BAN KI-MOON
U.N. Looks for Diplomatic Breakthroughs: U.N. looks for diplomatic breakthroughs in 2010.
Posted By Colum Lynch   Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Ban Ki-moon and his diplomatic envoys have been scouring the globe this week in search of a promising peace settlement for 2010, pursuing talks with Kim Jong Il’s government in North Korea, Afghanistan’s Taliban, and Turkish and Greek Cypriot leaders.

These latest diplomatic initiatives follow a year that brought few breakthroughs on the mediation front as the U.N. strained to advance democracy in Burma, head off mass rights abuses in Sri Lanka, and manage a crisis that threatens to trigger a resumption of civil war in Sudan.

U.N. officials say the proliferation of new initiatives is largely coincidental, the product of months, if not years, of preparation, but that it provides the U.N. with an opportunity to show that it can achieve some diplomatic wins. “There’s no grand strategy here,” said one official. Here’s a survey of key U.N. diplomatic initiatives for 2010 and their prospects for success {cynics at the UN say that this is propelled by the wish to secure a reappointment for a seconf term at the UN - www.SustainabiliTank.info editor}:

1. Cyprus. Ban traveled to Cyprus this weekend to nudge Demetris Christofias and Mehmet Ali Talat, the parties representing the ethnic Greek and Turkish sides of the island, into a breakthrough in a conflict that has lasted more than 35 years despite repeated efforts at mediation. Ban said that he is confident that a political settlement “is within reach.” But the two Cypriot leaders appeared more downbeat about the prospects for a deal. Cyprus has been split since 1974. Talks between the two sides during the past 17 months have produced some results, including an agreement to open a pedestrian crossing in Nicosia, the divided capital. But there is concern that April elections in the Turkish section may bring a hard-liner to power. “Time is not on the side of settlement,” the two leaders acknowledged in a joint statement Monday.

2. North Korea. Ban, a former South Korean diplomat, has been seeking a role in the North Korea crisis since he first took office in January 2007. A confidential U.N. policy paper, produced on April 25, 2007, called for “intensifying and expanding engagement” with Pyongyang, and possibly for the appointment a special North Korea coordinator. But initial attempts to start talks faltered after North Korea launched its missile test and detonated its second nuclear explosive last April and May. On Sunday, Ban announced that he would send his top political advisor, B. Lynn Pascoe, a former U.S. diplomat, to Pyongyang to restart high level U.N. talks later this month. He will be joined by Ban’s top Korean aide, Kim Won-soo. Can Ban be far behind?

3. Afghanistan. The U.N.’s outgoing special representative, Kai Eide, held secret talks with members of the Taliban sometime last year. Eide has been pursuing such contacts with the Taliban since he first started his job. U.N. sources described those talks as highly preliminary, and said that they do not have the approval of the Taliban leadership, which claims that its movement is not negotiating with the U.N. But an official close to the talks confirmed that they had in fact taken place and that Eide’s successor, Staffan di Mistura, would likely continue pursuing those contacts. While these discussions offer little hope of providing a breakthrough, they could provide a useful back channel over the long haul.

4. Sudan. The U.N. faces perhaps its greatest diplomatic challenge in Sudan, which is preparing for presidential elections this year and a referendum in 2011 that will determine whether the country remains unified or whether Sudan’s southerners decide to vote for independence. Ban has said Sudan will be one of his top priorities in 2010, and he has just assigned his two top Africa specialists, Ibrahim Gambari and Haile Menkerios, to manage U.N. operations on the ground. Success in Sudan will largely be measured by the U.N.’s ability to stop the referendum from triggering a renewed civil war. “Partitioning the country without violence: that will be a miracle,” said one Security Council diplomat. “I don’t know how they are going to do it.”

5. Burma. U.N. diplomatic efforts in Burma have pretty much run aground. Ban has reassigned his top Burma envoy, Gambari, to Sudan, and made his chief of staff, Vijay Nambiar of India, his temporary point man on Burma. The Burmese military junta recently rebuffed a U.N. request to invite Gambari back to the country for a final visit. U.N. diplomats say that Burma has little interest in meeting with the U.N.’s diplomatic placeholders, particularly now that the Americans are looking to engage the regime directly.

Joe Zammit-Lucia and The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) – a UN affiliate now – pull in art to cause us to rethink our ways:

please see http://mail.google.com/mail/#inbox/124aaafec45fd5a1 

From: “Yavuz Hekim” <yavuzhekim@yavuzhekim.com>
Date: June 30, 2009
 
 
 

Dear Editor in Chief
 
As an actor who has played the role of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in 6 Films in Turkey, I would like to make an interview with your newspaper by e-mail
 
Information about myself is given below.
 
Sincerely yours
 
Cell  00 90 532 482 24 28
 
Yavuz HEKÄ°M                      www.yavuzhekim.com 

Click here to download the PDF

UN Halts Aid to Gaza in Dispute with Hamas – Griff Witte
The UN aid agency that serves more than half the residents of the Gaza Strip suspended humanitarian shipments on Friday, accusing Hamas of confiscating UN material for the second time in a week. The UN Relief and Works Agency said Hamas seized 10 trucks filled with rice and flour. Earlier in the week, the agency had accused Hamas of confiscating blankets and food from a UN warehouse. In a statement from New York, the world body said the suspension would remain in place “until the aid is returned and the agency is given credible assurances from the Hamas government in Gaza that there will be no repeat of these thefts.” John Ging, head of the relief agency in Gaza, said Hamas’ actions had “crossed a red line.” “We’re not going to bring aid in here and let it be hijacked by Hamas or anyone else.” (Washington Post)

Cyprus Ship Is Carrying Prohibited Weapons-Related Material from Iran
A ship detained by Cyprus appears to be carrying banned weapon-related material from Iran prohibited under UN resolutions, a senior Cypriot source said on Saturday. A UN panel monitoring compliance of sanctions said that on the basis of evidence provided, the Cyprus-flagged “Monchegorsk,” sailing from Iran to Syria, is carrying a cargo that is in violation of UN Security Council resolutions. (Reuters)

Young Artists Auction Off Masterpieces:   Proceeds to UNICEF Emergency Response.

Paint for the Planet highlights children’s call for leadership on climate change

Paintings chosen from among 200,000 entries by young artists from around the world will be auctioned off as part of Paint for the Planet, an event organized in New York by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). All proceeds will go to UNICEF to support emergency response for children affected by climate-related disasters.

In addition to the live auction at the Harvard Club of New York, the art will also be sold online to enable people around the world to participate. To see the paintings and to bid online, please visit: www.unep.org

Where & When:

23 October, 2008:
12: UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner will be present at the NOON briefing in room 226 at United Nations Headquarters in New York.
12.30–2 pm: Exhibit opening and press conference in the Main Lobby of the UN Headquarters in New York.

25 October: 7-9 pm Auction at the Harvard Club of New York, 30 W. 44th Street

Who:

Six young artists from Burundi, Colombia, Malta, the United Kingdom and the United States { None from Asia ? } will be in New York for the event. UNICEF Executive Director Ann M. Veneman, UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner and Yvo de Boer, the Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change will be present at the auction.

Why:
The auction in New York on 25 October will help raise emergency funds for children affected by climate-related disasters, with the proceeds being donated to UNICEF.

Paint for the Planet features a selection of stand-out entries from UNEP’s International Children’s Painting Competition. The paintings, which showcase children’s fears and hopes for the planet, are a powerful plea from children for leadership on climate change before it is too late. Paint for the Planet is a launch pad for the ‘UNite to Combat Climate Change’ campaign to support the call for a definitive agreement at the climate change talks in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December 2009.

To attend the auction at the Harvard Club, journalists must RSVP.

For more information, visit www.unep.org or contact:

Jim Sniffen, UNEP New York office, at  james.sniffen at unep.org or tel: +1-212-963-8094/8210
Anne-France White, UNEP Associate Information Officer, at  anne-france.white at unep.org or mobile: +917 838 9985
Gaurav Garg, UNICEF Media,  ggarg at unicef.org or tel: +1 212 326 7665, mobile: 646 912 4294

From:  briefing at unwatch.org
Subject: Exclusive Report: Today’s UN Durban II African Prep Meeting Slams Israel, Free Speech; But Silent on Darfur Atrocities.
Date: August 26, 2008

UN Watch Exclusive from Nigeria: Today’s Durban II Text
News and Analysis from UN Watch in Geneva
Vol. 179 | August 26, 2008

In this Issue:

• UN’s Durban II African Prep Meeting Slams Israel, Free Speech; Silent on Darfur Atrocities and African Ethnic Violence
• UN Watch Plenary Speech to African Conference Defends Principles, Exposes Hypocrisy
• France to Boycott Durban II If Hijacked, Warns Human Rights Minister Rama Yade
• UN Palestine Investigator Richard Falk Lauds Gaza Boat Protest, Without Disclosing Ties to Campaign
• Qaddafi Rights Prize Awarded to Former Malta PM for ‘Defending Palestinian and Iraqi Oppressed Peoples’
• UN Watch in the News: Feature Interview in German Weekly Jungleworld

{See also www.UNWatch.org to get a fill of our indignation at how the UN is being misused by the oil barrons and their friends. Do not expect here Ethics, UN Charter ideas, or UN Human Rights ideals.

The only positives come from indignation expressed by a handfull of UN Member States. Even some of these will not speak up all the time – this because of the daze that comes from their addiction to oil.}

UN’s ‘Durban II’ African Prep Meeting Slams Israel, Free Speech; But Silent on Darfur Atrocities and African Ethnic Violence.

UN Watch’s Leon Saltiel (right) participated at this week’s conference
in Abuja, Nigeria, meeting with UN experts, diplomats and NGOs

Abuja, Nigeria, August 26, 2008 — Geneva-based human rights group UN Watch expressed alarm over the declaration adopted today by an African regional meeting in Abuja, Nigeria, which will now shape the UN world conference on racism to be held in April.

“The declaration (CLICK FOR TEXT) fails to address racial and ethnic crimes committed by Sudan, tramples international human rights guarantees on free speech, places Islam above all other religions, and targets Israel alone, implying that it is uniquely racist,” said UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer. “Regrettably, Durban II is looking more and more like the original Durban debacle of 2001.”

The stated objectives of the African regional conference, which opened Sunday and closed today, were to review regional implementation of the 2001 Durban declaration, and map the way for the UN’s Durban Review Conference on racism set for Geneva in April. But the declaration adopted today “failed to review any African country’s actions, and its inflammatory provisions now threaten to derail the world conference in April,” said Neuer.

The Canadian government is boycotting the April meeting and its preparations, saying it will “not be party to an anti-Semitic and anti-Western hatefest dressed up as an anti-racism conference.” French President Sarkozy and cabinet ministers from Britain and the Netherlands have warned that a breach of red lines could also trigger their boycott of the 2009 meeting in Geneva. French Minister Rama Yade repeated the caution in a statement this month to the French parliament.

Declaration Fails to Review African Performance on Racism

“By failing to review the performance of African countries on racism and related intolerance, the conference is ignoring its primary mission, and squandering a golden opportunity to help Africa’s many victims of racism and xenophobia,” said Neuer.

“Apart from UN Watch’s plenary speech on Sunday, neither the conference nor its final declaration addressed the Sudanese government’s crimes against humanity in Darfur, including the ethnic killings of at least 200,000 black Africans, mass rape, and the displacement of over 1 million men, women and children,” said Neuer. When UN Watch representative Leon Saltiel addressed the Darfur atrocities in his speech to the Abuja conference on Sunday, Sudan immediately interrupted with an objection — supported by Algeria and Morrocco — and chairman Martin Uhomoibhi of Nigeria ruled that country situations could not be mentioned.

“Moreover, the text fails to review the xenophobic attacks that recently broke out in South Africa — the leading organizer of the Abuja meeting and the overall Durban process — where foreigners, notably from Zimbabwe and Mozambique, were targeted in May during a wave of anti-immigrant attacks in which at least 62 were killed and tens of thousands were displaced,” said Neuer. “Nor does the text review the ethnic crimes in Kenya this year that killed 1,000 people, displaced another 600,000 and burnt down 40,000 buildings, in an outburst of tribal bloodletting. Millions of African victims of xenophobia — present and future — are ill-served by the conference’s grant of impunity for racial or ethnic crimes committed in African countries.”

