ANC Distances Itself From Masetlha’s Comments on Tripartite Alliance

ANC distances itself from Masetlha’s comments

JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA Oct 10 2009 08:06

The African National Congress said on Friday it had “read with regret” comments in the Mail & Guardian attributed to national executive member Billy Masetlha and other “faceless individuals” regarding the tripartite alliance.

The M&G reported on Friday that Masetlha had become the first senior leader to express concerns publicly about the growing dominance of the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) and the South African Communist Party in the ANC.

Masetlha singled out SACP boss Blade Nzimande as the main architect behind the left’s socialist agenda within the party, saying he found it strange that Nzimande had abandoned the SACP to join the Cabinet and was now trying hard to influence the direction of the ANC.

“The notion that the ANC is under threat of ‘the push by Cosatu and the SACP for a socialist agenda’ is unfounded and regrettable”, said the ANC in a statement.

“It is not within the traditions and protocols of the alliance to talk about alliance relations in public and through the media. These matters as reported have not been discussed within the constitutional structures of the ANC. Therefore, they cannot be
regarded as the generally held views and perspectives of the ANC leadership,” said the ruling party.

“The ANC is of the opinion that any issues relating to the alliance should and will be discussed through the soon to be convened alliance summit as resolved by the ANC NEC.

“The ANC expects any of its leaders to wait for the alliance summit to raise any issues relating to the alliance.”

Masetlha told the M&G. “I will have a problem with someone trying to impose a communist manifesto on the ANC. We fired a lot of [comrades] in the past who wanted to do the same thing.”

He also took issue with President Jacob Zuma’s silence regarding the left’s agenda in the ANC, warning him that if he did not take a firm stand on the new tendencies, ANC members would revolt against him as they had against his predecessor, Thabo Mbeki.

Zuma has been criticised by some within the ANC for succumbing to leftist pressure on a number of key decisions taken since he became president. These include the removal of Tito Mboweni as Reserve Bank governor, the removal of the SABC board and the appointment of Ebrahim Patel as economic development minister.

Zuma has come under pressure for failing to defend Trevor Manuel, minister in the presidency for national planning, whom alliance leaders have been attacking for pushing the agenda of the “1996 Class Project”, in the form of mainstream macroeconomic policies.

Source: Mail & Guardian Online
Web Address: http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-10-10-anc-distances-itself-from-masetlhas-comments

ANC backlash against the left

MATUMA LETSOALO AND RAPULE TABANE | JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA - Oct 09 2009 06:00

ANC national executive committee (NEC) member Billy Masetlha has become the first senior leader to express concerns publicly about the growing dominance of Cosatu and the SACP in the ANC.

Anxiety has grown among party leaders in the past few months about the left’s influence on key ANC policy decisions since the 2007 Polokwane conference.

Masetlha told the Mail & Guardian this week that a number of senior ANC leaders have expressed disquiet about the push by Cosatu and the SACP for a socialist agenda within the ANC.

He singled out SACP boss Blade Nzimande as the main architect behind the left’s socialist agenda within the party, saying he found it strange that Nzimande had abandoned the SACP to join the Cabinet and was now trying hard to influence the direction of the ANC.

“I take serious exception to [his doing] that,” Masetlha told the M&G. “I will have a problem with someone trying to impose a communist manifesto on the ANC. We fired a lot of [comrades] in the past who wanted to do the same thing.”

He also took issue with President Jacob Zuma’s silence regarding the left’s agenda in the ANC, warning him that if he did not take a firm stand on the new tendencies, ANC members would revolt against him as they had against his predecessor, Thabo Mbeki.

Other senior ANC figures who spoke to the M&G on condition of anonymity echoed Masetlha’s views.

Zuma has been criticised by some within the ANC for succumbing to leftist pressure on a number of key decisions taken since he became president. These include the removal of Tito Mboweni as Reserve Bank governor, the removal of the SABC board and the appointment of Ebrahim Patel as economic development minister.

