Bolivia summit to seek global climate change referendum.
(AFP) LA PAZ — An alternative “people’s conference” on climate change in the Bolivian city of Cochabamba in April will seek to advance an international global warming referendum, organizers said Tuesday.

“The only thing that can save mankind from a [climate] tragedy is the exercise of global democracy,” said Bolivia’s United Nations Ambassador Pablo Solon, a key organizer of the summit.

A priority of the meeting would be discussing the possibility of a global referendum “with the goal of reaching two billion people,” he told reporters.

Thousands of people, mostly members of social movements and indigenous groups, are expected to attend the People’s World Conference on Climate Change and Mother Earth Rights on April 20-22.

Organizers say it is intended to “give a voice to the people” on climate change after the perceived failure of the U.N.-sponsored Copenhagen summit on the same issue.

Solon said he expected participants from 94 countries and representatives from 70 governments to attend, without giving further details.

Bolivian President Evo Morales, who in January issued an open invitation to the conference to governments, scientists, and social movements, has said a number of South American presidents would also attend.

But the outlines of the conference remain vague, and it is so far shaping up to be something between an environmental forum and a political rally. It is expected to tackle many of the themes Morales raised at the Copenhagen summit last year, including creating a “climate court of justice” and the need to “change the system of capitalist consumerism” — proposals that could be included in the suggested global vote.

Solon said the summit’s conclusions would be delivered to the next U.N.-sponsored meeting on climate change, currently scheduled for December in Mexico.

nbsp;ttp://www.coha.org/brazils-growing-pains…

Brazil’s Growing Pains

This analysis was prepared by Council of Hemispheric Affairs (COHA) Research Associate William Mathis.
Posted 15 Mar 2010

By now the emergence of Brazil as a major power not only in the Western Hemisphere, but also on the world stage, is an undisputed fact. The country, until recently mentioned outside its borders for seldom more than in reference to the Girl from Ipanema, is now on everybody’s lips. Brazil is possibly one of the globe’s most popular and successful nations, experiencing limited negative impact from the global economic crisis that ravaged Western economies, and having beaten out both Chicago and Tokyo for home field advantage in the 2016 Summer Olympics. But as Brazil wows the international crowds with its economic, diplomatic and athletic prowess, the distance that the nation still needs to traverse before solidifying its South American powerhouse status could be formidable.

Noisy Neighbors
One of the most remarkable aspects of Brazil’s supersonic growth is the leverage it has developed on a continent so recently dominated by the U.S. foreign policy agenda. While its government may not be seeking a socialist Bolivarian Revolution, it is far enough to the left as to be deemed sabotage-worthy by Cold War standards and has perfectly cordial ties with left-leaning ideological foes of Washington, such as Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Iran.

On March 3, 2010, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a stopover in Brazil to meet with President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Foreign Minister Celso Amorim to discuss a central issue for Washington’s foreign policymakers, deterring Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. While Iran’s nuclear ambitions thus far have not been proven to extend beyond peaceful energy purposes, the Obama administration is not taking any chances and with distinctly mixed results has been attempting to gather support around the world for tougher sanctions against Tehran. Despite not too subtle pressure from Clinton, Lula and Amorim were prepared to not give in to her demands, refusing to support sanctions outright, although not ruling out the possibility of backing them at a later date. Similarly, in November of 2009, Brazil abstained from voting against Iran in an IAEA vote in the aftermath of the disclosure of the secret existence of an uranium enrichment site in Qom. In May, the Brazilian president is scheduled to meet with his Iranian counterpart, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This type of resistance to Washington’s focused policy goals has become characteristic of Brazilian foreign policy making, demonstrating to the US and the rest of the world that the country’s decisions are no longer automatically based on Washington’s interests, but rather its own.
However, despite Brasilia’s swelling activism it may be premature to rule out Washington’s influence on Brazil’s policy decisions. The specific statement that support for sanctions could come later may possibly be linked to election season politics. In addition to the Brazilian president and foreign minister, Dilma Rousseff, Lula’s pick to be the next president, was also present for negotiations with Secretary Clinton. With presidential elections looming on October 3, it would be unwise for Rousseff to portray herself as bending to Washington’s will even if more supportive measures toward the U.S. are indeed planned for the future.

Battle Wounds
In the wake of the bitter diplomatic row that has been ongoing as a result of the 2009 coup against the democratically-elected government of Honduras, there is much fence-mending to be done to heal the somewhat fractured relationship between Brazil and the U.S. Brazilian policy makers were among the most out-spoken critics of Tegucigalpa’s de facto government of golpista Roberto Micheletti and one of President Manuel Zelaya’s most powerful proponents. They even housed the ousted leader in their embassy for months after his secret return to Honduras.
While initially taking a far more cautious approach than most other hemispheric countries in denouncing the coup, the U.S. eventually joined ranks with its Latin American peers. However, its support for Zelaya was short-lived and amounted to far less than meets the eye, seemingly geared more to courting hard-line Senator DeMint’s (R-SC) release of his “hold” on several State Department nominations than fighting to exonerate any democratic principle. As a result, the Obama administration ended up eventually backing elections without the ousted president’s a priori restoration, a move strongly opposed by a majority of countries in the region, including Brazil. With the assured support of the US for the compromised elections, any reconciliation dialogue between Zelaya and Micheletti became irrelevant and ultimately dissipated completely. While few of the region’s nations recognized the legitimacy of the elections that gave office to newly elected President Porfirio Lobo as the new leader of Honduras on 29 November 2009, he was inaugurated two months later.
Despite its best diplomatic efforts, Brazil was ultimately unable to alter the course of events in Honduras, in effect losing a testy diplomatic tiff with the US. For the time being, Brazil continues to stand by its position that presidential elections conducted under the tutelage of the illegal government headed by Micheletti were prima facie illegitimate. But as Brazil tries to preserve its stand, events in Honduras are grinding on, and it’s just a matter of time before Washington will be able to work its will on Lula. Meanwhile, Washington will be doing what it can to force the country and the region to forget the tawdry events that began on June 28. On the same day that Clinton was meeting with the Brazilian president, she also was stopping in Costa Rica to announce, among other news, that the $31million in US aid to Honduras that had been suspended during the coup would now be restored. Clinton also praised the Lobo government and urged the region’s leaders to reinstate Honduras to the OAS.
If the State Department was humiliated by the outcome in Honduras—since it surely cannot say that its shabby script showed any class—it was Brazilian diplomacy that upheld the principle of honor and pro-democracy driven policy over the Honduran affair. One could even argue that it was the Bureau of Western Hemispheric Affairs rather that Zelaya that played the role of the joker. The US has clearly pursued a near-unilateral position on the issue, isolating itself from regional leaders like Brazil by correctly assuming that some other nations like Oscar Arias’ Costa Rica, Alan Garcia’s Peru as well as Alvaro Uribe’s Colombia were prepared to chuck their democratic fandango in favor of an open market and other little favors from Washington. Nevertheless, Washington correctly calculated that its self-serving strategy eventually would save the day with or without outside help.

Tectonic Shift
While Brazil may have been successfully side swiped by the US in relation to the former’s principled response to the Honduran coup, the issue seems not to have in any way augmented Washington’s political capital in the region, nor has it entirely convinced Brasilia to be more malleable to Washington’s demands. Brazil’s continued resistance to tougher sanctions on Iran coupled with its vocal criticism of the logic of President Obama’s policy is only part of that country’s continued flair for independence. Brazil then went on to prove itself to be capable of leadership in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake in Haiti, as it continued its sometimes troubled role of coordinating UN relief efforts on the islands.
At the same time Brazil has made significant steps to replace what many now see as the lame duck OAS now rivaled by a new bloc of Caribbean and Latin American States consisting of an expanded Rio Group, which excludes the US along with Canada. The now expanded Rio Group has traditionally been seen as a talk show and little else. Now Brazil appears driven to institutionalize the group, turning it into a far more powerful actor in the region which rapidly could come to rival the importance of the OAS, or even replace it. Washington already has been feeling somewhat isolated in the OAS lately, where for decades it has been the sole nation to continue to oppose Cuba’s reintegration into the organization, an issue that it brought up once again at the most recent UN General Assembly.
A preeminent Rio Bloc, free of any US involvement, could come to further isolate the US from the region while confirming Brazil’s leadership position which long has been in the offing. The independent and laid back style of Brazil’s foreign policy making is warmly welcomed in the region as a friendlier and more respectful alternative to Washington’s traditional dictates, which in the past has treated Latin America with little respect. If Brazil can maintain its current rate of growth, neither the US nor the rest of the global community will be able to ignore its importance, especially as it comes to occupy a defining role in a region that is home to some of the largest deposits of oil, natural gas, lithium and scores of other commodities. Such importance may even be transformed into a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, a feat that Brasilia has long sought after and which would likely permanently alter the balance of power both regionally and globally.

Cash for Leaving Oil Underground?

The start of the International Year of Biodiversity has also brought to a head the three-year-long debate on Ecuador’s Yasuni ITT initiative. The initiative centres around the Yasuni national park, one of the most biodiverse regions on the planet. It is home to indigenous peoples who have so far been isolated from the outside world—and also to an estimated 800 million barrels of oil. Ecuador is proposing that it will refrain from extracting this oil if the international community pays for half the foregone economic benefits (about 350 million dollars a year). The advantages of the unprecedented initiative are obvious. For one, Ecuador will be able to avoid massive environmental damages and social tensions that have so far resulted from oil exploitation and the unequal distribution of its revenues. And for another, climate-unfriendly oil would remain underground and the forest and its rich biodiversity would be preserved, thereby avoiding about 410 million tons of CO2 emissions. The reasoning behind this idea is that saving the region from economic exploitation is also in the global interest and should correspondingly be compensated for by the international community.

So far Germany, Spain, Sweden, and Belgium have declared that they would be prepared to contribute about half of the stipulated amount. The negotiations on the payment conditions, however, proved to be difficult: disputes include the time frame and the application of the funds. At the beginning of the year President Rafael Correa lost his patience: “We will not submit. Let them know that this country is nobody’s colony. We won’t accept shameful conditions. Keep your money.” As a consequence, his chief negotiator, Foreign Minister Fander Falconi, resigned from office. Correa has now set a deadline for June 2010. If no deal is reached by then, the oil fields will be made available for drilling. Were this to happen, a significant opportunity for greater shared global responsibility and environmental justice would have been frittered away. (Christiane Roettger)

For more information on this topic see http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk… and http://www.energy-daily.com/reports/Natu…

An interview with Ivonne Yanez of Acción Ecológica, an Ecuadorian environmental organization and co-founder of the initiative, is available at http://www.democracynow.org/2009/12/11/e…

Yesterday, WHO reported that there has been no rise in infectious diseases one month on from the disaster, with the finding based on epidemiological surveillance carried out by 52 sites across the Caribbean island nation.

On top of the more than 50 WHO/Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) staff on the ground in Haiti, dozens more experts in fields ranging from disaster management to water and sanitation were deployed to the Caribbean nation. “Haiti’s entire health system, from its infrastructure to the very staff and system that operated it, has been deeply affected by the earthquake,” WHO said in its latest update.

Over 200 Haitian medical staff died when the health ministry building collapsed, while many doctors and nurses were also killed or injured.

In total, the  January 12, 2010 quake claimed more than 200,000 lives, leaving over 300,000 others injured and 1 million Haitians homeless.

Henriette Chamouillet, WHO’s Representative in Haiti, paid tribute to the hundreds of Cuban health professionals in the country at the time of the tremors, with some 1,300 additional doctors and other staff being dispatched after the quake.

“They are absolutely important for the country,” she stressed at a press conference today in Geneva.

Dr. Chamouillet said that Cuba has long been training roughly 80 Haitian doctors per year, most of whom return to their home country following their schooling.

For its part, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reported today that the humanitarian situation in Haiti is on the upswing, with the port, airport and other essential infrastructure gradually coming back online.

The Office warned, however, that shelter and sanitation needs, as well as rubble removal, are among those that remain unmet.

Tomorrow afternoon, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will be launching a revised flash appeal for Haiti, along with his Special Envoy for Haiti, Bill Clinton, and Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs John Holmes.