Declaration Attacks Free Speech, Seeks to Import Islamic Anti-Blasphemy Prohibitions into International Human Rights Law

The new text calls upon states to avoid “inflexibly clinging to free speech in defiance of the sensitivities existing in a society and with absolute disregard for religious feelings.” Other provisions in the text on “incitement to religious hatred,” said Neuer, “mirror efforts by Islamic states at the UN Human Rights Council to insinuate Islamic anti-blasphemy prohibitions into international law. Yet UN expert on religious freedom Asma Jahangir and other international human rights experts have expressly opposed ‘defamation of religion’ resolutions, which seek to alter international human rights law by defining religions — instead of individuals — as the bearers of rights.”

The declaration’s attack on free speech contravenes the Article 19 guarantee of freedom of expression of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, whose 60th anniversary the UN will be celebrating next week with a major gathering at UNESCO headquarters in Paris. (At the event, UN Watch will be chairing a NGO panel discussion on the UN Human Rights Council.)

“The language goes far beyond the recognized norms for balancing prohibitions of racial hatred with respect for free speech, which is the lifeblood of democracy. If the right to express one’s beliefs — to question the dogmas of the day in society, law, politics, art, science, and, yes, religion — is to be restricted by the ‘feelings’ and ‘sensitivities’ of others, this will mark the end of free speech as we know it,” said Neuer.

Declaration Imposes Hierarchy of Religions

The text’s special emphasis on Islamophobia (paragraph 20) “seeks to impose a hierarchy of religions, placing adherents of Islam above all others,” said Neuer. “This is contrary to the basic principles of equality enshrined in the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and undermines the very premise of the global struggle against racism.”

Conference Singled Out Israel for Opprobrium, Threatening to Repeat Durban Debacle of 2001

The declaration makes only one reference to a country situation, “reiterat[ing] its concern about the plight of the Palestinian people under foreign occupations.” Neuer asked, “Why is a non-African situation mentioned in a declaration about Africa, one that references neither Sudan’s racist killings, nor any other country in Africa?”

“The special reference to the Palestinian issue implies that Israel is practicing racism. This reverts to the discredited rhetoric of the UN’s 1975 “Zionism is Racism” resolution, sponsored by the Soviet and Arab blocs, which was repealed by the United Nations in 1991, and which has since been repudiated by its highest officials,” said Neuer.

“Portraying Israel’s conflict as racial is more than political mischief; it’s an attempt to dehumanize Israelis and their supporters as uniquely evil. We regret that African states today allowed the extreme political agenda of certain Middle Eastern governments to undermine their legitimate cause.”

The UN, however, today tried to offer a different interpretation. “It is only one paragraph that mentions the Palestinians, so the interest of Israel was never badly damaged,” Ibrahim Wani, from the office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, told Reuters, after the 3-day talks in Abuja.

UN Watch participated at the African conference as an international non-governmental organization. The plenary speech delivered by UN Watch representative Leon Saltiel on Sunday (see below) was interrupted by Sudan, after he addressed the situations in Darfur and Zimbabwe, and described Libyan hypocrisy.

UN Watch Defends Principles and Exposes Hypocrisy in Plenary Speech to Durban II Prep Conference in Africa

UN Watch Speech to Regional Conference for Africa

Preparatory to the Durban Review Conference

Abuja, Nigeria, 24 August 2008

Delivered by UN Watch communications director Leon Saltiel

(Video of speech will be published soon)

Thank you, Mr. President.

We assemble here in the Nigerian capital of Abuja, in the heart of Africa, to discuss how to fight racism, and to prepare for the Durban Review Conference that will take place in April 2009.

That I have come here from afar is testament to the great importance that UN Watch attaches to the African cause, to the global struggle against racism, and to the outcome of this gathering.

Mr. President,

UN Watch has always stood in solidarity with the African people in their struggle for human rights, equality and freedom.

A half century ago, UN Watch founder Morris Abram was a leading advocate in the American civil rights movement led by Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King. It was Mr. Abram who won the 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case that recognized African-American voting rights, under the principle of “one person, one vote,” and who went on to head the United Negro College Fund.

In 1993, guided by the same vision of human rights and equality, Morris Abram founded UN Watch.

Since then, we have been a leading voice at the United Nations for victims of persecution—for Africans in places like Darfur and Zimbabwe, as for millions of other victims of racism and intolerance around the world.

Mr. President,

It is with this legacy, and with these principles, that UN Watch urges this conference to rise to the occasion.

Let this African gathering give voice to all who suffer from racism, persecution and intolerance.

Let us promise that the crime of slavery shall never be forgotten. That men and women everywhere should be treated with basic dignity and equality.

Let us be true to the universal principles of human rights that underlie the struggle against racism.

Mr. President,

We will only advance toward these goals if we stay on the true path—by avoiding dangerous diversions, and by remedying the wrongs of the past. We must prevent a recurrence of the foul actions of 2001, which paradoxically turned a conference on racism into a platform for racist hatred and anti-Semitism.

Let us oppose the campaign by certain governments and lobby groups to distort the language of human rights for a narrow and extreme political agenda, which only distracts from and harms the African cause.

Let us ensure that our outcome document—which will influence the final declaration of the April conference in Geneva—will neither single out nor demonize any country or people.

Finally, let us keep this conference a serious one. Its credibility is at stake when countries preach one thing while blatantly practicing the very opposite.

Consider, for example, the official submission of Libya that is before us today. The Libyan government speaks of racism against the African people and how it confronts, and I quote, “[a] new form of racism related to house helpers [and] (maids).”

Yet just last month, when Mr. Hannibal Qaddafi was arrested in Geneva for the crime of beating his African maid and African house-helper,

[At this point in the speech, Sudan interrupted with an objection, supported by Morocco and Algeria.]

Libya fully supported his actions. Worse, Libya then punished one of these African victims by kidnapping his mother. With this same country being the chair of the committee organizing the Durban Review Conference, what should the world think?

Mr. President,

The eyes of the world are upon us. When history is written, let it be recorded that in Abuja, in August 2008, the struggle against racism was advanced, and not harmed; promoted, and not politicized. We owe its victims—in Africa and around the world—no less.

Thank you, Mr. President.

France to Boycott Durban II If Hijacked, Warns Human Rights Minister Rama Yade

Writing in reply to a parliamentary question, Rama Yade, France’s Senegalese-born Foreign Affairs and Human Rights Secretary, warned that France will walk out of the UN’s Durban II process if it veers off track.

“France will not maintain its participation at any price,” said Yade in her response published on August 5. “The President said at the dinner organized by CRIF, and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and Human Rights herself said to the UN Human Rights Council: France will remain engaged in this process only if the review conference does not depart from its assigned objectives.” Read More…

UN Palestine Investigator Richard Falk Lauds Gaza Boat Protest — Without Disclosing Own Ties to Campaign

The UN Human Right Council’s expert on Palestine yesterday praised a boat trip to Gaza by pro-Palestinian campaigners, without revealing his own close ties to the group. Falk is best known for his repeatedly expressed support for the conspiracy theory that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were an “inside job” by the Pentagon. Read More…

Qaddafi Rights Prize Awarded to Former Malta PM for ‘Defending Palestinian and Iraqi Oppressed Peoples’

Even with the Qaddafi servant-beating episode still unresolved, the Libyan human rights prize went ahead and announced its annual award. The International Committee for the Al-Gaddafi Award for Human Rights awarded its prize for 2008 to former Maltese prime minister Dom Mintoff, the Tripoli Post reported.

“In their appreciation of those honourable leaders of the North who have stood by justice and rights and who defended the causes of oppressed peoples, especially in Palestine and Iraq, the International Committee of Al-Qathafi Award for Peace of 2008 is awarded to the European leader and former Prime Minister of Malta,” the committee said… Read More…

UN Watch Feature Interview in German Weekly

Die Genfer NGO “UN Watch” kontrolliert seit 1993 die Arbeit der Uno im Hinblick auf Menschenrechtsfragen. Sie ist mit dem Ame rican Jewish Committee assoziiert. Ihr Vorsitzender, der Kanadier Hillel Neuer, tritt regelmäßig vor dem UN-Men schen rechts rat auf. In einer Rede im März 2007 kritisierte er sehr drastisch die Arbeit des Rates, der “die Sprache und Idee der Menschenrechte entstellt und per vertiert” habe…” – Feature interview of H. Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch, by Ivo Bozic in “Die Atmosphäre ist totalitär,” Jungle World, Aug. 7, 2008. Read More…

Join the Conversation: Visit UN Watch’s New Blog

Make your voice heard: visit UN Watch’s new blog and add your comments: http://blog.unwatch.org/.

UN Watch RSS Feeds

UN Watch is pleased to provide RSS feeds for its content. This feature will keep you up-to-date with UN Watch’s latest press releases, briefings, reports and commentary. You can choose from the different feeds and subscribe to them with your RSS reader. Subscribe.

To support the unique and vital work of UN Watch, please contribute here.

tel: (41-22) 734-1472 fax: (41-22) 734-1613
www.unwatch.org

Libya says Mediterranean Union will divide Africa: Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi – the only one who was invited to the launching of the Mediterranean Union, but declined to attend – he prefers to see Arab dominance in Africa – not North Africa as part of a European Alliance.

RENATA GOLDIROVA for the EUobserver, August 5, 2008.

Libya’s leader Muammar Gaddafi has reaffirmed his critical stance towards the Union for the Mediterranean – the brainchild of French President Nicolas Sarkozy – saying it will divide the 53-nation African Union.

“We have good relations with European countries, with the European Union, but I do not accept integration into the Union for the Mediterranean,” Colonel Gaddafi said on Monday,   July 4, 2008, AFP reports.

Libya’s head of state – once isolated by the West – added he did not agree with “cutting up Africa for hypothetical prospects with Europe” referring to a possible split between north African countries and the rest of the African Union.

Muammar Gaddafi was the only leader who refused to attend the launch of the Mediterranean union in Paris in July.

Mr Sarkozy’s plan brings together 43 states – the 27-member EU as well as Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, Jordan, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, Syria, Turkey, Israel, Albania, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Monaco and Mauritania.

The aim is to boost ties between the EU and its southern neighbours. At the moment, it is focussed on six specific projects, including the cleaning up of Mediterranean pollution, the development of maritime and land highways and the setting up of a joint civil protection programme on prevention and response to disasters.

But Muammar Gaddafi, who came to power in 1969 and has become the Arab world’s longest serving leader, has labelled the participation of African countries in the Mediterranean project a “violation” of resolutions by the African Union.

In addition, he has accused the EU of wanting to dominate its southern partners, once under European colonial rule.

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Credit Sarkozy for working to revive a club – that is the Mediterranean Club.

By CHRIS PATTEN, OXFORD, England, and posted as http://search.japantimes.co.jp/mail/eo20…

Maybe it is time to be a bit more generous to French President Nicolas Sarkozy and look at the outcome of what he does rather than the way he does it.

The original launch of the Mediterranean Union almost sank the whole enterprise. Appearing to speak without giving the issue much thought, Sarkozy initially proposed a club of European and mostly Arab states along the Mediterranean’s shore. It would have been in essence a French-run enterprise that the rest of Europe would have paid for. This did not go down well, particularly with the Germans.

Suspicion was strong that the French were trying to find a way to buy off Turkey with a relationship falling well short of European Union membership.

So the auguries for an attempt to revitalize Europe’s relationship with its Mediterranean partners were not good. But by the time of this month’s grand Paris Summit to send the new club on its way, initial suspicions had largely dissipated.

Sarkozy bowed to his European critics and enjoyed a diplomatic triumph. We shall soon see whether there is substance to the initiative, or whether it is just a coat of fresh paint on an old and tired idea.