Zuma has come under pressure for failing to defend Trevor Manuel, minister in the presidency for national planning, whom alliance leaders have been attacking for pushing the agenda of the “1996 Class Project,” in the form of mainstream macroeconomic policies.

Said Masetlha: “If we have not pronounced our position on these new tendencies, this does not mean we are fools. The ANC was not founded on a socialist agenda. Socialism has no space within the ANC.

“The cause for our struggle has always been about national liberation. The day the ANC sings to the socialist agenda, it would be signing its death warrant.”

One ANC provincial leader complained about an apparent double standard regarding the treatment of communist leaders and ANC leaders: “As we speak, Zweli Mkhize [ANC chairperson in KwaZulu-Natal] and Ace Magashule [ANC Free State chairperson] are being made to choose between being directly elected members of the NEC and being ex-officio provincial chairs. They are being told they can’t be both.

“But people are quiet about Gwede [Mantashe], who is the chair of the SACP and ANC secretary general, Nzimande, who is general secretary of the communist party, an ANC NEC member and a minister in government, and Phumulo Masualle who is ANC provincial chair in the Eastern Cape and SACP treasurer.”

ANC leaders were afraid to speak out against Cosatu and SACP leaders, the source said, because they were too close to Zuma.

“For example, on the issue of expensive cars for ministers, comrades wanted to respond to Cosatu but had to retreat because they are not sure of the backlash.

“The problem … is that JZ [Zuma] was carried so much by the alliance partners to … where he is.

“He initially had little support in the ANC itself but [the alliance partners] pushed for him. That has compromised the movement because now we have to carry them, whatever we do.

“You watch it, these guys will get what they want on the soldiers’ unionisation and labour-brokers’ issues. Their proposals will go through and no one will challenge them. Look at the contrast. Check the energy with which people are attacking anything that has to do with Mbeki because it does not affect their careers and prospects.

“They go for the kill on anything associated with Mbeki such as Trevor Manuel, the North West ANC provincial executive, SAA and the SABC, because attacking Mbeki is a soft option.

“We should be saying [to the alliance partners]: you helped us towards Polokwane but that has been achieved. When we go to SACP or Cosatu conferences you never find us saying ‘we prefer so and so to lead them’ — [on the contrary] they dictate to us. Look at the Eastern Cape … where the SACP treasurer was elected chairperson. We need JZ to tell them to stop.”

He also complained about the increase in the deployment of alliance partners to the public service.

“As the situation stands, you have a number of men who were just ANC members who did not make it back as MPs and MPLs because they could not be catered for when we made space for youth, women and alliance partners.

“You must check the number of people we have deployed as alliance members in our legislatures — there are many. We understand why it’s like that but JZ must now stand up and defend ANC principles.

“We are only left with [Julius] Malema to be the repository of intellectual debates because everyone else is retreating in the ANC.”

But Malema appears to disagree with Masetlha and other senior ANC leaders: “I do not think there is any dominance of the left within the ANC,” he told the M&G, saying rather that there is “openness among comrades”.

He said Cosatu and the SACP were raising critical and substantial issues.

“What we need to do is to have more bilateral [interactions] in addition to the alliance summits with Cosatu and the SACP. We welcome the engagements.

The only thing we would not allow is when people try to take over the ANC.”

Source: Mail & Guardian Online
Web Address: http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-10-09-anc-backlash-against-the-left

US Sees, Hears and Talks Nothing But Evil

Zim: US sees, hears and talks nothing but evil

Courtesy of the Herald

Opening the Second Session of the Seventh Parliament of Zimbabwe on Tuesday, President Mugabe characteristically extended an olive branch to those who have been fighting to destroy Zimbabwe through all kinds of machinations.

President Mugabe said Zimbabwe remained “in a positive stance to enter into fresh, friendly and co-operative relations with all those countries that have been hostile to us in the past”.

