Niger Coup Leader Served on UN Missions, France, UN and Council Shrug

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 19 — The leader of the coup in Niger, Major Salou Djibo, learned while on UN Peacekeeping Missions in Cote d’Ivoire and the Congo, it is reported. Inner City Press asked the head of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations Alain Le Roy whether working and ostensibly receiving training with DPKO makes a soldier more or less likely to join or launch a coup. Video here.

Le Roy and his fellow UN Under Secretary General John Holmes both laughed. Le Roy responded that the UN cannot answer for what peacekeepers do after their service, then countered with the example of former Nigerian President Obansanjo. Some found it a weak defense, given charges charges of irregularities in large infrastructure deals reached in Obansanjo’s days in power.

The two USG spoke in front of the UN Security Council, after a meeting about Haiti. Inner City Press was told by a Permanent Five member’s political advisor that France was being “hesitant to raise Niger” in the Council, despite the fact that it forces the Council to consider attempts to overthrew Idriss Deby the strongman in Chad, another French ex colony.

Inner City Press asked France’s representative at the meeting, is anyone raising the Niger coup? “You are,” he replied.

Niger coup leader’s spokesman.

On camera, the French representative said that neither Niger nor the delay of elections and increase of violence in Cote d’Ivoire had been discussed in the Council on Friday.

Also unaddressed by France, the Council and Secretariat is the inclusion in Guinea’s interim government of Major Claude Pivi, a military officer named in the UN’s own report as likely being responsible for the massacre of civilians last September 28. Inner City Press asked UN Deputy Spokesperson Marie Okabe about it on February 17, and she referred to a previous Ban Ki-moon statement lauding the interim government.

A French senior official on February 18 said he wasn’t aware of it, and nothing was said on Friday either. “Maybe Monday,” a fleeing diplomat said. And so it goes at the UN.

Footnote: it is impossible to discuss Niger and the UN without recalling the UN’s stealth envoy to the country, Canadian Robert Fowler, who was kidnapped while visiting a Canadian owned mine in the country. When he was released, he said someone in the UN in New York might have leaked his location and how to grab him. Then the UN tried to sweep the whole thing back under the rug. Now, a coup. Might the rug become unfurled?

The correction – Yes – the Press Conference was at 7:30 am with the UNSG and four journalists present, but the two leaders – Gordon Brown and Meles Zenawi were present only via video-conference. They were at confortable hours back there in London and Addis Ababa.

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

The most important issue in our opinion that the following shows that the UN is incapable to address, is the question if it will be unavoidable to bribe China into being more effective in its efforts to curb CO2 emissions in its development and manufacturing-for-export policies – and use for this the funds that the UN tries to raise for helping developing countries in joint projects with the old industrialized nation. We think that the UN Secretary-General owes the funding countries a clear answer on this and the UN needs an open PRESS CORPS that is capable of asking such questions. Obviously, Matthew Lee points out also other issues – some of which in our opinion are really non issues – but nevertheless they become issues if clear answers are not provided by the UN – such as the IPCC problems. Also, the snow-in-New York issue could have been handled better by turning it into science from the intended background of a joke. This is why we will post the following also in our “cartoons” categoty on our website.

——–

At UN, Climate Change Financing Discussed, IPCC Glacier and Pachauri Questions Not Taken, China Eligibility Debated.

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 12, 2010 — At an ill-attended press conference held at 7:30 am Friday in UN Headquarters in New York, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon introduced Ethiopian prime minister Meles Zenawi and his UK counterpart Gordon Brown as chairs of an Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing.

In a tightly controlled media Q &A session that followed, Mr. Ban did not address the controversy swirling about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s scientific blunders and chairman Doctor Pachauri.

Rather, Mr. Ban took on a straw man question, about whether the snow in New York undermined climate science. He also said that he will ask the heads of state of Guyana and Norway to join.

Of the four journalists at the UN in New York who raised their hands to ask questions, three were called on by Ban’s spokesman Martin Nesirky. Before a softball question about the snow outside, one asked repeatedly if any of the climate change financing would be given to China. As Mr. Ban looked uncomfortable, both Prime Ministers denied it.

Despite hand raised from the beginning of the question and answer session to the end, Inner City Press was not allowed to ask a question. In fact, the question had back on February 3 been asked and dodged by Nesirky:

Inner City Press: There has been a lot of controversy around the finding of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) about the Himalayan glaciers, and they have essentially back-tracked and said that they apologized; it was unverified information. Mr. Pachauri has said he won’t apologize. But, I wonder what, given the importance of climate change and the IPCC to the Secretary-General’s agenda, what does he make of this controversy and how can the IPCC process be reformed to not create this kind of controversy on the issue?

Spokesperson: The Secretary-General is obviously aware of these reports and what’s been happening in the last few days and weeks. But, you know, ultimately it’s for the IPCC to address this. It’s for the IPCC to talk about this, and they have talked about this in some detail. They have said that they regret what happened, and reaffirming their strong commitment to a high level of performance in their reporting and so on. So, therefore, it’s not really for the Secretary-General to weigh in on this specific report. There are many reports, there are many other aspects to the work on climate change, which is absolutely vital, as you’ve mentioned; it’s one of his priorities. So, I think that the most important thing is to focus on the road to Mexico and how you can improve the prospects for that meeting and what needs to be done between now and then.

Inner City Press: [inaudible] because… in the last 24 hours… Mr. Pachauri….

Spokesperson: IPCC regrets, Matthew, IPCC regrets.

Question: So, I mean, Mr. Pachauri says he wasn’t responsible for it. So, I guess what I’m saying is, who is in charge of the agency on which Ban Ki-moon rests his, you know, the case has been made by that agency [inaudible].

UN’s Ban and Meles Zenawi, glaciers and Pachauri not shown

Spokesperson: No, no, Matthew, the Secretary-General does not rest his case purely on the IPCC. There is an enormous body of evidence and information out there from various different sources, not just from the IPCC, however important that may be. And an error in one report does not undermine the entire science that is clearly proven.

So who apologized — the IPCC’s website? To have nothing to say about the various scandals surrounding the IPCC and Pachauri seems strange. To not allow the question a week later is worse.

Update: in the hallway after the press conference, away from the screen of the Spokesperson, UN climate advisor Janos Pasztor at least took Inner City Press’ other question, on the way to Ban’s next appearance, signing compacts with some senior officials, on which we will later report — how this UN Panel would interact with the IMF’s idea of using SDRs. It will consult, Pasztor said. Possible duplication of effort?

Also after the press conference, a senior Chinese official told Inner City Press that the question about China taking climate change funding was “stupid” and “insulting.” He said, “We are entitled to it!”

UN’s Ban Has No Comment on Himalayan Glacier Gaffe, Doesn’t Rely on IPCC

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 3 — With various ice research related scandals opening up around UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s signature issue of climate change, Inner City Press on Wednesday asked his spokesman Martin Nesirky for Ban’s views on the misleading of the public about the melting of Himalayan glaciers.

While Nesirky dodged the question, Ban’s climate change advisor later in the day told Inner City Press that Ban may have something to say later on the topic. Meanwhile Doctor Pachauri, with no guidance from Ban, it attacking those who question him, refusing to answer questions or apologize. From the UN’s transcription of its February 3 noon briefing, video here:

Spokesperson Nesirky: Last question, Matthew.

Inner City Press: There has been a lot of controversy around the finding of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) about the Himalayan glaciers, and they have essentially back-tracked and said that they apologized; it was unverified information. Mr. Pachauri has said he won’t apologize. But, I wonder what, given the importance of climate change and the IPCC to the Secretary-General’s agenda, what does he make of this controversy and how can the IPCC process be reformed to not create this kind of controversy on the issue?

Spokesperson: The Secretary-General is obviously aware of these reports and what’s been happening in the last few days and weeks. But, you know, ultimately it’s for the IPCC to address this. It’s for the IPCC to talk about this, and they have talked about this in some detail. They have said that they regret what happened, and reaffirming their strong commitment to a high level of performance in their reporting and so on. So, therefore, it’s not really for the Secretary-General to weigh in on this specific report. There are many reports, there are many other aspects to the work on climate change, which is absolutely vital, as you’ve mentioned; it’s one of his priorities. So, I think that the most important thing is to focus on the road to Mexico and how you can improve the prospects for that meeting and what needs to be done between now and then.

Inner City Press: [inaudible] because… in the last 24 hours… Mr. Pachauri….

Spokesperson: IPCC regrets, Matthew, IPCC regrets.

Question: So, I mean, Mr. Pachauri says he wasn’t responsible for it. So, I guess what I’m saying is, who is in charge of the agency on which Ban Ki-moon rests his, you know, the case has been made by that agency

UN’s Ban and Pachauri, no one responsible for Glacier-Gate, novel

Spokesperson: No, no, Matthew, the Secretary-General does not rest his case purely on the IPCC. There is an enormous body of evidence and information out there from various different sources, not just from the IPCC, however important that may be. And an error in one report does not undermine the entire science that is clearly proven.

So who apologized — the IPCC’s website? To have nothing to say about the various scandals surrounding the IPCC and Pachauri seems strange. It’s why some say Ban is now shifted to rolling the dice on a trip to North Korea — our next story, forthcoming.

Footnote: The UN’s and Ban’s climate unit under Janos Pasztor, which was told there was no room for it in the UN’s Temporary North Lawn Conference Building where Ban has his office, is now looking at space in the Alcoa Building on 48th Street, Inner City Press is told.

For now, they are left behind in the nearly empty UN skyscaper where asbestos removal has already begun. Meanwhile, Pachauri has wished asbestos on his critics….

* * *

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

South-South Cooperation Key to MDGs
IPS Correspondents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally a second shoe comes of at the UN Department of Public Information that services the Ban Ki-moon UN Administration. After the replacement of the officer in charge of Media Accreditation, now also a new Spokesperson.