The original Barcelona Process, launched in 1995, was an excellent scheme. Intended to provide an economic and political backdrop to peacemaking through confidence-building in the Middle East, it was an admirable recognition of Europe’s historical, commercial, cultural and political ties with its neighbors south of the sea, which have brought us all together over the years.

There were aspirations for a free-trade area by 2010. There were pledges of political integration based on shared values. There were people-to-people links. There was a forum where Israelis and their long-term Arab foes could sit together and discuss other matters than the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Development projects were funded through grants or cheap loans, and these have probably played at least some part in increasing the attractiveness of the Maghreb and the Mashraq to foreign investors.

There was some lowering of agricultural and other tariffs by the EU. Dialogue on political reform, and the euros to support it, helped further the process in some countries, notably Morocco and Jordan. There was some cooperation on common problems like illegal drug use and immigration.

Yet, the successes of the Barcelona Process were modest: a great idea on the launchpad had difficulty getting off the ground. So Sarkozy deserves at least 2 1/2 cheers for trying to revitalize it. But if the Mediterranean Union is to achieve more than was managed in its first manifestation, a number of things will need to happen.

First, Europe is better at talking about free-trade areas than delivering free trade. For example, there are still too many barriers to agricultural trade between the north and the south. And guess which country leads the opposition to any significant opening up of European agriculture. France, take a bow.

Second, however slow we have been in opening up a real Mediterranean market, the barriers to freer trade between Arab League countries are just as great.

Third, it was excellent that, in Paris, Sarkozy began the process of bringing Syria in out of the diplomatic cold. Hopefully, his attempts to act as a peace broker between West Bank Palestinians and Israel are also blessed with success.

But the truth is that Europe, for all the gallant efforts of Javier Solana, has been absent from serious politics in the Middle East. We have not dared cross the absentee monopolists of policy in Washington.

Europe should get more seriously involved, even at the risk of occasionally irritating America, which may be less likely to happen once the Bush administration is history.

For a start, we should recognize that there will be no political settlement in Palestine without including Hamas. What would incredibly have been former British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s first visit to Gaza in his first year of peacemaking had to be canceled recently because of security concerns. Enough said.

Europe must decide how serious it is about all the admirable stuff in the Barcelona Process regarding pluralism, civil society, the rule of law and democracy. Should a shared concept of human rights be one of the foundations of our Mediterranean partnership?

If so, what are we in Europe proposing to do about it? If this is just blah-blah, better not say it. We discredit ourselves and important principles when we say things we don’t mean.

————-

Lord Patten is a former governor of Hong Kong and European commissioner for external affairs. He is currently chancellor of Oxford University and co-chair of the International Crisis Group.  www.project-syndicate.org)

The referendum: populism vs democracy: The idea of the referendum as an instrument of the people’s will rests on pre-democratic foundations, says George Schöpflin on www.OpenDemocracy.net

16 – 06 – 2008

The result of the Republic of Ireland’s referendum on 12 June 2008, a rejection of the European Union’s “reform treaty” agreed at the Lisbon summit in October 2007, has precipitated a crisis for the union whose resolution is hard to foresee. For the victorious “no” side, and for those elsewhere who support the use of referenda to decide on constitutional or other matters, the outcome in Ireland is also on three grounds a vindication of the institution of the referendum:
â–ª it restores democracy to the people
â–ª it allows the people to tell political elites to be responsive
â–ª it restores “the people’s will” to the storehouse of democratic instruments.

These propositions – which can be summarised as the seduction of direct democracy – are misconceived. The championing of referenda they embody proceeds from a series of four untenable assumptions, which are worth itemising in some detail.

George Schőpflin is a member of the European parliament for Fidesz (Hungarian Civic Union) and was Jean Monnet professor of politics at University College London.

An unsafe vehicle:

First, in complex modern societies there is no such thing as “the people”. The concept is a leftover from the time when democracy had to be legitimated in the eyes of anti-democrats; its residue today leaves it open to political manipulation. The homogeneity it implies can hardly be reconciled with the reality of an enormously varied modern society composed of millions of members with multiple motivations and choices, used to exercising individual rationality in the marketplace. How can they be compressed into something with a single voice, namely “the people”?

In too many cases – European integration among them – referenda function as an instrument not of democracy, but of populism. They can assist democracy only in a few special circumstances: for example, to resolve an issue that is more ethical than political (legalising divorce or abortion, say); or to unblock a political system (offering autonomy or independence to the population of a particular region and thus perhaps helping to avoid civil war or ameliorate division).

An example of the latter is when the populations of the various republics of the Soviet Union voted for or against declaring their sovereignty, which led to their independence as states. Another case where the referendum was a legitimate use of the instrument was the votes in 1997 on devolution for Scotland and Wales within the United Kingdom. The referendum held on 9 March 2008 in Hungary was ostensibly about the government’s health-reform project; in reality it was about a means to articulate the deep disquiet in society about the refusal of the Hungarian government to listen to that disquiet.

Second, referenda are profoundly unsuitable ways of addressing complex issues, because they offer the illusion of a simple answer to complexity. In this sense, they pull the voters into the pre-political stance that lies at the heart of populism. Modern politics is about weighing various options, in circumstances where issues only very seldom appear in stark, good-vs-bad form. Referenda have an implicit, contextual message that says the opposite, something along the lines of “vote no” or “vote yes” and all your problems will be solved; as Tøger Seidenfaden has pointed out, referenda reduce highly complex issues to a simple yes/no answer. In a cultural sense, they “dumb down” the voters.

Moreover, voting “yes” often means accepting the word of the political elite’s saying, in effect, “trust us”. If voters wish to send a message to the elite that they are dissatisfied – for whatever reason, even one wholly distinct from the issue at stake – voting “no” is a convenient and simplistic solution. So the illusion of expressing the popular will is just that, an illusion.

Third, referenda reintroduce the tyranny of the majority, the very thing that modern democracies have sought to dilute by, for example, upgrading the role of civil society. Here again, careful analysis is needed. A great deal of politics is about making matters relatively easily intelligible, but this can readily cross the line into oversimplification, especially when sections of society will be clamouring for just that. The erosion of trust between political elites and society is also about the reluctance of the latter to come to terms with political complexity and the way in which both elites and media pander to the outdated desire for a golden age when choices were simple.

The trouble with that supposed golden age is that – whenever those who invoke it can be persuaded to identify it in terms of a definite period – majorities had no trouble in imposing their views on a minority. The evolution of various forms of lobbying, advocacy and pressure groups, and radical movements since the 1960s and 1970s is precisely about giving otherwise silent groups a voice. Referenda suppress that. It is quite plausible that a referendum on, say, recriminalising homosexuality or reintroducing the death penalty would gain a majority in several European nation-states. It is unlikely that the more vocal protagonists of “the people” expressing its view in this way would approve. Indeed, supporters of referenda as the articulation of the popular will are seldom if ever called upon to define what is a proper topic to be decided by “the people” and what is not. That too is a part of the easy ride the referendum receives in modern democracy (or, to be more precise, in a surrogate for democracy).

Fourth, referenda offer power without responsibility, in that voters can confront elites without having to face the consequences of their action. At their heart, referenda provide an opportunity for ad hoc coalitions that never have to worry about the outcome. The far left and far right coming together in France in the May 2005 referendum on the European Union’s constitutional treaty was a case in point; the two sides could never have governed together, but they could operate as a spoiler. Something similar was in evidence in Ireland in the Lisbon-treaty vote, where rightwing Catholics made common cause with leftwingers suspicious of Europe. The irony of this is that an ad hoc coalition of this kind can focus on a single issue and need never on any single occasion assume responsibility for the power that it wields.
The one-way street:

Referenda have unintended consequences in that they introduce new political actors into the system together with fresh lines of polarisation, often around issues that (regardless of the new actors’ demands) have no straightforward solution. This can also introduce and legitimate potentially destructive discourses – accusations of “sell-out” and “betrayal”, for example – that gain credibility through being voiced by these “untainted” political actors.

Besides, the task of the negative campaigners tends to be simpler than that of the supporters – they only have to argue: “if in doubt, say no”. This was much in evidence in Ireland’s referendum campaign. For all practical purposes it left the supporters of the “yes” camp having to prove their credibility, if not actually their innocence. And once a “no” campaign has won, it cannot be blamed, as it immediately evaporates, once again leaving the (elected) elite with the problem of what to do next. The organisers of “no” campaigns themselves never have to face an election.

When referenda are held on questions to do with the future of Europe, there is a further generally unidentified twist to the story. European integration operates simultaneously with three different sets of actors – the European Union, its institutions and elites; the national elites; and the supposed European demos. These three do not really connect very much. There is some connection between the EU and the national elites, but the linkage between the EU and its demos is very weak and is generally felt to be weak.

It is this political gap that provides the opportunity for negative campaigners in European matters – they believe that they can hold “their own” national political elites to account for European commitments, something not possible at the European level, largely because identification with that level does not exist.

This is the democratic deficit that must be addressed. But referenda, far from overcoming that deficit, actually intensify it. Accountability and responsibility, after all, have to be a two-way process to work at all. Referenda operate only in one direction and, for that reason, are not an appropriate or a democratically sustainable instrument in European matters.
Also by George Schőpflin in openDemocracy:

“Israel-Lebanon: a battle over modernity” (8 August 2005)

“Putin’s anti-globalisation strategy” (10 July 2006)

“Hungary: country without consequences” (22 September 2006)

“Hungary’s cold civil war (14 November 2006)

“The European Union’s troubled birthday” (23 March 2007)

Russia’s reinvented empire (3 May 2007)

Turkey’s crisis and the European Union (23 July 2007)

The new Russia: a model state (27 February 2008)

EU to tussle with Latin America’s ‘Pink Tide’ at Lima summit.
 http://euobserver.com/9/26147/?rk=1

By Leigh Phillips, EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS – May 15, 2008
Tussles over biofuels, trade and even capitalism itself are likely to take centre stage in Lima, Peru on Friday, today, as European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso and some 60 heads of state from the EU and Latin America and the Carribean (LAC) descend on the Peruvian capital for the fifth EU-LAC summit.

Under the protection of some 85,000 soldiers and police who have set up the usual array of roadblocks, traffic detours and zones restricted to local citizens, the leaders are to rattle through what is an ambitious agenda.

Although the leaders will focus on two key issues – combating inequality and tackling climate change – poverty, social inclusion, sustainable development, energy and the environment in general are also set for discussion.

At the summit, the commission is to announce Euroclima, a €5 million fund for Latin American projects that tackle climate change.

Additionally, the two camps are hoping to boost trade and increase economic co-operation. The EU would like to see some movement towards an agreement in the Doha round of world trade negotiations.

The Doha round has been stalled since 2001 largely due to the differing trade priorities of poor and wealthy nations.

However, the politicians will also likely end up discussing a range of off-agenda topics that have forced themselves onto the front pages in the last few weeks, such as food shortages and the miniature cold war between Colombia and Ecuador that has simmered away since the former bombed alleged encampments of Colombia’s Revolutionary Armed Forces (FARC) within Ecuador without Quito’s permission in March.

Merkel, Hitler and Chavez: The discussions are expected to be quite fractious, as the largely liberalising perspective of the EU comes up against what can be fairly described as currently the most left-wing continent on the planet.

Ahead of the meeting, German Chancellor Angela Merkel warned other Latin American nations against the “left-wing populist” policies of Venezuela’s perennially beret-adorned president, Hugo Chavez, who responded in typical bombastic fashion by comparing Ms Merkel to Adolf Hitler.

On Sunday (11 May), Mr Chavez criticised the objectives of the European Union in their dealings with Latin America and the Caribbean.

The EU “is coming here to help us. Where is their plan to help the poor? Ask the president of Haiti how much promises from Europe and the United States have done,” he said, according to DPA, the German Press Agency.

In recent years, centre-left and socialist governments have been elected in all but a few nations across the region – the so-called Pink Tide.

Nonetheless, Latin American and Caribbean leaders are not all of one mind.