To his compatriots in the august House — some of whom have not been without a part in the evil machinations — he encouraged the “building of bridges of amity, forgiveness, trust and togetherness”.

But we hear America, the chief architect of Zimbabwe’s misery through illegal sanctions, ZDERA, which apart from seeking to destroy Zimbabwe’s economy, expresses undue interventionist and divisive manoeuvres such as sponsoring hostile pirate radio stations, has “reacted coolly” to President Robert Mugabe’s overture for better ties with their deeply wronged victims.

“We encourage Mr Mugabe to show his commitment to positive relations with the US by fully implementing the Global Political Agreement which he signed in September 2008,” State Department spokesman Ian Kelly reportedly said referring to the GPA which President Mugabe signed with leaders of the two MDC formations.

Kelly is said to have urged President Mugabe to end “politicised arrests and prosecutions and often violent land seizures” and fire what he described as Zimbabwe’s “corrupt Attorney-General and Reserve Bank governor” — apparently referring to Mr Johannes Tomana and Dr Gideon Gono, respectively.

Crying more than the bereaved

America wants the repeal of “emergency decrees and draconian laws restricting personal freedoms” and for Zimbabwe to commit to drafting a new constitution and to holding elections under international supervision, a report said.

“What we would like to see is some real concrete action,” Kelly reportedly said.

Talk of a stranger crying more than the bereaved.

It seems Mr Kelly actually knows more “repression” and “politicised arrests” than the purported victims of such evils!

Heaven knows if America did not want MPs from the MDC to boycott the opening of Parliament in protest over the wrongs Kelly knows so much about.

Or at least, they should have jeered and sang and heckled.

Yet if there is one thing that could demonstrate willingness of Zimbabweans to work together it was the absence of reckless heckling that characterised the opening of the previous session last year, which one Madhuku then told us was “an integral part of Parliament”.

For all the sober-minded, this was just an unacceptable showing by Members of Parliament, which only served to demonstrate contempt for those who elected them and a show of unacceptable division at the expense of the nation.

Now the absence of this “integral part of Parliament” — according to Madhuku at least — should demonstrate to the world that Zimbabweans are ready to work for their country, and please, there is no need to be Kelly (NB: lively and aggressive) about it.

No Apologies

It is to be hoped that after this welcome show of patriotism and sense of duty on Tuesday, the apparent disdain of the US will not lead the responsible and honourable countrymen and women to do kongonya during the actual sitting as a way to atone for the displeasure that their maturity might have excited in some quarters.

Much the same way one wouldn’t expect Mangoma really to feel bad for being called an “apologist” for saying the unequivocal truth that Zimbabwe’s land “has its own history”.

Apparently someone who does not, and cannot share, the emotions that all Africans have when the land of their fathers is mentioned, was so upset to hear Mangoma telling a visiting German delegation that the emotive land issue in Zimbabwe “has its own history”.

Fumed one bigoted columnist, who usually feels that anyone who does not agree with his racist-coloured views is delusional: “The response of people like Mangoma has been to do nothing except to offer the limp excuse of ‘history’.

“A history of colonial land seizures does not mean every single abuse needs to be repeated, especially when, as South Africa has shown, there are other remedies,” he pontificated.

With due respect, no one who is serious about the correction of historical imbalances can cite South Africa as a role model, especially where land is concerned.

Unless, of course, he is trying to do those “by opposite” jokes that only titillate those with a primary school education.

Since South Africa attained “Independence” in 1994, to date it has managed to redistribute only about 4 percent of land against projections of 65 percent by 2015.

The willing-buyer/willing-seller model has failed in South Africa, as it has done this side of the Limpopo, as former colonisers are not willing to let go of the gains for which they in the main killed and tortured.

It is to be wondered what these “other remedies” might. Unless one is talking about getting meaningless compliments and weary blandishments for basically doing nothing for the price of losing a precious period of one’s life.