November 30, 2009 UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is getting a new Spokesperson – a real professional – Martin Nesirky – that will hail from Vienna where he was not just spokesman for over three years at the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) but was also Head of Press and Public Information.

Nesirky will replace Michele Montas of Haiti who served since the beginning of the term of Mr. Ban Ki-moon, January 1, 2007, till now, November 30, 2009, thus leaving one month ahead of the end of a three years contract. Ms. Montas is retiring from the UN.

Mr. Nesirky came to OSCE from Reuters where he served over two decades as an international correspondent and editor. He covered issues the like of  the fall of the  Berlin Wall, events in the Balkans, and nuclear non-proliferation issues. Further, he had a stint as the Moscow Bureau Chief of Reuters with responsibility for coverage of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and as senior editor in London handling political stories, including the Middle East and Africa. He has been posted in Berlin, The Hague, and Seoul, though it is not known if he also speaks Korean, the language of the current UN Secretary- General – the subject of a question from one of the correspondents that remained unanswered.

More recently Mr. Nesirky in his Spokesman capacity at OSCE was instrumental in navigating the Russia backed OSCE Chairmanship for Kazakhstan for 2010. At the UN he may find his personal talents helpful in creating a new persona for the UN Secretary-General whose popularity with parts of the UN have hit a low, at a time that his reelection for a second term will be put on the table.

Ms. Montas whom he replaces had none of such credentials. Prior to her appointment, Montas headed the French unit of UN Radio. From 2003 to 2004, she served as the Spokesperson for UN General Assembly President Julian Robert Hunte, of Saint Lucia, soon after she fled to New York from Haiti. In Haiti, she and her husband were also radio journalists and activists. Her husband was killed in Haiti, and she escaped to New York. We can vouch that in her first several months in the job Mr. Ban Ki-moon set her up, she had no understanding or patience for subjects of climate change – not even when the subject was raised in connection to killings going on in Africa, or the dangers to Small Island Member States of the UN. Not even in matters of the Middle East – she seemed as a fish out of water and effectively harming  positions that the SG might have been more forthcoming. In press conferences of the SG she allowed only questions that she thought he would be interested in while guarding him from such questions as climate change.

The real question is now if Mr. Martin Nesirky will find it acceptable to fit in her shoes and submit to further layers of UN functionaries in a UN Department of Public Information where the Director of News and Media Division is Mr. Ahmad Fawzi who acts as a factotum on Press Accreditation and also whenever there is the need to talk to the press upon fighting in the Middle East. We feel that Mr. Nesirky may be inclined to become his own man in those areas while serving the needs of the Secretary-General.

The announcement about the new Spokesperson was made by Mr. Farhan Haq, of Pakistan, an Associated Spokesperson, third in the ranking below Mr. Nesirky (The second ranking Spokesperson is the Deputy Spokesperson Marie Okabe of Japan). Farhan started the announcement by saying: “And finally, a message that you’ve been waiting for some time. The Secretary-General today has named Martin Nesirky of the United Kingdom as the new Spokesperson for the Secretary-General,” but when asked by a correspondent if there will be in parallel an appointment for a position called Strategic Communications, he also gave no answer and showed impatience by mentioning that “our guests are here.”

Another correspondent asked nevertheless about the Small Pacific Developing Island States that called upon the Security Council to take up the issue of climate change “as a matter of security, because they say that their islands, their countries, could potentially disappear together for the first time in history, and they’re looking for the Council to develop enforceable emission targets. What does the SG think of this call to the SC to take up the Climate Change issue?”

The anemic answer was: “As you know, the SG has been encouraging all of the relevant bodies to deal with climate change and its effects across a variety of fields.At this stage, however, what the SG is concerned with is making sure that Member states and leaders at the highest level will come to Copenhagen to deal precisely with all of the challenges of climate change and seal a deal that can help resolve all the various problems that member States face.” That was quite a lame answer from the source of “Hopenhagen” and a clear show why finally the UN deserves a professional Spokesperson it was denied during the first three years of the Ban Ki-moon Administration of the UN.

The Correspondent continued with his insistence for an answer:
“There is nothing about the council taking up this matter?”

Final answer from the Associate Spokesperson: “It’s always up to the Security Council which matters it chooses to take up under rubric of peace and security issues.”

From our point of view, will Mr. Martin Nersirky accompany Mr. Ban Ki-moon to Copenhagen, or will it be Marie Okabe?

———————————–

N.B. - to be fair to Michele Montas -
Montas was one of the producers of Jonathan Demme’s documentary, The Agronomist, which depicted the life and death of her husband Jean Dominique and his career at Radio Haiti-Inter, the radio station that he founded. She was also involved with MINUTASH – the UN mission to Haiti. Montas worked  as a journalist at that Radio-station and has been  a human rights activist in Haiti and later a consistent international lecturer on Haiti – but the subject matter of the UN extends beyond Haiti and the Aristide government interests. We do not imply that Montas was a negative person as such, only that she was not the right person for her job which allowed Mr. Ahmad Fawzi of Egypt to take over some of the responsibilitires that were hers, and the Under Secretary-General for the UN DPI, Mr. Kyotaka Akasaka, another strange appointment in the Ban Ki-moon cabinet, could really not care less.

———————————-

P.S. – On November 23, 2009 Martin Nesirky met the media correspondents to the UN and said:

A couple of things I just wanted to mention.  First of all, I’m really looking forward to working with all of you; getting to know you.  This is a huge challenge, of course, and I’m very keen to try to get to know you so I can help you the best that I can.  That’s the first thing.

The second thing is that, needless to say, I do read what’s being written.  And I think there are a couple of things I’d like to make absolutely clear and very straight at the beginning.  My language skills: I speak German, I speak Russian, I speak English after a fashion, I speak a little bit of Korean and an even smaller amount of French.  I realize that it’s very, very important to be able to speak French. I’m going to be doing as the Secretary-General has done, which is to take extra French classes to improve on that. And that’s really all I wanted to say on that matter.

The other is that I really believe that coming from outside the UN has advantages and disadvantages.  You will have to bear with me as I get to know the system that you, many of you, know far better than I probably will ever do.  But I am very keen to work with you so that you can help me to help you to have the stories that you need to write.

Also, it seems that the UN expects Mr. Nesirky to start his work at the UN on only December 7th, which is coincidentally the day the Copenhagen Conference opens officially, does it mean that he will be there, or it means that Marie Okabe will be there and he will be in New York? We shall see!

Climate Change Adaptation: It’s about Water! 
— Global Water Partnership’s contribution to the climate change dialogue

Water is central to the world’s development challenges. Whether it is food security, poverty reduction, economic growth, human health—water is the nexus. Climate change is the spoiler. No matter how successful mitigation efforts might be, people will experience the impacts of climate change through water.

The Global Water Partnership is participating in ‘Water Day’ at the climate change negotiations in Barcelona. GWP Executive Secretary Dr Ania Grobicki will be the lead speaker on water and transboundary issues on Tuesday, November 3. The venue is the Fira Congress Hotel, opposite the conference centre. The opening session starts at 9 am and lunch will be provided.

Recently, the GWP’s Technical Committee released its 14th Background Paper: “Water Management, Water Security and Climate Change Adaptation.” It argues that investments in water are investments in adaptation. The paper can be downloaded on www.gwpforum.org or ordered free at gwp@gwpforum.org.

Climate Change: How can we Adapt? – a one-pager about GWP’s key messages on this subject – is available here: http://www.gwpforum.org/gwp/library/GWP_Briefingnote_climatechange.pdf.

GWP has been accepted as an Inter-Governmental Organisation with Observer Status at  COP 15 in Copenhagen in December and has submitted an article to the delegate publication. But more information on that will follow later. 

More resources about climate change and water and more information on GWP’s involvement in the global dialogue on climate change is available on this page: http://www.gwpforum.org/servlet/PSP?iNodeID=205&itemId=442.

——————————————————–Steven DowneyHead of CommunicationsGlobal Water Partnership (GWP)Drottninggatan 33SE-111 51 Stockholm, SWEDENPhone:   +46 8 522 126 52Fax:      + 46 8 522 126 31E-mail: steven.downey@gwpforum.orgWebsite: www.gwpforum.org
A water secure world – the mission of the Global Water Partnership is to support the sustainable development and management of water resources at all levels.

Thursday, July 9, 2009

G8 ITALY SUMMIT.
G8 summit gets off to rough start – Hu’s exit damages climate talks as emerging economies challenge the industrialized powers

By JUN HONGO
Staff writer, The Japan Times online. – Japan Time – Thursday, July 9, 2009.

ROME — With the relevance of the Group of Eight being challenged by emerging powers, the G8 leaders got down to business Wednesday addressing climate change and what their next move might be when and if the global recession subsides.

But the launch of the three-day G8 summit in L’Aquila was spoiled even before it began, with Chinese President Hu Jintao returning home to get a handle on the ethnic riots tearing apart the restive city of Urumqi in the northwest.

A shadow also grew over the climate change issue as chances appeared slim that the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, or MEF, would be able to hammer out long-term greenhouse gas emissions cuts, Japanese diplomatic sources said.

The key multinational emissions forum was to meet Thursday on the sidelines of the summit in the Italian mountain town.

The sources said MEF preparatory negotiations failed to bridge the gap between members of the industrialized and developing countries, effectively dashing hopes of achieving a substantial agreement.
Hu’s absence exacerbated the MEF discord, the sources said.

An initially prepared MEF draft declaration pledged a global emissions reduction of 50 percent by 2050, with industrialized countries promising an 80 percent cut in the same time frame, they said.