The more centre-left presidents Lula da Silva of Brazil, Michele Bachelet of Chile, and Peru’s own Alan Garcia largely support the free market and the so-called Washington Consensus – policies of fiscal discipline, deregulation, privatisation and trade liberalisation – albeit with more of a social cushion than their centre-right counterparts would prefer.

Meanwhile, to their left, Evo Morales – Bolivia’s first indigenous leader in 500 years, Mr Chavez and Ecuador’s Rafael Correa are committed to building what they call “a socialism of the 21st century,” and have instituted a range of policies that favour the poor of their countries, such as boosting health and literacy programmes and, more controversially, the nationalisation of key industries.

Fernando Lugo, a former Catholic bishop and adherent of liberation theology won Paraguay’s presidency in April, adding to the continent’s collection of progressives. Analysts expect Mr Lugo’s policies, as with those of Argentina’s Cristina Kirchner, to fall somewhere between that of Mr da Silva and Mr Chavez.

‘Biofuels debate will be central’
The sides align themselves slightly differently however when it comes to the question of biofuels.

EU leaders last spring agreed that the EU should increase the use of biofuels in transport fuel to ten percent by 2020, up from a planned 5.75 percent target to be achieved by 2010.

But the European Union has come under repeated pressure from international institutions such as the World Bank and the UN World Food Programme, as well as environmental and development NGOs, to abandon its biofuels targets due to concerns that the controversial fuels contribute to global warming and food price rises.

As a result, the commission has touted as-yet undefined sustainability standards that it says will ensure the biofuels Europe uses are green.

Brazil, the world’s leading producer of ethanol, while publicly supporting these sustainability criteria, is very worried that if standards are too strict, European markets will be closed off to them.

On the other hand, most of the other LAC countries have lined up against both Brazil and the EU’s positions on biofuels, aghast at the site of Haiti’s government falling in April as a result of food riots on the island nation.

Even Peru’s moderate Mr Garcia complains that biofuel crop cultivation is pushing up the prices of staples such as corn, rice and wheat, and is planning to ask for a limit to biofuel production.

“I have no doubt that the theme of food will be central to the debates of the summit,” Peru’s foreign minister, Jose Garcia Belaunde, said last week.

As with many such international gatherings, an alternative “People’s Summit,” is currently being held all week in a working class Lima neighbourhood, with attendants from social, labour and indigenous groups.

“The Brussels Consensus is the new Washington Consensus, and has started a new period of neocolonialism,” said Brid Brennan of the Netherlands-based Transnational Institute, one of the organisers of the People’s Summit.

However, unlike similar counter-summits elsewhere, this one will also be attended by a number of heads of state, notably Mr Chavez, Mr Morales, Mr Correa and the new president of Cyprus, Dimitris Christofias.

External relations commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner, trade commissioner Peter Mandelson, and development commissioner Louis Michel will join President Barroso at the EU-LAC summit.

The EU-LAC summit was preceded on Thursday (15 May) by the second EU-LAC Business Forum, bringing together business and political leaders, and will be followed on Saturday by separate summits between the EU and each of Mexico, Chile, the Andean Community and Central America.

Macedonia was approved for NATO but could not join because of the two Greek EU Member States – Greece and Cyprus – objecting to its name.

Now a Cyprus Former First Lady, to become   EU Commmissioner of Health, hesitates to discover her age for cultural reasons and Turkey may finally decriminalize questions about “Turkishness.” Does   the EU take itself seriously?

New commissioner asked ‘rude question’ about age.

08.04.2008 | By Renata Goldirova
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS – Androula Vassiliou, a former first lady of Cyprus and the country’s new EU commissioner-designate, has revealed that she does not like people asking her age.

On Tuesday (8 April), her spokesperson refused to reveal how old Ms Vassiliou is following a journalist’s question, saying it was “rude” to ask and inappropriate to speak about a woman’s age.

“In Greek, in our culture, it is a bit rude to ask for a woman’s age. So if you insist that much, I would suggest that you do some research on Google and you will find the CV of the commissioner and there you can find her exact age,” commission spokesperson Nina Papadoulaki said.

She added: “Honestly, I don’t have her age.”

Only later did the commission provide media with the required information that Ms Vassiliou’s birthday falls on 30 November 1943 – making her 64.

The spokesperson insisted, however, that her secretive tone was not a result of lack of transparency, but only a question of cultural perception. “In general, we neither mention nor publicise the age,” she said.

In fact, even the Cypriot would-be commissioner’s profile on the official commission website falls short of mentioning her birthday. Similarly, the free encyclopedia Wikipedia also cites only dates related to her legal and political career.

At the same time, eight other female commissioners make no effort to hide their age, with this piece of personal information available on each of their official websites.

The ‘rude-question’ kerfuffle comes just one day ahead of a vote in the European Parliament on the nomination of Ms Vassiliou as a new member of the commission.

She is to be put in charge of the health dossier, replacing Markos Kyprianou – who left the commission to take on the foreign minister post in Cyprus.

Turkey set to pass key freedom of speech reform.

09.04.2008   By Elitsa Vucheva
The Turkish parliament is next week likely to pass a bill softening a law which sets limits on freedom of the speech by criminalizing insults to “Turkishness”.

One article in the country’s penal code – article 301 – currently imposes up to three years in prison for such an insult.

Many Turkish intellectuals and writers have been tried under the article, including Nobel Prize winner Orhan Pamuk.

“I believe we will push the amendment to Article 301 through parliament next week,” Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on Tuesday (8 April), according to press agencies.

Late on Monday, the Turkish government submitted its draft proposal for amendments to the parliament, suggesting, among other things, that the country’s president should give his consent before prosecutors can launch cases in that field.

It also proposes that the vague term “Turkishness” be replaced by “Turkish nation”, and the prison time envisaged be decreased from three to two years while the sentence could be suspended or converted to a fine, AFP reports.

The move comes just days before a visit to Turkey on Thursday and Friday by European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso and EU enlargement commissioner Olli Rehn.

The EU has repeatedly called on EU candidate Turkey to “repeal or amend without delay” the controversial article as a prerequisite to join the bloc.

The article has mostly been used against those who refuse to follow Turkey’s official line on the killings of Armenians during World War I, by for example referring to the events as “genocide” – a term Ankara categorically rejects.

The amendment is expected to be adopted without difficulty in the country’s parliament, as the governing Justice and Development (AKP) party maintains a majority of 340 deputies in the 550-seat parliament.

Turkey has been an EU candidate country since 1999, and launched accession talks with the bloc in October 2005. Progress has been slow and it has so far opened six out the 35 chapters needed in order for the accession negotiations to be closed.

Thursday, March 6, 2008, The European Union Studies Center of The Graduate Center of the City University of New York, with the help of the Alexander S. Onasis Public Benefit Foundation (USA), had the great opportunity to hear from one of Greece’s important political figures - Dr. Yannos Papantoniou.
Dr. Papantoniou currently serves as an Onassis Foundation Senior Visiting Scholar at the University of Athens. In 1981, he was elected as a member of the European Parliament and in 1984 became adviser to the prime minister on European Economic Community affairs.

Since June 1989, he has been an elected member of the Greek Parliament. He served as deputy minister of National Economy, then variously as minister of Commerce, minister of National Economy and Finance, and minister of National Defense under the Socialist, or Pasok, government.

On February 27, 2008, Greece Named Yannos Papantoniou As its Candidate To Lead the the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development , (EBRD). He has also been Governor of the National Bank of Greece in 2000.

Over the 12-month period in 2002-03, when Greece held the presidency of the European Union’s Council of Defense Ministers, Dr. Papantoniou helped to coordinate the policies that led to the creation of the European Military Force and its engagement in international peacekeeping operations as well as the establishment of the European Defense Agency.

Dr. Papantoniou studied economics at the Universities of Athens and Wisconsin, history at the Sorbonne (France), and obtained his Ph.D. in economics from the University of Cambridge (U.K).

The topic at the CUNY presentation was: “Regional Security in Southeastern Europe.” We got obviously an explicit Greek point of view.

At first we got a tour of the European expansion from 15 to 27 States and we saw how this was possible. The Three Baltic States were adopted by the Scandinavian States and this helped their economic integration into the EU. Poland was helped by foreign investment and its relations to US Poles. The Central Europeans were helped by Germany and Austria (Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians – also Slovenia and the future accession of Croatia. The Creation of a partnership for peace at NATO helped Bulgaria and Romania.

So now we are left with the remnants of the Balkans. The situation came to an edge with Kosovo declaring unilaterally independence on February 17, 2008 and being by now recognized as an independent State by over 100 countries. Obviously Serbia and Russia do not recognize Kosovo – neither does Greece. We found in effect, on the internet, a 2007 official statement from Greece saying that they do not agree to an “imposed’ solution for Kosovo. They think of the old concept of Sovereignty under which you cannot dismember Serbia, this because if that succeeds, North Cyprus will also want to become an independent Turkish State …

Turkey? As an attached State to the West would be an important role player to stabilize the Middle East – that gave me a reason to think that one should also ask the Turks what they think.

“The EU is an economic organization with political ambitions.”

The requirements for accession are: a. Democracy; b. A market Economy; and c. Adaptation of EU law into National law.

“Turkey is a strong regional power. If it were to come into the EU it would come in as a 100 million bloc that would change the balance of power in the EU. They might have more power then Germany and the UK combined, and this is unacceptable. The EU would prefer a special linkage to be offered to Turkey. After 12 additions the enlargement may have reached a limit. The EU has already become less homogeneous and less coherent.”

For the Balkans, joining the EU gives them the best motivation to normalize their society and economy. The speaker would like this to happen eventually, but not immediately.

Here, Professor Hugo M. Kaufmann, Professor of Economics at Queens College and at the Graduate Center, who chaired the event, opened up for questions, and there were many very interesting questions. I will bring up mainly our own question that came about because of the suggestion of having special relationships between the EU and countries like Turkey, that want to join the EU, but are rebuffed – then offered a special compensation that looks good to some at the EU, but which they cannot accept. Internally their governments will look like losers, and they will become losers indeed because of internal politics.

My question was why look at special arrangements with single countries, while a special arrangement with a large group of countries would be much more palatable to these outsiders – and I named three such groups: The Mediterranean Group, The Black Sea Group, and the Turkic Group.

The Mediterranean group does exist in effect – this as a result of the Barcelona Process. It started as an alliance to clean up the Mediterranean Sea – as such it had to include the Southern States of the EU – those reaching the sea shores – the North African States, Israel, Lebanon, Turkey etc. It includes countries that do not have good relations with each other – but they have to cooperate – and you know what – it works and gives results.

The Black Sea International Council started out as an environmental organization with Greece as the only participating EU member. Now after the EU accession of Romania and Bulgaria, a new Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC) organisation was created. This group that obviously also includes Turkey, Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, has been extended to include the ‘frozen conflicts’ in Georgia, Moldova and between Armenia and Azerbaijan. (To others this reminds of the GUAM countries) This is indeed also an economic power house that can deal with quite a few oil and gas pipelines as well.

The Turkic group includes obviously Turkey and the five former Soviet republics of Central Asia. It could include also Azerbaidjan and Georgia. In effect it could be an oil backyard of the EU.

The bottom line of all this is that Turkey is a central part of all these three groups – it could in effect come in with all this dowry and thus be welcome in its special arrangement as leader of outside EU alliances. This – rather then thinking of Turkey as the EU opening to a Middle East where Turkey is indeed not welcome to the Arab feast – surely, even less, then its welcome to the EU table.

I had also a short question – what about Albania? Why actually not putting it ahead of all this talk about Turkey?

 

The respected Greek speaker said that Albania was one of the poorest countries in the world and he did not think Germany will want to finance Albania. (I clearly could not reopen this point – if I could I would have reminded him that the Kosovars are also Albanians, so are some 15% of the people of Macedonia. Nobody speaks now of a greater Albania, like nobody speaks now of rejoining the present Greek part of Cyprus with Greece. The latter came about because some sort of solution was found, but leaving Albania dangling brought once Mao to this country, now it could be Al Qaeda. This is just unsound policy.)