Just three days after the quake, the UN called for $575 million, with a bulk of the funds intended to be directed to urgent needs, including food, water and shelter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—————

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

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

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

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

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

–
Lavinia Warnars,
Researcher for the Yasuní-ITT Initiative

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

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

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

= = = =

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

= = = =

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

= = = =

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mexico:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Venezuela:

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

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

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

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

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

A Nation in Free Fall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looking East, Not North

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

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

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

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

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

—————–

Oh Imports, Where Art Thou?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Until next time,
Chris

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

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

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

—————————-

Our reaction to the above goes in two directions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

———

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

—————-

Brazil Hopes Shell-Cosan Can Boost Ethanol Exports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STEADY SUPPLIES, TARIFFS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The EU refuses to see the multi headed Hydra it has become and expects President Obama to play along. Reality calls – EU please get serious at becoming some sort of one headed entity! The US President is a busy man now with all that US Jazz.

It slowly starts sinking in – we said it a long time ago!

Battling the ‘Multilateral Zombie’ – EU climate strategy after Copenhagen.
LEIGH PHILLIPS

February 3, 2010, http://euobserver.com/9/29354/?rk=1,
 http://old.norden.org/analysnorden/defau…

EUOBSERVER / ANALYSIS – “The EU’s post-Copenhagen strategy should be
just to have a strategy, any strategy,” quips one Brussels think-tank
wag during an interview.

The rough hip-check Europe received in the Danish capital in December,
sidelining the bloc during the eleventh-hour huddle between major
powers that produced the Copenhagen Accord, has produced a wave of
despondency and cynicism amongst Brussels politicians, green
lobbyists, and analysts – and carbon traders across the continent to
boot. They’re all having a crack at how poorly the EU played its hand
during climate negotiations.

For the last three years, if it hasn’t been the institutional reform
of the Lisbon Treaty, it’s been the bloc’s obsession with climate
change that has dominated the EU agenda. Even if the EU is well off
the at least 40 percent cut in emissions that science demands if we
are to avoid catastrophic climate change, it remains the case that as
a result of its 2008 climate and energy package, Europe remains the
most advanced rich-country power on the planet in terms of its binding
CO2 reduction commitment.

With its climate boy-scout badge afixed to its sleeve, Brussels headed
off to Camp Copenhagen expecting at least to see its self-proclaimed
leadership reflected in winning something along the lines of a broad
commitment from other powers to at least a 20-percent cut in carbon
emissions below 1990 levels by 2020.

But in the end, the EU ended up the goody-two-shoes pupil who’s top of
the class, but yet, when he invites all the other kids over for a
party, glumly watches as they end up playing among each other instead
of with him. It was the US, China, India, Brazil and South Africa that
cobbled together the last-minute three-page-long Copenhagen Accord
without the EU even in the room, while most of the developing world
complained throughout the two weeks that Brussels was at best just a
cat’s paw for Washington.

Denmark’s Connie Hedegaard, now incoming EU
climate commissioner, was repeatedly attacked for favouring rich
countries over the developing world.

“It was the strangest conference I have been at in my life, from all
points of view,” Mr Barroso told a pow-wow of the leading European
think-tanks in early January.

Typical of the initial EU reaction were comments from Swedish
environment minister Andres Carlgren, who, when meeting in Brussels in
late December with his EU counterparts to debrief after the UN summit
and begin the discussion of what to do next, slammed the result as a
“disaster.”

“It was a really great failure and we have to learn from that,” he
said at the time. { but the gentleman forgot to say whose failure it was!}

Glass half full!

However, after the holidays, a clutch of pollyanna-ish EU officials
have since fervently urged everyone to consider the Accord’s silver
lining. Both President Barroso and the bloc’s chief climate
negotiator, Artur Runge-Metzger, in various venues have emphasised
that many of the things the EU had been pushing for were contained in
the final result – developed countries agreed for the first time a
concrete sum for climate finance, a target maximum average global
temperature increase of two degrees was embraced and a review,
allowing for a ratcheting up of targets if necessary, is foreseen for
2015.

Ms Hedegaard during the parliamentary hearing to confirm her
appointment as commissioner gave a robust defence of the document.

“I would very much have liked to have seen more progress in
Copenhagen, but finance was delivered; all the emerging developing
nations have accepted co-responsibility [for reducing emissions] and
Brazil, South Africa, China, India and the US, all of whom were not
part of the Kyoto Protocol, have now set targets for domestic action,”
she told MEPs mid-January.

But even as the EU begins to view the Copenhagen glass as half full,
elsewhere, support for the document is beginning to unravel.

Last week, realising that only around 20 countries had listed their
emissions reductions commitments in a schedule attached to the Accord,
UN climate chief Yvo de Boer quietly abandoned the 31 January deadline
for states to have done so.

At the same time, EU member states that have never been comfortable
with the bloc’s climate ambitions have used the opportunity to delay
or block European plans to boost its CO2 emissions reduction
commitment from 20 percent on 1990 levels to 30 percent. On 18
January, environment ministers met in Seville, to assess, for the
second time, the reasons for the failure in the Danish capital. UK,
France, Germany, Belgium and Spain continued to push for the increased
pledge, while Italy and Poland said now was not the time given the
poverty of ambition by other states at Copenhagen.

As of this week, the consensus in the bloc is to maintain its target
of 20 percent and conditional offer of 30 percent if other powers make
comparable efforts – in other words exactly the same position the EU
has held for the last year, although Ms Hedegaard has publicly said
she hopes to see a move to 30 percent “by Mexico,” meaning the next UN
climate summit in the Central American nation at the end of 2010.

At the same time, the commission itself is in the ‘twenty-percenter’
camp, pushing this position in Copenhagen, “afraid to be naked” with
nothing left to put on the table in the game of climate strip poker.
Moreover, crucially, the executive’s goal of a transatlantic emissions
trading system is unworkable with cuts pledges that are wildly
divergent and without legally binding commitments from Washington.

The US is looking to a 17 percent emissions reduction on 2005 levels,
which works out to be just three percent when using the same 1990
baseline year as the EU. Watch for the US, if legislation gets
through, at some point to somehow nudge up its cut to 20 percent and
the EU to stick to the same figure, dressed up in language about how
the two targets are now comparable, with a fudge over the differing
baseline years.

Support unravelling:

Separately, four of the five architects of the Accord, Brazil, South
Africa, India and China, have themselves gone lukewarm on the project,
smarting from accusations from much of the rest of the developing
world that these four richest of the poor countries had broken ranks
after a year of unprecedented global south unity.

Last weekend, meeting in New Delhi, the four so-called Basic countries
described the accord as merely a “political understanding” without any
legal basis and that action should instead proceed on the basis of the
two documents to come out of the official UN process – one outlining
the second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol and the other
dealing with climate actions by the US and emerging economies.

Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh said: “We support the
Copenhagen Accord. But all of us were unanimously of the view that its
value lies not as a standalone document but as an input into the
two-track negotiation process under the UNFCCC.”

“The two-track negotiating process …is the only legitimate process
to reach a legally binding treaty in Mexico,” he added.

Meanwhile, the cornerstone of the Accord, an understanding that
however limited America’s commitment, Washington would at least be
able to deliver on this promise.

But with the surprise election to the US Senate of Massachusetts
Republican Scott Brown on an anti-climate-bill ticket, killing the
Democrat’s filibuster-proof majority, the country’s climate
legislation is threatened. A defeated or heavily watered down bill
only engenders further reservations in the minds of Chinese, Indian
and even European leadership about promising tough reduction targets.

For all the public talk of Latin American, Chinese and African climate
“villains” blocking the process in Copenhagen, privately, there is
frustration with Washington as well. A senior EU policy official
speaking to EUobserver described President Obama’s position as the
same as that of George Bush. “We are willing but only if others move,”
the official said, attributing the position to both the current and
former US leaders.

One EU climate voice {?}

A popular post-Copenhagen analysis from the Brookings Institute, the
centrist US think-tank, that has made the rounds of officialdom and
NGO-land warns of a slow-motion failure scenario similar to the Doha
round of WTO talks, a process it describes as a “multilateral zombie”
in which climate negotiations “stagger on piteously, never making much
progress while never quite dying either.”

Nevertheless, despite the dark days and the cynicism of some
onlookers, we can already begin to sense the outlines of a European
strategy.

EU Council President Herman Van Rompuy has already said he hopes to
see a common climate strategy emerge from an 11 February extraordinary
EU summit originally scheduled to deal with the economy. Angela
Merkel, as well, has upgraded a climate meeting in Bonn in June from
expert to ministerial level and the European Commission is preparing a
series of proposals that it is to put to the member states.

One of the main lessons the European Commission has drawn from the
Copenhagen failure is that European representation in climate change
talks needs to be streamlined in order to project its position more
effectively, even if the commission is not awarded the task of
negotiating on behalf of the bloc, as it does in trade talks,

“We are fragmented from a negotiating point of view,” President
Barroso said in his first public appearance of the year. “In trade
matters, this is different. The European Commission is the voice.”

Ms Hedegaard is of the same mind. In her parliamentary hearing, her
top message concerned European disunity: “In the last hours, China,
India, Russia, Japan each spoke with one voice, while Europe spoke
with many different voices.”

“A lot of Europeans in the room is not a problem, but there is only an
advantage if we sing from same hymn sheet. We need to think about this
and reflect on this very seriously, or we will lose our leadership
role in the world,” she told MEPs.

In a similar vein, the commission president has also suggested that
the new EU External Action Service – the bloc’s diplomatic corps born
of the Lisbon Treaty – be given more leeway to engage in climate
bargaining.

Until now, this sort of bilateral pressure has been left up to the
member states, with Paris tasked with winning over Francophone Africa,
London with arm-twisting the Commonwealth and Berlin given the job of
seducing Pacific islands.

Before last autumn’s federal election in Germany,
then-foreign-minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier was meeting regularly
with the Association of Small Island States and 20 Aosis ministers
visited the country last year specifically to discuss climate issues,
while Ethiopia’s surprise intervention at Copenhagen proposing a deal
that mirrored almost word for word a European Commission proposal from
September came as the result of UK and French behind-the-scenes
intercession.

While this sort of member-state activity is likely to continue, the
Lisbon Treaty has given the commission a powerful new diplomatic
weapon it intends to use to the fullest.

Sidelining the UN:

Related to this, the major task will be to break the remarkable unity
shown by developing nations. The UNFCCC’s principle dating back to
Kyoto of “common but differentiated responsibility,” is understood by
developing nations to mean that those countries that caused the
problem should pay for solving it and make binding commitments to CO2
reductions.

The third world has said that it would be happy to develop along a
low-carbon path itself, but that the rich north will have to pay for
this and that their emissions cuts should in any case be voluntary.
The World Bank, unhelpfully, has estimated the cost of all this to be
$400 billion a year. Meanwhile, wealthy nations, would rather that the
developing world, but specifically China and to a lesser extent India,
agree to binding, verifiable CO2 cuts without the price tag.

The key advantage of the Copenhagen Accord for rich countries is that
it “weakens or even does away with the principle of common but
differentiated responsibilities,” as the South Centre, a Geneva-based
think-tank close to developing world governments, warns – another
reason why the Basic countries, upon reflection, have taken a distance
from the deal.

In many ways, Copenhagen was a victory for the developing world, in
that it managed to hold off against pressure to junk the Kyoto
Protocol and in the end ensured that the Copenhagen Accord was only
“noted” by the UN plenary instead of endorsed, making it a document
floating in a legal limbo.

For this reason, the US has called for a junking of the UN process,
hoping that it can win other countries to its perspective via more
manageable arenas such as the G20 or the Major Emitters Forum, where
there are far fewer than the UN’s 192 nations to deal with and the
‘awkward squad’ of left-wing Latin American nations and the G77 group
of nations are absent. Both Jonathan Pershing, America’s chief
negotiator, and US climate envoy Todd Stern have said the UN should be
sidelined.

EU leaders however “are less neurotic about the UN than the Americans
are,” in the words of the Centre for European Policy Studies’ climate
specialist, Christian Egenhofer.

At the same time that President Barroso admitted to pulling his hair
out at the UN process, he also said there is no other option. “We need
to have a more efficient and results-oriented process in the future
…With unanimity, it is easier for one country to block – it’s the
basic logic of the system,” he said in early January, adding however:
“It’s very easy to criticise the UN …but the UN is what the members
make out of it.”

Although some Spanish presidency officials at one point said that
climate negotiations should pass through the G20 instead, everyone
else, from Mr Runge-Metzger to Ms Hedegaard believe this cannot be
done. “Some ask: ‘Shouldn’t we give up on the UN process?’ I say:
‘No.’ We would waste too much work,” she told the European Parliament.

