorial demeanor and moderate tone, is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Yet Iran’s hard-liners, Mr. Sadjadpour said, “probably view him as sheep in wolf’s clothing.”
The complex political crosscurrents were on display in the Iranian news media’s coverage of Mr. Rouhani’s day at the United Nations. A reformist newspaper, Shargh, published pictures of Mr. Rouhani and Mr. Obama during their speeches, with the headline “Perhaps Another Time” — a reflection of the letdown among average Iranians about the missed opportunity for a handshake.
But another paper, Kayhan, which is close to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei expressed horror over the possibility that “the clean hand of our president would for moments be in the bloody clench” of Mr. Obama.
Advisers and analysts close to the government in Tehran said that after weeks of conciliatory statements and gestures by Mr. Rouhani, the excitement had gotten out of hand.
“We need to gain something from the Americans, before we pose and smile with them,” said Hamid-Reza Taraghi, an official who is one of the few trusted to interpret the speeches of Ayatollah Khamenei. “Of course, Mr. Rouhani also needed to convince some at home that he is not making any wild moves.”
Mr. Rouhani himself suggested that a meeting would have been premature and might actually have jeopardized the longer-term goal of striking an agreement on the nuclear program. Speaking to editors and columnists in New York on Wednesday, he said, “I believe we did not have enough time to make it happen.”
“If we do not take our first steps carefully,” he said, “we may not at the very least be able to obtain mutual goals that are in our minds.”
White House officials, though deflated, said Mr. Rouhani’s decision showed he is an astute political player who knows how to calm hard-liners at home while charming audiences abroad. Those are skills they say he will need to navigate the treacherous waters of Iranian politics.
“The issue of the relationship between the United States and Iran is incredibly controversial within Iran,” said a senior administration official. “For them it was just too difficult to move forward with that type of encounter at the presidential level, at this juncture.”
3 COMMENTS 
Wilaya of Oran, Algeria
Northern Region, Burkina Faso
Republic of Mali
Region Oriental, Morocco
Delta State, Nigeria
Western Province, Rwanda
Region de Dakar, Senegal
Gujarat State, India
State of Cebu, Phillipines
Gyeonggi Provincial Government, South Korea
City of Vienna, Austria
Region of Istria, Croatia
Région de l’Ile de France, France
Region de Azores, Portugal
Alba County, Romania
Region of Donetsk, Ukraine
Region of Flevoland, Netherlands
Province of British Columbia, Canada
State of Baja California, Mexico
State of California, USA
State of Acre, Brazil
State of Pichincha, Ecuador
City of Santiago de Surco, Peru
Demotix/Zoya Shu. Some rights reserved.
Rezension: Christian Moser [Müller, Jan-Werner (2013): Das demokratische Zeitalter. Eine politische Ideengeschichte Europas im 20. Jahrhundert. Berlin: Suhrkamp Verlag, ISBN 9783518585856, Preis: € 41,10]
