|

from Eban Goodstein <nti.eban@gmail.com> date Fri, Jul 30, 2010 subject C2C Launch Conference! Building a Climate Network, Williams College 9/24

C2C/The National Climate Seminar

Amidst the wreckage of climate legislation in DC, one thing is clear. This is not the fight of a day, of a year or of a decade. Even had the Senate acted, changing the future would still have required a vibrant, engaged global citizenry, pushing every day of every year, for the next 40 years, to decarbonize the planet.

www.bard.edu/cep

**************

C2C is the e-bulletin of the public policy initiatives of the Bard Center for Environmental Policy.

We have received the following Earth Conscious Magazine File from our UNEP – Caribbean Contacts and thought this is a worthwhile Magazine that will be liked by our readers. This posting is intended so that we transmit the link to the Magazine File.

Steve Kinzer’s Reset is a bold exercise in re-imagining the United States’ big links in the Middle East. His essential question is: what if Turkey and Iran, of all nations, are to be Americas critical partners in stabilizing the region — not Saudi Arabia and Israel? He says that Iran to the Middle East is what Germany is to Europe. Without Germany there is no peace in Europe – without Iran there is no Peace in the Middle East.

What about a Brazil-Turkey-Iran triangle on a nuclear-fuel deal? What does actually Turkey want? What about these last two weeks and Turkey having established itself as leader of the Islamic world pro-tempore – because of the vacuum in Arab leadership?

The full name of the newly released book is: “RESET: IRAN, TURKEY AND AMERICA’S FUTURE” and its author presented it at the Baruch College of the City University of New York. The evening was co-sponsored by the Light Millennium organization and The American Turkish Society and my feeling was that both those organizations were just as bewildered as anyone else of the changes in Turkey these last few years. www.lightmillennium.org is connected to the Department of Public Information (DPI) at the UN. Also a puzzlement.

The US has quite neglected Turkey besides pushing for its incorporation into the EU; the truth is that in the last two weeks there was more attention paid to Turkey in the US then in all of the history of the US.

Kinzer says that in both, Turkey and Iran, there is an understanding among the people of elections and parliament, as they had years time to assimilate the concept of democracy, this as an internal matter, and not as the result of an imposition by a foreign army. He sees opportunities to work with the UN when looking at the situation on the ground, and understanding the shift of Turkey away from its previous cooperation with Israel and Saudi Arabia and the sometimes half-legal activities when these countries were used by a US Administration to effect something that they could not get through US Congress.

In the Q&A time I was able to help try to focus the attention on the latest upheavals and my feeling that these can actually lead to the Reset not so much for Washington but actually for Turkey and the Middle East in General.

As we pointed out in the past, Turkey’s attempt to enter the EU was unrealistic for many reasons – not the least from a position that looks at what are the real interests and the forte of Turkey itself.

Turkey was trying to join what it thought were the Lions of Europe, but neither does Europe have lions anymore, nor did they want Turkey in their midst. While chasing after Europe, Turkey missed out on becoming the natural leader of the newly independent five, mainly Turkic States of Central Asia. Now Turkey is RESETTING by stretching out hands to the Arab World, to Iran and even Pakistan and Afghanistan. But Turkey is a late-comer so it thought to do some pyrotechnics in order to create the credibility for its move.

I mentioned my having come to Baruch College after viewing the movie that was supposed to convince people at the UN that slingshots, crow bars and batons used in face-to-face battle, as used on the Mari Marmara ship of the coast of Gaza, are regular equipment of civilians. So, this was a Turkish organized effort for Turkish policy reasons.

Having established through this flotilla business its in-good-standing credentials with the Muslim world, the real question is to what purpose they will be using these credentials now. To turn this into a question to Mr. Kinzer, I asked him what does he wish Turkey to do in two weeks from now.

His answer was as I expected – Turkey can deescalate now, get off the wrong horse as winner, and start lead in positive directions as the Arab countries of the Middle East and also Iran, could now let them handle the path of search for solutions.

news@religionandecology.org

from: Mary Evelyn Tucker and John Grim
Coordinators of the Forum on Religion and Ecology at Yale
http://www.yale.edu/religionandecology

————————————————————

John Hofmeister from Schell Oil, now of the Citizens for Affordable Energy, rides to the defense of BP.

The Houston “THE CULTUREMAP INTERVIEW” says for him:
Hating oil companies isn’t a solution: John Hofmeister wants to change the way Americans look at energy.
 http://culturemap.com/newsdetail/05-24-1…

———————————————————-
Fellow Citizens,
With inputs and advice from many of you we have temporarily taken down our former web pages to make it more readable, accessible and easier to navigate. We should be up and running in the very near future. We also are making it more fact-filled and fun to explore. It will also be more continuously updated with current, ready to use information, links to other organizations and materials, and blogs or inputs from other fellow citizens.

It will continue to focus on the importance of energy security, availability and of course affordability.
The Four Mores will continue to anchor our work.

We invite you to register, or re-register, to make sure that you will receive information and new insights as we grow and expand Citizens for Affordable Energy.

The new web site construction is taking place to make the most of the upcoming book launch, May 25, 2010, of Why We Hate the Oil Companies: Straight Talk from an Energy Insider so that Citizens for Affordable Energy takes full advantage of the attention the book will bring to the topic of our affordable energy and environmental future. Learn more by following this link: http://www.whywehatetheoilcompanies.com .

We apologize for any inconvenience and look forward to our upcoming re-launch. With your help we will ensure that affordable and sustainable energy strengthens our economy and supports our lifestyles.

Best wishes,

John Hofmeister
Founder and CEO
Citizens for Affordable Energy, Inc.
919 Milam Street, Suite 2070
Houston, TX 77002

———————————————————

The “4 Mores” of Oilman John Hoffmeister:

-
(1)  More energy from all sources, including hydrocarbons: oil, natural gas, liquefied natural gas, oil shale and clean coal; bio-fuels, solar, wind, hydrogen, hydro-power, geo-thermal and nuclear.

-
(2) More technology and innovation to efficiently utilize energy, including research and development, regulation and “technology push/market pull” approaches in transportation, land use, building design and construction, lighting, appliances, electronics, power production, transmission and distribution.

-
(3) More environmental Protection, including treatment and management of gaseous wastes, analogous to physical and liquid wastes, utilizing regulatory mechanisms, e.g. cap and trade, or other incentives to promote balanced, affordable and sustainable energy solutions.

-
(4) More physical and legal infrastructure, to ensure efficient and environmentally sound distribution and delivery of both traditional and alternative forms of energy.

-
 http://citizensforaffordableenergy.org/4…

 http://www.citizensforaffordableenergy.o…

————————————————————–

Why We Hate Oil Companies: Straight Talk from an Energy Insider.

THE US FOREIGN POLICY ASSOCIATION

at Barclays Capital 745 Seventh Avenue, 32nd Floor (between 49th & 50th Streets)
May 25, 2010 6:00 PM – 7:00 PM

The  book launch of :

“Why We Hate Oil Companies: Straight Talk from an Energy Insider,” the newest book by Mr. John Hofmeister, former President of Shell Oil Company and Founder and Chief Executive of Citizens for Affordable Energy.

———

Some of the Hoffmeister main points are:

In regard to the solution to an oil spill, he says that some years back in Saudi Arabia, the problem was dealt with by bringing super tankers to clean it up – you just suck up the mess and then separate the oil from the water – you bet at these quantities and at this depth. He jocked that there are no tankers available – they must all be full with oil waiting for a better price.

“I’m trying to put it forward as much as I can. I’m trying to give it the attention it deserves. For the main purpose of getting a thumbs up or a thumbs down on ‘Should we do this?’ It’s been done before, not in this part of the world. But you know we certainly ought to consider it. BP ought to be listening. The Coast Guard ought to be listening to see whether this can actually be an idea that works.”

He also said that actually BP never intended to operate that well. They have enough oil now and wanted just to find the oil and cap the well for future use. I asked Hoffmeister later – if they intended to close it, why can they not close it now maybe they do not have the technology indeed? His answer was that we do not know – they did not yet apply the capping technology – it is only to be tried later this week. So the obvious is – why was Hoffmeister so sure that they never intended to tap the oil now and had the knowledge to close a working well at -5,ooo feet? Is he serious or tries just to sell a book?

Nevertheless, there was one point I tend to agree with him – that is in the elaborate display of his feelings that foreign companies Shell and BP were dealt at a disadvantage when compared to Purely US based multinationals. Yes – I can see this in that cattle of worms of the oil industry and their Washington stand-ins, and in his case, leading up to the Palin State of Alaska.

He said It is ironic that the book is published now and the title was chosen more than 18 months ago  . . . and so the irony of today. But any day, as we know, there could be an incident in a risk-based industry — whether it’s the airlines, coal mining, whether it’s truckers driving down the highway, we live in a risk-based society.

The book will help more and more Americans understand the energy issue, he contends,  which is being addressed by Citizens for Affordable Energy, the foundation that Karen (his wife) and I started. And that foundation is intended to give everyday Americans a comfortable working knowledge of energy and what it takes to have affordable energy and available energy through the 21st century and well beyond. And so we’ll keep working on communicating that to everyday Americans.