The 17-member MEF was established in March under the initiative of U.S. President Barack Obama to complete the groundwork for forging a new international carbon-capping framework to succeed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

Along with the G8, major greenhouse gas emitters China, India and Brazil are also members of the MEF.

Despite the forum’s apparent inability to produce tangible results, the G8 was nevertheless expected to issue a joint statement on climate change later in the day, in addition to discussing the global economy, the sources said.

The eight leaders were expected to share views on how not to jeopardize the “green shoots” of recovery being seen in some areas, as well as “exit strategies” for reversing the heavy fiscal stimulus that many countries embraced to revive their economies, the sources said, adding that how to stave off global unemployment was also on the agenda.

During a working dinner, the G8 was expected to focus on political matters, including domestic unrest in Iran and North Korea’s nuclear threat.

Obama and his Russian counterpart, Dmitry Medvedev, who agreed Tuesday to reduce the size of Russia’s nuclear arsenal, were expected to lead the discussion on global denuclearization.

For Prime Minister Taro Aso,denuclearization and how to end North Korea’s nuclear threat are expected to be key concerns.

Earlier this month, Foreign Ministry officials in Tokyo listed five key themes for this year’s summit: Iran, North Korea, global denuclearization, the Middle East peace process and the war in Afghanistan.

The L’Aquila summit concludes Friday after assistance to Africa is discussed. But with emerging economic powers like Brazil and India being kept outside the discussion framework, critics say any talks held within the G-8 alone are incapable of resolving global economic issues.

In that sense, the Thursday meeting with the emerging powers will have more relevance than the G-8 itself, they said.

But Japanese officials defended the G-8 framework, saying its agreements are still influential in forming the base for discussions with other economic powers.

The G-8 includes the United States, Britain, Canada, Japan, Italy, Germany, France and Russia.

——————

www.SustainabiliTank.info take on the Wednesday-Thursday-Friday July 8-10, 2009 meetings follows:

President Obama of the US came to Rome after having achieved an agreement with the Medvedev/Putin leadership of Russia on what concerns nuclear arms reduction and certain aspects of non-proliferation. Those issues allow thus for US leadership at the G8 meeting. On the other hand, at the Obama created G-16 + the EU and the UN meeting on climate change, the fact that the US is well behind Europe on the main issues on Global Warming, the US is really not in position of leadership.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the UK is in very weakened internal position so he is no great asset at the G8 table.

Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper leads now a weak minority government and does not radiate influence either.

Japan’s Prime Minister Taro Aso is just as weak at home as Messrs. Brown and Harper and thus not really in a leadership position either.

Italy’s Berlusconi, thanks to his personal peccadilloes, is rather an international joke, even though his countrymen may think his behavior charming. His country-women – that is those that did not profit from his closeness – may think differently.

Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel is in best position of them all when it comes to the issues of climate change, but in what concerns applying stimulus packages in Europe she is just slow or lacks interest as she saw that this might not have brought in the US the results that the Obama administration was promising to Americans and the world. She clearly has no intention to cooperate in what she is not convinced that it works, and is also critical of the US lack of progress in alternatives to the old fossil-fuels based economy. We do not think that President Obama will be able to convince her to change her mind during the three days of these meetings.

France’s President Nicolas Sarcozy is strong politically at home – so here no problems – but when it comes to evaluating his two years in office, one has difficulty finding his international agenda – thus another non-leader for these events.

Russia’s double-headed eagle – President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin – will rest on the perch and don’t expect them to lead either.

Looking at the above and at the ruins of the earth-quake damaged Italian age-old city of L’Aquila, one can only hope for reconstruction if the world is going to see a better economy in the future and in the process also create a program of what to do with the pesky issue of climate change. Let us face the reality that there is little chance to achieve progress at the   July 2009 meetings.

***

Thursday there is the meeting of 17 members that is the G16 + the EU – or actually the G8 + G5 (Brazil, India, China,   Mexico, South Africa) + Australia, Indonesia, Korea,   and the EU.

Those are the 17 that were invited to participate at the State Department building, in Washington DC, meeting for climate talks under the Major Economies Forum (MEF) April 27, 2009. That meeting was organized by Secretary of State Hilary Clinton. Later there was also a meeting in Mexico City and in September 2009 they will have yet another meeting in Pittsburgh. The intent was to come up with an agreement to be presented before the Copenhagen climate meeting this December.

OK – so where are we now? Did the US and China formally agree on how to proceed jointly on the effort to find a G2 solution? But really we will not find out if this is the case on Thursday, July 9, 2009. Chinese President Hu Jintao returned home today to deal with the ethnic riots tearing apart the restive city of Urumqi in the Muslim Northwest Province of Xinjang, and without him present there is little sense for the Thursday meeting. India also does not seem to be ready to let the OECD countries of the hook so indeed setting only long term targets without well funded immediate action will not do this time. India just released its budget plans and worldwide there are reactions that the government did not plan enough as stimulus packages either. Indeed, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton will be going mid July to India like she did go to China at the start of her taking over at State. Will she be able to come up with better understanding with India, while it seems to the Indians that the US is back to a pre Bush China-first policy?

Also Indonesia will not be there as President Yudhoyono just was having a reelection campaign that it seems he won.

***

Friday is the last day and it is dedicated to the provision of funds for Africa. OK – this subject will get some figures and it will be $15 Billion that President Obama pushed for – as aid for poor farmers – and when President Obama will be on Saturday in Ghana he will be able to present those figures to his African hosts.

Our prediction is thus that from L’Anquila the main product of these meetings will be a new promis for Africa. Will it be funded this time in reality – that is something to check upon later. But then a serious review regarding Africa is really in the making indeed. The key is to be henceforth less reliance on food aid from subsidized produce in the US and the EU, and more investments and help in order to build up local agriculture in Africa – as the future economy of Africa. Some of the African NGOs have finally spoken up that the relliance on food hand-outs has destroyed Africans’ potential to feed themselves.

***

Will the real legacy of L’Anquila be that the G8 has lost its relevance in a world where most of the so called great economies are indeed dependent for their well being on some of the members of the lesser G5? With China, India and Brazil not part of the august post-World War II group is there any reason for the separate G8 pow wow? Would not going directly to a more updated group have been more effective? Then what about the EU? Could it not be practical to letthe member states finally decide that they could speak with one voice? If that is not the case why litter the G16 with an added presence at a time that the UN is rightly not mentioned at all?

——-

G8 must galvanise talks on warming.
The Financial Times, July 8 2009

The summit meeting of the Group of Eight industrialised nations that opened in Italy on Wednesday looks increasingly like an event in search of a purpose. The more broadly based G20, including China and India among others, is the place where deals on the global economy are being done. So what is the point of the G8?

The answer should be: to galvanise the debate on climate change. A consensus is needed between the rich and poor for a new deal to slow down global warming. It is supposed to be finalised by the United Nations at Copenhagen in December. But to have any hope of progress there, the leaders gathered in L’Aquila this week must give a clear sense of direction.

The European Union has been consistently in the lead in setting ambitious targets to cut emissions. The good news now is that the US president is engaged and enthusiastic. Barack Obama will co-chair Thursday’s meeting of the 17-member Major Economies Forum, including both China and India. The bad news is that Hu Jintao, the Chinese president, has gone home to deal with the ethnic unrest in Xinjiang. But that should not give an excuse for indecision.

The first ominous sign is that the two sides have not agreed on a target of halving global emissions by 2050. That is the minimum necessary to ensure that the rise in global temperatures should not exceed 2 degrees Celsius, the danger level agreed by scientists. It would require the developed economies to cut their emissions by 80 per cent, to allow developing economies to pollute more as they grow faster. But China is not prepared to sign up to the target until there are more concessions on the table. It is hard to understand, as China stands to be a big beneficiary.

India is also playing hard to get. Delhi will not move on a complete package until there is more money on the table, with rich countries paying the poor to mitigate the effects of global warming, and adapt to them. Such an attitude could scupper any deal.

The G8 leaders can and should do more. In particular, they should start work on a commercial mechanism via the cap-and-trade system to finance bigger transfers from rich to poor. That would be politically more acceptable than straight handouts. The EU might also unilaterally increase its target to cut emissions in 2020 from 20 to 30 per cent. Both the US and Japan need to set more ambitious targets for 2020 as well as 2050. But in the end, a deal on climate change is not just for the rich to do. The poor will suffer most if it fails.

———–

Nations agree to steeper cuts in greenhouse gas emissions
By Fiona Harvey in London, and Guy Dinmore and George,Parker in L’Aquila
Published: July 9 2009 03:00 | Last updated: July 9 2009 03:00
The Group of Eight industrialised countries yesterday agreed to more stringent cuts in greenhouse gas emissions than ever before.

The G8, meeting in Italy, pledged to take on the lion’s share of the emissions reductions scientists say are needed, with cuts of 80 per cent by 2050 for developed countries. This would contribute to a hoped-for target of halving emissions globally by the same date.

They also resolved to try to hold global temperature rises to no more than 2 °C above pre-industrial levels, which scientists regard as the limit of safety.

This is the first time such a target has been formally adopted in a leading international forum. Gordon Brown, UK prime minister, hailed the deal as “historic”.

But British officials said there was “no chance” that these targets would also be agreed by a wider group of countries, including emerging economies, meeting today on climate change.

Leaders of 16 of the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitting countries are meeting at the G8 at the request of Barack Obama, US president.

He called the meeting, known as the Major Economies Forum, which he is co-chairing with Silvio Berlusconi, Italian prime minister, to break the deadlock in climate change talks aimed at producing a successor to the Kyoto protocol at a conference in Copenhagen in December.

It is the first time leaders of all the big emitters have held a summit on climate change. The United Nations secretary-general held a meeting for world leaders in 2007, but George W. Bush, then US president, turned up only for the dinner at the end.