Instead, according to Mr Runge-Metzger: “The next step for the EU is
to get the accord translated into the UN process,” to try to lock in
agreement in other fora and then feed this into the main UN
negotiations. The key is to appear to be endorsing the UN process
while still pushing for other fora to do the heavy lifting.

One arena in particular that climate watchers should keep an eye on is
the UN High-Level Panel on Climate Change and Development, announced
by Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon last September and to be launched
early this year. Made up of a handful of current heads of government,
along with experts, senior government officials and community leaders,
the panel will be a much more manageable entity, but will also have
the imprimatur of the UN.

Border tariff:

Meanwhile, EU officials are briefing heavily against the awkward
squad, attempting to paint them as obstructionist and
unrepresentative. Reporters are reminded of G77-chair Sudan’s
authoritarian government, while Ethiopia, which has authoritarian rule
but is on side, is never criticized. With Yemen, the birthplace of the
infamous underpants bomber, holding the 2010 presidency of the group,
this will be an even easier public relations hatchet job.

But it was not just a handful of countries, but the entire Africa
Group of Nations that forced a suspension of proceedings when they
twice walked out of the UN complaining of rich country shenanigans.
Latin America and the loudmouthed-or-eloquent (depending on who you
asked) Oxford-educated G77 negotiator Lumumba di-Aping, famous for his
line that an offer of $10 billion in climate finance “is not enough to
buy us coffins,” were only the most vocal of a host of frustrated
countries.

At the same time, even ardent developing world advocates privately
express their discomfort at the wealthy elites of China and India
using the poor of their own countries to advance an agenda of growth
that primarily benefits them. And it is true that the developing world
is not all of one mind. Tuvalu is bitterly opposed to the Copenhagen
Accord while the Maldives embraces it as the best it can get while the
tides are rapidly rising.

Elsewhere, the EU is also almost certain to take a fresh look at
slapping carbon tariffs on goods entering the bloc. There is no way
industry would allow a move to a 30 percent emissions reduction pledge
without such protection. “I will fight for a carbon tax levied on EU
borders,” French President Nicolas Sarkozy said earlier this month.

It’s always easy to dismiss such ambition when expressed by a man
known for his crafting of public policy by press conference, and EU
commissioner-designate for trade, Karel de Gucht has ruled a carbon
border tariff out, saying: “it will …lead to an escalating trade war
on a global level.”

But this is what a trade commissioner has to say. Many analysts
believe that a carbon tariff is inevitable and even WTO-compatible if
multilaterally agreed. The US climate bill already includes a carbon
tariff provision and, crucially, this is the stick that could be used
to force China, India and other nations to submit to its preferred
climate regime of binding reduction commitments for emerging
economies.

The EU is still essential here. Washington could not move ahead with a
tariff without Brussels on board.

It should also be remembered that many other major powers were
sidelined at Copenhagen. Japan and Russia were also absent from
Copenhagen’s endgame. In many ways, the EU’s limited influence has
been largely a product of its own climate success. Although Europe is
the world’s third largest emitter, this will likely change in the near
future. Ironically, if the continent isn’t going to be as much of a
problem in absolute (as opposed to per capita) terms as China or India
by 2030, it doesn’t have much of a bargaining chip. Washington was
always going to be far more interested in Beijing.

Copenhagen was very much the US and China show, but it won’t always be.

——–

This feature was originially written for the Nordic Council’s Analys
Norden website.

{ We wonder at the last sentence of the article because we think that unless the EU does in fact unite under  one leadership it will not amount to much when the US continues to deal with the BASICs – I mean the countries that are form the basic future. The EU should aim at becoming the G3 to be added to China and the US in future global negotiations that will include also the IBSA and one or two more states. See please next article.}

——————————————————————————-

US blames Lisbon Treaty for EU summit fiasco. Mr Obama – the Madrid summit decision is being seen as a diplomatic snub to Spain.
by ANDREW RETTMAN from Brussels.

February 3, 2010, http://euobserver.com/9/29398/?rk=1
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS  writes -  The US State Department has said that President Barack Obama’s decision not to come to an EU summit in Madrid in May is partly due to confusion arising from the Lisbon Treaty.

State department spokesman Philip J. Crowley told press in Washington on Tuesday (2 February) that the treaty has made it unclear who the US leader should meet and when. { that sounds very clear to me.}

“Up until recently, they [summits] would occur on six-month intervals,
as I recall, with one meeting in Europe and one meeting here. And that
was part of – the foundation of that was the rotating presidency
within the EU. Now you have a new structure regarding not only the
rotating EU presidency, you’ve got an EU Council president, you’ve got
a European Commission president,” he said.

“We are working through this just as Europeans themselves are working
through this: When you have a future EU-US summit meeting, who will
host it and where will it be held?” he added. “All of this is kind of
being reassessed in light of architectural changes in Europe.”

The Lisbon Treaty came into force on 1 December, 2009. It created the post
of a new EU Council president and EU foreign relations chief in order
to give the union a stronger voice abroad.

It kept the institution of the six-month rotating EU presidency as
well, with the member state holding the chairmanship to do the bulk of
behind-the-scenes policy work in Brussels.

The Spanish EU presidency is being closely watched to see how the EU
manages the transition to the new power structure. The EU Council
president has so far taken charge of summits in the EU capital. But
Madrid was to share the limelight with a few top-level events at home.

The state department’s Mr Crowley said the US and Spain have been in
touch “directly” to discuss Mr Obama’s decision after Madrid learned
about it through the media on Monday.

“Obviously, there’s been some disappointment expressed by the
government of Spain, and we understand that and we’ll be working with
them on that,” he said.

Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero and Mr Obama are both
expected to attend the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington on
Thursday. But no bilateral meeting has been announced so far.

The informal event sees some 3,500 celebrities, businessmen,
politicians and religious leaders get together in the US capital each
year. It is organised by the Fellowship Foundation, a Christian
fundamentalist pressure group.

Mr Zapatero, a centre-left secularist, has taken flak for his trip in
Spanish media, with the El Pais daily calling his decision to attend
the prayer event “shocking.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On November 1, 2005, SIXTY YEARS SINCE THE END OF WORLD WAR II, THE LIBERATION OF THE AUSCHWITZ EXTERMINATION CAMP BY THE SOVIET ARMY, AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE UN, finally, the UN that in major part came about because of the fact that the world realized that walking in the ashes caused by anti-Semitism and other isms, is not the will of the human race; the UN was created to learn from that experience – but did it? It took 60 years, the creation of the State of Israel, the travails of Zionism is Racism abomination, and one strong Ambassador of humanity to the organization – US Professor/ Senator/Ambassador Moynihan, to start to beat the anti-Semitic UN steel into compliance.

—————

UN Designates International Holocaust day
November 1, 2005, release:

The UN General Assembly has decided by acclaim to designate January 27 as international Holocaust Day.

This is the first time ever that a resolution introduced by Israel has been adopted by the UN General Assembly. Some not inconsiderable distance has been traveled from the infamous “Zionism is Racism” resolution to this resolution. At least, the world can be united in condemning genocide, even if “Zionists” propose the initiative. The vision of Austria and Germany co-sponsoring and approving of such a resolution is certainly heartening to the surviving victims of Nazi persecution, to the Jews, gypsies and others whose families died in the Holocaust and to the state of Israel.

Unfortunately, it is not at all certain how some countries will mark this day. Some of the rhetoric of the UN discussion is ominous: Several Muslim and Arab governments expressed “reservations.” Some countries believe that the Holocaust, in which a state turned against noncombatant civilians, was the same as bombing the cities of enemy countries at war. In many of the countries that approved of this resolution and even among those whose representatives spoke kind words about humanitarianism, Mein Kampf and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are best sellers. Some of those countries have been accessories after the fact to genocide, or committed it themselves. In those countries, every day is Holocaust day. From the remarks of the Ukrainian representative, you would not know that the Jews of the Ukraine were rounded up by Ukrainian SS, or that the gas chambers at Auschwitz were run by a Ukrainian nicknamed “Ivan the terrible.”

What public activities will mark Holocaust day in Iran, where President Ahmedinejad has called for a world without Zionism and America? In Syria, a book about the Blood Libel (the accusation that Jews kill Christian children in order to use their blood for baking Matzot) was written by the former minister of Defense. Syria also made notable contributions to the history of racial persecution in its treatment of the Kurds. Will Syria mark this day in sympathy with the victims, or will they celebrate it by showing, perhaps, a screening of Lenni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will? Will this day become an occasion for so-called “anti-Zionists” to trot out Holocaust denial and accusations that Israel is committing a Holocaust against the Palestinians, or that the Zionists collaborated with the Nazis?

Will the world again stand aside at the next genocide, as it did in Rwanda, and as it did for a very long time in Darfur, and as it continues to do in Tibet? In the discussion, each state was quick to accuse others of genocide, but unwilling to accept responsibility for crimes of their own states and governments. The Venezuelans spoke about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Chinese alluded to Japanese crimes. The Ukrainians alluded to Soviet crimes. The discussion would have more meaning if the Americans had spoken about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Chinese had spoken about their activities in Tibet, the Japanese had spoken the rape of Mongolia and the Turks had spoken of the Armenian genocide.

The implementation of the resolution will be of more consequence than the paper or the words themselves,  and the reality of the actions of states will be more important than either.

The proliferation of vile Web sites and articles about the “Holocaust Myth,” claiming the Holocaust never happened and is yet another Jewish plot, points up the urgent need for this day of remembrance.

Alert readers of what was said that say will note some bitter ironies in the remarks of representatives of some states, whose people and governments were active collaborators or passive accessories in the crime of the Holocaust.

The date – January 27 – was picked as that was the date the Auschwitz-Birkenau extermination machine was closed by the Soviet army. http://www.zionism-israel.com/news/holocaust_day.htm

The first commemoration was held at the UN in 2006 and this year we have thus the fifth such event – or actually a series of events, that traditionally start on the Saturday before the actual date with a ceremony at the Park East Synagogue located on Manhattan’s East Side – Midtown.

The list of this year’s events at the UN, as provided to parties outside the UN – and published on our website is:
 http://www.sustainabilitank.info/2010/01…

But besides the UN itself, the fact that the UN has thrown the light upon the Holocaust atrocities, and the world’s need to remember these atrocities by having an International day of Remembrance, it is now that even in unexpected places in the civilized world, we find events being organized for the purpose of remembering and of learning from that experience. We thought thus to mention here one such event in a place we hardly expected to find it – the main Carnival city of the North-East of Brazil – Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil.
 http://www.sustainabilitank.info/2010/01…

We will be reporting on this year’s week-long series in several postings that will involve also other related events – for now we will put up the clear Jewish angle to the comemoration – as it reflected in the Park East Sybagogue events and in the political official presentation at the UN main event of January 27, 2010

REMARKS AT PARK EAST SYNAGOGUE IN MEMORY OF THE VICTIMS OF THE HOLOCAUST

by H.E. Srgjan Kerim President of the 62nd session of the United Nations General Assembly.

Park East Synagogue
New York, 26 January 2008

Rabbi Schneier,
Excellencies,
Members of Park East Synagogue,
Dear Friends,

I am very grateful to Rabbi Schneier for inviting me to the Park East
Synagogue – a historic architectural treasure in the heart of
Manhattan.

I am sure that you are all very proud of Rabbi Schneier for his
commitment and spiritual leadership that has brought this synagogue
international recognition.

It was only five years ago that I had my first opportunity to attend
and participate in a Jewish ceremony, here at the Park East Synagogue.
The experience inspired me to write a poem entitled ‘Temple’. I would
like to share a short extract with you today. I hope you will
appreciate it;

Nowhere in the world is it possible
To find such a grandiose temple
That would keep for ages
The layers of human sin
And all our shame.

I’ve always believed
There’s nothing greater in a temple
Than the final sounds melting
In the concluding Amin
Until I heard the word
Of a great friend of mine
Who walked in the steps of Moses
And is called a Rabbin.

Park East Beit Knesset,

I wish there would not have been such an occasion for me to address
you today. However, as we all know the Holocaust happened. It is
definitely one of the darkest pages in the history of mankind.

Unfortunately, we are still facing some lonely, desperate attempts to
blur the horrifying dimensions of the Holocaust.

We gather here today to remember and pay homage to those who lost
their lives in the Holocaust; the atrocities that they were subjected
to can never be forgotten.
The perpetrators of the Holocaust fed man’s ego with delusions of
supremacy and tried to erase the bonds that all human beings share.

The liberation of the Nazi concentration camps over 60 years ago
revealed one of the most evil crimes against humanity. The
consequences still reverberate in the present.