Today, the American public suffers from misinformation, disinformation and lack of information, a lot of it perpetrated by their elected officials. They need to know as much if not more than their elected officials so they can’t get snookered into the election process of supporting someone who is working in their personal interests but not in the interests of society.

And what is this future? In a nut-shell – let the oil companies supply oil as long as it is available and work on extending energy production by other means when it becomes needed as measured by the economy. first stops will be Canada’s tar sands, Colorado oil shales, Venezuela heavy crudes, coal liquids and gases – not a word about the environment. That one is the domain of read-hot environmental mosquitos …

He believes the government is needed in order to serve the oil industry:

” Well, I think there are several controversial stories in the book which will cause a reaction. I primarily deal with, in terms of controversy, the ugliness of political partisanship and how it is frustrating the good will of this nation and it is setting this nation back in terms of its relations with other nations. It’s an embarrassment. And we should all be ashamed that our elected officials are such partisans.

Secondly, the selfish interests of both the special interests and the industry will probably be taken exception to. But most of all, I attack the structural disfunction of the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch of our national government. Our founders may have been brilliant but they did not appreciate or understand what it would take for 21st century energy to be set forward in public policy. And the mechanisms, the structures, the processes we have in government today cannot get the job done. I’m sure that will be debated by many people.

My solution will also be controversial because at a time when many people are challenging the credibility of the Fed, (the Federal Reserve Bank)  I’m proposing that a Fed-like solution is the only way that we will get our energy future sorted out. I call it the Federal Energy Resources Board and if we’re unwilling to put energy under the auspices and the governance of an independent regulatory commission, the likelihood that we will fall into an energy abyss in this nation is simply guaranteed.”

—–

He is not afraid of government that is good for the industry – even though he did not get his way easily in the last years at Schell – specially under Presidents Bush and Obama. He thinks that the folks at the MMS feel it a privilege to work in their office because they have Presidential appointments – be they Democrats or Republicans. Even that as a Dutch Company they were checked many-fold above their competitors. (Very generous indeed.)

The present mishap will show a lot of smoke but no fire – take it straight from the insider, he said.

He needed in Alaska 60 ice free days because they could not build on ice, but was interferred with, so they did not have the needed 60 days and the leases expire in 5 or 10 years – so leases were lost by the slow bureaucracy.

He kept saying that hydrocarbons, wether oil or coal, are dangerous and we must learn to live with risk, he said.

He expects that no new drilling will happen before the end of 2012, and then only when the price is right!

He sees money from the oil industry flow to the Democratic Party. Is this an accepted fact? On foreign relations – itis not just about oil – it brought us close to war – people cannot judge. He sees an unemployed and uninvolved electorate not going to vote1 He saw a Houston election for Mayor in 2009 with only 16% participation. He wants people more aware and going out to fight for the energy cause.

Q from the audience: How can the electorate push the oil industry to do the right thing?

He wants a 50 years transition. The 10-25 years are the medium term. By 2060 we will have diminished the dependence on oil and coal he says. Until then we will have used one trillion barrels each of the Athabasca oil sands, the US oil shales and the Venezuelan heavies. Colorado could provide us with 300 million bbl/day.

Solar and wind will come in starting 30 years from now. First solar not wind.

Coal is economic now wit a 25 Cents subsidy per MWh – but now it takes a $23.30 cents subsidy to get the equivalent power from solar, he said. Then, on top, he threw at the novices – coal is 35% efficient but solar is only 8% efficient – but he is an optimist – “molecular material” will be created by science to support solar.

Hydrogen is an underestimated material – Natural Gas is another material for the future. {the future? where has he been in the last three decades? If anyone – it was the oil industry that slowed down the NG industry – they were, and some still do simply flare it and burn it away.} Then he quipped – he knows fission – fusion has great promise – and always will.

We posted the following advance announcement and on Wednesday April 28, 2010 we had the rewarding presentation by Professor Simon Johnson in the UN General Assembly Hall.

Thursday, April 22nd, 2010 Posted in Book reviews, Future Events, Massachusetts, New York, Policy Lessons from Mad Cow Disease, Reporting From the UN Headquarters in New York, Reporting from Washington DC

Professor Johnson looks back at times that a US President was ready to act when he saw internal financial powers in the US become to large for our common good.We saw the following article:

“To battle Wall Street, Obama should channel Teddy Roosevelt.“
Teddy showed the banks who’s boss. Will Obama?
by Simon Johnson and James Kwak
in the Sunday, April 4, 2010 Washington Post.
In late February 1902, J.P. Morgan, the leading financier of his day, went to the White House to meet with President Theodore Roosevelt and Attorney General Philander Knox. The government had just announced an antitrust suit — the first of its kind — against Morgan’s recently formed railroad monopoly, Northern Securities, and this was a tense moment for the stock market. Morgan argued strongly that his industrial trusts were essential to American prosperity and competitiveness.

The banker wanted a deal. “If we have done anything wrong, send your man to my man and they can fix it up,” he offered. But the president was blunt: “That can’t be done.” And Knox succinctly summarized Roosevelt’s philosophy. “We don’t want to fix it up,” he told Morgan, “we want to stop it.”

Just over a century later, on March 27, 2009, 13 bankers were summoned to the White House. The global financial system was verging on collapse, in no small measure because of the bankers’ concentrated power and their manifest inability to manage the risks of their “financial innovation.” Banking had to be rescued — no modern economy can function without credit, of course — and only the Obama administration had the power to save the day.

But instead of specific new regulations or changes in the way they operate — or even any constraints on their power — what did these 13 bankers find waiting for them? On this day and in the months that followed, the administration provided generous expressions of unconditional financial and moral support, both explicit and implicit, along with gentle and nonbinding admonitions.

The headline quote from President Obama sounded tough: “My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks,” he told the meeting. But the reality was as mild as it could be: All 13 bankers, no matter how discredited, kept their jobs, their salaries, their bonuses, their pensions, their staff and, most remarkable given the near-complete breakdown of governance, even their boards of directors. Our leading bankers were saved by the generosity and magnanimity of our president.

Since that meeting, the country has seen no discernible changes in the financial management and incentive systems that for 30 years have given Wall Street the benefits of the upside and Main Street the costs of the downside. And politically, our financial titans have bitterly opposed the mild reforms that the Obama administration eventually proposed. Even Citi and Bank of America, which essentially spent 2009 as wards of the state, have engaged in egregious lobbying.

There is no way that Teddy Roosevelt would have stood for this. He saw finance and economics through the lens of political power. In his book, it did not matter how important you were, or claimed to be, to the economy. If you were too powerful, and if your actions were hurting other people in the economy, Roosevelt wanted to take you on — and he instructed his lawyers accordingly.

Roosevelt did not launch the antitrust movement by gently tugging on some low-hanging fruit. He took on J.P. Morgan, the central figure in the burgeoning American financial system, and he won (though just barely, with the Supreme Court voting 5 to 4 to dissolve Northern Securities). And after many twists and turns, the new consensus regarding acceptable business practices led to the breakup of John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil — arguably the most powerful company in U.S. history to that date.

Of course, Roosevelt did have the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act on his side. But before 1902, that law had never been used against an industrial trust, and precedent suggested that there was no legal basis for reining in Morgan’s ventures. Roosevelt’s audacious move seemed against the odds, and it was very much against the advice of top figures in his Republican Party.

In the spring of 2009, Obama and his senior advisers did not seem terribly troubled by the dangerous concentration of power, wealth and hubris on Wall Street. The president thought it reasonable to find a way forward through amicable accommodation, assuming that Big Finance really could change. Yet, in memoirs and public statements, the bankers repeatedly submit their defense: The system — the mechanics and incentives of Wall Street — made them do it. Unfortunately, Wall Street and its intimate connections to Washington have not become any safer for the American economy since this crisis began.

In fact, the latest boom-bust-bailout cycle probably worsened matters. We can argue whether, before September 2008, the people running huge financial firms really thought they were “too big to fail.” Lehman, after all, did go bankrupt; Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs were rescued at the eleventh hour. But today, who thinks Goldman could fail?

In the moment of most intense crisis, Goldman became a bank holding company, subject to the supervision of the Federal Reserve and able to borrow from the Fed’s official “discount window” — effectively gaining government support. Yet today the firm is also allowed to carry out essentially the same activities (including securities and foreign-exchange trading, as well as real-estate-related transactions) as it did prior to the meltdown of 2008, when there was supposedly no government backing.

If you were exempt from paying speeding tickets, no matter how fast you drove, what would you do? Perhaps, immediately after observing a horrific crash or having a near-death experience, you would be more careful. But soon you would feel the need to get somewhere quickly. And you might even think that your special legal status merely reflected your advanced skills. How long until the next big accident?