As a matter of fact, whatever “other remedies” may be, it is a known fact that those who cling to ill- gotten colonial gains will never let go unless force is used.

Bloching the tourists

So we hear that the reason why white tourists have not been coming to Zimbabwe in recent years — coincidentally the period Zimbabwe has been under sanctions and negative perceptions at the behest of the West — is “first and foremost the very negative image that Zimbabwe has a safe destination”.

How many of us remember when a visitor, or any “innocent bystander”, was last molested in Zimbabwe or caught in the “frequent malabuse (sic) of law and order” by what somebody called “the guardians of law and order”?

We certainly have heard visitors expressing surprise at the peace and tranquillity that exists in Zimbabwe which is quite different from the negativity of certain sections of our society, here and abroad.

The kiss of the Devil

We have often heard that when the Devil kisses you, you better count your teeth.

But then, our own hardworking Finance Minister, hailed as “Best Minister of Finance in Africa” in some circles, is perhaps not too eager to count his teeth even when he is yet to complete a full fiscal term.

And Zimbabweans might better start counting theirs.

Have we not possibly lost teeth worth something close to a billion dollars?

Poor Amanpour . . .

It has generally been agreed that Christiane Amanpour fared all too badly in her interview with President Mugabe on her CNN programme on September 24.

Westerners, many of them over-anxious to see President Mugabe outwitted by Amanpour, were shocked by her shallow understanding of the Zimbabwean story.

She did not even know of something called the Lancaster House Agreement of 1979, an integral part of the land question in Zimbabwe, despite the fact that the same was drafted in the city where she was born.

She apparently had not read the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, which is her country’s misguided expression of love for the people of Zimbabwe and the matrix that moulds the current US-Zim relations.

One could go on and on; but the bottom line for many Zimbabweans should be the dawning of this fundamental truth: that the US media is excellent in everything except that which you know.

After all, that respect that some of us might have accorded her for her reportage of Iraq, etc, she is human — and enormously fallible.

As a matter of fact, if one has followed Western reportage of Zimbabwe in recent years, they will testify to the media’s lack of credibility, which even their own home audiences acknowledge.

And Annan . . . pooh!

As a self-respecting African, you cannot help but feel disgusted by a chap called Kofi Annan who was once UN secretary-general.

Here is a man who in 2003 folded his arms when George W. Bush proclaimed that with or without international support he was going to torture, maim, rape and kill innocent civilians in Iraq, because “God” had told him to do so.

What has followed is a humanitarian disaster, which will not disappear any time soon.

Neither will the excesses of Israel, America’s lap dog ally, in Palestine.

Nor in Afghanistan where little children are killed because they will be harbouring terrorists, if not suspected Al-Qaeda themselves.

Yet Annan, throughout his term as UN chief, or now when he is masquerading as some kind of statesman, has not told the world that perpetrators of these crimes against humanity need to be brought to book.

Rather, if there should be somebody at The Hague, it is Africans and Africans only.

Now he tells the world that International Criminal Court trials are needed for leaders of last year’s American-sponsored post-election violence in Kenya. (This after he “negotiated” a power-sharing deal there.)

And all on behalf of a country that says it does not recognise the same court it wants only its opponents to go to.

Feedback: Tichaona Zindoga, theherald@zimpapers.co.zw

Three-Way Summit on North Korea Begins in Beijing

Saturday, October 10, 2009
11:55 Mecca time, 08:55 GMT

Three-way summit on N Korea begins

The trilateral summit seeks to woo North Korea back to nuclear disarmament negotiations

China, Japan and South Korea have begun talks in Beijing amid signs that pressure on North Korea to rejoin nuclear disarmament negotiations may be yielding results.

The talks come as Wen Jiabao, the Chinese premier, prepares to brief his Japanese and South Korean counterparts on a recent meeting he held in Pyongyang, North Korea’s capital.

During the meeting, Kim Jong-il, North Korea’s president, told Wen that his country may end its boycott of the talks, depending on its negotiations with Washington.