Elie Wiesel – Nobel Laureate, a Holocaust survivor and champion of
moral responsibility – has best put this into perspective:

“Let us remember, let us remember the heroes of Warsaw, the martyrs of
Treblinka, the children of Auschwitz. They fought alone, they suffered
alone, they lived alone, but they did not die alone, for something in
all of us died with them.”

We must also remember to pay tribute to those who survived and bravely
carried on with their lives – and in doing so inspired others. I would
like to salute the strength and perseverance of all Holocaust
survivors and their families.

I know that some of you are with us today.

Not only have you survived, but you have rebuilt communities all over
the world, become stronger, and enabled future generations to thrive.
You just have to look around at all the people gathered here today to
recognize this fact.

The recognition of this day of Holocaust remembrance by the
international community heralded a change of tide at the United
Nations; and, a step forward in the collective memory and conscience
of our world.

Dear Friends,
Remembrance of the Holocaust is more than the recognition of a tragic
past – or the darker side of human nature.

Remembering is an ethical act; it has ethical value in itself.

Remembrance is also a means through which we can understand ourselves:
an engine for change that should enable us to create and sustain a
better, more just future.

I am reminded of my father and his family. During the Second World War
he bravely helped to save and protect the family of Isac Sion – his
school friend – amidst the terror of occupation.

At the age of twenty my father and Isac subsequently joined the
National Liberation Movement of Macedonia to fight for freedom,
against the Nazi dictatorship, alongside the Allies.

Isac Sion subsequently went on to become Vice-governor of the Central
Bank of the Former Yugoslavia and following this was appointed as
Yugoslavia’s trade representative to the United Kingdom.

My father and many others like him served the Jewish people in their
hour of need. Their actions epitomize the practical meaning of
something profound that the famous Irish politician and philosopher
Edmund Burke once said, and I quote;

“All that is needed for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

When I had my first opportunity, in some small way, to redress the
atrocities committed during the Holocaust – as foreign Minister of
Macedonia – in 2000, I appointed Elie Wiesel as our first Special
Envoy and Goodwill Ambassador. He then became the United Nations
Messenger of Peace for Human Rights and the Holocaust.

And, in honour of the Jewish community, my country will soon complete
the construction of a Holocaust Memorial Centre. This is a symbolic
gesture to bring back the memory of the victims from Treblinka to
Skopje.

Looking back at the turbulent history of the Balkan region there are
some bitter lessons that we must learn: war begins when the perception
of the pain of others ends. We can also turn this around to say that
when the perception of the pain of others begins there is no room for
war.

We must remember that every religion and culture must be tolerant of
the legitimate right for others to assert their difference in freedom.

Furthermore, intolerance of other religions or cultures is often a
sign of the degree of intolerance within a particular religion or
culture.

Dear Friends and members of Park East Beit Knesset,

The United Nations was founded on the ashes of the Holocaust, when the
world was in need of hope for a better future.
It was created to embody that hope as a promise to humanity. However,
most disturbingly, since the Holocaust there have been genocides and
serious crimes against humanity in Cambodia, Rwanda, and Yugoslavia.

That these atrocities occurred is not necessarily the failure of the
United Nations as an organization; but rather, represents the lack of
collective will of its Member States to take the decision to act or
intervene.

Even while we gather here, there are places – like Darfur – where
people suffer from the very crimes, which, time and time again, we
have vowed would never again happen.

For the dignity of all humanity, we must strengthen our ability – our
collective resolve – to prevent such atrocities, whenever and wherever
they might occur.

Indeed, terrorism, violence, rape, murder, poverty and discrimination
on the grounds of race or religion continue to be part of the everyday
lives of many people. This fact alone should jar us with indignation.

Despite the tragic failures of the international community to prevent
crimes against humanity since the founding of the United Nations,
there is hope – failure is not an option.

In 2005, the General Assembly passed a resolution that included the
‘Responsibility to Protect’. In doing so, all nations signaled their
commitment to take action – to hold themselves accountable – to
recognize that with sovereign rights come responsibilities to their
peoples.

In fact all of us here today can add our voice, with the United
Nations, to ensure that this new paradigm within international
relations comes to life.

Rabbi Schneier offers us an example of what we can do. He has been a
great advocate for human rights, and the promotion of religious and
ethnic tolerance. He has worked tirelessly to strengthen ties with
communities from different faiths and backgrounds through his good
works and publications.

In 2003 we jointly organized the first ever South East European
regional conference on ‘Dialogue among Civilizations’, at Lake Ohrid
in Macedonia.

In this spirit, and as we have just celebrated the life of the great
Martin Luther King Jr., I think it is fitting that I should recount
something he once said. It captures the same call to action that needs
to be instilled in the world today if we are to prevent a repeat of
the Holocaust;

“injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere….. Whatever
affects one directly, affects all directly.”

Dear Friends,

On the occasion of the International Day of Commemoration in memory of
the victims of the Holocaust, as well as of the 60th Anniversary of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, let us embrace our
diversity, and honor our interdependence, as the only path to peace
and justice.

Together, it is our common challenge to eliminate all distorted
notions that deepen barriers and widen divides: for they all originate
in the discriminatory practices of the mind.

We can achieve this by promoting intercultural dialogue and
cooperation for peace as a means to replace misunderstanding with
mutual respect and acceptance.

But we must also move from words to action, from principled intentions
to deeds that promote human security, human rights, the responsibility
to protect and sustainable development. For herein lies the hope of a
new culture of international relations with the United Nations as its
centerpiece.

Members of Park East Beit Knesset,
And, all those gathered here today,

Let me wish all of you and the wider community peace, health and prosperity.

Let all our thoughts honour the victims of the Holocaust, and let us
spare no effort to ensure that we never again witness such evil. We
may not be able to change the past, but we must have the courage and
vision to change the future.

In order to do so, it is not enough to reiterate solemn gestures; we
must do everything possible to transform our attitudes to have full
regard for the dignity of all individuals, communities and nations.

Thank you. Shalom.

————–

But that was the last President of the UN General Assembly to be welcome

to speak before a Jewish Audience – in those 5 years. Before him were: Mr. Jan Eliasson of Sweden #60,

and Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa of  Bahrain #61.

Now it is UNGA’s 64th session: On 10 June 2009, Ali Abdussalam Treki

of Libya was elected by acclamation at a plenary meeting of the

192-member body of the United Nations General Assembly.

Treki assumed office as president of the 64th session on 15 September 2009,
succeeding General Assembly president, Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann of
Nicaragua who was 63rd President of the UNGA. Both these gentlemen
have made anti-Israeli statements and were also mentioned in this
context as plain anti-Semites, thus making it impossible to listen to
their linguistic expressions when it comes to the commemoration of the
liberation of Auschwitz. Thus, these last two years, the presentations
at the UN, it was Vice Presidents of the UNGA that spoke in their
place, and the UN General Assembly as such was not represented at the
Saturday pre-commemoration service at the Park East Synagogue.

But in 2009, The Park East Congregation had the honor to host the UN
Secretary General.

—————-
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon
24 January 2009

Remarks at Holocaust Remembrance Day Ceremony at the Park East Synagogue:

Thank you very much, Rabbi [Arthur] Schneier, for that kind introduction.

I especially appreciate you for calling me a mensch. With apologies to
those of you who do not speak Yiddish, I have to say: thank goodness
he didn’t call me meshugenah.

To all, I wish you Shabat Shalom.

Excellencies, distinguished Ambassadors to the United Nations,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Today we mark the International Day of Commemoration honoring victims
of the Holocaust. This is a most important and solemn occasion.

As you know, my friend, the late Tom Lantos, died shortly after last
year’s observance. Some of you may have met him when he came to this
Synagogue. He was dear to me, as he was to you. He made an
extraordinary journey from a Nazi labor camp to the halls of Congress.
He became a leading champion of truth and justice. Like those of you
who also lived through the Holocaust, he was never defeated by the
unspeakable horrors that he survived.

I can only imagine what he endured. Yet I, too, have witnessed man’s
inhumanity to man. I have seen it as Secretary-General, traveling in
places torn by war. And I saw it as a six-year old boy fleeing to the
mountains to escape fighting in my own country.

The UN helped South Korea to recover. Like Tom Lantos, like many of
you, I came to believe in the transformative power of the United
Nations.

Today, the UN is on the cusp of a great transition. Never have global
challenges been so large. Climate change, terrorism, the global
financial crisis – these troubles transcend borders. They affect all
countries, rich and poor. They will be overcome only when all
countries come together in response. That’s why we have a United
Nations.

Yes, the UN has its imperfections. It’s not perfect. Because of this,
from day one since I took office, I have pushed to change it. I have
insisted on a new culture of transparency and accountability. I have
worked to make the UN more efficient, effective, modern. In short, we
have tried to make it a better instrument to serve mankind.

We are here to mark the Holocaust. Like you, the United Nations is
determined to tell its timeless lessons.

Precisely two years ago, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution
condemning, without reservation, any denial of the Holocaust. I quote:
“Ignoring the historical fact of those terrible events increases the
risk they will be repeated.”

With you, I stand in saying: never again. Never. When I paid tribute
to Holocaust victims at Yad Vashem, I wrote in the book there, “Never
again. Never.”

Memory speaks. That is why it must be preserved and passed to future
generations.

Our Holocaust Outreach Program sponsors exhibits, workshops and panel
discussions. The aim: to confront deniers, or those who would minimize
the importance of the Holocaust.

When President Ahmadinejad of Iran declared that Israel should
“disappear,” or be “wiped off the map,” I strongly condemned his
remarks – twice.

We at the United Nations stand for human rights.

We stand for democracy and the rule of law. By working for economic
and social development, we build the foundations for peace.

We have a new instrument in our hands. It is called the Responsibility
to Protect – the idea that every nation has a legal obligation to
protect its people from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and
crimes against humanity. Where nations fall short, the international
community has the right to take collective action.

Yes, it is difficult in practice. But I assure you. This is a major
advance in safeguarding mankind from crimes against humanity.

My friends,

Today is not simply a time for remembering. The Holocaust has lessons
for us, here and now. Let us heed them.

My job can sometimes be terribly painful. I see unbelievable hardship,
the worst human suffering. You are familiar with the grim catalogue of
names and places: the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Darfur,
Somalia and, of course, the Middle East.

I am just back from the region. I went to push for a cease-fire. More,
I went in search of a lasting peace.

The recurring violence between Palestinians and Israelis is a mark of
collective political failure – by both sides and by the international
community.

I saw first-hand what most people saw on television. I met a child and
his parents in Sderot, southern Israel, traumatized by falling
rockets. Never for one moment have I forgotten that a million people
in southern Israel live in a daily state of terror and fear.

In Gaza, I saw the most appalling devastation. I saw the UN compound,
still burning.

I said to all I met, on both sides: This must stop.

I left the region more determined than ever to work toward a world
where two States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace and
security. War can never be an answer. We need to strengthen the forces
of peaceful coexistence and dialogue.

No one sees this more clearly than your own Rabbi Schneier. He has
devoted his life to overcoming hatred and intolerance.

You all know him as the founder and president of the Appeal for
Conscience Foundation. What you may not know, and what I am very
grateful to him for, is his pioneering work for the UN’s Alliance of
Civilizations.

He knows first-hand that no one man or nation has all the answers. He
knows the sacred value of tolerance. He has survived the greatest
trials that life can hurl at a man or a woman and emerged not only
with his humanity and spirit intact but stronger. He survived the
Holocaust. Like others among you, he never lost sight of man’s
essential humanity, our capacity for good, our inherent dignity.

So, let us be frank. We must recognize the limits of power and
goodwill. We here know that we can never entirely rid the world of its
tyrants and its intolerance. We cannot turn all extremists to the path
of reason and light. We can only stand against them and raise our
voices in the name of our common humanity.

Tom Lantos was fond of saying that even the littlest actions, the
smallest of our daily deeds, can do much to leave this earth better,
less evil, less selfish, less monstrous than we found it. And he
stressed that doing these things, even in a modest way, gives you the
energy to keep moving forward. On this day of days, that seems to me
to be good advice.

As we remember the victims of the Holocaust, let us reaffirm our faith
in the dignity of humankind and our extraordinary resilience – our
moral strength – even amid history’s darkest chapters.

Thank you very much.

—————–

On January 23, 2010, before a full house at Park East Synagogue, the
main speaker for Saturday Pre-Commemoration of the International
Holocaust Remembrance Day was  Ambassador Susan Rice of the USA, and
at the actual ceremony at the UN General Assembly Hall was German
Ambassador to the UN H.E. Peter Wittig.