Since Democrats lost the special Senate election in Massachusetts in January, the president has shown some new fire. In a major potential course correction, he proposed the “Volcker Rule,” named after former Fed chairman and current Obama adviser Paul Volcker, which would constrain the risk-taking and the size of the largest U.S. banks. The move blind-sided Wall Street. In the sound bite of Jan. 21, Obama sounded just like Teddy: “If these folks want a fight,” he said, “it’s a fight I’m ready to have.”

It is now time for that fight. Senate Democrats have proposed a financial overhaul that includes the Volcker Rule, and White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Tuesday that passing regulatory reform by late May is realistic. But to make progress in this legislative cycle, the president needs to go all in, as he did with health-care reform. The potential political message here is powerful: If opponents of reform think they are “too big to fail,” then we will prove them wrong.

It doesn’t help that Wall Street has vast amounts of cash to spend on lobbying and political ads. Yet, if framed correctly, the reform message cuts across the political spectrum. If there is one thing that the left and the right agree upon, it is that a “get out of jail free” card distorts the free market. Massive banks have access to cheaper financing because the credit markets understand that the government stands behind them. This is unfair competition, pure and simple.

Will the administration stand up and fight now, before we have another crisis? Surely this is what Theodore Roosevelt would have done. He liked to act preemptively; when he saw excessive power, he took it on, creating his own moments of political opportunity.

Of course, there is always the other Roosevelt. When FDR took power in March 1933, he took aim at the banks. As historian Arthur Schlesinger wrote in “The Coming of the New Deal” — “No business was more proud and powerful than the bankers; none was more persuaded of its own rectitude; none more accustomed to respectful consultation by government officials. To be attacked as antisocial was bewildering; to be excluded from the formation of public policy was beyond endurance.”

By the mid-1930s, Franklin Roosevelt had become skeptical of powerful financiers, but he was only able to translate those feelings into policy after a major global depression. Obama shouldn’t wait for another one before pushing for the changes that matter.

 baselinescenario at gmail.com

The bottom line of a Johnson argument is that a handful of American banks (six of them) gained unprecedented wealth and threatened the well-being of the nation. He advocates that big financial institutions should be allowed to fail. To enable this we must make sure that no bank is bigger in assets then $100 billion. If they are bigger – force them to split into smaller units in the hope they will compete and some will then be allowed to fail.

——————–

The problem is not Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy, or Ireland.

The problem are greedy banks, who are doing multi-billion-dollar deals on Greece failing, causing the interest rates for Greece to grow too high, thus causing the very debt crisis in the first place.

These people are making huge profits out of the problems of others, causing whole nations to go bankrupt, including all the malevolent effects for social security systems etc. People will actually die because of the greed of others.

And these are the very same people who asked for taxpayer’s bailout money just a few months ago.

– — –

Greg Peterson and Urban Farm Press -  www.UrbanFarmPress.com – present a new and unique series of mini-books designed for the busy, fast-paced life we live.  The series, called The Urban Farm’s Simple Sustainability Series, feature palm-size, single topic, and well-researched mini books that are concise and to the point with each book exploring a different aspect of living a green (sustainable) lifestyle. Topics are addressed in a guilt-free, action-oriented and upbeat manner.  Designed as a quick study, the books bridge the gap between facts and action and are written in an inspirational manner for anyone with an interest in green lifestyle changes and sustainably oriented processes.

The mini-book format features:
•    3.5” by 5” size
•    A low price of $7.95
•    8,000 to 15,000 words
•    Highly topic specific material
•    A quick, engaging, inspirational read, and
•    Communicate the point using less paper.

Each book contains helpful, factual and interesting information designed to inspire readers into action.
Urban Farm Press and Your Guide To Green are established, reliable sources of information on green living.  Therefore the information is educational, fact-based, substantive, and well-researched — based on well-documented sources.  Books are written in an upbeat, positive, non-preachy, no guilt voice that is fun and easy-to-read.
It’s simply rewarding.

We met Israeli Retired Judge Shlomo Shoham in the corridors of the UN Headquarters in New York, about a dozen years ago.

I learned from him how he was trying to enact in the Israeli Parliament – The Knesset – a system where the legislature will have to test every proposed law for its effect on future generations – or read it simply – its effect on sustainability. The essence of this is the implementation of the concepts of Sustainable Development. I was so taken by these ideas that I actually raised the question to a panel from the UN Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia, that is the UN grouping of the Asian Arab States from which Israel is excluded, at a meeting of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development – what would be if every State in the region would have a provision that requires the implementation that comes with National Responsibility for the Future Generations, in matters of the environment and general well-being? The Syrian Chair of the grouping, and the Iranian UN employee who was in charge of ESCWA responded that many of the countries had their Agenda 21 – specifically Syria had one – and they were bound to implement such goals. Clearly, they did not take my bait of collaborative work with Israel in the attainment of regional goals. But this is not the topic of this posting.

This posting is about my having found out that in May there will appear a volume by Shlomo Shoham that depicts the Israeli experiment with rational sustainable law-making, and I wanted to bring this before our readers, specifically these days of attempts at legislating in the energy and climate, and even on financial institutions and debt, as an ultimate goal for the Washington US Congress, and any law making institution. Let us simply conclude that if an activity does not pass the  sustainability test, we probably should desist from bringing it about.

Now, please let Shlomo Shoham speak for himself:

A NEW BOOK:” Shlomo Shoham – FUTURE INTELLIGENCE, SUSTAINABILITY, AND THE STORY OF
THE COMMISSION FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS  IN THE ISRAELI PARLIAMENT.”

2010, Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung (Bertelsmann Foundation is the publisher).

—————

Shlomo Shoham says: “I pray that this book—bringing in the call of our preferred future will encourage us in creating our desired reality of life and well being for our planet earth.”

Shlomo Shoham, 2010 -  Creating a desired future as intelligent behavior:

In 1995, I left the judge’s bench to work in Israel’s parliament as the legal advisor to the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee. Many of my friends and acquaintances did not understand my intent in taking this unusual step. At that time, most of Israel’s judges served in the judiciary not only until their first opportunity to retire, but for as long as they were allowed to sit on the bench—that is, until they were 70 years old. I, on the other hand, was appointed to the bench at a very early age and left it at age 45, after only 12 years. I explain to anyone who asks, that beyond personal and professional reasons, the force that drove me was the desire to stop dealing with traumas of the past and to be part of a team that had an impact on the future.

——————-

In its mere 60 years of existence, Israel has achieved much. It is considered to be a developed western state with a flourishing economy and impressive development momentum. Yet these considerable achievements, in one of the most crowded states in the world, have taken a heavy toll in terms of a problematic view of the future and considerable environmental costs.

————–

The Commission for Future Generations was born out of a great vision of the future. Lapid’s intention, subsequently adopted by the members of the Knesset, was to establish an honorable position for the Israeli parliament among the nations of the developed world. Indeed, the Commission was established in 2002 out of the conviction that those who formulate the legislation shaping Israeli society ought to consider the consequences of that legislation, and that the various interests informing legislation should remain beholden to an overriding principle: protecting the interests of our children and grandchildren—of future generations and preserving a broad scope of choices for them. In short, the Commission was to help the Knesset to take seriously the goals of intergenerational justice.

From a legal perspective, the Commission for Future Generations is defined in Chapter 8 of the Knesset Law. The idea was to establish an intra-parliamentary body with the resources to develop a comprehensive picture of Knesset legislation, and carry out an audit of ramifications that could affect coming generations. The statute provides the Commissioner for Future Generations with the power to examine bills that, in his opinion, hold the potential for future harm, and to bring concrete data and recommendations to parliament.

The commissioner can expresses his opinion during the deliberation of legislative committees, or submit it as an attachment to bills being discussed in committee or voted on by the parliament in plenum.

The commissioner also has the authority to express his opinion and make recommendations on various topics unrelated to specific bills, as well as on secondary legislation brought to vote in the Knesset. He has the authority to advise members of the Knesset on any topic that has special relevance to future generations.

During my five years of activity on the Commission 20012 -2006, every bill tabled in parliament was also presented to us. This included private bills, government bills and secondary legislation. As commissioner, I had the statutory authority to announce our involvement in a particular bill; when this happened, I was invited to the meetings of the relevant committee to offer a written and oral opinion.

———-

One of our first steps in establishing the Commission for Future Generations was the significant need to explain and define what constitutes “of particular interest to future generations,” as stipulated in the wording of the law. In the beginning, we defined this in terms of our understanding of the term sustainability, which expressed the values on which responsibility to future generations is based. Surprisingly, though the concept of sustainability—to the best of my knowledge—was not a concept the initiators of the law were aware of, the 12 areas which legally fell within the Commission’s authority matched the principle components that make up the concept, as it is described in scholarly literature.

The Commission had been authorized to act in policy areas falling within three broader areas that often involve interrelated issues: society, economics and the environment. And indeed, one of the Commission’s successes was to raise public awareness of sustainability in a way that encompassed all three, in a period when the idea of sustainability was associated almost exclusively with environmental issues.