However, China and India have so far refused to agree to the target of halving global emissions by 2050, despite assurances that the G8 will take on the largest slice of the burden.

The early departure of Hu Jintao, China’s president, from the meeting yesterday made any change in position even less likely.

One of the aims of the MEF was to bring leaders of the main emitting countries together so that they could allow their environment ministers – who attend the UN negotiations – greater latitude in making a deal.

Anantha Guruswamy, Greenpeace programme director, said China and India had refused to sign up to the global target because the G8 club of rich nations had not put forward proposals for financing emissions cuts and measures to adapt to climate change in poor countries.

“It is up to Obama to show leadership on this,” he added.

Beijing and Delhi also want rich countries to agree higher targets on cutting emissions by 2020 than they have come up with.

The 16 countries in the MEF produce 80 per cent of the world’s carbon emissions. The European Union and Denmark, as host of the Copenhagen conference, also attend its meetings.

***

to be a bit more exact the first 9 out of the 16 – CO2 emissions in billions of metric tons, 2006 are as follows – and if you wish it is about 75% just for the first 8 total and they are not the old G8.

China     6.0

US           5.9

Russia     1.7

India       1.3

Japan       1.3

Germany     0.9

Canada         0.6

UK               0.6

S. Korea       0.5

———-

CLIMATE CHANGE
Obama insists world climate accord possible.
By George Parker and Guy Dinmore in L’Aquila and Fiona Harvey in London
The Financial Times,   July 9 2009

Barack Obama, US president, insisted on Thursday there was still time for the world to agree binding commitments to cut greenhouse emissions, in spite of stalemate at the G8 summit in L’Aquila.

Mr Obama takes centre stage in the Italian town on Thursday when he chairs a session on global warming, bringing together 17 rich and emerging economies, including China and Brazil.

US diplomats say there is no chance that the countries will agree to cut world emissions by 50 per cent by 2050 – from a still undecided baseline of 1990 or later. They are however likely to agree on an aspiration to stop temperatures rising more than 2 degrees centigrade compared with pre-industrial levels.

The early departure of Hu Jintao, China’s president of China, from the meeting made any change in position on cuts even less likely.

But Mr Obama believes an agreement on binding intermediate targets – for a deadline sometime before 2050 – can be reached before a UN climate change summit in Copenhagen in December.

Robert Gibbs, White House spokesman, said Mr Obama told President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil that “there was still time in which they could close the gap on that disagreement in time for that important [meeting]“.

Mr Obama is seen as a pivotal figure in reaching any Copenhagen agreement, but months of tense negotiations lie ahead.

India, China and other big emerging economies want to be sure the west is serious about meeting medium term targets for cutting emissions before they commit themselves. They also want money to help them clean up their industries.

The credibility of the G8 on climate change was challenged by Russia, which had earlier signed up to a communique by the group committing wealthy nations to an even more ambitious 80 per cent cut in emissions by 2050 – again with a still undecided baseline. The Russian delegation however has questioned whether such a long-term target is meaningful.

Ban Ki-moon, UN secretary-general, said progress on climate change at the G8 was so far “not enough”. He added: “This is politically and morally [an] imperative and historic responsibility … for the future of humanity, even for the future of the planet Earth.”

————–

Further – the UN travelog:

UN DAILY NEWS from the
UNITED NATIONS NEWS SERVICE
8 July, 2009 =========================================================================

SECRETARY-GENERAL EN ROUTE TO ITALY TO MEET WITH G8 LEADERS

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is heading today to the Italian city of L’Aquila, where he will meet with the leaders who are attending the annual summit of the Group of Eight (G8) industrialized nations, after wrapping up his first official visit to Ireland.

On development, the Secretary-General urged the G8 to outline how donors will scale up aid to Africa over the next year to fulfil the commitments the Group made at its summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, in 2005.

Mr. Ban departed for Italy from Ireland, where he met today with Irish Defence Minister Willie O’Dea. They travelled to the McKee Barracks, where the Secretary-General met with a group of veteran UN peacekeepers from Ireland and also took part in a ceremony paying respect to Irish peacekeepers that made the ultimate sacrifice while serving the Organization.

The UN chief is scheduled to travel again next week to attend the 15 July Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, where he will deliver an address encouraging the group to build on its leadership role to address some of today’s challenges, including disarmament, the economic crisis and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

The eight MDGs – which range from halving extreme poverty to halting the spread of HIV/AIDS and providing universal primary education – have a target date of 2015, as agreed by world leaders in 2000.  

President Obama will this week become the first African American President to make an official visit to an African country.

The most interesting fact is that he does not go to South Africa or Nigeria – the two countries that compete for the unofficial title of leaders of black Africa. President Obama decided to go to the oil producing belt of West Africa, and this cut out South Africa;   then he chose the unassuming Ghana, rather then the feisty Nigeria – the most populous black state and important partner of the US in oil trade.

Why? What does he teach in this visit?

Nigeria is a corrupt state to its bone. Even its son, the Nobel Price winning Wole Soyinka said that neglecting Nigeria was just the right medicine that Nigeria needed. He continued then with the shocking statement: “I’d ’stone’ Obama if he showed up in Nigeria and conferred legitimacy on its sorry government.”

Ghana on the other hand, a much smaller West African nation, as of now with little US trade, did hold fair multiparty democratic elections since 1992, and   has a history of incumbents stepping down once they reach their term limits.

Ghana is a beacon of hope to Africa and has produced the only two-terms African UN Secretary-General, Koffi Annan, who we hope will be at hand when President Obama arrives for a day at the end of this week.

Yes, we know, it is rumored that the US is interested in Ghana also as it is the newest arrival to the West Coast Oil-belt, and with China making inroads in the region, the US might be interested to establish here a military base as well as an oil trade relationship.

But even so, this US President showed preference for clean government if this is at all possible.

Africa watch and learn!

As Sri Lanka Arrests Two UN Staff, UNHCR Offers Praise After Staying Silent.

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis

UNITED NATIONS, June 19 — Two UN staff members were disappeared by the Sri Lankan government six days ago in Vavuniya. For days, the UN said nothing. An e-mail was sent to Inner City Press, along with a photo of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon meeting with the staff in Vavuniya on May 23. Those disappeared served as drivers for the UN Office of Project Services and UNHCR, the UN’s refugee agency.

After some inquiries, the UN belatedly announced that two staff had been arrested, leading to short articles in the Indian and Canadian press, neither of which included the staff members’ names. They are Kandasamy “Saundi” Saundrarajan of UNOPS and N. Charles Raveendran of UNHCR. They are Tamils.

Meanwhile UNHCR’s country officer for Sri Lanka Amin Awar continued to praise the government and the internment camps in Vavuniya. While in Sri Lanka in May, Inner City Press published a story about another UNHCR staffer, detained by the government since last year.

Amin Awar, who had not responded to an emailed request to comment on the case, approached this reporter in the lobby of the Colombo Hilton on May 23 and argued that the court system in Sri Lanka is complex, but said he was advocating for the detained man.

No update has been provided, and now two more staffers, including one from UNHCR, are detained. How much more will the UN put up with, or as some say, cover up?

The email, lightly edited, is below.

UN’s Ban and Vavuniya staff, standing up for them not shown

Subj: 2 UN Staff abducted 4 days ago and now believed to be tortured by Sri Lankan Army Military Intelligence – Pls Help to Release them

From: [Name withheld for fear of retaliation or worse]
To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com
Sent: 6/19/2009

Dear Matthew,

We write this email in desperation seeking your help to put more pressure on Sri Lankan Authorities and release 2 United Nations Staff ( I from UNOPS and 1 from UNHCR ) abducted by Sri Lankan Army Military Intelligence Officials in Vavuniya four days ago and currently detained. We have tried all the possible escalations within UN, including an urgent message to our Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon but nothing has helped so far.

We reliably learn that they are now being detained and tortured at a Sri Lankan Army Military Intelligence interrogation camp in Kurumankadu, Vavuniya and since it is weekend no one is taking it serious & taking some bold action for their release or access to them & ensure they are safe.

In our May30th Sit Report, our ground officers have highlighted the wide spread abductions and accounted for more than 13,310 missing people in Vavuniya IDP Camps, compared to the previous count. But our higher management in Colombo and Geneva has decided to downplay it and reported it as, “decrease is associated with double counting. Additional verification is required”. They never initiated a project for additional verification. Now we feel the pain of abduction when two of our colleagues are abducted.

Photo of our Vavuniya UN Team Group Photo with Secretary General Ban Ki-moon when he visited Vavuniya last month, attached.

We don’t know when we will see our colleagues again and the same smile … please help.

Due to security issues we cant talk on phone and sending this email with great difficulty & hope you will understand it.

Thanks in advance.

Concerned UN Staff, Sri Lanka

* * * * * *
In Sri Lanka Camps, UN Blind and Deaf Without Cameras or Cell Phones, African Concern.

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis

UNITED NATIONS, June 19 –While it has been reported that in the UN-funded internment camps in Sri Lanka “UN officials have been stopped from bringing in cameras and mobile phones,” the Spokesperson for Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Friday told Inner City Press, “I don’t think the UN would accept that.”

Since the UN did accept the detention by the government of UN staff earlier this year, it is not clear if the UN would accept being barred from exposing abuses they see in the camps or even photographing them. The Spokesperson said she would check. We’ll be waiting.

Despite these reported restrictions the UN’s top humanitarian John Holmes, who has yet to respond to requests for comment on the government killing off its investigation into the murder of 17 Action Contre La Faim aid workers, is quoted that “We do have pretty much full access to those camps at the moment.”

Would that be, access without cell phones or cameras? What does OCHA do when it becomes aware of abuses? It claimed that it advocated quietly about its detained staff. But the government said the issue was only raised once it was publicly asked about by the Press at the UN.