North Korea pulled out the negotiations after it was condemned for conducting a rocket launch in April and nuclear test in May.

The US has yet to publicly respond to the North’s apparent overture.

The talks involve China, Japan, the two Koreas, Russia and the US.

Xia Yeliang, a professor of economics at Peking University, said the three countries would also likely discuss the strengthening of the Asian economy.

“China would like to use the negotiating tabe to persuade its two partners to work together on free trade and against US pressure in the future; to be more independent so that Asian economies can share a larger segment of the world economy,” he told Al Jazeera.

“The three countries would have the common goal of making the entire Asian economy more independent in the global economy. In that way they can work on a regional currency - the Asian dollar - for the future.”

‘Resolution working’

Japanese officials said late on Friday that the US had indicated it might hold talks with North Korea and that Pyongyang appears increasingly willing to return to the talks.

“It can be said that the resolution is working to convince the DPRK [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea] that it can’t go on like this. It must return to the six-party talks,” Kazuo Kodama, press secretary to Katsuya Okada, the Japanese foreign minister, said on Friday.

Pyongyang, under sanctions imposed after the rocket launch and nuclear test, had earlier insisted it would never return to the talks.

Kim’s offer of dialogue appears to reflect the North’s keenness for direct engagement with Washington - a perennial demand.

Yukio Hatoyama, the Japanese prime minister, and Lee Myung-bak, the South Korean president, said on Friday they agreed the North should not be given aid until it begins to dismantle its nuclear weapons programme.

“We should not resume any economic assistance unless North Korea shows commitment and takes concrete steps” towards nuclear abandonment, Hatoyama said at a joint news conference with Lee.

He has backed a proposal by Lee to offer a one-time “grand bargain” of aid and concessions in exchange for denuclearisation as opposed to the step-by-step process pursued over the past six years.

But winning China’s overt support for such an approach may be difficult given its longtime support for North Korea, although that role gives Beijing relatively stronger influence with the North, its imporverished ally.

Planned visit

A South Korean diplomat said North Korea is pushing to send Ri Gun, its deputy nuclear envoy, to the US later this month for a private security forum.

He asked not to be identified because the forum’s organisers have not announced details of the session.

The planned trip raises speculation that Ri could meet US officials to set the stage for possible direct talks with Washington.

PJ Crowley, the state department spokesman, said on Friday that non-governmental organisations had invited Ri to participate in meetings in the US.

He said, however, that no decision has been made yet “whether to approve that travel”.

Source: Agencies

Angola 3 Denied Appeal by Louisiana Supreme Court

Angola 3 Denied Appeal

Please note that the remaining Angola 3 Political Prisoners have not only been unjustly imprisoned, but have been inhumanely held in SOLITARY CONFINEMENT for almost four decades, and that Bro. Herman is now enduring even more severe forms of specialized TORTURE at nearly 70 years of age! We MUST make our political prisoners a top agenda item across all organizational/spiritual or other belief systems and programs, we need a SUMMIT to very seriously implement a program of consistent and persistent actions to save the lives of our freedom fighters! — Sis. M.
————————————-
From: Freedom Archives
————————————-

Mother Jones
Angola 3 Appeal Denied
By James Ridgeway | Fri October 9, 2009 7:25 PM PST

The Louisiana State Supreme Court Friday denied an appeal from Herman Wallace, who has been held in solitary confinement for more than 37 years. Wallace and Albert Woodfox are members of what has become known as the Angola 3, whose story has been covered extensively by Mother Jones. Convicted of the 1972 murder of a prison guard at the notorious Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola, both men maintain their innocence; they believe they were targeted for the crime and relegated to permanent lockdown because of their organizing work with the prison chapter of the Black Panthers. Wallace, who is now 68 years old, was recently transferred from Angola to the Hunt Correctional Center near Baton Rouge, where he continues to be held in solitary. Two days ago, Wallace descended even deeper into the hole, placed in a disciplinary unit called Beaver 5 for unknown violations of prison policy.