Soon after the Commission’s formation, Israel began intense preparation for the United Nations’ World Summit on Sustainable
Development in Johannesburg in 2002. Internationally, vast amounts of knowledge were being collected with an eye toward application of the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (to which Israel is a signatory) based on the principles developed at the United Nations’ Earth Summit, held in Rio in 1992. In preparation for the Johannesburg summit, I—as Commissioner for Future Generations—participated in the final meetings of the interdepartmental committee established by the government for
this purpose, and later took an active part in representing Israel in various committees and events at the summit.

————

To some extent, these questions had already become part of Israel’s public discourse. A 2002 shadow report on Israel’s progress toward environmental sustainability released by environmental organizations found a pattern of development underway which contradicted the principles of sustainability, in certain cases irreversibly (Friends of the Earth Middle East 2002). From examples like this, it was clear that the process of embedding the principles of sustainability and building a strategy unique to Israel was unavoidable. At the Commission, we began to see legislation focusing on sustainability as a critical tool to help implant futures thinking and long-term thinking in Israel’s decision-making processes and governmental policy design.

After the Johannesburg summit, the Commission drew up a proposed government bill to create a strategic plan for sustainable development, which was presented to the government on January 30, 2003. In the Knesset, we pressed for the advancement of a basic law on the topic, since this would raise the issue to the status of constitutional law.2 As such, it would serve as a counterweight against the interests that opposed sustainable development.

The bill was intended to establish—at least as a goal—that all economic, societal and environmental development be conducted in a sustainable manner. Indeed, the U.N. Plan of Implementation signed at the Johannesburg summit spoke specifically of an institutional framework as the proper way to embed and advance sustainable development at all levels of government. The plan called for the use of all means available to the government to embed these principles, and specifically mentioned the use of legislation and the rule of law alongside the activity of governmental institutions (United Nations 2000).

It is worth noting that following the Commission’s initiative, the right to sustainability found its way into the map of rights contained in the proposed bill for the Israeli constitution. It is my hope that the transition from a legal system based on basic laws to a legal system based on a written constitution will take place quickly, and that with it the rights to sustainability will be anchored in the constitution.

————

And now let’s read the following quotes. Let these sayings seep into our consciousness and see if our images of the future change as a result, and if so, how.

Let’s allow ourselves to release our hold on the ideas we have about education, and read the following material as a clean slate. Even if these quotations are familiar to us, it is still very important to let ourselves see how reading them anew influences our perceptions:

-

“Your children are not your children.

They are the sons and daughters of Life’s longing for itself.

They come through you but not from you,

And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.

You may give them your love but not your thoughts,

For they have their own thoughts.

You may house their bodies but not their souls,

For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,

which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.

You may strive to be like them,

but seek not to make them like you.

For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.”

(Khalil Gibran 1996)

-

“In such a world, the most valued attributes of the industrial era
become handicaps. The technology of tomorrow requires not millions of
lightly lettered men, ready to work in unison at endlessly repetitious
jobs… but men who can make critical judgments, who can weave their way
through novel environments, who are quick to spot new relationships in
the rapidly changing reality…

“Finally, unless we capture control of the accelerative thrust…
tomorrow’s individual will have to cope with even more hectic change
than we do today. For education the lesson is clear: its prime
objective must be to increase the individual’s “cope-ability” — the
speed and economy with which he can adapt to continual change.” (Alvin
Toffler 1970)

-

“The aim (of education) must be the training of independently
acting and thinking individuals who, however, can see in the service
to the community their highest life achievement.” (Albert Einstein)

-

“Know that each person is unique in the world…

And he would do well to bring his uniqueness to perfection.”
(Rabbi Nachman of Breslov)

-

“Know yourself before you attempt to get to know children. Become
aware of what you yourself are capable of before you attempt to
outline the rights and responsibilities of children. First and
foremost you must realize that you, too, are a child, whom you must
first get to know, bring up, and educate.” (Janusz Korczak 2006)

-

“In Waldorf education, we aspire to enable our children to become
healthy people of body and mind and clear of spirit. Bodily health,
freedom of mind and clarity of spirit are things that humanity will
need more and more in the future.” (Rudolf Steiner)

-

“The rapid obsolescence of knowledge and the extension of life
span make it clear that the skills learned in youth are unlikely to
remain relevant by the time old age arrives. Super-industrial
education must therefore make provision for life-long education on a
plug-in/plug-out basis…..If learning is to be stretched over a
lifetime, there is reduced justification for forcing kids to attend
school full time…

…places an enormous premium on learning efficiency. Tomorrow’s
schools must therefore teach not merely data, but ways to manipulate
it. Students must learn how to discard old ideas, how and when to
replace them. They must, in short, learn how to learn.” (Alvin Toffler
1970)

-

“The changes and uncertainty that characterize the society of our
day are so large that it is dangerous and mistaken to base the
curriculum on any static view of reality—whether of the past, the
present, or the future… We must select for the curriculum those
elements which can provide true preparation for most of the
possibilities that the future world holds. In the new age, students
will need new skills, primarily in three areas: the expertise to
learn—to teach students how to learn, how to forget what they’ve
learned, and how to learn anew. Skills in creating human
connections—through groups for study, or to accomplish a task. And
skills of choosing and initiating.”(David Passig 1997)

-

“I didn’t teach Anna to do things the right and proper way. There
is no doubt I taught her how to do things—in quick ways, funny ways,
hard ways, all kinds of ways, but not the right way.

First of all, I myself wasn’t sure what the right way was. So Anna
was naturally forced to find her own way…” (Fynn 1974)

-

“The primary aim of our education must be the cultivation of
people who are skilled, caring, and who can give and receive love.”
(Shlomit Grossman, Former Head of the Education Section of Israel’s
Commission for Future Generations)

-

When you are finished reading—and make sure to take time to think, and
let your mind wander across any unexpected terrain—write down any
questions about the future that occur to you as you are reading.

—————–

I have just returned from a twilight stroll with two of my
grandchildren, the twins Tamar and Yael. As we walked, the sun was
setting, autumn breezes began to blow, the crisp air caressing their
heads, and the horizon appeared closer than ever. I pushed the double
baby carriage quickly as the two of them watched me, babbling and
smiling contentedly. The quiet was exalted—a perfect evening,
worry-free.

When I look at them, I feel the confidence they place in me, the
confidence of those who know that all is well and will be well for
ever and ever, for eternity. I see in their eyes the security they
feel in the world and in me. We have just celebrated their birthday.
They have just completed their first year upon this planet.

In my imagination, I see them as 20 years old, happy, beautiful and
intelligent. The year is 2027. The world is calm. Peace and
tranquility prevail everywhere. The environment has been preserved.
All the dire prophecies predicting that global warming, extinctions
and greenhouse gases would destroy our planet have been averted. Tamar
and Yael are privileged to live in a sustainable world—the fruit of
the future images that we created 18 years ago, in 2009.

In this vision, we have listened to calls coming from the future, the
voices that pleaded with us: “Please, watch over this planet so we
will be able to live on it in health, happiness, and security.” We
succeeded in changing the direction the Earth was heading back then,
in 2009, abolishing the existential threat to ourselves and our
planet. We acted out of the innate human instinct that preserved and
still preserves the existence of the human race—our concern for our
children, our concern for future generations.

——————

Watching my grandchildren, I imagine what would happen if someone
dared to threaten them now. I would give my all to prevent any hurt to
them. What would I not do to keep even a hair on their heads from
harm, to keep their tiny fingernails from being scratched? I ask
myself—what am I really prepared to do today to ensure that the world
will look like a paradise when they reach the age of 20? What are any
of us really prepared to do for our children so they will have air to
breathe and water to drink in 2027? What are we prepared to do to keep
the oceans from rising and submerging the coastal cities in which we
live?

—————–

Epilogue

It’s 3 a.m. in India, where I am, on the beach.

The sound of waves lapping upon the beach—soothing and embedding
nature’s rhythms inside me.

The sensation of being one with the universe enfolds me.

In my imagination, I hear Mother Earth’s voice calling us to create,
for our planet, a desirable future, a loving future, a future of well
being for humanity and for the planet.

This book tells the story, one of several kinds, of the human
existential instinct awakening to our responsibility to coming
generations and to the planet.

This is the story of the era in which the awakening consciousness of
humanity’s basic life force, of the driving force of sustainability—is
spreading like fire in a field of dry thorns.

This is a period in which the human species is beginning to free
itself of the chains of consciousness that divide and discriminate
between people. It is a period in which we are creating a realm of
conscious understanding that we are all one and that creating a
desirable future cannot leave any one of us behind.

The fabric that joins all of the creatures living on this planet is
growing stronger and the network that is connecting many people in
this plane of awareness is transforming the concept of a global
village into an existing reality.

The story of the Commission for Future Generations in Israel’s
parliament is a unique tale of a concrete human attempt to bring the
concepts of sustainability into the world of deeds.

While it cannot be said that the Commission brought about all of the
hoped-for change in consciousness within the Knesset, at the same
time, the Commission represents a spirited human attempt. In its
originality of concept in calling the Commission to life, the Knesset
showed courage. And in our success in influencing legislation and
bringing a new concept into the legislative realm, we see an
unprecedented event.