UN’s Ban speaks with envoy Fowler, kidnapped in Niger, on cell phone not seen in Sri Lanka

At a UN reception Friday day on the topic of sickle-cell anemia, several African Ambassadors expressed to Inner City Press their concern for what has happened this year in Sri Lanka. An Ambassador from the Maghreb asked, whatever happened to the Responsibility to Protect? Before that final push, shouldn’t somebody have stopped it?

Another referred to reports that LTTE officials who tried to surrender by waving the white flag, after communications via UN envoy Vijay Nambiar, had reportedly been shot and killed. “That is not good,” said the outgoing Permanent Representative of a country that itself suffered a genocide. Ironically, these African Ambassadors who are portrayed as more callous than their Western counterparts appear more genuinely concerned. But politics has dictated what has happened, and what is happening. Watch this site.

From The International Criminal Court in Haag: The Answer to the Prosecution application of 14 July 2008 for the issuance of a warrant of arrest against President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan will be made known during a press conference which will take place on 4 March 2009 at the seat of the Court.

Press Release: 26.02.2009

Pre-Trial Chamber I’s decision concerning President Al Bashir of Sudan to be announced during press conference on 4 March 2009
ICC-CPI-20090226-MA35

Situation: Darfur, Sudan

The decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court with regard to the Prosecution application of 14 July 2008 for the issuance of a warrant of arrest against President Omar Al Bashir of Sudan will be announced during a press conference which will take place on 4 March 2009 at the seat of the Court. The press conference will start at 2 p.m.
The Registrar, Ms Silvana Arbia, and the ICC Spokesperson, Ms Laurence Blairon, will make statements in English, after which there will be an opportunity for journalists to ask them questions. Interpretation into French and Arabic will be available.
Separate interviews after the press conference with audiovisual media are possible but will need to be arranged in advance. Please note that only a limited number of such requests will be granted.
All media wishing to attend the press conference are requested to complete the accreditation form and send it to:

or fax it to + 31 (0)70 515 8567. Media who are already accredited with the ICC do not have to complete another accreditation form, but are kindly requested to confirm by e-mail or fax their attendance at this event.
The application for accreditation will close on Monday 2 March 2009 at 5.00 p.m. following which all applicants will be notified of acceptance by email. ICC press cards will be handed out upon presentation of a valid passport or valid ID with a photo. Please note that access to the Court’s premises will not be permitted without prior accreditation.
All media are kindly invited to use the public entrance located on Regulusweg and to arrive no later than 1.30 p.m. They will have access to the Press Conference Room and to the Media Centre.
Media Centre
The Court’s Media Centre will be open from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.
The area can sit up to 64 people and includes a Wi-Fi internet service; cards (plug + play) for those without Wi-Fi capability in their PC or laptop; 6 computers with internet access; and 7 telephones that may be used free of charge for internal calls. For external calls, journalists are advised to use their mobiles or purchase 0800 pre‑paid phone cards beforehand. Such cards are available at newsagents and train stations, but cannot be obtained in the vicinity of, or at, the ICC.
Please note that no feed from the Press Conference Room will be available in the Media Centre, but that a distribution box will be placed in the Press Conference Room to allow the media to access, if need be, the NOS Eurovision signal.
SNG trucks
SNG trucks are not allowed to park alongside the ICC building, but should go to the car park located at the intersection of Regulusweg and Wegastraat. Please note that no feed from the Press Conference Room will be available to the car park and that, moreover, there is no power supply available.
Satellite feed
NOS Eurovision will broadcast the press conference via satellite to Europe, Africa and North and Latin America. Information on the frequency will be conveyed as soon as it is received from NOS Eurovision.
Background documents
The Court will provide various background documents during the press conference.
Live video streaming
The press conference will be broadcast live on the Court’s website.
Photography and audiovisual documents
Please note that it will only be possible to take photos in the Press Conference Room during the first 15 minutes of the press conference. The Court will provide to all those currently subscribing to receive ICC press releases a link to a selection of copyright-free digital photos.
Audio and visual summaries of the press conference will further be available for downloading (rough cut footage).
Parking facilities
Parking facilities are available for media representatives at the Regulusweg and Wegastraat car parks.

For further information please contact Ms Laurence Blairon, Spokesperson, at +31 (0)70 515 87 14 or +31 (0) 6 46 44 88 89 or at laurence.blairon@icc-cpi.int.

Hi,
Some readers asked me to send them the text of my answer to
Muammar Qaddafi’s article in the International Herald
Tribune. So I send it to all of you.
Qaddafi’s article supports the so-called One-State
Solution. My answer was published in the IHT (February 6)
as a letter that took up the entire space of the letter
column. However, it had to be shortened. I attach the full
text, with the omitted passages in brackets.
Salamaat, Shalom,
uri

Uri Avnery
28.1.09

The one-state illusion

It is always pleasing to hear Muammar Qaddafi coming forward with a new idea. He is the joker in the pack of Middle Eastern leaders, appearing in the most unexpected places. He looks at things with fresh eyes. Unfortunately, his ideas are not always the most practical.

Now he is putting forward the idea that Jews and Arabs in our country should live together in one joint state, to be called Isratine (IHT Jan. 23, Muammar Qaddafi, “The one-state solution”.)

That is a fetching, if not altogether original idea. Qaddafi has always been a great unifier. In 1972, early in his 40-year rule, he initiated the union of Libya, Egypt and Syria in one state. Then, In 1974, he started work towards a union of Libya and Tunisia. He also proposed the creation of a big Saharan Islamic State. (I wonder if he himself remembers all these projects. Very few others do.)

After these failures, one would have to be a very determined optimist to believe in the union of Israel and Palestine. After all, the peoples of Libya, Egypt and Tunisia are very closely related, profess the same religion, speak the same language and share the same social mores, while Israelis and Palestinians are not related, speak different languages, have different beliefs and are both fiercely nationalistic.

(Since Qaddafi assumed power in Libya, the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and then Serbia, as well as Czechoslovakia and Cyprus have broken up, Belgium is teetering on the brink of a split and the joint state of Bosnia is a fiction. The United States and Canada, two good neighbors mostly speaking the same language, would not dream of uniting in one single state, nor would Germany and France, who have become friendly partners in the EU. We don’t see Ireland rushing to rejoin the United Kingdom. On the contrary, many Scots want out.)

(The conflict in our country has been going on for 120 years, since the first Zionist settlers reached the shores of Palestine. A fifth generation has already been born into this conflict, a generation whose entire mental world, like that of their parents, has been shaped by the war.)

It takes quite a stretch of the imagination to believe that under the benevolent guidance of Qaddafi Israelis and Palestinians will come together tomorrow, serve in the same army, enact the same laws in a joint Parliament and pay the same taxes. One wonders how such a state would function.

Israelis might misunderstand the intentions of our Libyan friend and think that he is asking them to dismantle their state, take in six million Palestinian refugees and resign themselves to live as a minority in an Arab-majority Isratine. They will be tempted to answer: Thanks, but no thanks. If there is one point on which 99% of Israelis are in agreement, it is their desire to live in a Hebrew-speaking state of their own, (in which they are masters of their fate.)

Palestinians might react quite similarly. After enduring the Zionist onslaught for so long, they also want to be masters of their fate, in a state of their own, under their own flag. They might not take kindly to Qaddafi’s contention that their brutal oppression and exploitation by fanatical Jewish settlers in the West Bank constitutes a “successful assimilation” and that in 1948 “Jews did not forcibly expel Palestinians.” As a soldier in that war, this comes as quite a surprise to me, too.

At the end of that terrible war, my friends and I proposed the Two-State Solution. Not a hundred people around the globe accepted that. Now there is a world-wide consensus. The great majority of both Israelis and Palestinian, as well as the members of the Arab League and all the great powers, are convinced that this is the only viable way to achieve a lasting peace.

Qaddafi is quite right about the shortcomings of this solution and the difficulties in achieving it, including those created by successive Israeli governments which have paid lip-service to it while doing everything in their power to obstruct it. But all these obstacles are nothing compared to those lying on the road to a One-State Illusion, which is no solution at all. (Those adopting this dream out of despair resemble a boxer who was unable to defeat a light-weight opponent, and therefore decides to take on a heavy-weight champion.)

(We Israelis have a lot to do to mend our state. We must turn it into a truly democratic, progressive and secular society, with full equality for all its citizens. We must put an end to the occupation, make peace with the Palestinian people, return to the 1967 borders (perhaps with some mutually agreed minor swaps of territory), dismantle the settlements and hold out our hands to the State of Palestinian with its capital in East Jerusalem. We must find a practical, decent solution to the refugee problem, based on mutual agreement. All that is difficult but possible.)

The Two-State Solution is achievable right now, in 2009, if President Barack Obama is determined to implement it “aggressively”, as he says. He will find many allies in Israel.

Uri Avnery, a former Member of the Knesset, is a leader of Gush Shalom, the Israeli Peace Bloc.
________________________________________________

“Other News” is a personal initiative seeking to provide information that should be in the media but is not, because of commercial criteria. It welcomes contributions from everybody. Work areas include information on global issues, north-south relations, governance of globalization. The “Other News” motto is a phrase which appeared on the wall of Barcelona’s old Customs Office, at the beginning of 2003: “What walls utter, media keeps silent”. Roberto Savio
_________________________________________________
Reflections of a Troubled Israeli.

Comment By Naomi Chazan *

February 5, 2009 . These are bleak days for progressive Israelis. The offensive on Gaza, which should never have been launched, has left a trail of death, trauma, destruction and despondency. The after-effects of those horrible three weeks are most obvious in Gaza, where the monumental task of emotional and physical rehabilitation is an Israeli as well as a global responsibility. They are also evident within Israel, where bravado and intolerance threaten to eat away at the country’s democratic core and consume its internal moral compass.