On the Barcelona process the answer was again money. The process does not go forward because of lack of money. Again I do not think that this is the case – it seems to be rather a jelousy of North EU not wanting to fund deals that favor the South States of the EU – sort of shooting themselves in the feet in the process. The speaker did not pick up the other two groups beyond saying that these are interesting ideas.

On the other hand, to a question about the name dispute between Greece and Macedonia, the speaker explained that the problem was that it worries Greece if later Macedonia would put claim to the areas in Turkey and Bulgaria that carry that name. He recognized that you cannot restrain people from naming themselves what they wish, but for international relations purpose they will have to pick for themselves some neutral name because even the temporary name of FYROM is not acceptable to Greece. Because of this – in our eyes total nonsense – Greece is vetoing Macedonia’s entrance to NATO – thus in effect hurting more NATO then Macedonia.

 

After all of this, when the meeting was called to end, in overtime, a Turkish Consul in New York asked for his right to say also a few words. He said flat that for 200 years Turkey is part of Europe. Turkey’s per capita income is now 1/5 to 1/4 of the average of the EU, but when Spain and Portugal entered the EU they were only 1/10. It is already 45 years that Turkey is trying to get recognition for its potential.

With the final end of the meeting I had the chance to talk to Mr. Basar Sen the Turkish Consul. He explained to me that the expectation of joining the EU has created its own logic and the government is now trapped by it, and turning away will have internal consequences. Surely I remember that starting with Ataturk and his “Young Turks,” a secular new Turkey was created out of the ashes of the Ottoman Empire – a secular Turkey that wanted to be recognized, already then, as part of Europe. How can the speaker try to push them back into the Middle East from where these military men tried already then to escape?

But, sensing a friendly person, I followed up with a question I posed years ago to the Turkish Ambassador to the UN. Something that I think was the cardinal sin of Turkish thinking of last century. The question of the Kurds.

The Young Turks wanted to create a homogenized people out of the remnants of the Empire. They still had many – many different ethnic groups in the large piece of land that became Turkey – some say 154 ethnicities with language differences. But even if this was the case, there was only one minority that counted – these were the Kurds. What Turkey feared was that the Kurds will seek independence for their part of the land – so the Turkish government pursued them vehemently and turned them into real enemies. But even if the Kurds might have dreamt of having a larger Kurdistan to include also parts of Iraq, Iran, Syria and Azerbaijan, those other Kurds where not yet convinced that they, themselves, were ready to go for such a frame, with all this uncertainty hanging over the heads of their Turkish brethren. On the other hand, had Turkey realized that there were tremendous benefits in turning Turkey into a bi-national Turkish-Kurdish State, they could have indeed lured into their sphere of influence the Kurds of Iraq – the oil world would have looked differently, and the chances of having created an EU interest in their future would have helped more modernize Turkey, then the way they ended up fighting the greater majority of their people without showing for real economic results. We hope now that the Consul will find a way to provide us with think-tank material to help explain the the thinking of the Turkish leadership – past and present.

During a one-hour debate organised by Brussels-based think-tank The Centre on Tuesday, 26 February 26 2008, Mr Jouyet, French EU affairs minister, indicated a certain change in France’s plans to create a Mediterranean Union.

“There is no Mediterranean Union”, the minister said, specifying that one should now speak of a “Union for the Mediterranean” which is a “semantic shift that is not neutral.”

The French idea of a Mediterranean Union involving a union of EU and non-EU Mediterranean states, has been particularly criticised in Germany, which fears it will be detrimental to the already existing EU policies in the area.

Earlier this week, a postponement of a Franco-German meeting initially planned for 3 March prompted speculation that disagreement over this specific project was the cause.

Mr Jouyet tried to reassure opponents of the project during Tuesday’s debate.

The proposed Union for the Mediterranean is only about “completing and enriching” the already existing policies, as the Mediterranean is an important EU border, he said.

“For my part, I am optimistic that we will find together with our partners, in particular with our German friends, an agreement on the modalities [of the project],” he added.

Cyprus elects communist president.

By Elitsa Vucheva, for EUobserver, February 25, 2008.

Cyprus’ communist party leader Dimitris Christofias won Sunday’s (24 February) elections, becoming the EU’s only communist head of state.

Mr Christofias, the head of the communist Akel Party, won against former foreign minister Ioannis Kasoulides with around 54% against Mr Kasoulides’ 46.6 percent.

About half a million people were eligible to vote at these elections, including 390 Turkish Cypriots, with some 91 percent of them voting, according to Bloomberg.

Despite being Soviet-educated and leading a communist party however, Mr Christofias has vowed to preserve his country’s market economy and ruled out nationalisations of companies.

In addition, countering attacks to his EU commitment in a debate with his rival last week, he insisted he was “not a Eurosceptic”.

But he added: “I’m a Euro-fighter. I fight for Cyprus’s best interests within Europe. I won’t say yes to everything the EU says,” Bloomberg reports.

{The Silver lining}

However, what Mr Christofias’ election also brings to the table, are hopes for a relaunch of discussions on the reunification of the divided island.

Cyprus has been independent since 1960 and divided since a Turkish invasion of the island’s northern part in 1974, triggered by a Greek-inspired coup.

Currently Northern Cyprus is only recognised internationally by Turkey.

Both Mr Christofias and Mr Kasoulides campaigned on re-launching the peace talks that had stopped in 2004 after a failed referendum on the matter, when Greek Cypriots rejected the idea of reunifying Cyprus.

“There is only one ideology: Cyprus and its salvation and a more just society,” the new president told his supporters in Nicosia last night.

Mr Christofias’ Akel party has traditionally good relations with Cypriot Turks and analysts note that the conditions are currently good for a re-launch of the process, as Northern Cyprus has also been run by moderate left-wing President Mehmet Ali Talat since 2005.

Turkish Cypriots welcomed Mr Christofias’ election.

“We consider this change as a chance and we wish that negotiations [on the island's reunification] start immediately, without useless preliminaries,” stated Hasan Ercakica, spokesperson for the Turkish Cypriots.

“We cannot wait another 34 years to solve this conflict,” Turgay Avci, Northern Cyprus’ foreign minister, told the Daily Telegraph.

But according to some, good personal relations between Mr Christofias and Mr Talat need to be backed by serious efforts and compromises in order to obtain real results.

“Having good relations is a positive factor, but it won’t be enough to deliver a solution,” Ozdil Nami, a member of the Turkish Cypriot parliament who belongs to Mr Talat’s party, was quoted as saying by Bloomberg.

“Christofias and Talat would have to make a compromise necessary for a solution and then succeed in convincing their populations,” he added.

For his part, European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso also insisted that Mr Christofias’ election “offers the opportunity to overcome the longstanding stalemate on the Cyprus issue”.

“I would strongly encourage you to grasp this chance and without delay start negotiations under United Nations auspices with the leader of the Turkish Cypriot community on a comprehensive settlement”, Mr Barroso said in a statement.

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

Our posting was echoed by a Marxist media from India:

“First Communist president in the European Union – The winner of last week’s presidential runoff in Cyprus was Dimitris Christofias, from the AKEL party (which is the Communist Party of Cyprus in all but name). He is, I believe, the first-ever Communist head of state in the European Union. Somehow I would guess that this Cypriot Revolution will not cause Washington’s generals and bankers to quake in their boots (not least because news reports suggest that AKEL has become a Social Democratic party) — but hey, still cool.”   http://www.doublepluscool.com/blog/?p=89… That website says:   “Social democracy equals Stalinism.”

EUobserver [Comment] On Kosovo – The 28th EU Member State.

{The article shows that A UN sponsored organization, like UNMIK, is not capable to take a task to its desired end – but if the major powers within the EU decide to move on in unison, even when some lesser UN stars disagree because of their own home grown reasons, if those major powers are consistent in their efforts – there is hope that something positive will be born.}

February 18, 2008, By Pim de Kuijer, a policy officer in the European Parliament and election observer for the Dutch Foreign Ministry.

Its anthem (for the moment) is Beethoven ´s Ninth Symphony, its currency the euro and it houses more EU civil servants than any other place outside Brussels. Welcome to Kosovo, 28th Member State of the European Union.

Or it would be, if it were not for the fact that not all EU members will recognise Sunday ´s declaration of independence, casting doubts on future membership prospects. In the meantime though, the EU will have a great say in running the new country. Perhaps more so than if it really were a new member state. The EU will deploy not one but three so-called pillars, the International Civilian Office (ICO), the EULEX mission with a focus on the rule of law and the European Commission’s Liaison Office. Confused locals are already clamouring for just one EU interlocutor in the field.

The ICO’s stated aim is to prepare for a transfer of authority from UNMIK, which currently administers Kosovo for the UN, towards the Kosovo authorities. But how long this will take is anyone’s guess. Milosevic’s termination of Kosovo’s administrative autonomy in the late eighties has left a whole generation of Kosovars without much experience of good governance, although Kosovars themselves will claim that the parallel structures set up clandestinely provided them with the best training possible.

Still, with tensions remaining high between Kosovar Albanians and Serbs living in Kosovo, it may be a long time yet before it is decided the ICO is no longer needed. This, coupled with the presence of up to 2000 European police officers, judges and legal experts in the form of the EULEX mission, might lead Kosovars to question what self-determination actually means for them in practice.

Already signs of discontent are visible. Overnight, walls in the new capital Pristina as well as in other cities have been covered by graffiti saying no to the EULEX mission. Traffic lights light up stickers saying Jo EUMIK (a play of words on UNMIK), vetëvendosje, or ‘no to EUMIK, forwards.’

The Vetëvendosje movement, made up mostly of young Kosovars, does not limit its activities to spray-painting walls.

A year ago, in February 2007, two men died during demonstrations against the international presence. One of the leaders of Vetëvendosje, Albin Kurti, is currently under arrest, accused of organising violent protests. Vetëvendosje claims thousands of followers but it is hard to tell how much support, if any, it enjoys among the general population. However, if prolonged EU presence will not be seen as helpful to resolving the people’s day-to-day problems, support for Vetëvendosje or similar movements is likely to grow.

This means the EU should put sufficient energy into winning over the local population. After a recent visit to what was then still the province of Kosovo and having spoken to many locals as well as internationals, I believe this can be done in three ways.
Getting economy right:
Firstly, the EU should look beyond its own interests in the region. The EULEX mission will focus on the rule of law, with the EU standing to lose if organised crime gets even more of a foothold in Kosovo. Already, women traffickers and drug traffickers use Kosovo as a stopover on the way to EU member states.

But the local population is more concerned about the economy. Roughly half the country is made up of young people under the age of 25, with unemployment at over 60%. Many young Kosovars think about leaving Kosovo for France, Germany or, most popular of all, the USA. The poor level of education and the lack of jobs are their two foremost reasons to think about leaving. The EU presence should work with local authorities on strengthening the economy and improving education.

Secondly, the EU should build up local capacity. Kosovars need to see that the way is being paved for them to take over the reins of their own country. Kosovars say one of the faults of the UNMIK administration was to use local staff almost exclusively as translators and drivers. The EULEX preparatory mission for one is planning to give local staff real career opportunities within the new mission. It is also foreseen that its international police officers, judges and legal experts will be coupled with local colleagues, thereby leaving behind knowledge and skills by the time the mission leaves.

Colonial power?
The third way is perhaps the most difficult one. The European expats who will be working in Kosovo over the next few years should try their utmost to get along with the local population, if they are not to be perceived as colonial powers. Differences in lifestyle, income, language skills and values will make this integration very difficult.

Kosovar society, despite the modern look of its inhabitants, shops and European television programmes, is still quite traditional. It is influenced by an old moral code known as the canons of Lekë Dukagjini, a mediaeval prince. Many Kosovar Albanians deny that this code is still in force, but police in the country side still have to take people into custody simply to protect them from blood feuds. The European expats will have to tread a careful line between respecting local culture and adressing its wrongs.