I am pleased to see that the idea is already being imitated in other
parliaments of the world—and I anticipate that this is only the
beginning.

And now from the general to the personal: my term as Commissioner of
Future Generations clarified my vocation, the one I must serve as
effectively as possible.

Every morning, I anticipate with great eagerness the way in which
existence is bringing this vocation into contact with the world of
action.

I am the founder of the Centre for Sustainable Global Leadership at
the Yitzhak Rabin Centre in Israel.

I invite anyone who sees herself as a partner in mind with the ideas
in this book, who sees her own mission as connected to this path, and
who is prepared to be a partner in the processes of creating
sustainable global future leadership, to contact me at:
Shlomoshoham@gmail.com

We who are alive today have a great privilege—to experience and to
create the space that will build the sustainable infrastructure for
humanity and its children, who are arriving every day and who will
forever continue to arrive.

UNU Current Affairs Series

Bankers and the Next Financial Meltdown – with Simon Johnson.

Date: Wednesday, April 28^th, 2010, 3:00 p.m. – 5:30 p.m.
Venue: General Assembly Hall, UN Headquarters, New York

Speaker: Simon Johnson, Professor of Entrepreneurship at MIT Sloan School of Management and former Chief Economist at the International Monetary Fund (IMF)

In this timely event, renowned economist Simon Johnson will talk about his new book, 13 Bankers: The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown.

13 Bankers charts the meteoric rise of the banking sector over the last three decades. It argues that power and prestige became increasingly concentrated in the hands of the few, and locates the cause of the financial crisis in the excessive risk-taking which became standard practice on Wall Street in the last decade. The book also directs blame at the Bush and Obama administrations for rescuing the megabanks without securing meaningful financial reform. However, Johnson and Kwak are convinced there is still time to restructure the banking sector and introduce the necessary regulations before the next financial meltdown.

———–

Praise for the book

‘A beautifully written and powerful story…Required reading for the President, and anyone else who cares for this Republic.’

- Lawrence Lessig, Professor of Law and Director of the
Edmond J. Safra Foundation for Ethics at Harvard University

‘Simon Johnson was the first to point out that this was and is a crisis of political economy. His and James Kwak’s analysis…is essential reading.’

- Niall Ferguson, Professor of History at Harvard University,
Professor at Harvard Business School, and Author of The Ascent of Money
Visit www.ony.unu.edu for more information

———-

ENRON hails to New York from London – the Headlong Theatre, Chichester Festival Theatre and Royal Court Theatre Production by Lucy Prebble. The Director is Rupert Goold. The play is about real life events that took part from 1992 to the present days.

Freedom for Sale: Why the World Is Trading Democracy for Security

OFF THE SHELF – NEW BOOK:

‘Green Gone Wrong’: Can Capitalism Save the Planet?
By DEVIN LEONARD
Published: April 2, 2010 - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/busine…

IT may seem quaint to recall this now, but on the eve of the financial crisis, one of the biggest business stories was how large corporations were going to save the planet and make billions of dollars for their shareholders at the same time.

USA Today wrote glowingly about Wal-Mart’s push to sell environmentally friendly light bulbs. Fortune gushed that Goldman Sachs, Continental Airlines and DuPont had jumped on the ecological bandwagon.

The global economic collapse pushed the rise of green capitalism off business magazine covers, but it will surely resurface. After all, Wal-Mart and G.E. are still pushing it. In a recession, they need all the good publicity they can get.

Now, along comes Heather Rogers, who warns about the dangers of buying into this mind-set with “Green Gone Wrong: How Our Economy Is Undermining the Environmental Revolution” (Scribner, 272 pages, $26). She says green capitalism is actually undermining ecological progress.

Ms. Rogers is a muckraking investigative reporter who is also the author of “Gone Tomorrow: the Hidden Life of Garbage.” She says corporate America has led us into thinking that we can save the earth mainly by buying things like compact fluorescent light bulbs, hybrid gas-electric cars and carbon offsets.

“The new green wave, typified by the phrase ‘lazy environmentalism,’ is geared toward the masses that aren’t willing to sacrifice,” Ms. Rogers complains. “This brand of armchair activism actualizes itself most fully in the realm of consumer goods; through buying the right products we can usher our economic system into the environmental age.”

Ms. Rogers offers plenty of evidence that consumers who load up their shopping carts with organic food, for instance, may be unwittingly subsidizing big farm companies that are eradicating forests and defiling the soil in some developing countries. She says their governments aren’t as concerned about the environment, and well-intentioned nongovernmental organizations don’t have much clout.

“Green Gone Wrong,” to be released later this month, doesn’t just go after easy targets like big corporations that she says are clearly more interested in making money than saving the earth.

She is also critical of fashionably green rock bands like Coldplay, whose members fly around the world and think they can erase their sizable carbon footprints by planting trees in developing countries. In Coldplay’s case, many of the trees died.

Indeed, Ms. Rogers is so scornful of the mainstream environmental movement that a lot of her points could be used by its enemies, like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, who are always looking for ammunition.

Even if you don’t agree with all of Ms. Rogers’ assertions — and I don’t — they are not so easily dismissed. “Green Gone Wrong” is well-written and exhaustively reported. The author went to places like Uruguay, Borneo and India to show problems she says the green movement has inadvertently created.

But some of the most poignant moments come when Ms. Rogers visits organic farmers in upstate New York. She laments that they can’t make a living because it is so expensive for them to comply with the federal certification requirements for organic foods. “What isn’t being talked about is that many of the small organic producers who are expected to lead the reinvention of the food system can barely make ends meet,” she says.

Like many books that depict a crisis, “Green Gone Wrong” falls short when it comes to offering solutions. All too predictably, Ms. Rogers calls for higher taxes and government spending. That sounds like wishful thinking after the Democratic majority on Capitol Hill struggled to pass health care reform.

It would have been better had Ms. Rogers delved more deeply into another of her suggestions: instead of buying green, we simply need to buy less stuff. She seems reluctant to push this too hard because it’s a truly radical idea that flies in the face of capitalism — green or not.

“Around the world, many politicians, the conventional energy sector and manufacturers of all kinds oppose any major reduction in consumption,” Ms. Rogers writes. “If people start using less, then economies based on consumption — such as that of the United States, where buying goods and services comprises 70 percent of all economic activity — will be forced to undergo a colossal transformation.”

At first, her muted call for a new frugality sounds almost as far-fetched as a carbon tax in the United States anytime soon. But it isn’t. This is something individuals could do on their own instead of waiting for reluctant politicians to act.

If there was ever a time to ponder the long-term consequences of our spending habits, it’s in the wake of the worst economic crisis in decades, which was fueled by rampant consumer borrowing. Is it possible that we could save the planet and restore the economy at the same time?

from:    Marco Grasso <marco.grasso@unimib.it>
date:    Sat, Mar 13, 2010
subject:    New Book on the ethical aspects of adaptation funding

I am writing to announce  a new book series on the ethical aspects of adaptation funding, published by Springer:
Justice in Funding Adaptation under the International Climate Change Regime

 http://www.springer.com/environment/glob…)

Covering the ethical dimensions of international-level adaptation funding, a subject of growing interest in the climate change debate, this book provides a theoretical analysis of the ethical foundations of the UNFCCC regime on adaptation funding, one that culminates in the definition of a framework of justice. The text features an interpretative analysis of the ethical contents of the UNFCCC funding architecture by applying the framework of justice proposed to different areas of empirical investigation.

The book offers scholars working on climate change, international relations, and environmental politics an analysis characterized by both theoretical soundness and empirical richness. The comprehensiveness of the book’s approach should make it possible to plan and implement international adaptation funding more effectively, and eventually to define more just funding policies and practices.

Climate Change and Business Success

Tuesday 23rd February 2010
5.00pm GMT, 9.00am PST, 12.00pm EST

>> How can an environmental strategy benefit your business?
>> What are the costs and challenges of GHG emission compliance?
>> Can there be truly green business models?

Adapting businesses to the demands of climate change mitigation is a huge challenge, but one that can not only improve levels of environmental impact, but also enhance brands, motivate employees, increase operational efficiencies, and save money.

This Earthcast will examine the challenges posed by measuring, reducing, and offsetting emissions and the innovative solutions to common challenges currently being employed by businesses across the world.

Practical tips will cover everything from the easy actions that will cut waste of materials, water and energy and save you money, to the big changes in processes, products and business models.

Join the authors of The Three Secrets of Green Business and Doing Business in a New Climate for an event focusing on the challenges and opportunities that climate change poses for businesses of all sizes.

Gareth Kane, an environmental consultant, has worked with hundreds of organizations to improve their environmental performance. He has appeared as a media pundit on sustainability issues on the BBC Six O’Clock News, Countryfile and The Politics Show. In 2008 The Journal newspaper named Gareth as a ‘Rising Star, Future Leader’ for his work on sustainability.

Paul Lingl and Deborah Carlson both work for The David Suzuki Foundation, developing climate change solutions and greenhouse gas management strategies for businesses and other organizations.