When my phone started ringing on December 27 with the news that Israel was bombarding Gaza, I was shocked but far from surprised. I had opposed the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in the summer of 2005 because I feared that a pullback without an agreement on the transfer of authority would breed political anarchy. And indeed, the ascendance of Hamas and its takeover of Gaza immediately afterward verified the foolishness of the unilateral approach. The Israeli siege on Gaza, accompanied by rocket attacks on Sderot and targeted killings by Israeli forces, fueled an escalation of violence that transformed Gaza into an enormous, impoverished, dangerously armed cage governed by religious extremists. Its continuous victimization, far from exposing Hamas, has sustained its dominance.

The failure of the six-month truce, brought about by the continuous smuggling of arms into Gaza and Israel’s violation of its commitment to open the crossings, was predictable. Sadly and inexcusably, so too was the timing of Israel’s assault: during the last days of the Bush administration and on the eve of yet another general election in Israel. Under immense public pressure to “do something,” which saw Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu soar in the polls, the Olmert-Livni-Barak governing trio banded together to salvage their reputations and perhaps their careers under the guise of protecting Israel and reasserting its deterrent capacity.

All these thoughts and more raced through my mind in those first hours as I watched Israeli fighter planes surgically pulverizing buildings and their occupants on Israeli television. I rebelled, almost instinctively, against the resort to massive force. Regardless of the immense provocation rendered by the rockets showered on the Negev, Israel had done little to exhaust other options. The post-Annapolis talks during the preceding year were marred by the fundamental asymmetry between Palestinians and Israelis and Israel’s unwillingness to address the roots of the conflict. And the shortsightedness of the military initiative was infuriating; too many people believed that what couldn’t be achieved in the past through diplomacy and coercion in the West Bank and Gaza could be accomplished through the application of more force.
That very evening I helped to draft the first of several antiwar appeals, signed on to others and found myself, once again, in the street protesting what shouldn’t be and what it would unleash. I had no inkling that the next twenty-one days would prove so emotionally hellish, intellectually discombobulating, politically stultifying and socially polarizing.
The first hint came in a closed discussion in an avowedly leftist forum. I was taken aback at the extent to which some of my companions justified the attack in light of the ongoing Hamas rockets. The counterargument–that no amount of missiles could excuse the severity of Israel’s assault, which would yield countless civilian casualties–fell on deaf ears. The widespread sense that there was “no choice” has permeated and deeply divided the Israeli peace camp ever since.

No less disturbing were some of the other discussions I had with fellow antiwar activists during those early days. Outraged by the disproportionate Israeli action, they refused to acknowledge that the totally unequal confrontation did not exonerate Hamas from meeting the same human rights standards expected of Israel.

The uneasiness I experienced in those first hours intensified as the fighting progressed and its horrors unfolded. Many Israeli human rights groups with which I am proudly associated as president of the board of the New Israel Fund courageously spoke out against gross infringements of international law. Simultaneously, social change and social justice organizations with which I am identified in the same capacity worked overtime to offer assistance to the over 1 million Israelis repeatedly traumatized by the missile bombardments.

But the media blackout from Gaza ensured that our public was exposed only to lengthy reports of the damage in Israel. They rarely got a glimpse of the terrible human cost of Israel’s action, nor were they allowed to hear the dissenting opinion of those who questioned its prudence. What is truly alarming is that to this very day, the legitimacy of such discussion is debated.

During the three weeks of the war, those few Jewish Israelis brave enough to decry what was happening were vilified or ignored. The human rights community, which coalesced to protest civilian casualties and deplore IDF tactics, saw their petitions denied by the High Court, and endured public reactions ranging from indifference to concerted efforts to discredit their loyalty as well as their evidence. Arab citizens of Israel were harassed and, in some cases, prevented from exercising their elementary right of dissent. As a shamefully jingoistic solidarity set in, they were subjected to unabashedly racist attacks spearheaded by the far right. Israel’s heterogeneous, fractious, argumentative society was muted.

Tragically, voices from abroad made matters worse by magnifying polarization within the country. Israeli progressives have been caught in a tightening vise. On the one hand, the knee-jerk support for government policy expressed by the American Jewish establishment is as distasteful as it is bewildering. It bolsters the militaristic image of the country and opposes the values of peace, pluralism and social justice which underlie the Jewish tradition and universal rights. On the other hand, the viciousness of the criticism of Israel has all too often crossed the thin line between condemning its actions and questioning its existence. I, along with most Israelis, refuse to accede to the demand for my own demise. Together with many others, I had hoped that there would be more backing for the development of a humane Israel free of conflict and occupation. That, I strongly believe, is what being truly pro-Israel is about.

The Gaza offensive has made fulfilling this vision considerably more difficult. But I don’t think that it is hopeless. The Israeli left has emerged from this battle weakened and perhaps dispirited, but hardly irrelevant. The bedrock of a change-oriented and open civil society exists. As President Obama might be the first to point out, real democratic change is cultivated at the grassroots–in neighborhoods and communities that strive for equality and justice and constantly craft ways to realize these goals. I am comforted by the hundreds of forward-looking organizations and their enduring commitment to making a better environment for all Israelis. I am humbled by the impact that human rights and social justice groups have on shaping discourse and policy. And while I am fearful of their ability to survive and prosper with dwindling resources, I am gratified by their resilience and persistence.

For these reasons, despite my rejection of the recent actions of the Israeli government–and my sad understanding of those who condoned it and are distressed by the results–I am convinced that it is vital to try again. I know that the aggressive pursuit of an end to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in particular and the Arab-Israeli conflict in general depends on the active engagement of the international community and its determination to bring an end to the occupation. I continue to believe that the vast majority of Israelis and Palestinians who yearn for a decent life can treat each other with mutual respect and human dignity. If we allow hatred and extremism, injustice and inhumanity, to win, it will not just be our loss; it will affect all freedom-seeking peoples throughout the world.

*Naomi Chazan became president of the New Israel Fund in June 2008. She is best known for her eleven years in the Knesset as one of the Meretz Party’s most effective legislators and for her service as Deputy Speaker of the Knesset.

________________________________________________________________
This and all “other news” issues can be found at http://www.other-net.info/index.php

January 29, 2009

Contact: ATA Communications
Tel: (212) 447-1357
 info at africatravelassociation.org
www.africatravelassociation.org

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S ELECTION SPARKS INTEREST IN TOURISM TO AFRICA

Africa Travel Association (ATA) Opens Registration for its Second Annual
U.S.-Africa Tourism Seminar in Washington, D.C. from February 19-20, 2009

WASHINGTON, D.C., January 29, 2009 – The recent inauguration of President Barack Obama is more than a landmark in America’s political history, it is also an opportunity for the travel and tourism industry to take a more focused approach to increasing visitors and investment in Africa from the U.S.

“All over Africa, we can see how excited everyone is about President Obama’s connection to the continent,” said Edward Bergman, ATA Executive Director. “We have already seen a surge in interest about travel specials to Africa not only to Kenya, where President Obama traces his roots, but also throughout East Africa.”

ATA, the world’s leading global travel trade organization, is gearing up for its Second Annual U.S.-Africa Tourism Seminar. The two-day event takes place at the Washington Convention Center from February 19-20, immediately prior to the Adventures in Travel Expo (ATE). The seminar’s timing and location affords ATA an opportunity to build on the recent historic events, including President Obama’s commitment to service.

With travel to Africa on the rise and an emerging interest in Africa as a culture and heritage destination, Africa is garnering more and more attention from American tourists as one of the world’s premier travel destinations.

Focusing on sports, adventure and diaspora travel and tourism, the seminar will showcase Africa as a top tourism destination from the U.S., as well as a site for investment and business opportunity in one of the world’s fastest growing tourism markets.

Manute Bol, former NBA star and Ethiopian Airlines official spokesperson, will speak about different possibilities for responsible tourism and sports tourism in Africa.

Stephen Hayes, President of the Corporate Council on Africa, and Edward Bergman, among other travel professionals, will speak about tourism policy choices at the opening plenary session.

Sthu Zungu, President of South African Tourism-USA, will speak about travel trends, relating to who is traveling to Africa, why they are going, and what can be improved on the travel front to increase tourism to the continent. Alongside experts in sports tourism in Africa, she will also address how mega sporting events, such as 2010 Soccer World Cup in South Africa, can be leveraged to increase tourism to and within Africa.

The timely topic of responsible tourism and how the industry and the individual tourist can make a difference in local communities will be explored by senior representatives from the Center for Ecotourism and Sustainable Development, Africare, and the African Wildlife Foundation.

Senior representatives from the World Bank, IFC (International Finance Corporation), and US Department of Commerce’s Office of Travel and Tourism Industries, will explore entrepreneurship, finance and investment opportunities, as well as travel trends in separate workshops.

South African Airways representatives will participate in a workshop on the growth and modernization of travel to Africa and the growth and modernization of intra-Africa air service. Representatives from other airlines serving Africa and Boeing will also participate in the seminar.

Another workshop on African diaspora tourism will examine the role of the diaspora in changing perceptions of Africa in the US market and emerging African diaspora tourism products, such as cultural and heritage tours. Panelists will also explore how the African diaspora and immigrant communities can serve as Africa’s tourism ambassadors in the U.S. tourism markets.

Panelists will also speak about branding and marketing Destination Africa and Africa’s newest travel products, particularly in the areas of sports tourism, and adventure travel.

Tourism experts and industry professionals from the U.S. and Africa, particularly travel agents and tour operators who market, sell and specialize in Africa, are expected to attend the seminar, as well as ministers of tourism, representatives from Washington D.C.’s diplomatic community, and Africa’s national tourism offices.