All in all, the EU’s presence in Kosovo is likely to be a learning experience for all involved. As the biggest foreign EU presence with more powers than any other EU mission, it will be a test of the limits of the European Common Foreign and Security Policy as well as the European Security and Defense Policy. With the Reform Treaty in its ratification process, Kosovo may also prove to be a future training ground for the new post-Lisbon foreign policy of the EU. If Kosovo turns out to be another Bosnia, where internationals have been running the show for the last 13 years, the EU will have years to hone its skills.

To end on a positive note, it should be said that the fact that the EU is on the ground in Kosovo is already a success in itself. Although the EU is divided on the issue of recognition of Kosovo, the new mission can go ahead thanks to the formula of constructive abstention, which gives member states such as Cyprus the possibility of not agreeing to send a mission to Kosovo, without obstructing it.

Finally, the EU is learning how to agree to disagree.

——————–

EU remains split on Kosovo.

February 18, 2008, EUobserver from Brussels | By Renata Goldirova.

The question of whether the 27-nation European Union will be able to come up with a unified reaction to the self-proclaimed independence of Kosovo currently rests with Spain, as the country is refusing to sign up to a common position drafted by the Slovenian EU presidency.

According to a draft document discussed by EU foreign ministers, “the council noted that member states can decide, in accordance with national practice and legal norms, to establish their relations with Kosovo as an independent state under international supervision.”

However, Spain has refused to agree to the text and has instead tabled its own proposal. Cyprus also strongly opposes the current text proposed by the Slovenian EU presidency.

“The council notes that member states will decide, in accordance with national practice and international law, on their relations with Kosovo,” reads the Madrid-sponsored paper.

Spanish foreign minister Miguel Angel Moratinos said before the ministers’ meeting on Monday morning that his country will not recognize Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence – made on Sunday (17 February) – as it is not in accordance with international law.

“The Spanish government has always shown respect for international law,” the minister added, pointing to the fact that following the US-led invasion of Iraq, the Socialist government withdrew troops from the country upon its election in 2004.

He concluded by saying that should Serbia’s territory be split, it should be via an agreement reached between Belgrade and Pristina or via a decision taken by the UN Security Council.

Spain, which is to hold parliamentary elections on 9 March, has its own worries about separatist movements in the Basque country and Catalonia.

The Spanish draft proposal also says: “Kosovo constitutes a sui generis case, which does not set any precedent. The council reiterates the EU’s commitment to the principle of territorial integrity of states as enshrined in the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act.”

But Madrid’s version is also facing opposition. The UK is said to prefer that the EU’s position has some reference to Kosovo’s status, rather than the more general statement that Spain has drawn up.

According to diplomats, if the EU bloc fails to agree on the common position, its is unlikely to see swift recognition by individual member states.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has already been cited by AFP as saying Berlin would not decide on Monday whether to give formal recognition.

Germany will wait for the EU meeting “to put in place a platform that will allow each member to take a position on the declaration of independence.”

——————-

EU fudges Kosovo independence recognition.

February 18, 2008, EUobserver from Brussels| By Elitsa Vucheva.

EU foreign ministers meeting in Brussels on Monday (18 February) adopted a common text in reaction to Kosovo’s proclamation of independence, leaving it up to the bloc’s member states whether to recognise the newly proclaimed state.

“The council takes note that the resolution [of independence adopted by the Kosovo assembly on Sunday] commits Kosovo to the principles of democracy and equality of all its citizens, the protection of the Serb and other minorities, the protection of the cultural and religious heritage and international supervision,” read the final text.

“The council [the EU's foreign ministers] notes that member states will decide, in accordance with national practice and international law, on their relations with Kosovo,” the document continues.

Due to the conflict in the late 1990s, and the extended period of international administration, ministers also felt that Kosovo constitutes a sui generis case that does not call into question the territorial integrity principles of the UN Charter.

Announcing the decision, Slovenian foreign minister Dimitrij Rupel, whose country currently holds the rotating EU presidency, expressed his “happiness that we managed to see a uniformed decision, a unified stance and that we protected the unity of the EU.”

“We managed to react accordingly to a historic event,” he added.

The refusal of some member states – such as Spain, Cyprus, Romania and Greece – to recognise Kosovo ensured that Monday’s debates were heated and lengthy.

But while those countries reiterated their positions during the meeting, they did not object to the council’s final text, which had itself been significantly revised from earlier versions.

An earlier draft – rejected by member states – read: “Member states can decide, in accordance with national practice and legal norms, to establish their relations with Kosovo as an independent state under international supervision.”

Spain had strongly opposed this text and put forward its own, very similar to the one eventually adopted by the ministers.

France, UK, Italy to recognise independence.
Some member states declared their intention to recognise Kosovo immediately after Monday’s meeting.
“We intend to recognise Kosovo,” French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner told journalists, the AP reports.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy has written a letter informing Pristina that Paris would establish diplomatic ties with the new country, Mr Kouchner said.

The UK, Italy, Belgium and Germany also said they would recognise Kosovo.

“A majority of [EU] member states will recognise a democratic, multi-ethnic Kosovo founded on the rule of law. Germany, too, will make this step,” the country’s foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, said.

At least half the bloc’s members will formalise their recognition of Kosovo by the end of the week, the UK’s David Miliband predicted.

“The British government has decided to recognise Kosovo,” he said.
On the other hand, Spanish foreign minister Miguel Angel Moratinos stated that his country would not “recognise the unilateral act proclaimed… by the assembly of Kosovo”.

Romania, Cyprus and Greece have also reaffirmed their earlier positions opposing independence at this stage.

For now, Slovakia will not recognise Kosovo either and will again assess the situation after the deployment of the EU’s civilian mission to Kosovo, which will be finalised in four months.

Another group of states, including Bulgaria and Denmark, have expressed their readiness to recognise Kosovo, provided that its government implements the principles to which it has committed itself – such as democracy and the respect of the rights of all minorities living on Kosovo’s soil.

Bulgarian foreign minister Ivailo Kalfin told journalists that if Kosovo sticks to its commitments, Sofia could decide to establish diplomatic relations with Pristina in the next few weeks.

—————-

The Wall Street Journal finds that the Serbs caused recent wars that left a quarter million dead, so their resort to mere rhetoric counts as a Balkan progress.

The new flag of Kosovo will be a blue banner featuring a golden map of Kosovo and six stars, one for each of its main ethnic groups.

Kosovo’s population of two million has 90% ethnic Albanians the most of whom are Muslims. There are also 130,000 ethnic Serbs, half of them in the area of the northern town of Mitrovitsa. Many historic relics of original Serb culture are in Kosovo. The EU has now an opportunity to lead the Kosovars in establishing a good relationship with their Serb minority and the other smaller minorities. This while we saw on TV that in their celebration, the Kosovars displayed many more red Albanian flags with the double headed eagle, then their new blue flag.

The greatness of the EU is that it makes it possible to have small Nations – from Estonia to Macedonia and this has enhanced stability and democracy. Obviously there is a limit to smallness, and the EU will not want to see Bosnia and Herzegovina split up. On the other hand, lets take the case of Spain. The Eu might indeed someday make it possible for Spain to agree to independent Basque and Catalan entities, even though that at present time it may yet be premature and this is the reason for Spain’s difficulty with the Seb/Kosovo split – this simply because Kosovo was only a province of Serbia, while Slovenia, for example, was a separate Republic in the Yugoslav Federation. On the other hand, Turkey was an immediate backer of a Kosovo State, this because they think of what this could do to have a separate future State for North Cyprus. Obviously, all of this has little to do with the merits of the Kosovo case, and the reasons for objection from Russia and China are thus again for self-serving reasons. Now think of the slowness of enthusiasm from the majority of Arab States who think of Sudan – the obvious next candidate for disintegration – an empire that was set up by others and now serves only its ruling Arab elite. And what about Iraq? Aha! This is a Turkish/Kurdish problem?

Our own favorite example is the split of Bangladesh from Pakistan – the example par excellance of a success story that managed to overcome the “Sovereignty” objections that were had by Pakistan.

 —————–

 

Rift Emerges at the U.N. Over Kosovo.

By BENNY AVNI
Staff Reporter of the New York Sun, Correspondent at the UN
February 19, 2008

UNITED NATIONS — Kosovo’s declaration of independence over the weekend is creating an international split, as the top Western powers, including America, rush to recognize the newborn country and others caution against regional and world turmoil that would result from other unilateral secessions.

The international debate came to a head yesterday at the U.N. Security Council, where the country that until Sunday was the uncontested sovereign over Kosovo, Serbia, called an emergency session. President Tadic of Serbia called on Secretary-General Ban to term Kosovo’s independence “null and void,” but the U.N. chief sidestepped the issue and declined to rule on the legality of Pristina’s weekend declaration. Similarly, the divided council came to no decision.

“Recognition of states is for the states, and not for the secretariat,” Mr. Ban told reporters after the council session yesterday. While America, Britain, and France were quick to recognize the new state, European countries such as Spain, which is concerned about the secession of its Basque region, were hesitant to do so. Despite the majority Muslim population in Kosovo, international groupings of Islamic and Arab states also refrained from taking decisions. Concerns over disintegration of current recognized states stopped many other countries from making statements.

Serbia, which considers Kosovo’s declaration illegal, recalled its ambassador in Washington for “consultations” yesterday, and the Serbian foreign minister, Vuk Jeremic, told U.N. reporters that his country planned to act in a similar fashion with any country that recognizes Kosovo. However “Serbia will not resort to force” in Kosovo, relying instead on diplomatic means and persuasion, the president, Mr. Tadic, told the council.

“There are dozens of various Kosovos in this world and all of them lie in wait for Kosovo’s act of secession to become reality and be established as an acceptable norm,” Mr. Tadic said. “If a small, peace-loving, and democratic country in Europe, a member state of the United Nations, can be deprived of its own territory illegally and against its will, historic injustice will have occurred because a legitimate democracy has never before been punished in this way.”

Although the European Union said in its statement yesterday that the case of Kosovo, with its unique history, is “sui generis” in the affairs of states, Mr. Tadic’s argument was powerful for many countries, including some of those that emerged out of the former Soviet bloc. Russia and China, concerned about their own separatists in Chechnya and Taiwan and Tibet, led the charge at the council yesterday. As permanent council members, they can block U.N. membership for Kosovo.

“Safeguarding sovereignty and international integrity is one of the cardinal principles of contemporary international law,” the Chinese ambassador to the United Nations, Wang Guangya, told the council. “The unilateral action by Kosovo may rekindle conflicts and turbulences in the region.”

It is “too early” to make a decision on recognition, the Egyptian ambassador to the United Nations, Maged Abdelaziz, told The New York Sun, adding that neither the Arab League nor the Organization of Islamic Conference has agreed on a common approach. “I don’t expect we will have a unified position,” he said.

Many people in the Arab and Muslim world identify with the fight of Muslims in Kosovo against the rule of a Christian country, and some Arab fighters joined the Balkan wars out of such solidarity. But countries like Morocco and Sudan are concerned about secession of ethnic groups within their own territories.

Turkey, which has sought to join the European Union for years, yesterday became one of the first countries to recognize Kosovo, even as some Turks fear a Kurdish rebellion in the southeastern part of their country. But Turkish nationals also have maintained an Ankara-backed autonomous region in the northeast of Cyprus, where locals have long called for secession.

“The United States has today formally recognized Kosovo as a sovereign and independent state,” Secretary of State Rice said in a statement yesterday. “We congratulate the people of Kosovo on this historic occasion.”

The European Union dispatched a “rule of law” mission of 1,900 troops to Kosovo in addition to the existing 5,000-troop NATO force there. But the European Union has not been able to unify its members behind a single position on recognition.

The Bush administration has been criticized by some Republicans for its Balkan policies. “Recognition of Kosovo’s independence without Serbia’s consent would set a precedent with far-reaching and unpredictable consequences for many other regions of the world,” a former secretary of state, Lawrence Eagleburger, and a former American ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, wrote in the Washington Times late last year, urging the administration to “reconsider” its decision to urge independence.