Herman Wallace launched the appeal of his conviction nearly a decade ago. His lawyers have introduced substantial evidence showing that the state’s star witness, a fellow prisoner named Hezekiah Brown, was offered special treatment and an eventual pardon in exchange for his testimony against Wallace and Woodfox. In 2006, a judicial commissioner assigned to study the case found that there were grounds for overturning the conviction, but Wallace’s application was subsequently denied–by the state district court, court of appeals, and now by the Louisiana Supreme Court.

While every setback comes as a blow to a man nearing 70 who has spent nearly four decades in lockdown, one of Wallace’s attorneys said tonight that this denial by the state’s highest court came as no surprise, since it has a reputation for refusing to overturn the decisions of lower courts. Today’s ruling opens the doors to a federal habeas corpus challenge, beginning with the Federal District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana at Baton Rouge. Here, if Wallace is lucky, his case will be reviewed by a fact-finding federal magistrate, and his conviction overturned by a federal judge. This is what happened to Albert Woodfox last year. Yet Woodfox, too, remains in prison–and in solitary confinement–as the state appeals the judge’s decision.

Louisiana’s Attorney General, James “Buddy” Caldwell, has stated that he opposes releasing the two men “with every fiber of my being,” while the Warden of Angola and Hunt prisons, Burl Cain, has more than once suggested that the two men must be held in solitary because they ascribe to “Black Pantherism.” In addition to their criminal appeals, Wallace and Woodfox (along with Robert King, who was released in 2001), have a case pending on constitutional grounds. They argue that the conditions and duration of their time in solitary confinement constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and that they are being held there for their political beliefs, in violation of the First Amendment.

Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110

415 863-9977

www.Freedomarchives.org Questions and comments may be sent to claude@freedomarchives.org

Regulator: U.K. Needs £200 Billion to Meet Carbon Targets

By ALEX MACDONALD
LONDON — Britain will need to invest up to £200 billion ($321.5 billion) over the next decade and a half to ensure the country can meet its carbon targets and secure adequate energy supplies, the U.K. energy regulator Ofgem said Friday.
Ofgem outlined four energy scenarios to assess the energy security risks over the next 10 to 15 years. In the four scenarios, Ofgem concluded Britain will face significant levels of gas imports, in particular for gas power plants to replace lost nuclear and coal-fired capacity.
The report also found that Britain will need to make significant changes to the way it generates and consumes power in order to manage fluctuations in power generation from the nation’s increasing dependence on wind power.
Since massive levels of investment will be needed in order to make these changes, Ofgem said there is a high likelihood that consumer bills will rise — especially if oil and gas prices continue their upward trend, evidenced since 2003.
“Our scenarios suggest that Britain faces a tough challenge in maintaining secure supplies whilst at the same time meeting its climate change targets,” Ofgem chief executive Alistair Buchanan said. “However, there is still time to act. Ofgem will be putting forward proposals in the New Year based on today’s consultation to ensure that Britain’s energy industry can meet the challenges ahead.”
The four scenarios — which consider variables including economic recovery, investment, environment targets and security of supply — would result in increases in domestic energy bills of between 14% and 25% by 2020 (from 2009 levels). Domestic bills could rise by as much as 60% in the interim if wholesale energy prices spike due to a strong rebound in the global economy.
The scenarios are labeled Green Transition, Green Stimulus, Dash for Energy, and Slow Growth. In all four, Britain’s dependence on gas imports increases but in two of them imports stabilize from the middle of the next decade, Ofgem said.
Write to Alex MacDonald at alex.macdonald@dowjones.com