20% Discount by typing EARTHCAST  when ordering any book at www.earthscan.co.uk.

Praise for the Earthcasts Series:

“Earthscan is performing a really valuable public service by enabling us all to listen to some the world’s best sustainability consultants and to be able to ask them questions.”
Rick Row, Sustainable Business Consultant

“Brilliant! I found the session to be informative and very relevant to current events. Keep up the good work.”
Nana Guar, Research Analyst, Sustainability Excellence

“Well timed, well chaired, well presented – smoothest webcast I’ve seen!”
Deviah Aiama, Policy Analyst, Natural Resources Canada

“An excellent way of hearing about recent developments from leading thinkers in the field.”
Dr Sarah Dalrymple, Teaching Fellow in Ecology, University of Aberdeen

Further information

To view an archived version of all previous events, visit www.earthscan.co.uk/earthcasts

The slides used in each presentation are also available.

from:  jfalk at unimelb.edu.au

The Hon Helen Clark – Administrator of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and Former Prime Minister of New Zealand – addressed a crowded room of distinguished guests at her launch of

“Worlds in Transition: Evolving Governance Across a Stressed Planet” (Edward Elgar, UK) by Joseph Camilleri and Jim Falk,

on Friday 12 February, in Sydney, Australia.

She gave a strongly supportive analysis of “this remarkable book”.

Further details of the new book are available at http://worlds-in-transition.com

The book covers: The current state and dynamics of the evolution of governance of development, climate, information, the economy, health and security -  in this 670 page book.

Contents: Preface 1. Introduction 2. Human Organisation: The Evolutionary Context 3. Governance in the Context of Human Evolution 4. The Modern Epoch and its Limits 5. Economic Governance 6. Governing Atmospheric Flows 7. A Defining Issue of Our Time 8. The Evolving Governance of Information Flows 9. Governance, Pathogens and Human Health 10. Globalisation of Insecurity in the Era of Hegemonic Decline 11. Towards a New Security Discourse and Architecture 12. A Holoreflexive Epoch in the Making? Bibliography Index.

In his pre-publication review of the book James H. Mittelman, American University, USA writes: “At a time of overspecialization in the knowledge industry, it is energizing to read a book that navigates the social, humanistic, and natural sciences. Do Camilleri and Falk succeed in this bold venture? Yes, profoundly! Their tour d’horizon is a romantic journey, a love affair with traversing different branches of learning. Gracefully composed, Worlds in Transition also offers insights into the perils of our era and issues a clarion call for a system of multi-tiered governance to address them.”

 http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23630?ut…

Volume 57, Number 3 · February 25, 2010 , The New York Review of Books

A Deal With the Taliban?
Ahmed Rashid
The war in Afghanistan now faces a pivotal moment: at stake is whether the US and its allies are willing to talk to the Taliban. General Stanley McChrystal has a special fund of $1.5 billion to provide incentives to Taliban fighters who put down their arms. Senior Pakistani officials now say they have offered to help broker talks between Taliban leaders, the Americans, and Karzai. For their part, the Taliban have shown the first hint of flexibility, following secret talks in Saudi Arabia last year. But talking to the Taliban requires more than just secret cooperation among intelligence agencies or the CIA handing out bribes. What can be done?
A Deal with the Taliban?
By Ahmed Rashid

My Life with the Taliban.
by Abdul Salam Zaeef,

translated from the Pashto and edited by Alex Strick van Linschoten and Felix Kuehn
Columbia University Press, 331 pp., $29.95
1.

For thirty years Afghanistan has cast a long, dark shadow over world events, but it has also been marked by pivotal moments that could have brought peace and changed world history.

One such moment occurred in February 1989, just as the last Soviet troops were leaving Afghanistan. Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze had flown into Islamabad—the first visit to Pakistan by a senior Soviet official. He came on a last-ditch mission to try to persuade Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, the army, and the Interservices Intelligence (ISI) to agree to a temporary sharing of power between the Afghan Communist regime in Kabul and the Afghan Mujahideen. He hoped to prevent a civil war and lay the groundwork for a peaceful, final transfer of power to the Mujahideen.

By then the Soviets were in a state of panic. They ironically shared the CIA’s analysis that Afghan President Mohammad Najibullah would last only a few weeks after the Soviet troops had departed. The CIA got it wrong—Najibullah was to last three more years, until the eruption of civil war forced him to take refuge in the UN compound in April 1992. The ISI refused to oblige Shevardnadze. It wanted to get Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, one of the seven disparate Mujahideen leaders and its principal protégé, into power in Kabul. The CIA had also urged the ISI to stand firm against the Soviets. It wanted to avenge the US humiliation in Vietnam and celebrate a total Communist debacle in Kabul—no matter how many Afghan lives it would cost. A political compromise was not in the plans of the ISI and the CIA.

I was summoned to meet Shevardnadze late at night and remember a frustrated but visibly angry man, outraged by the shortsightedness of Pakistan and the US and the clear desire of both governments to humiliate Moscow. He went on to evoke an apocalyptic vision of the future of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the region. His predictions of the violence to come turned out to be dead right.

At that pivotal moment, if Shevardnadze’s compromise had been accepted, the world might well have avoided the decade-long Afghan civil war, the destruction of Kabul, the rise of the Taliban, and the sanctuary they provided al-Qaeda. Perhaps we could have avoided September 11 itself—and much that has followed since, including the latest attempt by a Nigerian extremist to blow up a transatlantic airliner, the killing of seven CIA officers at an Afghan base, and the continuing heavy casualties among NATO troops and Afghan civilians in Afghanistan.

With Obama’s controversial and risk-laden plan to first build up and then, in eighteen months, start drawing down US troops in Afghanistan, every nation and political leader in the region now faces another pivotal moment. At stake is whether the US and its allies are willing to talk to the Afghan Taliban, because there is no military victory in sight and no other way to end a war that has been going on for thirty years.

When that moment comes—as it must—will the US and NATO be ready to talk with the Taliban or will they be internally divided, as they are now? Will President Hamid Karzai have the credibility to take part in such talks and deliver on an agreement that might be reached? Will the ISI demand that their own Taliban protégés return to power? Will the Taliban hard-liners, now scenting victory, even agree to talks and, as a consequence, be prepared to dump al-Qaeda? Or will they sit out the next eighteen months waiting for the Americans to begin to leave?

2.

The Afghan Taliban are now a country-wide movement. During the last year they expanded to the previously quiet west and north of Afghanistan. Their leadership has safe havens in Pakistan. Casualties on all sides have risen dramatically. According to the UN, in 2009 there were an average of 1,200 attacks a month by Taliban or other insurgent groups—a 65 percent increase from the previous year. Over the twelve-month period, 2,412 Afghan civilians were killed, an increase of 14 percent; of those, two thirds were killed by the Taliban, a 40 percent increase. In addition, US and NATO combat deaths rose 76 percent, from 295 in 2008 to 520 in 2009.

Adding to the challenges facing the Afghan government, over the years it has been difficult to recruit Pashtuns for the Afghan army and police from the southern Pashtun provinces that are largely controlled by the Taliban, although recently Pashtun recruitment has increased following a pay rise for security forces. Even so, the Taliban have infiltrated parts of the Afghan army and police—the key components of the US plan to start the handover of power to local forces by July 2011. In large parts of Afghanistan, development programs have come to a halt and nearly half of the UN staff assigned to Afghanistan have been relocated to Dubai and Central Asia because of security concerns.

According to Major General Michael Flynn, the NATO military chief of intelligence in Afghanistan, the Taliban now have shadow governors in thirty-three out of thirty-four provinces—they serve to organize the movement at a provincial level and disrupt government initiatives in their area—and the movement “can sustain itself indefinitely.” Flynn has described US intelligence in Afghanistan as “clueless” and “ignorant.”*

Taliban commanders have stepped up their vicious campaign to intimidate or kill any Afghan civilians working for the Karzai government, aid agencies, women’s groups, and even the UN. On January 18, militants launched a double suicide attack just yards from the presidential palace in central Kabul, provoking a gun battle in which three soldiers and two civilians were killed and more than seventy wounded. “We are now at a critical juncture…. The situation cannot continue as is if we are to succeed in Afghanistan,” UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told the UN Security Council earlier in the month. “There is a risk that the deteriorating overall situation will become irreversible,” he added.

The prevailing view in Washington is that many Taliban fighters in the field can eventually be won over, but that the present US troop surge has to roll them back first, reversing Taliban successes and gaining control over the population centers and major roads. According to the current American strategy, the US military has to weaken the Taliban before negotiating with them. The commander of US and NATO forces, General Stanley McChrystal, has both a special fund of $1.5 billion to provide incentives and other forms of support to Taliban who put down their arms, and a group of British and American officers who are drawing up plans to win over Taliban commanders and fighters as the troop surge tilts the battlefield back in favor of the US. General McChrystal told me in Islamabad in early January that he is confident that many Taliban will be won over in the field. This US reconciliation effort would be led by Karzai, who for several years has called for talks with Taliban leaders.