  Virtual Conference on Climate Change Diplomacy – MALTA – February 7-8, 2008.

as per e-mail from: Yasmeen       <yasmeen@diplomacy.edu>

The conference on Climate Change Diplomacy will be broadcast in Second Life.   There will be a live audio feed broadcast from the conference that will be held in Malta on 7-8 February.
More information about finding us on Diplomacy Island in Second Life is available from: http://www.diplomacy.edu/DiplomacyIsland…

Key Speakers include:
The Hon. Dr. Michael Frendo, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Malta
HE Amb. Michael Zammit Cutajar, Ambassador for Climate Change,
Vice-Chair of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the UNFCCC
Mr. Aubrey Meyer, Global Commons Institute
Dr. Alex Sceberras Trigona, Senior Fellow, DiploFoundation and Fmr. Minister of Foreign Affairs, Malta,
Mr. Shane Tomlinson, Third Generation Environmentalism Ltd
Mr. Andre Stochniol, Director and Founder, International Maritime Emissions Reduction Scheme (IMERS)
Mr. Paul Mifsud, Coordinator – UNEP, Mediterranean Action Plan on Climate Change
Dr. Claude Heimo, DEEF-Switzerland, Climate Change and Multidisciplinary Training
The programme and latest details on the conference are available on:
 http://www.diplomacy.edu/Conferences/Cli…

This Second Life broadcast follows in the steps of a virtual press conference that took place at the end of a vital meeting of the world’s Small Island States that took place in the Maldives in November last year.

Maltese Foreign Minister Michael Frendo participated in a historic joint virtual press conference, together with the Foreign Ministers of the United Kingdom and the Maldives, through Second Life, in a bid to draw the world’s attention to the devastating impacts of climate change on the world’s Small Island States and to highlight the effects of the global warming on individual people around the world.

The press conference took place outside the Maldives Virtual Embassy on Diplomacy Island in Second Life.   Video speeches of the three Ministers were transmitted followed by a question and answer session with Maldives virtual diplomats and representatives of DiploFoundation who developed Diplomacy Island.   This was the first press conference of its kind and aimed to use modern communications channels to reach a wider international audience.

Look forward to seeing you there!

Best regards

Yasmeen Ariff

Conference Coordinator
Climate Change Diplomacy
DiploFoundation

Slovenia hopes for Kosovo solution by end of EU presidency.

By Elitsa Vucheva, for EUobserver, January 8, 2008
Slovenia is hoping the status of the Serbian breakaway province of Kosovo will be solved by the end of its EU presidency in June, and has indicated that an outcome other than independence for the province is unlikely.

Legally still a part of Serbia, Kosovo has been administered by the United Nations since 1999 and wants full independence from Belgrade.

“For Kosovo it’s clear what will happen, it’s more a question of how to do it”, Slovenian prime minister Janez Jansa told journalists on Monday (7 January) in Ljubljana.

It is “obvious” that a solution that satisfies both parties cannot be found and “it’s not possible” to force Serbs and Kosovars to live together after the way ethnic Albanians were treated during the regime of former Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic, Mr Jansa was reported as saying by AFP.

Kosovo will probably not obtain “total independence” right away though, he added.

It is likely to remain internationally supervised and dependent on NATO troops to guarantee its internal security.

While avoiding giving a concrete timetable, the Slovene premier has expressed the hope that the future status of Kosovo would be solved by the end of June – when his country’s presidency of the 27-member bloc comes to an end, according to French daily Liberation.

Further developments on the thorny issue are unlikely before the Serbian presidential elections, which take place on 20 January and 3 February.

The EU is still struggling to come up with a common position on Kosovo, with Mr Jansa stating that “it won’t be easy” to reach a unified stance among the 27 EU members.

While a large majority of member states are ready to recognise an independent Kosovo, some – such as Cyprus, Greece and Slovakia – are still reluctant to do so fearing this may set a precedent for other separatist regions.

Besides Kosovo, Slovenia is hoping to make headway on another sensitive dossier during its presidency.

It will try to push ahead with Turkey’s EU accession talks, despite opposition from some member states, notably France.

“We will try and enter negotiations on some new chapters” with Turkey, Mr Jansa said, but did not give any guarantees that there would be progress.

The opening of legislative chapters to be negotiated on the way to EU membership has to be approved by all national capitals.

“Of course we need total support from other member states. We will work on that but we cannot guarantee the outcome”, the Slovene premier added, according to Reuters.

—————————–

Further, as you can find on our EUobserver.com link, there is a change in the position of France regarding EU enlargement – this could make easier for the Slovenes to achieve what they set out to do.

France open to further EU enlargement – 08.01.2008                                           —————————————————————————-
France has indicated that it is ready to support further enlargement of the
European Union, no longer believing that a greater number of member states
will prevent the effective working of the union.
 http://euobserver.com/9/25406/?rk=1

Cyprus and Malta adopt the EURO.

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS, January 1, 2008, by Elitsa Vucheva – The European currency is today (1 January) replacing the national currencies of the two Mediterranean islands of Malta and Cyprus, bringing the number of EU states using the euro to 15 out of the 27 member states.

The euro will replace the Cypriot pound and the Maltese lira, which currently equal €1.71 and €2.33 respectively.

Cyprus and Malta joined the EU on 1 May 2004 together with eight other states and follow Slovenia which in January 2007 became the first “new” EU state to join the euro club.

They will add around 1.2 million people to the euro zone – some 800,000 Cypriots and around 400,000 Maltese – bringing the number of those EU citizens using the euro as a national currency to 320 million out of the EU’s total 495-million large population.

The new euro coins in circulation as of 1 January also add six new “national sides” to the already existing ones.

The Maltese €1 and €2 coins represent the eight-pointed Maltese cross, seen as a symbol of the Maltese identity; the 10-, 20- and 50-euro cent coins feature the Maltese coat of arms; while the Mnajdra temples, considered to be one of the world’s oldest free-standing temple groupings, are seen on the 1-, 2- and 5-cent coins.

The Cypriot €1 and €2 coins feature the idol of Pomos, seen as representing the country’s contribution to civilisation since prehistory; the 10-, 20- and 50-euro cent coins represent the ancient Kyrenia ship symbolising the island’s historical importance from a trading point of view; and the 1-, 2- and 5-cent coins depict a species of wild sheep representing the island’s wildlife.

Cyprus and Malta got the green light to introduce the euro in May 2007, after fulfilling the necessary criteria, including a government deficit lower than three percent of GDP, a government debt not higher than 60 percent of GDP, as well as price and exchange rate stability.

On both islands, thousands of euro converters have been distributed to households to facilitate the transition to the new currency.

However, both Cypriots and Maltese citizens have indicated they fear the euro entry may be followed be a possible price rise – as it happened in Slovenia in 2007.

Strangely, Britain also introducing the euro because of its bases in Cyprus! As a side-effect of Cyprus’ adoption of the euro, the European currency will also be used in British military bases on the island.

Britain kept its sovereign military bases under an agreement signed in 1960 which released Cyprus from colonial rule.

The bases include Dhekelia, Episkopi and RAF Akrotiri, and some 10,000 British service personnel and their dependents are currently stationed on the island, according to French news agency AFP.

“It’s good news for Cyprus so we have to mirror the republic’s harmonisation with the EU as far as possible, otherwise it would make life unbelievably impossible”, British forces Cyprus spokesman Captain Nick Ulvert told the press agency.

The euro could also bring the economies of the divided island closer together, as the northern Turkish part of Cyprus may adopt the currency unilaterally, according to Reuters.

Northern Cyprus, which is recognised only by Turkey internationally, is currently using the Turkish lira, but would have no objection to introducing the euro, the agency reports.

Slovakia is expected to be the next member state to adopt the euro in 2009, while the two newest EU states, Bulgaria and Romania, hope to be able to follow suit by 2010-2011 and 2014 respectively.

Of the remaining 12 countries currently not in the euro zone, only the UK and Denmark have chosen not to adopt the European currency for reasons of economic sovereignty – but they have the option to join in the future.

Chen Zhen (1955-2000, he died of leukemia in December 2000) was one of the outstanding artists of the Chinese avant-garde artists who disillusioned by post-Maoist reform policies left China in the mid-1980s.

Both of Chen's Parents were medical doctors, and during the cultural revolution were

sent to the country-side. When they could return to Shanghai, Chen started
first to study medecine, but dropped out and decided to be an artist.
Eventually he decided to leave, and as the door to the US was closed to
him, he went ln 1986 to Paris.

In Paris, Chen continued to develop his work into a transhistorical
projection with intention to create a "utopian harmony by
accentuating contrasts." Originally a painter, in Paris, he turned to
sculptural and installation works, using among other means also the human body, illness,
and Chinese medical practices, as methaphors to explore the complex
interplay between the material and the spiritual, the communal and the
individual, the inside and the outside. In his last years, his illness had
probably also impacted his works.

With the help of Chen's widow, the Kunsthalle at the Museumquartier in
Vienna, organized a "Homage to Chen Zhen" exhibit, May 25 - September 2,
2007. The exhibit included about 40 of his works. Thanks to my having come
to Vienna for the August 27-31, 2007, meetings on climate change, and to
the fact that I was limited by the UN media people to have my contacts
with the participants only outside the proper meeting rooms, I was able to
catch also this important exhibit that I found extremely topically
relevant to the goings-on at the meetings.

A main object of my interest was Chen's 1999 installation that he titled -
"Exciting Delivery." In this large work we look at a large dragon snake, a
reference to a typical Chinese heavenly dragon, or if you wish - a
menacing black cloud in the sky - made of interwoven bicycle tires - and
on the strands of bicycle inner-tubes, lined up on these tubes as if they
were roads, we see an innumerable horde of toy cars as if they were
parasites on the dragon's skin. The whole thing is painted black and is
seated on a triangle made by three bicycle wheels. The shape of the dragon
is also reminiscent of shapes of internal body organs, that he was
designing in his last years. Though usually they were also symbols of
cleanliness or medical purification, with one installation made of blown
glass. "Exciting Delivery" can also be seen as a large black kidney with
parasites in this context.

The bicycle and the dragon are features of Chinese identity, while the
heavenly dragon is an ancient cultural symbol, the bicycle may be an
indication of Maoist modernity, which is linked with the car as a symbol
of "Western affluent society." The catalogue of the exhibition says here
that "The past, the present, and the future merge into a complex triangle
bursting with suspense. The used materials and emerging forms, critically
hint at the social change brought about by economic and cultural
association with the West."

As I returned to see the exhibit at a time of a guided tour, I asked the
guide if one could see in the cars the menace that this black blob of a
cloud, with its parasite cars, does generate by sitting on the back of the
bicycle wheels, that had already become at the time part of China's
existance - perhaps this cloud with its cars is the invasion of China by
the West?

The lady quoted to me one of Chen Zhen's statements: "I don't play with
incomprehension, I try to create it." At a time when the words
globalization and multiculturalism were not part of the prevailing
language in the discourses dedicated to an explanation of the world, Chen
Zhen evolved ethical and aesthetic maxims which, with faresightedness,
brought the critique of globalization, interculturalism, and ethnicity
into international discourse.

Chen was a boundary crosser, he became a "cultural homeless" who created
symbolical bridges between different realities. In his life, cut short by
his leukemia, he managed to work in many different places. Besides his
beloved Shanghai, and his adopted Paris, he also had a third main cultural
home in Salvador, Bahia, Brazil, where he loved to do projects with local
underpriviledged children.

Another installation that I found extremely interesting was his
"Purification Room" conceived in 2000, his last year of life. He covered
space and objects with brown earth - sort of a monochrome grave - this to
show people today's objects as they will be discovered by the
archeologists in the future ... it is sort of an archeology of the future.

The above reminded me of another China related exhibit that was shown at
the Vienna Kunstlerhaus 29.4 - 26.8, 2007, "The Terracotta Army," that I
was able still to catch at its closing day. That was a very similarly
looking archeology that dealt indeed with the past - so no wonder about
this Chen concentration on archeology as evidence.