The remarks were:
 http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statement…

 http://www.newyorkun.diplo.de/Vertretung…

At the Park East Service this year, a further Honored Guest was Rabbi Ricardo Di Segni, the Chief Rabbi of Rome, who has been visited at his Synagogue by the Pope, also as part of this year’s Holocaust Remembrance.

Also present were Ambassador Thomas Mayr-Harting of Austria, Ambassador Peter Wittig of Germany, Ambassador Gerard Araud of France, Ambassador Anastassis Mitsialis of Greece, Ambassador Marta Horvathne Fekzi of Hungary, H.E. Most Reverend Celestino Migliore the Permanent Representative of the Vatican, Ambassador Yukio Takasu of Japan, Ambassador Cesare Maria Ragaglini of Italy, Ambassador Mohamed Loulichki of Morocco, Ambassador Jim McLay of New Zealand, Ambassador Andrzey Towpik of Poland, Ambassador Juan Antonio Yanez-Barnuevo of Spain, Ambassador Rayko S. Raytchev of Bulgaria, Ambassador Kim Won-soo, from the UN Secretary General’s Office, and about further twenty top Diplomatic Representatives. But I must remark that from all the Islamic and African Countries only Morocco was present – and from the newly emerging States only Brazil and China were present.

The pre-State-of-the-Union Sunday on US TV called to President Obama to stop acting like a Prime Minister and start rather be Presidential.
We guess that this meant a call for him to find ways to achieve goals he set to himself by using the Presidential regulatory powers – given him by the Constitution and by US law. The TV pundits were saying that the President got involved in the minutiae and lost the larger scope – he got involved in the messy legislative sausage making. The last President to have done this was President Johnson when pushing through the Equal Rights Act. He succeeded by getting Republicans on board to replace the reluctant Democrats – and then acted it out as a President
- but Obama did not manage to get any Republicans to his side.

The Republicans have been obstructionist – but the figures show the
public still likes Obama as a leader and the real question the public
has is – “has he effected the way Washington Works”; Fareed Zakharia
asked at the beginning of the CNN/GPS program “WHAT SHOULD HE DO?”

As that was the week with Haiti on our mind – the first question was -
what should the US realistically do about Haiti? We know that after
the immediate crisis is gone – people will go home and what then?

Former Secretary of State Zbigniew Brzezinski said that Haiti is a
National Security Problem to the US and how does it compare to other
security problems? A failed State next door could even bring in
Al-Qaeda. We do not need grand-style visits by leaders – but we need a
Statement of Purpose. We need a US push at the UN to create an
international partnership of Haiti. WE NEED LATIN AMERICA AND CENTRAL AMERICA PARTICIPATION.

The participants reminded us of the history of colonialism and
imperialism and the troubled past US involvement in Haiti. They warned
of an International Trusteeship of the UN and pointed out that Haiti
has an important resource – human capital – that was not utilized. The
Haitians in the US demonstrated they are dynamic and creative – this
potential is terribly underutilized! Brzezinski called for a UN flag
so there is no perception of colonialism and said what we say all the
time – BRAZIL COULD BE INVOLVED.

The Dominican Republic, shares the same Island and is doing fine – how
is it that the two had such a different path? The answer may be in the
deforestation in Haiti that changed its agricultural base. For the
immediate reaction – just drop food from the air – do not worry about
the internal conflicts at this time of need – then start building on
existing institutions like the church and their own local honored
society – I took this as a nod to the Voodoo culture.

Brzezinski also pointed out that Haiti takes US attention away from
the Iraq and AfPak regions and we must focus there.

In Haiti we must create a Nation State – this is a Nation Building issue, but Haiti is not the Germany of 1945. A Marshall plan is a huge commitment and Dominique Strauss-Kahn of the IMF talks of reviving a viable economy "with people building and selling." He says the Haitians must be in the driver’s seat. Calls for US, French, Canadians involved. Edmond Mulet – the French Guatemalan in charge of the UN in Haiti, after the previous French speaking Tunisian leader died in the earthquake, was also brought to the program, but this segment seemed rather like a call back to the old ways of the UN and the US.
I missed there the Latin and Central American true angle, and the evolution of Brazilian leadership – the Brazilians having lost more people in Haiti then other foreigners except the American citizens of Haitian origin. The US was also mentioned in regard to the TPS status that will be allowed for those in the US illegally now – so they surface for an 18 months legal status that allows the closing of the borders for next push by Haitians.

Edwidge Danticat, a successful Haitian-American writer from Miami, was brought to the Program – this as evidence of Haitian success when free to compete and unleash their talents, though fully aware of their close family having undergone oppression back home and here in the US. she Spoke of family loss in Haiti.

Peggy Noonan, with the Haiti topic out of the way, turned to the
President’s loss – just in one year – of the backing of the
Independent voters. She thinks – you must hold the center if you want
to prosper as a President. Even the Conservatives in Red States
(Republican State) are not safe – it is an Independent Vote that wins!
getting something done is another level of government – from here back
to Johnson and the Civil Rights Vote experience. He had George Aiken
introduce the bill – we do not see his legislative genius in action.
Had Obama gone to John McCain for support the legislation would have
been much more acceptable. We lost the probability to get results
because of the squabbling in congress.

Walter Isaacson, the author of “The Wise Men: Six Friends and the
World They Made” – this how the Johnson world was made to work – said
that the Massachusetts election to US Senate, that lost the Ted
Kennedy seat to a Republican, might be not so much of a blow as a
Blessing in Disguise! Obama said his Presidency should be
transformational – we need this!

Obama was in a different direction from the people, Reagan was in the
same direction with the people – that is why he succeeded better.
You cannot transform the country on a pure position basis – continued
Isaacson. Republicans produced books against government – but Reagan
did not walk in by saying government was bad! His success required
moving to the middle. It seems that the Isaacson books should be made
required reading in this White House.

The point is that Obama should go to the Republicans and say – we need
a health care bill and I want you on board. The same with other
issues.

As we waited for a week before writing up what was said last Sunday -
that is before the actual State of the Union speech, it is only fair
to note that Friday,last night, and now today, the TV and papers are
full with the news from President Obama being part of the Republican
conclave that met to discuss the State of the Union – and there in the
lyon’s den – Obama defends the truth in the face of Republican and
Democratic distortions. This psychodrama may not have immediate
results – but somewhere it might find its way to the better part of
the milder Republicans so they could help free the President from the
worse Democrats – just like in Johnson’s days – ot is this just my own
imagination’s hope for results of attempts at a mutual consciousness
raising session?

Sam Tanenhaus, who wrote “The Death of Conservatism”; looks at Rush
Limbaugh as the example of the takeover of true conservatism by the
right fringe.

Looking at China – Fareed Zakharia picked up the fact that China
government, with its rule of only 20 films from the West that can be
shown to its people during one year – disallows Avatar in favor of a
Confucius movie. But Fareed reminds the Chinese of the Confucius
Golden Rule: “DON’T DO TO OTHERS WHAT YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE DONE TO
YOURSELF” – in his interpretation – don’t become insular because
others might do this to you also.

We say – if they do not really become part of a Climate Change agreement- what is there to hold the rest of the world back from changing WTO rules so there are carbon taxes at the border?

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

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2010

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

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

Addressing a joint press conference after a meeting of concerned BASIC ministers on Sunday, India’s environment minister Jairam Ramesh said: “We support the Copenhagen Accord. But all of us were unanimously of the view that its value lies not as a standalone document but as an input into the two- track negotiation process under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IDF Haiti Mission: After two weeks, Israel team winds down Haiti mission.

By Amos Harel, HAARETZ, January 26, 2010

The Israel Defense Forces team in Haiti is finishing up its mission and will return home on Thursday.

The decision was based on the recommendation of the Home Front Command, whose senior officers feel hey have fulfilled their role in helping the earthquake victims. In view of the large number of personnel and resources the command is deploying in Haiti and the U.S., it is believed the time has come to wrap up the mission.

Maj. Gen. Yair Golan, the head of the Home Front Command, returned to Israel last Friday after spending a few days with the Israelis in Haiti, commanded by Brig. Gen. (res.) Shalom Ben-Aryeh.

The command and the IDF Medical Corps are now preparing for the next stages of their mission: closing up shop and leaving behind a large part of the equipment brought there as a final goodwill gesture to the people of Haiti.

The winding up of the mission involves assisting the members of the team in returning to normal life back home after the complex experiences they they had, as well as drawing the necessary professional conclusions from the Haiti operation.

On the professional level, the IDF learned much about running a field hospital under such difficult conditions and operating rescue teams; and about dealing with a mass disaster that thankfully Israel has never experienced. The up close experience of dealing with an earthquake and its aftermath – a number of aftershocks occurred while the Israel mission was there – increased awareness of the enormous danger of such a natural event, but the upper echelons of the Home Front Command believe the situation in Israel is very different. While the earthquake in Haiti reached a magnitude of 7 on the Richter scale, it seems the incredible destruction resulted more from the poor-quality construction there. Two similar strength earthquakes in California in recent decades resulted in only a few dozen killed in each quake.

Members of the rescue team who toured the area were surprised to discover there are almost no buildings built with reinforced concrete in Haiti. “You wander through the ruins and see no iron bars. Everything is made out of simple concrete, which turns into a brittle material in an earthquake of this magnitude. Everything collapses,” said one member of the Israeli mission.

In Israel, by way of comparison, a far stricter building code was adopted in the mid-1970s, making buildings far less vulnerable to earthquakes.

The main conclusion of the Haiti mission from an Israeli perspective, said one senior officer, concerns the “awareness of the citizens and local authorities of the possibility of an earthquake. It is possible that more exercises are needed, but if you prepare properly for a missile attack on the home front, then you have 95% of the tools [needed] at your disposal for dealing with an earthquake,” said the officer.

An analysis of the decision making process on sending the team once again shows that time is the critical factor. Israel moved quickly, in terms of making its decision and making the necessary preparations.

This provided effective help at a very early stage. In the case of Haiti, the rescue operations among the ruins – even though they drew huge media coverage – were downplayed. “It is very exciting to pull out survivors, but it’s a drop in the bucket. We rescued or aided in the rescue of four people, while all the rescue teams from all the countries saved 132 people altogether. It seems almost 200,000 people died in the earthquake,” said the senior officer.

Israel’s main accomplishment was in the quick deployment of the field hospital in Haiti. “For five critical days, it was the best hospital in Port-au-Prince,” said the officer. “We provided timely medical care to about 1,000 people, we conducted 300 operations and delivered 16 babies. In the past few days the Americans arrived and then you can put things in proportion and become more modest in the face of their airlift and the scope of their aid. You need to understand that those who will continue to treat the main suffering there are the Americans,” he added.

For Israel, this is further proof of the importance of field hospitals; the IDF closed the last one five years ago and only reopened them as part of the lessons learned from the Second Lebanon War.

Next week the Home Front Command and the Medical Corps will hold a two-day seminar, with the help of psychologists, for those returning from Haiti to prepare them for returning to their routine.

The IDF has praised the cooperation with the Foreign Ministry and El Al during the mission to Haiti.

The good public relations is seen as being of only secondary importance: “Our people went to Haiti to save lives, to provide the best medical care they can and to represent Israel. That is the proper order of priorities. They did not think constantly about the blue and white flag flying overhead,” said the senior officer.

—————–
 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dersh…

Alan Dershowitz – Lawyer and author
Posted: January 24, 2010

As most objective observers throughout the world marvel at Israel’s efficiency and generosity in leading the medical aid efforts in Haiti, some bigots insist on using these efforts as an occasion to continue their attack on the Jewish state. Both the neo-Nazi hard right and the neo-Stalinist hard left cannot help but to demonize Israel, regardless of what Israel does.

The neo-Nazi website ReportersNotebook.com features a blog entitled “The Zionization of Disaster Relief.” It accuses Israel of “exploiting the suffering of poor, defenseless Haitians on behalf of Israeli Triumphalism.” It complains that Israel is rendering medical aid to Haiti only to deflect attention from its crimes against the Palestinians.

The hard left, even in Israel, complains that Israel should not be sending medical assistance to such a faraway place. Instead it should be sending it to nearby Gaza.