Representatives of the Spring Bank, Virginia Quanders family (1684), referred to as – America’s oldest documented African American family’ by Ebony and Jet magazines, will attend the event. Henderson Travel Services, the first African American travel agency in the U.S. to specialize in sending visitors to Africa, will also participate.

Public relations firms specializing in marketing Africa destinations, such as the Bradford Group, will participate in the seminar, alongside faculty and students from George Washington University.

ATA welcomes travel industry professionals to participate in the ATE expo immediately following the seminar. ATA members should contact ATA for discounts to exhibit.

To register and to find more information on the seminar, as well as sponsorship opportunities, visit http://www.africatravelassociation.org/a….

About the Africa Travel Association (ATA) The Africa Travel Association, a U.S.-based non-profit, is the world’s premier travel industry trade association promoting tourism to Africa and intra-Africa travel and partnership since 1975. ATA members include ministries of tourism and culture, national tourism boards, airlines, hoteliers, travel agents, tour operators, travel trade media, public relations firms, NGOs, and SME’s. For more on ATA, visit www.africatravelassociation.org.

The Young Professionals For International Cooperation, affiliated with the UN Association of the USA, had its own Holocaust Remembrance Day activity outside the UN compound. In effect it was held at the Tribeca Grand Hotel and A Screening of the Imre Kertesz inspired movie, “Fateless” was at the center of this event. Imre Kertesz is a Nobel Prize winning, Hungarian – Jewish, post-Holocaust writer. His writing has philosophical aspects to it – and thus the name of the movie. in the audience there were about 50 people.

Ambassador Polgar helped the audience understand the Hungarian background:

Giyuri tries to understand the meaning of this tormenting behavior on the part of his captors – he is troubled by the idea that there was indeed no meaning to it. He has no emotional or spiritual ties to his Jewishness, and he feels rejected by his country – Hungary.

He is shuttled between death factories of Auschwitz-Birkenau, Buchenwald and Zeitz. The latter he describes as a primitive concentration camp without the showers and crematoria. For some Imre Kertesz reason, Giyuri is presented as a stoic believing that there is nothing too unimaginable to endure. The movie maker wants us to believe that this movie is a testament to the resilience of the human spirit. What I saw in it was rather a testament to the inhumanity of Hungarians, Germans and Poles in their relationship to the Jews that were put under their fist – and on the other hand – a young Jew who did not realize that his real historic home was not Hungary, and who, against any logic, was still trying to create his new life there.

At the screening participated also Ann Nicol, the Executive Director of the UNA of New York, and she was responsible for the selection of the movie and for bringing to the screening also the Consul General of Hungary in New York, Ambassador Victor Polgar. As he told us, his mother was a survivor of the Holocaust – so he must be at least part Jewish. At UNA I was told that Ann Nicol has herself a Hungarian connection. She introduced the Ambassador, and he was very open in his description of those dark years in Hungary. According to him, Hungary was the first fascist State in the run-up to the war. In Hungary fascism n government started already in 1929, in Germany, officially, it was only in 1933.

In the movie quite a few Hungarians were shown as at the bottom of the worst. While the Germans were described as engineering types to do a well programmed extermination of the Jews, the Hungarians, in the film. were depicted as people that do not understand even their own good. There is this policeman who takes off the buses people that were working for the German war effort – this so they get sent to Auschwitz. Another guard just steals   goods from those in the camp, another asks for money – as the Jews will not need it where they are going, and better leave it to the Hungarians rather then it be taken by the Germans – “are we not one” he says to the Hungarian Jews, but refuses to bring them water.

Ambassador Polgar said that from the 600,000 Jews before the war – probably 30,000 came back – today there are 60,000 Jews in Hungary. Jews in Hungary included the likes of Professor Teller of the Hydrogen bomb (who we know was not very keen of his country of origin,) the mathematician von Newman – another top contributor to the West, who was born as a a Hungarian Jew. Then do not forget Zaza Gabor the actress…. and many others.

Hungary became independent after the break-up of the Austro-Hungarian empire, so, like Austria and Germany was a late comer to the 20th century. This was a reason for rebellion against the colonial powers of the West – but as Hungary was not developed like Germany or Japan, it was not in shape to become a real threat like them, and it shows in the movie.

VOICING OPTIMISM, BAN CONGRATULATES US PRESIDENT ON INAUGURATION

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today, “with great optimism,” congratulated Barack Obama on his inauguration as the new President of the United States, stressing that America and the Organization share a number of common goals.

Challenges – such as economic turmoil, climate change, peace and security issues such as disarmament and non-proliferation, and the food, energy and development crises – are global in scope and “require strong and collective responses,” Mr. Ban said in a statement.

In Mr. Obama’s inaugural address yesterday, he “was explicit in committing his administration to tackling all of these problems, urgently and decisively,” speaking of the need to tackle global warming, promote clean energy and cooperate with developing nations.

“This is also the work of the United Nations. Our goals are shared,” the Secretary-General stated. “Together, United States of America and the United Nations can look forward to a new era of strong and effective partnership, delivering the results and the change we need.”

———-

The UN Environment Programme also welcomed the swearing-in of the 44th US President, voicing hope in the new leader’s ‘green’ strategy.

One of Mr. Obama’s main election promises was an energy policy to address climate change, spur job growth and curb US dependence on foreign oil and gas. He also said he planned to slash greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 and create five million new environmentally friendly jobs.

“Obama’s green jobs strategy could deliver a ‘quadruple win’ – dealing simultaneously with the economic recession, energy security, job creation and emissions,” said UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner.
.

The incoming US administration is being hailed as “unprecedentedly green,” with the creation of the post of Energy and Environment Coordinator who will serve as Mr. Obama’s ‘Climate Czar.’

Other appointments include Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Chu as Secretary of Energy and John P. Holdren, a professor of environmental policy at Harvard University, as the President’s Science Adviser.

“These are not political figures [who came] to this issue yesterday,” Mr. Steiner said. “They are some of the most authoritative, competent and knowledgeable people.”

“INNOVATION AFRICA”

The volume (405 pages) was edited by Pascal C.Sanginga, Ann Walter-Bayer, Susan Kaaria, Jemimah Njuki, and Chesha Wetlasinha.

Earthscan, is a publishing house for a sustainable future, based in Dunstan House, 14a St. Cross st., London EC1N 8XA, UK – with a branch at 22883 Quicksilver Derive, Sterling, VA, USA.

www.earthscan.co.uk

The project, meeting and book, were sponsored jointly by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation under the roof of the “Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA). The goal is tp promote African agricultural development through capacity-building, research and pilot testing of interventions.

At the Kampala meeting participated 140 practitioners and the best 24 articles appear in the 5 parts of this volume.

The conclusions led to five observations,   and I will mention here just the fifth – that says that real innovation emerges by encouraging creativity, and that is not achieved by over-engineering a multiple level of bureaucracy that poses the risk of stifling real discovery. So, it is better to create enabling conditions and incentive structures that encourage information exchange, cooperation and policy changes that unleash bottom-up or lateral innovation.

The first article is of 26 pages on “Conceptual and Methodological Developments in Innovation,” presented by Niels Roeling.

I found interesting his use of “innovation” as a noun – denoting a technology or even a product i.e. hybrid maize. Then he talks about the “diffusion curve” of introducing this innovation for gain by the users. That was the way the subject was taught in the American Mid-West. Eventually he mentions that his thinking was affected by the observation from Landcare in Australia, that “erosion, salination, desiccation and other environmental problems” resulted from the introduction of European farming practices to a continent to which they were not suited. Thus we reach out to grassroots innovation in Sub-Saharan Africa, and the book presents many ways of organizing this sort of development of agricultural knowledge and information systems.

The book ends up presenting many conceptual and methodological developments in promoting innovation by showcasing on-the-ground experiences in Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Rwanda, Malawi, South Africa, Nigeria.

The volume mentions the changes in global agriculture, the use of biofuels, the increase in meat consumption, droughts and extreme weather caused by climate change, and the resulting increase in the price of food, and asks if those events will make African smallholders competitive in African urban markets. The author is nevertheless not over optimistic. It is the global “treadmill” that prevents African farmers from contributing to global food security and African countries from gaining food sovereignty. The imports of food haveinterfered with the marketting of the local produce beyond the subsistence level.

Anarchy in Somalia
The lawless Horn
Nov 20th 2008
From The Economist print edition

Pirates are only part of a much bigger problem in east Africa

IT IS tempting to be jaunty about piracy. So what if a few Robin Hoods in skiffs nick the odd tanker off the Horn of Africa? Often enough, the owners pay ransom and nobody gets hurt. Everyone needs a living in these hard times. And if the worst comes to the worst, gunboats can always be dispatched to clean the problem up, just as the British and Americans did off north Africa’s Barbary coast at the turn of the 19th century.

It is tempting, but it is wrong. The Barbary pirates caused immense human and economic damage, and the current spate of piracy in the waters of east Africa is now getting out of hand too. On November 15th pirates operating hundreds of miles from the coast seized the Sirius Star, a supertanker carrying 2m barrels of Saudi oil (see article). A dozen or so other vessels are already held by pirates. One of them—surrounded by American and Russian warships—contains a cargo of 33 T-72 tanks, enough to tip the balance in a small local war.

The last thing the world needs right now is disruption of one of its busiest shipping lanes and a spike in insurance premiums. But the cause of the present surge of piracy is no less worrying than its consequences. What has made the pirates’ audacity possible is the collapse of Somalia. The existence of a vast ungoverned space in Africa’s Horn does not just provide a useful haven from which pirates can hunt their prey at sea. It also threatens to transmit shockwaves through a seam of fragile and strife-torn African states from Sudan to the Congo.