There is another way of looking at the present crisis. Despite their successes, the Taliban are probably now near the height of their power. They do not control major population centers—nor can they, given NATO’s military strength and air power. There are no countrywide, populist insurrections against NATO forces as there were against the coalition forces in Iraq. The vast majority of Afghans do not want the return of a Taliban regime despite their anger at the Karzai government and the general international failure to deliver economic progress. Many Afghans believe that as long as Western troops remain, there is still the hope that security can return and their lives change for the better.

Thus the next few months could offer a critical opportunity to persuade the Taliban that this is the best time to negotiate a settlement, because they are at their strongest.

3.

Both Generals McChrystal and David Petraeus, the head of the US military’s Central Command, have said that they cannot shoot their way to victory. Obama is clear about defeating al-Qaeda, but he is more inclined toward negotiations with the Taliban. In his West Point speech in December, Obama said he supported Kabul’s efforts to “open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens.”

The present US military strategy aims to peel away Taliban commanders and fighters and resettle them without making any major political concessions or changes to the Afghan constitution. But Washington remains deeply divided about talking to the Taliban leaders. The State and Defense Departments, the White House, and the CIA all have different views about it, and there are also divisions between the US and its allies.

General McChrystal told me that many mid-level Taliban commanders and their men are waiting for Karzai to announce a reconciliation strategy before offering to change sides. “The reintegration of former Taliban into society offers a good chance to reduce the insurgency in Afghanistan…while al-Qaeda needs to be hunted and destroyed.” Whether the US and its allies should hold talks with the Taliban leadership, he said, is a political decision to be made by Washington. In December Richard Holbrooke, the US special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, told me that in his estimation some 70 percent of the Taliban fight for local reasons or money rather than because of ideological commitment to the movement, and they can be won over.

Meanwhile the Taliban have shown the first hint of flexibility, as suggested in a ten-page statement issued in November 2009 for the religious festival of Eid. The Taliban leader Mullah Omar, while urging his fighters to continue the jihad against “the arrogant [US] enemy,” also pledged that a future Taliban regime would bring peace and noninterference from outside forces, and would pose no threat to neighboring countries—implying that al-Qaeda would not be returning to Afghanistan along with the Taliban. Sounding more like a diplomat than an extremist, Omar said, “The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan wants to take constructive measures together with all countries for mutual cooperation, economic development and good future on the basis of mutual respect.”

A week later, the Taliban’s response to Obama’s West Point speech again suggested a changed attitude. There was not a single mention of jihad or imposing Islamic law. Instead the Taliban spoke of a nationalist and patriotic struggle for Afghanistan’s independence and said they were “ready to give legal guarantee if the foreign forces withdraw from Afghanistan.” In a New Year’s message the Taliban, while condemning the US surge, even seemed to empathize with Obama, observing that the American president faces “a great many problems and opposition” at home.

The Taliban’s new tone can be traced to secret talks in the spring of 2009. Sponsored by Saudi Arabia at Karzai’s request, the talks included former (or now retired) Taliban, former Arab members of al-Qaeda, and Karzai’s representatives. No breakthrough took place, but the talks led to a series of visits to Saudi Arabia by important Taliban leaders during the rest of 2009. The US, British, and Saudi officials who were indirectly in contact with the Taliban there quickly encouraged them to renounce al-Qaeda and lay out their negotiating demands. In turn, the Taliban said that distancing themselves from al-Qaeda would require the other side to meet a principal demand of their own: that all foreign forces must announce a timetable to leave Afghanistan.

Istakhbarat, the Saudi intelligence service, is not set up to produce political results, but it has given the Taliban a safe venue to meet and it has acted as an interlocutor with Afghan government and Western officials. Significantly the ISI, which has demanded a key part in the negotiations from its erstwhile Saudi allies, has so far been left out at the request of both the Taliban and the Afghan government—neither of whom trust it. That now may be about to change. The key to more formal negotiations with Taliban leaders lies with Pakistan and the ISI.

4.

Tensions between the US and Pakistan have escalated in recent months as Washington demands that the Pakistani military “capture or kill” Afghan Taliban leaders as well as top militants in Pakistan. These include the Afghan Taliban leadership living in Quetta and Karachi, as well as their allies such as Jalaluddin Haqqani and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who live in North Waziristan in the tribal areas abutting Afghanistan. Pakistan says it is too busy dealing with its own acute problems with the Pakistani Taliban and a growing number of terrorist attacks by various insurgent groups. Its forces are overstretched, it has little money, and it will oblige the Americans only when it is ready to do so. In fact Pakistan would never launch a military offensive against the Afghan Taliban leaders since it has viewed them as potential allies in a post-American Afghanistan, when the US will probably ditch Pakistan as well.

Pakistan’s military is deeply fearful of a US withdrawal from Afghanistan; the result could be civil war and mayhem in its backyard once again. “We want the American surge to succeed in Afghanistan, because if they don’t we will pay the price,” a senior Pakistani military officer told me. The army is also convinced that the US will eventually align itself with India and that it has allowed India to strengthen its influence in Kabul at Pakistan’s expense. Despite all the sacrifices it has made for the Afghans over thirty years, supporting them against the Soviets, Pakistanis are now friendless in Afghanistan—except for the Afghan Taliban, who are more wary than friendly toward the ISI.

To regain influence in Afghanistan and drive the Indians out once the Americans leave, the Pakistan military could, as an alternative, back the Taliban in a plan to retake Kabul and set up a government that would do Pakistan’s bidding. However, that possibility is now too risky; the international community would never tolerate it, and such a regime would also provide a base from which the Pakistani Taliban could launch further attacks in Pakistan.

In a major policy shift, senior Pakistani military and intelligence officials say they have offered to help broker talks between Taliban leaders, the Americans, and Karzai. “We want the talks to start now, not in eighteen months when they are leaving; but the Americans have to trust and depend on us,” a senior military officer told me. There is a deep lack of trust between the CIA and the ISI, and other countries may also balk at Pakistan’s insistence that all negotiations should be channeled through the ISI. Pakistani officials suggest that if the ISI helps arrange talks, then independent contacts between Taliban leaders and the CIA, British intelligence (MI6), and Afghanistan’s National Directorate of Security (NDS) would have to stop. In return, Pakistani officials say only that they want to be sure “that Pakistan’s national interests in Afghanistan are looked after”—interests that have yet to be clearly spelled out to the Americans and Afghans.

This is an important change in the official position of Pakistan. For the past nine years—despite the well-known connections between the ISI and the Afghan Taliban—Pakistan has denied that it has influence over the Taliban leaders, and openly playing host to them was considered out of the question. Pakistan will have to make serious efforts to gain the confidence of the US and the Afghans if it is to sponsor negotiations with the Taliban; but their differences could be worked out through arrangements made between the various intelligence agencies and governments involved. Senior US officials say that Pakistan is showing itself to be “more flexible” on Afghan policy than before.

How will the Taliban leaders respond? Many of them are fed up with years of ISI manipulation and strategizing on their behalf and would prefer to keep the ISI out of such talks. Some members of the Taliban have built up a rapport with Afghanistan’s National Directorate of Security, the domestic intelligence agency of the Kabul government. The NDS and the ISI loathe and mistrust each other, and the NDS would be extremely reluctant to allow the ISI a central part in negotiations. Moreover, the crucial acceptance of reconciliation with the Taliban has to come from the non-Pashtun population in the north who are extremely hostile to the Taliban and the ISI. If the northern ethnic groups who make up just over 50 percent of the population do not accept the reconciliation plan, there could be a renewed civil war as in the 1990s.

But the ISI has power and influence over the Taliban. Not only are the Taliban able to resupply their fighters from Pakistan, and seek medical treatment and other facilities, but the families of most Taliban leaders live in Pakistan where they own homes and run businesses and shops. Taliban leaders travel to Saudi Arabia on Pakistani passports. All this makes them vulnerable to ISI pressure. Even before the US military can consider coopting mid-level Taliban commanders, both sides would have to ascertain how this would play with the ISI.

The Pakistani army’s desperate desire to have some control over future events in Afghanistan is partly due to its strategic aim of avoiding encirclement by India; but it is also a result of the setbacks it has received since 2001. The military is still smarting from former President Bush’s decisions to allow the anti-Pakistan Northern Alliance to take Kabul in 2001, to ignore Islamabad’s later requests for consultations on US strategy in Afghanistan, and to treat all Afghan Pashtuns as potential Taliban. This helped radicalize Pakistan’s own Pashtun population, which is more than twice the size of Afghanistan’s. (There are 12 million Pashtuns in Afghanistan and 27 million in Pakistan.)

5.

Talking to the Taliban requires more than just secret cooperation among intelligence agencies or the CIA handing out bribes to Taliban commanders to change sides—as it did with the Northern Alliance in 2001. There is an urgent need for a publicly promoted strategy involving concrete efforts to build political institutions and provide humanitarian aid in ways that do not require intrusive Western control—a strategy that could attract many members of the Taliban, reduce violence, and placate Afghans who are opposed to all such compromises. Obama officials have talked up the need for such a public strategy but accomplished little during his first year in office. Yet such goals are of paramount importance.