Even the New York Times, in an otherwise thoughtful analysis of the controversiality of the aid among some Israelis, failed to note the difference between Israel sending its limited resources to faraway Haiti and to nearby Gaza. Haiti is not at war with Israel. Haiti has not pledged itself to Israel’s destruction. Haiti has not fired 8,000 rockets at Israeli civilians. Gaza, on the other hand, has a popularly elected government that has done and continues to do all of the above. Moreover, there is no comparison between the tens of thousands of Haitians who have died from a natural disaster, and the people of Gaza who suffer far less from what is, essentially, a self-inflicted wound.

Nor do the perennial enemies of Israel emphasize the comparison between tiny and resource-poor Israel, on the one hand, and the enormous and resource-rich Arab and Muslim nations, on the other hand. While Israel digs deeply into its treasury and manpower to send medical assistance a quarter of the way around the world, Arab and Muslim nations are generally missing in action when it comes to relief efforts. This is true not only in Haiti, which is a Catholic nation, but it was equally true when tsunamis and other natural disasters have devastated Muslim nations.

For those who argue that Israel is sending this aid to Haiti for its own selfish reasons, there are two answers. First the realpolitik answer: All nations have interests; and all act, at least in part, out of self interest. When the United States government is asked by Americans to justify its multibillion dollar foreign aid grants, it generally responds by arguing that these grants are serving the interests of the United States. When it comes to Israel, however, a double standard is always applied. Israel must act only out of altruistic motives, while all other countries are entitled to leaven altruism with self interest. The second answer is that Israel is doing far more in Haiti than would be required to satisfy its self interests. It is sending more aid per capita than any country in the world. It is doing it with extraordinary efficiency and real impact. Isn’t it at least possible that the millennia-long Jewish tradition of tzadakah — that is, charity based on justice — is at least part of the explanation for Israel’s generosity?

The fact that so many Israelis are advocating medical and other assistance to Gaza certainly supports this latter theory. Has any other country in the history of the world ever provided medical and other assistance to a people with whom it is at war — to people who continue to support rocket attacks and other forms of terrorism against its own civilians? Again, a double standard. The reality is that Israel will be extremely generous to the people of Gaza if and when they stop supporting attacks on Israeli civilians, stop making martyrs of their suicide murderers, and stop encouraging their children to don suicide vests. Contrast Gaza with the West Bank, which today has an improving economy, better travel conditions and among the best health care available in any Arab or Muslim country in the area. The peace dividend the Palestinian people will reap from making peace with Israel is incalculable.

So continue to criticize Israel when it fails to live up to generally applicable international standards, but praise it when it exceeds those standards in rendering aid that has saved and will continue to save many lives. Israel will continue to send disaster relief regardless of how the world reacts to it because Israelis understand how it feels to be subject to disasters. But fairness requires that Israel not be condemned for its humanitarian efforts, and that its rendering of aid to Haiti not be used as yet another occasion for applying a double standard to its actions.

Exporting Misery to Haiti.
By James Ridgeway, Reader Supported News
Monday, 18 January 2010

“Le ou malere, tout bagay samble ou,” says one of the Creole proverbs that are a staple of Haitian popular culture. When you are poor, everything can be blamed on you. It’s a truth we can see played out in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake.

Exporting Misery to Haiti: How Rice, Pigs, and US Policy Undermined the Haitian Economy.

è ou malere, tout bagay samble ou, says one of the Creole proverbs that are a staple of Haitian popular culture. When you are poor, everything can be blamed on you. It’s a truth we can see played out in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake. While many Americans are reacting to the disaster with genuine compassion and generosity, there’s another kind of response afoot as well – one that extends well beyond the sickening remarks made by Pat Robertson or Rush Limbaugh.

Why can’t the Haitians ever seem to take care of themselves? ask the denizens of web chat rooms and radio call-in shows. The place was a mess before the earthquake, and nothing we do ever seems to help – so why bother? In more elevated circles, the comments are more subtle: “Development efforts have failed there, decade after decade,” noted a piece in Sunday’s Washington Post, “leaving Haitians with a dysfunctional government, a high crime rate and incomes averaging a dollar a day.” With rescue efforts still underway, it said, “policymakers in Washington and around the world are grappling with how a destitute, corrupt and now devastated country might be transformed into a self-sustaining nation.”

You’d never guess, from this discourse, how much US policy has actually undermined Haiti’s ability to be a “self-sustaining nation,” especially its ability to feed itself. America’s history of invasion, occupation, and intervention into Haiti’s political and economic life stretches back two centuries, with plenty of help from homegrown Haitian despots. But since the 1980s, in particular, the United States has helped turn a nation of low-tech subsistence farmers into a dumping ground for American agribusiness.

The most glaring example of this trend is rice, which was once a staple crop. Today, little rice is grown in Haiti; instead, the nation is a market for the subsidized rice crop grown in the United States. Human Rights lawyer Bill Quigley, now at the Center for Constitutional Rights, wrote about this trend in the spring of 2008, as food riots shook Haiti and other parts of the developing world:

In 1986, after the expulsion of Haitian dictator Jean Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) loaned Haiti $24.6 million in desperately needed funds (Baby Doc had raided the treasury on the way out). But, in order to get the IMF loan, Haiti was required to reduce tariff protections for their Haitian rice and other agricultural products and some industries to open up the country’s markets to competition from outside countries. The US has by far the largest voice in decisions of the IMF. “American rice invaded the country,” recalled Charles Suffrard, a leading rice grower in Haiti, in an interview with the Washington Post in 2000. By 1987 and 1988, there was so much rice coming into the country that many stopped working the land.

Quigley interviewed Father Gerard Jean-Juste, a Haitian priest and human rights advocate. “In the 1980s, imported rice poured into Haiti, below the cost of what our farmers could produce it,” Fr. Jean-Juste said. “Farmers lost their businesses. People from the countryside started losing their jobs and moving to the cities. After a few years of cheap imported rice, local production went way down.” By 2008, Haiti was the world’s third largest importer of US rice, receiving some 240,000 tons that year alone.

US rice growers are heavily subsidized by the government. Between 1995-2006 they received $11 billion. The American rice industry is also protected by tariffs – the same sorts of tariffs the IMF demanded Haiti remove. With the average family income standing at about $400 a year, most Haitians couldn’t afford to pay international prices for a product they once grew for themselves – so they had to have aid. The US sponsored the aid, but half the money didn’t go to buy the food; it went to US farmers, to processors and to shipping companies, because the food had to be transported in US ships. A good part of the so-called handout to Haiti actually went to US agribusiness, which needed markets for its overflowing bins of farm products.

Another infamous “aid” story involves the destruction of native pig farming in Haiti, following an outbreak of swine fever in the late 1970s. As described by Paul Farmer, the physician and anthropologist legendary for his work among Haiti’s poor, pigs were once a centerpiece of Haiti’s peasant economy, providing a reliable source of income and an insurance policy against hard times. The hardy Haitian creole pigs seemed to be remarkably resistant to swine fever. But American agriculture experts feared that Haiti’s pigs could spread the disease to the United States and destroy its massive hog business, and bankrolled a $23 million “extermination and restocking program.”

By 1984, all of Haiti’s 1.3 million pigs had been killed. USAID and the Organization of American States thereupon announced a plan to replace the Creole pigs with brand new Iowa pigs – provided that the peasants committed to building pigsties to US standards and demonstrate they had enough money to buy feed. Even the peasants who could afford these “free” pigs found that they couldn’t flourish under Haitian conditions. The fragile kochon blan (“foreign” or “white” pigs) frequently fell ill and had to go to the vet; they wouldn’t eat scraps and required expensive feed; and they had few litters. Soon, the project was abandoned – leaving Iowa hog farmers enriched, and hundreds of thousands of Haitian families without a key means of survival.

These changes in many ways served US economic interests in the Caribbean, which since the 1980s have been oriented towards knitting the area into a common free trade zone, first in the Caribbean Basin Initiative and then under the North American Free Trade Agreement. Forced out of small-scale farming by the elimination of two basic staples, Haitians moved to the cities, where they were available to work in sweatshops producing panties, bras, and dresses for such places as Sears, WalMart, and JC Penney. US aid programs have supported the effort to turn countries such as Haiti into low wage assembly platforms that supply a cheap, easily exploitable workforce for American and international business – and at the same time, relieve pressure on immigration by keeping the desperate Haitians working at home for what is barely a living wage.

After coming to Haiti en masse in the 1980s and 1990s, some of these companies moved on to even cheaper – and more “stable” – countries. Yet recent development initiatives, including the US’s HOPE II program to encourage duty-free trade with Haiti, continued to emphasize the low-wage, export-oriented garment industry over sustainable agriculture or other projects that would build Haiti’s self-reliance. At the same time, Western companies looked toward the prospect of an expanded tourist industry, owned by foreigners and once again exploiting cheap labor. The purported return of the luxury tourist hotels targeted such places as Jacmel, which now lie in ruins.

Even before the earthquake, these economic actions, driven by outside economic forces, offered little promise of restoring and reinvigorating indigenous farming, or providing any sort of real, homegrown economic base for Haiti. Such has been the nature of the US’s “help” to its impoverished Caribbean neighbor.

As the Haitians say, Bel dan pa di zanmi. A beautiful smile doesn’t mean he’s your friend.
————–
James Ridgeway, an investigative journalist, is senior Washington correspondent for Mother Jones. His books include “The Haiti Files,” an anthology of history, politics and culture.

Just back from a breakfast at Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, a New York firm active in Brazil for 30 years – Mergers & Acquisitions and Private Equity, Bankruptcy and Restructurings, Project Finance and Capital Markets – in short – the works.

The topic was – BRAZIL: ECONOMIC, INVESTMENT and POLITICAL OUTLOOK.

The Breakfast Seminar was organized by the Brazilian-American Chamber of Commerce, Inc. (BACC) - www.brazilcham.com, Chaired by Paulo Vieira da Cunha, Partner & Head of Research – Emerging Markets at Tandem Global Markets Fund, and Chairman, Banking and Capital Markets Committee, BACC.

His panel included Lisa Schineller, Director, Sovereign Ratings, Standard & Poor’s; Tony Volpon, Senior Economist, Nocura Securities International Inc.; Geoffrey Dennis, Managing Director and Global Emerging Markets Strategist Analyst, Citigroup (CIRA); Demian Reidel, Founding Member of QFR Capital Management, LP with previous important positions at Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, background in Petroleum and Nuclear strategy in Argentina and economics at Harvard, who replaced as speaker the Founder of QFR, Jose Luis Daza; and Chris Garman, Managing and Practice Head, Latin America, Eurasia Group.

As expected, there was lots of talk about macroeconomics, how Brazil moved in the last years to the point that assets exceed debt; how Brazil survived well this last World Crisis. The present low indebtedness with a combination of FDI and equity and great export markets stretching from Asia to the US and the EU. They have managed very well the newly found oil wealth and the hope is that they can continue to manage it well and not open the country up too much to the international oil companies.    A main key is not to start to increase, without solid plans, the expenditures so they get addicted to that oil money as it happened in Mexico. The presentations were informative and very calculated as expected. But I really did not come for this.

What brought me to this early morning event was the expectation that there will be a presentation of the Political Outlook, specially as Brazil will have Presidential Elections this year – and I had my fill in the last presentation – the one by Mr. Garman.

As I am keeping coming back to it on our website – Brazil is the only “BRICS” from Latin America, actually in this world the third BRIC in size – after China and India. Brazil may not be able to match their 1,3 billion population each, but it clearly has more Natural Resources then either of them, and being in the Western Hemisphere, it is the one and only BRIC that shares space with the US – albeit – at quite a distance – and that is an advantage. If you wish – you may see this as sort of an anti pod to the US – about equal in size and potential and tied – even though the US is slow to admit – in a future love-hate relationship that will be main factor of the development of both countries the moment the US has realized that its addiction to Afro-Asian oil has lead to its downfall. Past mischief North Americans have committed in Brazil is hopefully over, and solid and wise cooperation could be in the cards with the people in that room as potential movers of the economic links.

{Facts: On October 3, 2010, Brazilian citizens eligible to vote will choose the successor of current President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, of the Workers’ Party. If none of the candidates receives more than a half of the valid votes, a run-off will be held on October 31, 2010. According to the Constitution, the President is elected directly to a four-year term, with a limit of two terms. Lula is not eligible, since he was elected in 2002 and re-elected in 2006. This will mark the first time since 1989 that he will not run for President.