How did this happen, and how can it be resolved? The first question is the easier to answer. About 50,000 peacekeepers are currently deployed under United Nations or African Union auspices in east and central Africa in an effort to dampen down various conflicts. In Somalia in 2006, however, the Bush administration tried something different: war by proxy. It gave a green light for Ethiopia to invade Somalia. The plan was for Ethiopia to squash an Islamist movement and reinstate a Somali government that had lost control of most of its territory.

Two years on, the plan has backfired. Abdullahi Ahmed, Somalia’s increasingly notional president, admitted on November 15th that a variety of Islamist insurgents once again dominate most of the country, leaving only two cities, Mogadishu and Baidoa, in the hands of his increasingly notional government. Neither Ethiopia nor the African Union ever sent enough soldiers to impose order. Worse, the strongest of the insurgent groups, the Shabab, is even more radical than the Islamic Courts movement which the Americans and Ethiopians originally took on. It is suspected of being linked by money to the pirates (who hand over a slice of the ransom in return for protection) and by ideology to al-Qaeda.

So how to resolve the issue? It is not enough just to send more gunboats. Although an Indian warship sunk an alleged pirate vessel this week, and a bigger naval effort could help to keep the sea-lanes a little safer, a long-term solution demands much more. This includes establishing stability inside Somalia itself, depriving the pirates of a sanctuary, and preventing the jihad-tinted anarchy there from spilling over Somalia’s borders. But since there are no serious military forces available to defeat the insurgents, a proper answer will entail reshaping the country’s politics and stepping up attempts to woo the more biddable Islamists—if there are enough left and a deal with them is still possible. Maybe not so jaunty, after all.

From:      press at unccd.int
Subject: Africa must get on board the Bali Road Map or face greater potential threats in the face of climatic change
Date:       November 19, 2008

Africa must get on board the Bali Road Map or face greater potential
threats in the face of climatic change.

(Algiers, Algeria 19 November 2008) – Less than two weeks before a major
climate change conference in Poland, the Executive Secretary of the United
Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) raised a warning flag
that African nations faced the greatest threat to global warming.

Addressing high-level policy makers at the African Conference of Ministers
in Charge of Environment on Climate Change For Post 2012 in Algiers,
Algeria, UNCCD Executive Secretary Luc Gnacadja underscored the urgency of
incorporating land and soil into the broad-level dialogue of effectively
combating climate change. That, said Mr. Gnacadja, must start in Africa,
the continent that has been hardest hit by the consequences of climate
change.

The two-day Algiers conference, which concludes on Thursday, 20 November,
is of particular importance for Africa as the world continues deliberations
on the necessary actions against climate changes after the expiration of
the Kyoto Protocol in 2012. African ministers are now striving to build an
African platform on implementing the Bali Road Map, the plan that will lead
the world to climate change negotiations in Copenhagen in late 2009.

“The Bali Plan of Action explicitly provides to take into account the
future needs of African countries affected by desertification, drought and
floods.”,Mr. Gnacadja reminded conference delegates.

According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, the desertification of
arid soils releases almost 300 million tons of carbon into the atmosphere
each year, resulting in almost four percent of total emissions from all
sources combined.

The UNCCD Executive Secretary said that Africa must mobilize to create tool
and platforms to take on the challenge.

One area of great potential is carbon sequestration, which can further
mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. The productivity of terrestrial
ecosystems could also be improved. Indeed, carbon sequestration is a
win-win context to simultaneously address other global issues such as
biodiversity conservation, food security and poverty alleviation. So far,
though, no large-scale mechanisms have been implemented nor fully taken
into account in existing mechanisms, said Mr. Gnacadja.

Indeed in tackling climate change soil can make a difference. With the
science and technology now available, agreeing on measurable reportable and
verifiable concepts to sequester carbon into soils is possible, doable, and
should therefore not be delayed.

For further information, please contact Marcos Montoiro +49-228-815-2806 or
press(at)unccd.int. Also see http://www.unccd.int

STATEMENT BY SIR JOHN SAWERS, UNITED KINGDOM PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE TO THE UNITED NATIONS, IN SECURITY COUNCIL DEBATE ON SOMALIA, 20 NOVEMBER 2008

Thank you Mr President and can I join others in thanking our briefers today, perhaps above all the Secretary-General of the International Maritime Organisation whose presence today is very welcome – thank you for your contribution.

We have had the Secretary-General’s report.   It gives us a thorough and realistic analysis of what is clearly a very bleak picture on the ground in Somalia.   And that situation on the ground seems to be getting worse in three different dimensions:

First, the security on land.   Our hopes had been raised by the Djibouti Agreement.   The preliminary work to implement it was moving forward, but the hope that Somalia was finally turning a corner after some 17 years of violence has not been followed through on the ground.

Despite the best efforts of the Special Representative, Mr Ould Abdullah, in mediating dialogue, the political process now looks fragile, not helped, it has to be said, by the divisions that have opened up within the Transitional Federal Government.   And the recent reports of heightened violence and territorial advances by the Shabaab suggest a worsening security situation.   So the situation on the ground in Somalia is getting worse, not better.

Secondly, security at sea is also getting dramatically worse as colleagues have said.   The incidents of piracy off the Somali coast have reached new heights in the last weeks.   We deplore those acts of piracy, which can only make it even more difficult to bring stability to Somalia itself.   The United Kingdom is playing a full part in the international deployments to try to combat this.   We have a frigate of the Royal Navy dealing full time with piracy and two other frigates deployed in the area ready to act and we have also offered to support the upcoming European Union Mission by providing the operational headquarters and commanding the operation.

We have got Resolution 1816 which is due for renewal next month which authorises these operations.   We need to look at that carefully to ensure that the mandate for the naval operations gives those in the field the means needed to suppress and deter piracy.   Addressing the piracy problem cannot wait until peace and harmony returns to Somalia.

Thirdly, as the Secretary-General’s report notes, the humanitarian situation is getting worse again.   Over 3 million Somalis are now dependent on food aid and securing humanitarian access is going to remain a pressing and difficult challenge.   We would welcome advice from OCHA in the near future on how to address this problem.

So, what do we do in the face of these difficulties?   Well, I agree with my colleague Ambassador Kumalo that the problem with Somalia isn’t going to be solved solely by addressing the issue of piracy or tackling the humanitarian problem on the ground.   But equally, as we have so often said in this Chamber and as we have heard again today from several delegates, we can’t just address this with a military solution – there has to be a political framework.   So, from our perspective, we believe the Council should send a clear message that the best way forward for Somalia is through the full implementation of the Djibouti Agreement, which would give the space for the international community to assist.     But we do have to deal with the Somalia that we find, the Somalia that exists, and not the Somalia that we would like to see.   And that has to shape our approach to the idea of an international force on the ground.

Frankly, Mr President, it is hard to envisage a traditional UN peacekeeping force having the capabilities or the mandate required to deal with the challenges that Somalia currently poses.   And this Council should not mandate a force which we do not think is up to the task.   We must learn the lessons from elsewhere of what happens when we send an under-equipped force into a theatre where conflict persists.

We therefore encourage the Secretary-General to continue his efforts to identify states willing to contribute to a Multi-National Force as soon as possible.   In doing so, he will need high level political support from the Council members.   And we have heard some fine words around this table today and let’s hope that Delegations can take the steps necessary to turn those fine words into hard offers of military contributions.

We’d also welcome further work by the Department of Peacekeeping Operations to prepare for the time when a peacekeeping operation is feasible, including being ready to conduct a technical assessment mission as soon as conditions on the ground allow.

Mr President,

Somalia is arguably the intractable challenge facing the Security Council in the period ahead.   I know that all of us around this table feel the need to act and to take our responsibilities here, but we have to learn the lessons of experience, not only in Somalia, but elsewhere, including, for example, Darfur.

The Secretary-General’s report may not satisfy all of us in all respects, but it is a sober and responsible effort to identify the very limited options that are available to this Council and we believe that we should proceed with our deliberations on its basis.

Thank you Mr President.

Hazel Foster (Miss)
Third Secretary Press
United Kingdom Mission to the United Nations
One Dag Hammarskjold Plaza
885 Second Avenue (48th Street & 2nd Avenue, 28th Floor)
New York   NY 10017
E-Mail:    hazel.foster at fco.gov.uk
UKMis Web:   ukun.fco.gov.uk
FCO Web:   www.fco.gov.uk
Visit our blogs at http://blogs.fco.gov.uk

—————–

So, South Africa’s Ambassador to the UN, Mr.Dumisani S. Kumalo says that solving the piracy issue is not the answer – more is needed. To be exact – “the problem with Somalia isn’t going to be solved solely by addressing the issue of piracy or tackling the humanitarian problem on the ground”

Did anyone ask him where the hundreds of millions of dollars went that were already paid in ransom for pirated ships?

Clearly, he does   not think that the poor in Somalia are starving because the rich countries do not send them help.

Does he think that outsiders would be welcome even if they come loaded with help?

Does he think that without an African real leadership there will be anything better then a future Blackwater fleet just killing anyone who will dare to use a speed boat and will not be lily white?

So, in effect, is there much difference between Somalia and other failed States – in major part this goes also for Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, like Iraq, Somalia is an agglomeration of different parts into one official State.

Would it not be better to agree that Somaliland is an independent State from Somalia? Let the local governing body get the responsibility to run their own business? Then we are left with the Southern two sections of Somalia and the claim that some of the tribes have on Ethiopian land. This is still very complicated, but it moves the problem at least away from a major part of the sea shore.Whatever – the grand piracy issue no less then a mega-tanker has finally landed the problem on the UNSC table.

Somalia, like Sudan, like much of Sub Sahara Africa, former colonies that nili-wili became States, have structural problems that are not of the IMF kind. That Is The Real Issue That Should Be Put On The UNSC Table.