While the exhibition tour guide was saying that in 2000, when Chen
designed this installation, he obviously has not seen yet the 9/11
pictures of 2001, but then I asked her what if he did make reference
instead to Hiroshima, and the intended shocking idea being thus of life in
the West being covered with this sort of ashes? People usually associated
this sort of ashes with that particular bomb that was thrown in the East?
Is this again a reference to a disaster in progress?

A third installation - titled "Homage to Duchamp" - designed in 1955 -
shows a panel made of mesh in which on one side there is a cover of rags,
 and on the other side there is a cover of ashes from burned paper. This
panel can swing between two door-frames that have no openning. On one it
says "No door to Earth" (the rags), and on the other side it says "No way
to Sky." This is a door to nowhere - please figure it out - dear reader.
But please remember also: Chen Zhen said: "Newspapers are snapshots of
time  .. Ashes the eternity of newspapers."

Further, with relevance to  the climate change Vienna rally - what about
Chen Zhen asking: "How far are we going to go with our material desires in
the presence of so many ecological problems?"

And Chen Zhen stating flatly: "Misunderstanding is the most seductive form
of communication - a powerful instrument permitting processes of
intercultural exchange and vital coexistance of different cultures."
Was this Chen's definition of diplomacy at work? Is this sort of the means
by which the dilemma of climate change will be solved before much of our
cultures become history? Are the final press releases from the UNFCCC
event merely a misunderstanding required in the search for coexistence?


Having strengthened myself with bits of culture, I was now ready to face
the realities of the UN diplomacy at work.

After five days of deliberations, the Vienna Conference ended on Friday
August 31, 2007 with the UNFCCC Secretariat declaring: "Vienna UN
Conference Shows Consensus On Key Building Blocks For Effective
International Response To Climate Change," and the world press, reading
that release translted it as - "Targets Agreed For Greenhouse Emissions in
Post-Kyoto Era."

We would love nothing more then to think that the case was indeed as
descibed by above statements - but this is simply not the case.

Indeed, as the Secretariat says now, more then 900 participants (the
previous figure was 1000), including delegates from 158 nations (out of
171 signatories and one observer to the 1992 UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change), came to Vienna to participate in the FOURTH SESSIONS OF
THE AD HOC WORKING GROUP ON FURTHER COMMITMENTS FOR ANNEX I PARTIES UNDER
THE KYOTO PROTOCOL TO THE UNFCCC AND CONVENTION DIALOGUE - the AWG4 and the
"Dialogue On Long-Term Cooperative Action To Address Climate Change By
Enhancing Implementation Of The Convention."

The AWG and Convention Dialogue, are two activities that were established
by decisions taken during the eleventh Conference of the Parties to the
UNFCCC (COP 11) and the first Conference of the Parties serving as a
Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (COP/MOP 1) in Montreal in
late 2005. At those meetings, delegates discussed a range of issues
relevant for a framework for the post-2012 period (when the Kyoto Protocol
first commitment period ends) and a long-term cooperative action on
climate change.

AWG 4, the last of the series, was expected to analyze mitigation
potentials and policies, and address ranges of emissions reductions for
Annex I parties after the first commitment period. It was also expected to
develop a timetable to guide the completion of its work.

The AWG 4 will resume  at the start of the COP/MOP 3, which will take
place from 3-14 December 2007 in Bali, Indonesia.

What above meant was that the Annex I countries to the Kyoto Protocol to
the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the UNFCCC, had to come to
Vienna  in order to come up with a program of how they intend to proceed
for the period starting 2012 in what regards their continuing decrease in
CO2 emissions. It was hoped that the advanced countries from among the
newly developed countries, read the five large countries that participated
at the German led G8+5 meeting, read here mainly China and India, will
then start making proposals of how they will then enter the process that
eventually will allow in Bali the start of the process that by the time of
the COP 15, in 2009, in Denmark, will formalize the new post-2012 regime.
So, let us make it clear, the AWG 4 was for the 38 Annex I countries to
come up with clear proposals, and in the Dialogue, all the signatories to
the UNFCCC could voice on how to proceed.

The parallel Vienna "Convention Dialogue" was supposed to focus on
bringing together ideas from the previous workshops and address
overarching and cross-cutting issues, including financing. This was also
intended as the fourth and final workshop in the series launched in May
2006 and after Vienna, the co-facilitators will present their report to COP
13 in Bali in December 2007.

So, despite the official press release by the UNFCCC, and most of the
material that appeared in the press that was based on those releases -
though quite clear reporting by  Reuters already pointed at discenssions
among the Annex I countries, the facts and the mathematics, are as
follows:

Out of the 38 Annex I countries 2, though present in Vienna, did actually
wash their hands of the Kyoto route - the US and Australia. The US will
nevertheless come possibly up with an alternative route based on bilateral
negotiations with high polluters that are not Annex I countries. President
George W. Bush has called a meeting of major emitters in Washington
September 27-28, 2007. If there will be openings created by these
negotiations, an alternative roadway to Bali will come into existance, and
Vienna might have lost its relevance. In case the US will not succeed in
the coming three month to provide its own negotiating alternative, then
clearly Vienna will have even less to present to Bali without having the
US on board.

But above is nothing yet, in effect it was known that the US and Australia
did not come to Vienna in order to treck back to Kyoto, so what about the
remaining 36 Kyoto Protocol Annex I countries? In here is the rub - and
the reason that we do not see how the UNFCCC can have justification to
their expressed optimism - beyond the clear good intentions to put up a
nice face, and expressions of hope for diplomacy reasons. But those
interested in the subject should not be fooled. When following closely the
exchanges in this week's meetings, it becomes clear that the road to Bali
is still far away, and the time left very short.

In Vienna, the European Union came up with an agreed proposal by its 27
members, to which adhered also the following 6 non-EU members who are
among the 38 Annex I countries: the EU candidate Croatia,, the aspirant
Ukraine, and the non-members - Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein, and Monaco.
On the other hand, EU members Cyprus and Malta became EU members after
signature of the Kyoto Prtocol of 1997, have made no effort to join and
have no committments for emissions reduction under Kyoto. The mathematics
are thus 27-2+6 = 31 which means that five countries - Japan, Canada, New
Zealand, Switzerland, Russia are not part of the EU proposed targets. So
what is the reason here for happinesss?

The proposal is to reduce by 2020 the Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 25-40%
bellow the 1990 values, but the five countries that did not accept these
targets, and contend that they are too drastic for them to go along, this
in addition to the two countries that did not subscribe to the system
altogether, has weakened the EU chances at achieving an agreement in Bali
on the basis of these figures. Further, the Pacific Island States have
declared that even these figures are much too low, and stiffer cuts are
needed in order to avert rising seas that could wash them off the map.

It is true that Germany, and some others, are making serious diplomatic
efforts to drum up interest in these proposals, but all what the Vienna
meeting came up with was an agreement to allow the EU proposal to proceed
on its way to Bali without any promiss to back it there. The proposal is
backed officially by 31 countries from among the Annex I countries, out of
38, and we can say that the agreement not to explode the Vienna rally by
leaving with nothing in hand, all what the meeting is sending to Bali is a
suggestion to which 7 main countries have pronounced their disinterest,
with the remaining 150 countries not having had any role in its
formulation altogether.

This, even though we note that "the conference has recognized the
Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) indication that global
emissions of greenhouse gasses need to peak in the next 10-15 years, and
then to be reduced to very low levels, well below half of levels in 2000
by mid-century, if concentrations are to be stabilized at safe levels."
The remaining question is who will agree to do the reduction.

Now, that is our evaluation, and we think that Chen Zhen might have
approved of our analysis.

Among the most positive aspects of the meeting we found the mention of
technology - such as:

China, New Zealand and others highlighted the role of technology in
long-term cooperation. Uganda called for a formal and binding instrument
on technology; Iceland emphasized climate friendly technology as a way to
reduce emissions without halting economic growth and the Maldives called
for modern cleaner technologies. Nothing revolutionary here, but at least
the recognition of the need to bind the Annex I countries with the rest of
the world.

Mexico went even further. They said that a new process is needed that
provides a way for long-term reductions in concentrations of GHGs, and
identified the need for evolution of the current division betwen Annex I
and non-Annex I parties into a more realistic form of differentiation. He
said voluntary commitments, based on gradual strengthening of capacity,
should be part of a new formalized dialogue, and advanced developing
countries should have incentives for innovative schemes to build goals
over time. Uganda added that developing countries had no objections to
reducing emissions, but were asking about cost and impact on development.
Uganda said it was time for the Dialogue to deliver and called for the
launch at COP 13 in Bali of a process leading to a legally binding
instrument. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia, as it did at many previous
occasions, just tried to kill the whole process by arguing against
attempts by countries to use the climate regime to exert economic leverage
at the expense of others.

Canada stressed the need to build on the momentum created by the dialogue
and proceed at COP 13 by launching the post-2012 framework involving all
Convention parties. on this basis, www.SustainabiliTank.info called this
Conference a "Rally," because indeed, as the UNFCCC Secretariat's Press
Releases attest: "Vienna UN Meeting Tests Temperature Of International
Climate Change Process," it recognized, also as our friends from The Earth
Negotiations Bulletin, the publication we love to call KIMO/IISD, said in
the conclusion of their analysis, that with the limitations of the AWG's
mandate, the managers of the Vienna agenda calculated that
confidence-building from an open discussion under the Dialogue was the
only alternative left to them by the realities of the UN. KIMO/IISD finds
that this goal was achieved, and that a rich discussion emerged - on
building blocks that are likely to make up the agenda - "if, and
presumably when" - there will be a transition from informal dialogue to
formal negotiations . Moreover, the style of the dialogue took account of
the fact that decission making on the available options no longer lie
exclusively within the UNFCCC process. Above is basically what
 SustainabiliTank.info also felt after the initial visit, on Tuesday, with
the conference/rally. As we said, this was just one more talk-fest,in a
long line of such talk-fests labeled as confidence-building exercises, but
many of the delegates did indeed try to find a way out from this reality.
We wish, a Chen Zhen would show up to provide the visible presentation to
what manny of these negotiators feel.

From:
Email:  andrew.simms at neweconomics.org
Website: www.neweconomics.org

Europe-wide research by nef (the new economics foundation), using a new measure of carbon efficiency and real economic progress reveals that Europe is less efficient today than it was 40 years ago. The European Happy Planet Index: An index of carbon efficiency and well-being in the EU reveals for the first time the carbon efficiency with which 30 European nations produce lives of different relative length and life satisfaction for their citizens. nef’s analysis, published in association with Friends of the Earth, also looks back over the last 40 years and comes worrying conclusions in an age of climate change, when it is more important than ever that we use our resources efficiently. nef’s Index reveals that:
§               Europe as a whole has become less efficient, not more, in translating fossil fuel use into measurable human well being. The Index reveals that Europe as a whole is less carbon efficient now than it was in 1961.
§               Across Europe people report comparable levels of well-being whether their lifestyles imply the need for the resources of six and a half, or just one planet like Earth. The message is that people are just as likely to lead satisfied lives whether their levels of consumption are very low or high.
§               Iceland tops the Index. Scandinavian countries are the most efficient – achieving the highest levels of well-being in Europe at relatively low environmental cost with Sweden and Norway joining Iceland at the top of the HPI table. Iceland’s combination of strong social policies and extensive use of renewable energy demonstrate that living within our environmental means doesn’t mean sacrificing human well-being – in fact, it could even make us happier
§               The UK comes a poor 21st out of the 30 countries analysed, and nations that have most closely followed the Anglo-Saxon, strongly market-led economic model show up as the least efficient on the Index.

The European Happy Planet Index: An Index of carbon efficiency and well-being

__________________________________

Andrew Simms
Policy Director and Head of the Climate Change Programme

nef (the new economics foundation)
economics as if people and the planet mattered
3 Jonathan St
London SE11 5NH
Registered Company No. 319 3399
Registered Charity No. 1055254

Tel: ++ 44 (0)20 7820 6355
Fax: ++ 44 (0)20 7820 6301
Switchboard: ++ 44 (0)20 7820 6300