Lula is backing his Chief of Staff Dilma Rousseff of his Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT) – her main opponent is Sao Paulo State Governor Jose Serra, of the Partido da Social Democracia Brasileira (PSDB). Usually elections in Brazil are very lively and the event is third in importance to the Carnival and a good soccer game.}

Now to the Garman presentation: Actually for 15 years, even with changes in Government, Brazil showed an amazing continuity that led to the present growth.There is low inflation for the last 7 years and all of this came about with industrial policy and macroeconomics that made President Lula get approval ratings of 80%. Had he been able to run again the Brazilians would have gone for him, but in his absence, they still would like with an 80% majority to see his policies continued. Nevertheless, there is a problem with his choice for his replacement – it is not a strong choice – so there is not going to be a coronation but an election. This allows for the possibility that Brazilians might decide to take more risk then expected under Lula. This is more risk at fiscal policy. Thanks to the discovery of the pre-salt oil deposits there is more fiscal room and the Government driven policy of Petrobras might loosen up.  So – it is now clear that actually the elections do matter, and the contest has to be watched. The real question is – what do the voters want? Or let me put it differently, are they so bored with success that they want change?

Now I had my chance and ceased it without thinking twice. When the time for questions came, my question was right there. “Could foreign policy have an impact on the outcome of the elections in Brazil? With Brazil trying to get a seat at the UN Security Council and with its economic situation and growth having become a BRIC, would it not be the right thing for President Lula to suggest Brazil take a leadership position on the Haiti issue. Brazil is actually already involved with troops in Haiti – has even taken loses – why not claim the leadership position. There are many points of similarity in background, sugar cane etc.?”

Indeed, Mr. Garman picked up the challenge and said that this was a very good question and that by following such a path and showing to the voters that Brazil under his Administration has also had success in the international arena, this might help in the decision process towards the elections.

So, having written earlier that “Brazil could lead if asked” this turned now into “Brazil should ask to lead in order to do good not only to others but also to its own Administration.” Even economic analysts of Brazil can see that this makes sense.

Considering the large number of clicks on our postings about the Haiti catastrophe we decided to continue monitoring the situation from pure humanitarian angles – but true to our website we will look also at what the world must learn from its reaction to the goings-on in this stricken half of the Hispaniola Island and about the ways this reflects on the UN, the US, Brazil and the ALBA States. Will we realize that even without seeing any connection between this earthquake and climate change, though we did see connections between the Asian plates tectonic rim and the melting of the Antarctic ice cap, we do not see this here. But we see the denuding of the island from trees – this in order to have created the sugar cane and other plantations, as a clear contributing factor to global warming that caused the enhancement and increased frequency of the Hurricanes.

We know that the interest in our postings has to do also with our suggestion that Haiti is now the chance for Brazil to prove that they have arrived to the point that they should be considered as members of the small club of Nations that willl make a difference in the 21st century.

Brazil, that joined the powers that were on the winning side of WWII only close to the end, was nevertheless recognized by being posted as first speakers at the yearly UN General Assembly meeting. It was clear that the size of the country, and its tremendous potential, will bring it to the forefront of the new developing, post-war, world. OK – it took 60 years – but now they are there. Their history of colonizers in the Caribbeans is zero, but their background started with lots of similarities and to its advantage, it was distance wise very remote from Europe so it could breeze easier. Big Brazil and small Haiti have both much to owe to African culture and Europe induced agriculture. Yes – sugar cane, coffee, black slaves, sunny weather and so on. There was a time that in both countries life was easy as the Gershwins sing in Porgy and Bess. But Haiti fell behind.

Haiti is the world’s pits. An island South East of Puerto Rico, with a tremendous history of having been the second independent state of the Western Hemisphere, and the only one created by a rebellion of black slaves, with a French culture and lots of Voodoo, and some sons and daughters that did very well outside the country at times the country fell under local dictatorship or US invasions, has never become, just  like Cuba, a working US dependency. Perhaps this is thanks to the Americans not being able to stomach this entrenched different culture mix and the realization that it could “dilute” the white protestant US culture. While the top layer of sugar-cane growers did very well, denuded the western part of the Hispaniola island of trees and increased their bank-holdings on the back of their brothers that spiralled into abject poverty – to the dishonor of being the only western hemisphere State  that is on the UN list of the 50 least prosperous countries in the world. Actually – they are on the bottom of that list and even have the added disadvantage of being battered by natural disasters – one after another – in this last decade – three major Hurricanes and this last major Earthquake with its 7.0 epicenter just 10 miles from their capital.

Now, does the world owe them rescue? As a humanitarian obligation the answer is obviously a very strong YES. From the climate change / environmental angle – sure a clear YES with a but. Now, let us write about the BUT.

- THE NEW YORK TIMES January 17, 2010, QUOTATION OF THE DAY -

“Their priorities are to secure the country, ours are to feed. We have got to get those priorities in sync.”
- JARRY EMMANUEL, the air logistics officer for the World Food Program, after his group’s planes were diverted so the United States could land planes with troops and equipment.
 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/world/…

PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti — As the focus on Saturday turned away from
Haitians lost to those trying to survive, a sprawling assembly of
international officials and aid workers struggled to fix a troubled
relief effort after Tuesday’s devastating earthquake.

While countries and relief agencies showered aid on Haiti, only a
small part of it was reaching increasingly desperate Haitians without
food, water or shelter. “We see all the commotion, but we still have
nothing to drink,” said Joel Querette, 23, a college student camped
out in a park. “The trucks are going by.”

Hunger drove many to swarm places where food was being given out.
Reports of isolated looting and violence intensified as night
approached, and there were reports of Haitians streaming out of the
capital.

Still, recovery and aid efforts were widening. And even the
distribution problems in the country stemmed in part from good
intentions, aid officials said: Countries around the world were
responding to Haiti’s call for help as never before. And they are
flooding the country with supplies and relief workers that its
collapsed infrastructure and nonfunctioning government are in no
position to handle.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton arrived in Port-au-Prince,
met with President René Préval for an hour and assured Haitians that
the United States “will be here today, tomorrow and for the time
ahead.” And in Washington, President Obama stood with former
Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, who will lead a national
drive to raise money to help the survivors.

But with Haitian officials relying so heavily on the United States,
the United Nations and many different aid groups, coordination was
posing a critical challenge. An airport hobbled by only one runway, a
ruined port whose main pier splintered into the ocean, roads blocked
by rubble, widespread fuel shortages and a lack of drivers to move the
aid into the city are compounding the problems.

About 1,700 people camped on the grass in front of the prime
minister’s office compound in the Pétionville neighborhood, pleading
for biscuits and water-purification tablets distributed by aid groups.
A sign on one fallen building in Nazon, one of many hillside
communities destroyed by the quake, read: “Welcome U.S. Marines. We
need help. Dead Bodies Inside!”

Haitian officials said the bodies of tens of thousands of victims had
already been recovered and that hundreds of thousands of people were
living on the streets. A preliminary Red Cross estimate put the total
number of affected people at 3.5 million.

The United Nations also confirmed the death of three of its most
senior officials in the quake: the secretary general’s special
representative for Haiti, Hédi Annabi; his deputy, Luiz Carlos da
Costa; and the acting police commissioner for the peacekeeping force,
Doug Coates of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. They were meeting
with eight members of a Chinese police delegation in the agency’s
headquarters, the Christopher Hotel, when it collapsed on Tuesday.

Even as the United States took a leading role in aid efforts, some aid
officials were describing misplaced priorities, accusing United States
officials of focusing their efforts on getting their people and troops
installed and lifting their citizens out. Under agreement with Haiti,
the United States is now managing air traffic control at the airport,
helicopters are flying relief missions from warships off the coast and
9,000 to 10,000 troops are expected to arrive by Monday to help with
the relief effort.

The World Food Program finally was able to land flights of food,
medicine and water on Saturday, after failing on Thursday and Friday,
an official with the agency said. Those flights had been diverted so
that the United States could land troops and equipment, and lift
Americans and other foreigners to safety.

“There are 200 flights going in and out every day, which is an
incredible amount for a country like Haiti,” said Jarry Emmanuel, the
air logistics officer for the agency’s Haiti effort. “But most of
those flights are for the United States military.

He added: “Their priorities are to secure the country. Ours are to
feed. We have got to get those priorities in sync.”

American officials said they were making substantial progress. Mrs.
Clinton said the military was beginning to use a container port in Cap
Haitien, in northern Haiti, which should increase the flow of aid.

The United States Agency for International Development was helping
choose sites and clear roads for 14 centers for the distribution of
food and water. Rajiv Shah, the agency’s administrator, said the
United States had moved $48 million of food supplies from Texas since
the quake and distributed 600,000 packaged meals. It has also
installed three water-purification systems capable of purifying
100,000 liters a day.

Yet problems remain. American officials said that 180 tons of relief
supplies had been delivered to the airport, but much was still waiting
for delivery. While the military has cleared other landing sites for
helicopters around the capital, they are thronged by people looking
for help, making landings hazardous.

Fuel shortages were mounting. At several gas stations around
Port-au-Prince, attendants or customers said that even though the
stations had fuel left in their tanks, there was no electricity to
work the pumps.

Some aid workers were critical of the United Nations, as well, arguing
that the agency had the most on-the-ground experience in Haiti and
should be directing efforts better.

But many United Nations employees were killed in the earthquake. And
Stephanie Bunker, the spokeswoman for the United Nations humanitarian
relief effort, said Saturday that a United Nations logistics team was
trying to coordinate with other agencies, and that the peacekeeping
forces were trying to clear roads.

Criticism of the United Nations “may reflect people’s frustrations
with the entire effort because it is such a grueling effort,” she
said. “It takes a long time for all this stuff to be cleared up and
fixed.” She noted that all modes of transportation — air, road and sea
— were still limited. A shortage of trucks remained a problem.

Michel Chancy, appointed by Mr. Préval to coordinate relief, said that
much of the aid to Haiti was coming to a government that was itself
under siege.

“The palace fell,” he said. “Ministries fell. And not only that, the
homes of many ministers fell. The police were not coming to work.
Relief agencies collapsed. The U.N. collapsed. It was hard to get
ourselves in a place where we could help others.”

At the American Embassy in Port-au-Prince, American rescue teams
continued to roll out of the gate. Most of their equipment had
arrived, and at any given time, the teams were working on several
different piles of rubble throughout the city.

“People need to get the message, we’re out, we’re doing stuff,” said
Craig Luecke, a coordinator with the search and rescue team from
Fairfax County, Va., who has been tracking American efforts in advance
of Mrs. Clinton’s arrival here. “My Google Earth map is filled with
American activity.”

Though the numbers are fluid, he said four American teams had helped
pulled nearly two dozen survivors from the rubble. The State
Department said 15 Americans were confirmed dead in the earthquake.

Some airplanes, after circling the capital’s airport, have been
turning back or landing in Santo Domingo, in the neighboring Dominican
Republic. Its airfield was growing ever more crowded with diverted
flights.

“We’re all going crazy,” said Nan Buzard, senior director of
international response and programs for the American Red Cross. “You
don’t have any kind of orderly distributions of food, water, shelter,
clothing. The planes are in the air, the materials are purchased. It
remains a profoundly frustrating situation for everyone.”

Among the aid groups avoiding the logjam in Port-au-Prince by entering
Haiti from the Dominican Republic was International Federation of Red
Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

A caravan of eight trucks from the federation was creeping toward the
Haitian border on Saturday morning, carrying medical equipment and aid
workers.

The group had originally planned to touch down in Haiti, but the
delays at the airport forced them to divert to Santo Domingo, delaying
their arrival in Haiti by about 12 hours, said Paul Conneally, a Red
Cross spokesman who was traveling with the convoy.

“Every minute counts, I know that, but we cannot be on standby to land
at Port-au-Prince because it may not be for two or three days,” he
said. “It’s problematic to go across roads, but it’s a small price to
pay.”

Mr. Préval, speaking at the airport, now the effective seat of the
Haitian government, urged patience. He showed a map covered with red
dots, indicating the worst-hit areas. When the earthquake struck, he
said, “We in Haiti thought it was the end of the world.”

Mr. Préval said he was making food, water, medical supplies and the
re-establishment of communication the priorities for his government.
“We have a lot of work to do,” he said.

Diane Sawyer on ABC News,1/15/10, is visibly and verbally upset that
so much food, water, etc. was still at the airport and not distributed
to the very many in desperate need and could be dead very shortly
without it.

Then one U.S. Commander interviewed, said they needed the Haitian
government to designate distribution centers, then to be approved by
the U.N., while 10,000 U.S. troops are on the way by Sunday to help in
distribution.

Have the U.S. government/military..politicians  lost their minds? If
the Haitian government, which barely exists after this tragedy, wasn’t
there for the people before the earthquake, why is anyone waiting for
this government to act now?