Here are some suggestions of steps that should be taken in advance of talking to the Taliban. Almost all these points have theoretically been accepted by the US and NATO but none have been acted upon:

Convince Afghanistan’s neighbors and other countries in the region to sign on to a reconciliation strategy with the Taliban, to be led by the Afghan government. Creating a regional strategy and consensus on Afghanistan was one of the primary aims of the Obama administration; but little has been achieved. From Iran to India, regional tensions are worse now than a year ago.
Allow Afghanistan to submit to the UN Security Council a request that the names of Taliban leaders be removed from a list of terrorists drawn up in 2001—so long as those leaders renounce violence and ties to al-Qaeda. Russia has so far refused to entertain such a request; but Obama has not tried hard enough to extract this concession from Russian leaders.
Pass a UN Security Council resolution giving the Afghan government a formal mandate to negotiate with the Taliban, and allow the US, NATO, and the UN to encourage that process. This would mean persuading reluctant countries like Russia and India to support such a resolution. (On January 27, a UN Security Council committee announced, with Russian agreement, that it has lifted sanctions against five former Taliban officials who are said to support the Karzai government.)
Have NATO and Afghan forces take responsibility for the security of Taliban and their families who return to Afghanistan, enlisting the help of international agencies such as the UN High Commission for Refugees or the International Committee of the Red Cross to work with the Afghan government to assist these returning Taliban members, arranging for compensation, housing, job training, and other needs they may have in facing resettlement.
Provide adequate funds, training, and staff for a reconciliation body, led by the Afghan government, that will work with Western forces and humanitarian agencies to provide a comprehensive and clearly spelled-out program for the security of the returning Taliban and for facilities to receive them.
Encourage the Pakistani military to assist NATO and Afghan forces in providing security to returning Taliban and their families and allow necessary cross-border support from international humanitarian agencies. Encourage Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to help the Taliban set up a legal political party, as other Afghan militants—such as former members of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar’s Hizb-i-Islami party—have done. This would be a tremendous blow to al-Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban and it would give concrete form to Obama’s repeated pledge that he is ready to reach out to foes in the Muslim world.
The Taliban leadership should be provided with a neutral venue such as Saudi Arabia or elsewhere, where it can hold talks with the Afghan government and NATO. The US should release the remaining Afghan prisoners held at Guantánamo and allow them to go to either Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia.
Unless such publicly announced policies are carried out, the Taliban may well conclude that it is better and safer to sit out the next eighteen months, wait for the Americans to start leaving, and then, when they judge Afghanistan to be vulnerable, go for the kill in Kabul—although that would only lead to a renewed civil war.

6.

Just as Afghanistan faces a crucial choice, we have a book that for the first time places readers at the heart of the Taliban’s way of thinking—My Life with the Taliban, by Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, the former Taliban minister and ambassador to Pakistan, who spent over four years in Guantánamo prison. Originally published in Pashto, the language of the Pashtuns, the book has been beautifully translated and extensively edited for easier understanding by Alex Strick van Linschoten and Felix Kuehn, two researchers who live in Kandahar, the birthplace of the Taliban.

Zaeef was born in 1968 and grew up in a small dusty village in Kandahar province. Like many Taliban, he came from a family of mullahs and grew up an orphan, having lost his parents at an early age. Economic development never penetrated such Afghan villages as his and daily life was centered on learning at the madrasa, farming, and sustaining the Pashtun tribal code of honor and revenge. His extended clan fled to Pakistan after the 1979 Soviet invasion, but at the age of fifteen he secretly returned home to fight the Soviets. In the 1980s he served under several commanders, including Mullah Omar.

Zaeef dramatically brings to life the extremely harsh conditions under which the Afghans fought—without food, medical aid, or enough ammunition, and under constant Soviet bombardment:

When I first joined the jihad I was fifteen years old. I did not know how to fire a Kalashnikov or how to lead men. I knew nothing of war. But the Russian front lines were a tough proving ground and…I eventually commanded several mujahedeen groups.
After the Soviets left Afghanistan, Zaeef became a mullah in a small village near Kandahar. He describes how the situation deteriorated in the south as warlords and criminals extracted tolls from trucks on the road, kidnapped and raped women, and held young boys captive to become their forced lovers. Zaeef was one of the original Taliban; in the winter of 1994 he joined with like-minded young men to work out a strategy for dealing with the warlords.

He was and remains intensely loyal to Mullah Omar, who would, he writes,

listen to everybody with focus and respect for as long as they needed to talk, and would never seek to cut them off. After he had listened, he then would answer with ordered, coherent thoughts.
When Zaeef attended the founding meeting of the Taliban, each man took an oath of loyalty to Omar. That oath is still in effect, which is why no senior Taliban commander has ever betrayed the whereabouts of Omar. As the Taliban started to conquer Afghanistan, Zaeef was promoted from one job to the next.

fter the Taliban capture of Kabul in 1996, Zaeef was moved to the defense ministry where, he writes, the weekly budget for the various Taliban militias fighting the Northern Alliance was $300,000 a week, or just $14 million a year. By 1999, when the Taliban controlled 80 percent of the country, their entire annual budget was just $80 million—from the Islamic taxes the Taliban imposed as well as donations from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and, after 1996, Osama bin Laden (although Zaeef does not mention his contribution). He describes a chaotic and uncoordinated government:

The budget didn’t even come close to what was needed in order to start any serious development; it was like a drop of water that falls on a hot stone, evaporating without leaving any trace.
Early in his book Zaeef describes his intense hatred for the ISI, which deepened in 2000 when he was appointed Taliban ambassador to Pakistan. He claims he resisted being recruited by the ISI. “In my dealings with them I tried to be not so sweet that I would be eaten whole, and not so bitter that I would be spat out.” He describes how “the ISI extended its roots deep into Afghanistan like a cancer puts down roots in the human body,” and how “every ruler of Afghanistan complained about it, but none could get rid of it.” Zaeef set up his own clandestine network of Pakistani officials who provided him information about what the ISI was planning regarding the Taliban.

What Zaeef omits or fudges is significant. He makes no mention of the ISI’s financial and material support to the Taliban, and says hardly anything about al-Qaeda or how his hero Mullah Omar became so close to Osama bin Laden. He has nothing to say about the Taliban’s repressive attitudes toward women, including the ban on their education, and he makes no mention of the Taliban’s harsh punishments, including public stonings.

By 2001, after UN sanctions restricted the Taliban’s international contacts, Zaeef became the only Taliban leader who could meet with US and Western envoys. His relationship with the US embassy in Islamabad was dominated by American demands to hand over Osama bin Laden. In the days after September 11, he frantically tried to stave off the impending US attack on his country by appealing to Western embassies, writing letters to the UN, and trying to enlist support from Islamic countries. He met with Mullah Omar, who was convinced that the Americans would not dare attack. In Omar’s mind, Zaeef writes, “there was less than a 10 percent chance that America would resort to anything beyond threats and so an attack was unlikely.”

In January 2002 he was turned over to the Americans by the ISI—sold, according to him—and ended up in Guantánamo. He now lives in Kabul under government protection and his final plea is for peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan. He says he does not believe in al-Qaeda, but speaks as an Afghan patriot with strong Islamist leanings toward the Taliban. Afghanistan, he writes, is “a family home in which we all have the right to live…without discrimination and while keeping our values. No one has the right to take this away from us.” Can Afghanistan ever be a peaceful home for all Afghans? They certainly deserve it.

—January 27, 2010

Notes
*See Noah Shachtman, “‘Afghan Insurgency Can Sustain Itself Indefinitely’: Top U.S. Intel Officer,” Wired.com, January 8, 2010. General Flynn’s briefing, called ” State of the Insurgency: Trends, Intentions and Objectives,” was presented on December 23, 2009. Also see “NATO Official: US Spy Work Lacking in Afghanistan,” Associated Press, January 5, 2010.

from    Luis Gutierrez <luisgutierrez@peoplepc.com>

date    Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 12:56 AM
subject    Pelican Journal of Sustainable Development
 http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv06n02…

Page 1 is a book review of “State of the World 2010″:
Transforming Cultures from Consumerism to Sustainability
By Erik Assadourian & Staff, Worldwatch Institute, 2010

Pages 2 to 4 are three invited articles:

- Truth and Consequences on the Last Frontier
by Richard Steiner, University of Alaska-Anchorage, USA
 http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv06n02…

- Woman as “Other” in Monotheistic Religious Discourse
by Zilka Spahic-Šiljak, University of Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina
 http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv06n02…

- A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030
by Mark Jacobson & Mark Delucchi, Stanford University, USA
 http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv06n02…

There are also two supplements: one is on news and tools for sustainable
development, and the other is a directory of online reference material.

————————————
Luis T. Gutierrez, Ph.D.
The Pelican Web
Editor, PelicanWeb Journal of Sustainable Development
 http://www.pelicanweb.org