If the U.N., which has done little to stop genocide in Darfur with
500,000 Blacks murdered by Muslims, why in the world is the U.N. in
charge of this operation? To avoid this dilemma, our web has picked up
the COHA idea – let the Brazilians, much less suspected then the
Americans, take over for an agreed time period the keys of Haiti!

On CNN, with Anderson Cooper showing that only Dr. Gupta of CNN, is
left in a hospital with 25 wounded patients, while the UN has asked
the rest of the doctors to leave, and then to see the aerial views of
hundreds, perhaps thousands, of bodies lying on just one of the
streets, does anyone get what is going on here?

By following the supposed ‘plan’, the food and water sits at the
airport, and men, women and childen are dying .

A ‘distribution’ sight?  How about every spot where hundreds and
thousands are outside of hospitals, in parks, and in the streets,
afraid to go back into their homes, and get the food and water to
these people before they dehydrate and die. JUst don’t worry about the
fact that they did not have clean water even before this last
catastrophe hit.

Oh first we have to deal with all the ‘politics’?

Let’s see, now if the U.S. controls the airport, and not the U.N.,
then will the US be seen as ‘occupying’ Haiti? Will some see this as a
pretext to naming Haiti the US 51st State?

Then there is the big hoopla from listening to Obama that he’ll do
everything possible, including the comitment of  troops and
$100millions – some saying that this is for the reviews, while Rush
Limbaugh is obsessed on whether Obama will look good in all of this
and his ratings rise. Will he advise not to give to the Haitian people
in crisis?

If Limbaugh had a heart, he’d be pushing to feed the starving and put
the politics aside until we got through this level of the crisis.

Now with some saying 200,000 being reported dead, up from the Red Cross’s
assessment  of 45,000, we are witnessing Obama’s ‘Katrina’ of
going by ‘the book’, whatever that is, instead of stepping outside of
the box and actually making a difference.

How about just handing the water and food to everyone in need? Is this so hard to do?  How about taking care of everyone that needs the help? At what point do you need permission to be a human being and help another human being, especially when you can? Then, if this is really the case, take the Brazilians that are already in Haiti – and ask them for God’s and humanitarian sake – take the supplies and hand them out without waiting for the UN. We know, the Brazilians have lost 14 people and miss three more, but they are tough and will accept this if they see it is for a clear purpose. They also lost people in that infamous UN Baghdad disaster when the Brazilian Mission leader was killed.

This is how governments operate or don’t and they don’t… beyond the
stunts and media ploys and everyone covering their own butts, so as
not to do anything that they will have to be accountable for, while
the rest of us are expendible.

Thank G-d for independent thinking and action from volunteers.

With all the ‘chatter’ now from Yemen and another potential Muslim
Jihadist attack on the U.S. at this very time period, you can see in
Haiti the insipid approach that would happen here as well. On this, I
just observed that Saturday January 16, 2010, the Empire State
building was dressed in Green-White-Green colors – and these are the
colors of Nigeria. Is this the initiative of some private group to
thank the boy-bomber from Nigeria for awareness raising that we are
unsafe?

Can’t anyone make a decision that matters, when government bureaucrats
are in charge?

If 3 millions are affected by the Earthquake in Haiti, do we not
understand that without food or water for 5 days what is pending?

Then we watched Sean Hannity on FOX tonight talking about the
‘political earthquake’, should the Republican beat the Democrat next
Tues. for former Sen. Kennedy’s seat?

“Earthquake” Hannity? With hundreds of thousands dead in our back
yard? This is your level of consciousness to exploit using this word,
on going after Obama?

This is revolting – our stomachs turn.

How do you play ’safe’ with masses of people dying?

How do you exploit for politics, the horrors people are facing?

Appeasing those who want to kill us and then neglecting those in need
after the damage has been done, is one more example of what we are
witnessing daily in our approach in Haiti. It doesn’t matter if the
catatrophe is man-made through terrorism or by an act of G-d.

Today, after 8 yrs. illegal Haitians in Miami and in the rest of the
U.S., by the tens of thousands, they will now be allowed to stay for
18 months, eventually get green cards,  and we hope do something for
the folks back home.

But this still isn’t feeding today even one Haitian baby starving to
death or dehydrated by lack of water.

We got an e-mail saying:
“Having gone through Hurricane Andrew in 1992, I know what it is like
with 80,000 buildings destroyed and they, only admitting to 50 dead,
but there were many more.

We on Miami Beach were 17 miles from ‘Ground Zero’ and every house on
our block had no electricity for 11 days, all foods were spoiled,
every roof had to be replaced if you could find quality repair people,
not out to steal from you or legitimate insurance agencies not trying
to screw you, and in every level of survival running into obstacles
for getting food, water, gas,repairs, cleanup and a host of basics,
let alone damage to property and the emotional damage in all of it.

It took 10 years for us to recover.  Every Hurricane season we’re
glued to the weather channel in hopes of not going through it again,
and Haiti went through 3 hurricanes recently before this earthquake.
Haiti with so many of its trees destroyed. Then Papa Doc, Baby Doc,
Aristedes and even today, where are the Haitian leaders in Miami
speaking out, for they are in two political camps like the Dems. and
GOP, and neither are for the people, when it is all about them and not
us.

No matter. We MUST help those who need this emergency help.
The American people have always come to the rescue of those in need
all over the world and we’ll do it again and again for that is who we
really are and we don’t need to apologize for it either.

As a Jew, that is who I am too. That is my conscience. That is my
faith. That is my reason for being. That is my history of being a Jew
for 5000 years. Nothing to apologize for here either. My Covenant with
G-d, My Torah and My Constitution and my heart are my guides in all of
this as well as knowing so many on this level as well.” Even a secular
Jew like myself has no problem in seconding above last lines.

Rush of Medical Aid to Haiti Follows History of Suffering.

Andrew Schneider
Senior Public Health Correspondent, aol

Washington (Jan. 15) — Along with all the horrors it wrought, Tuesday’s
earthquake brought a bitter irony to Haiti: The crumbled, chaotic
country will soon have more physicians, medics and operating hospitals
than ever in its tormented history.

But while the medical teams from around the world will close wounds
and set shattered bones, there will be less they can do to stem the
preventable deaths that have always plagued this hemisphere’s poorest
country.

Soon, enough mobile hospitals, medical personnel, equipment, medicine
and supplies will be in place in Haiti to treat 20,000 or more of the
injured, according to interviews late Thursday with the World Health
Organization, the Pentagon, the United Nations, FEMA and several
embassies in Washington — a rainbow of uniforms operating under tent
canvas, inside inflatable structures or aboard ships. And more
reinforcements could arrive shortly.

On Friday morning, the U.S. Public Health Service and Homeland Security sent notice to the volunteer members of the National Disaster Medical System that they should be ready for possible deployment.

Thousands of Haitians died in the collapse of poorly constructed
buildings, but the bodies being crammed into family crypts built atop
the cracked ground or dusted with lime and buried in mass graves
represent just the first wave of casualties, health experts predict.
Physicians from the WHO and the Pan American Health Organization say
that the deaths that will surely continue for months or even years
will not come from untreated trauma but, rather, untreated water.

Diseased water has long been Haiti’s most aggressive killer, far more
lethal than even its high rates of AIDS and tuberculosis. (Incidents
of malaria and dengue follow right behind.)

An examination of the country’s public health and medical system makes
the problem clear. According to the Haitian Institute for Statistics,
water supply and sewage treatment systems are unheard of among the
majority of the country’s 9 million people. What’s more, with a
fertility rate of almost five children per woman, infant mortality
soars, due to diarrheal disease caused by bad water and the lack of
adequate health care.

Haiti’s health ministry reported in 2008 that there were just 39
hospitals and about 70 other inpatient facilities for the entire
country. But even that scant health care is unevenly divided: Private
for-profit hospitals treat the country’s wealthy and some foreign
business and embassy workers. Then there are the handful of public
hospitals and clinics — most of them falling apart — which are
ill-equipped and badly understaffed. The poor, who represent more than
80 percent of country’s population, also rely on the missionaries and
nongovernment volunteer groups, who sometimes offer superb medicine,
but only for those patients who can get to them.

There are very few ambulances in the countryside, and no 9-1-1 to
call. So Haitians fend for themselves.

The mainstay for the sick and injured are Voodoo clinics. In a country where medicine is hard to
come by unless you are among the elite, their traditional herbal medicines fill the void.

And so it was in the immediate aftermath of the quake: On Thursday, a
government health source said that a United Nation’s peacekeeper
relayed that the first organized medical care in Cite Soleil, the
capital’s vast slums, came from groups of Voodoo practitioners.

To know the role Voodoo medicine plays in Haiti’s public health system
is to not be surprised by such a report.

For years, Max Beauvoir, the chief houngan — or Voodoo priest — for
Port-au-Prince, ran a clinic out of his elaborately decorated home,
Peristyle de Mariani. Tourists at the waterfront resorts nearby were
stunned watching the stream of ill and injured brought into the Voodoo
temple most days.

They would have been even more shocked to see his résumé. Beauvoir was
trained at City College of New York, then went on to the Sorbonne for
graduate study in biochemistry. While a professor at Boston’s Tufts
University, he was granted patents on several important medications he
developed from Haitian plants. After the death of his father in the
early 1970s, he returned to Port-au-Prince, as tradition demanded.

Having been a part of the American health system, Beauvoir was vocal
in his demands that Jean-Claude Duvalier, who’d assumed the presidency
from his father, Francois, consider the medical needs of the poor. It
was only his involvement with Voodoo that kept the president from
unleashing his ruthless security force, the Tontons Macoutes, against
Beauvoir.

In 1984, as Beauvoir watched American soldiers load back onto their
ships and aircraft after the latest U.S. intervention to protect the
Haitians after the latest in a bloody string of coups and uprisings,
he said the true doctors for the Haitian people were the troops of the
82nd Airborne.

More than 25 years later, the earthquake has brought new resonance to
Beauvoir’s words. An aircraft carrier, a half dozen Navy amphibian
ships, and four Coast Guard cutters now sit off Haiti’s coast. The
Hospital Ship Comfort is due next week.

Early Friday, a senior officer at the 82nd’s headquarters in Fort
Bragg, N.C., said half the people in the division’s supply chain had
been scrambled for a critical part of the relief effort. Their
mission: to round up clean drinking water to bring to the Haitians.

———————-

Clinton Pledges Cooperation in Haiti Relief Effort.

Jennifer Kay, AP

PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti (Jan. 16) – U.S. Secretary of State Hillary
Rodham Clinton met Saturday with Haitian President Rene Preval and
promised that U.S. quake relief efforts would be closely coordinated
with local officials.

Clinton’s remarks appeared designed to counter any notion of a
too-intrusive American involvement in the aftermath of the quake,
while also assuring Haitians the humanitarian mission would continue
as long as it’s needed.

“We are here at the invitation of your government to help you,” she
said at a news conference at the Port-au-Prince airport. “As President
Obama has said, we will be here today, tomorrow and for the time
ahead. And speaking personally, I know of the great resilience and
strength of the Haitian people. You have been severely tested. But I
believe that Haiti can come back even stronger and better in the
future.”

Clinton, the highest-ranking Obama administration official to visit
since the magnitude-7.0 quake struck Tuesday, arrived in a Coast Guard
C-130 transport that carried bottled water, packaged food, soap and
other supplies. She was accompanied by Rajiv Shah, the U.S. Agency for
International Development administrator who is acting as the top U.S.
relief coordinator.

Clinton also met with U.N. officials and U.S. civilians and military
personnel working on the relief effort. She said she and Preval
discussed his government’s priorities: restoring communications,
electricity and transportation.

“And we agreed that we will be coordinating closely together to
achieve these goals,” she said, adding that she and Preval would issue
a communique on Sunday outlining cooperation between the two
countries.

Preval said he was encouraged to see former presidents Bill Clinton
and George W. Bush together with President Barack Obama at the White
House earlier Saturday in a joint plea for international assistance to
Haiti.

He noted that U.S. aid has already arrived, and he told reporters he
met a survivor who was pulled from the rubble Saturday and receiving
care from American medical teams. He thanked Clinton for her visit and
for Obama’s continued support of Haiti.

“Mrs. Clinton’s visit really warms our heart today,” he said.

During the news conference, officials noted the clatter of military
helicopters landing and taking off nearby.

“That’s a good sound,” Clinton said. “That means that good things are
going to the people of Haiti.”