Climate talks end with diplomats looking to Obama for leadership

John Vidal in Bangkok
guardian.co.uk, Friday 9 October 2009 22.21 BST
Global climate change talks came to an end in Bangkok todayin an atmosphere of distrust and recrimination, with the rift between rich and poor countries seemingly wider than ever. After two weeks of negotiations there have been no breakthroughs on big issues such as money or emissions cuts.
With five days of negotiating time left before the concluding talks in Copenhagen in December, delegates said it appeared a weak deal was the most likely outcome, and no deal at all was a possibility.
Barack Obama’s expected visit to Oslo to receive the Nobel peace prize in the middle of the climate talks raised hopes that he would make the short journey to Copenhagen to galvanise governments.
“World leadership is now vital if the talks are not to fail completely. It is inconceivable that Obama could now ignore the climate change talks,” said one diplomat. The Nobel citation specifically mentions the president’s role in the US “now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting”.
China, India, Brazil and other developing countries lined up with environment and development groups to condemn both the US and EU for demanding a brand-new climate agreement rather than staying within the Kyoto protocol framework.
“It’s irresponsible to even contemplate the idea of discarding the Kyoto protocol. It’s the lifeblood of any future agreement. It is the only legally binding agreement that gives the certainty of moving rapidly to addressing the climate concerns of billions of people,” said Di-Aping Lumumba, Sudanese chair of the G77, a group of 130 developing countries.
But the EU and UN brushed off concerns. “We are not killing Kyoto,” said Anders Turesson, chair of the EU working group in the negotiations. “This is trying to build something bigger and better than Kyoto.” But environment and development groups accused the EU and US of holding poor countries to ransom.
“The rift between rich and poor has intensified because rich countries have not put serious money on the table to help poor countries adapt to escalating impacts of climate change,” said Oxfam’s senior climate adviser, Antonio Hill. “The US has been silent on the scale of finance it will commit to.”
Separately, the EU was forced into an embarrassing climbdown on forest protection. One of its negotiators adopted a position with the Democratic Republic of Congo and Equatorial Guinea to strike a passage from the proposed agreement intended to protect forests. This led to accusations that the EU had been influenced by lobbyists from the logging industry.
At a press conference a spokesman for the Swedish EU presidency admitted there had been “an unfortunate mishap … the EU has not changed its position. It is unfortunate. The poor negotiator has been slapped in his face.”

British delegate’s pro-logging stance prompts EU apology

Embarassed official apologises after a British negotiator at the Bangkok climate talks rewrites the EU’s climate change policy to sanction the felling of rainforests
John Vidal
guardian.co.uk, Friday 9 October 2009 16.07 BST
The EU had to apologise last night after a British official at the Bangkok climate negotiations single-handedly rewrote its position to effectively sanction the felling of the world’s rainforests in order to grow plantations of palm oil.
Wording that would have protected natural forests was in the draft UN text at the start of the week’s negotiations, but had mysteriously disappeared by Wednesday – to the delight of loggers and some African countries.
On Friday, more than 20 countries led by Brazil, Mexico, India and Norway protested vigorously and pleaded for the safeguard to be put back in. But the EU, supported by the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, and other countries not known for their forestry protection policies, declined to reinstate it.
This prompted environmentalists and others to accuse the EU of being in the pocket of the global logging industry – some of whose members were at the negotiations lobbying delegates in the Bangkok conference halls.
But at a press conference this afternoon, the EU gave way. A clearly embarrassed Swedish spokesman was forced to say the negotiator had blundered. “It was an unfortunate mishap,” he said. “Sometimes negotiators think of tactical moves. In this case, he wanted to wait until the Barcelona talks next month (to reinstate it). The EU has not changed its position. It is unfortunate. The poor negotiator has been slapped in his face.”

Hummer Will Test China’s Green Credentials

By ANDREW PEAPLE
A step closer to signing a deal for Hummer, Sichuan Tengzhong now faces a final hurdle — China’s regulators.
The chief executive of the little-known Chinese company is in Detroit to seal a $150 million purchase of Hummer from General Motors.
Bloomberg News
A deal could be signed as early as Friday. Still, sealing approval from Beijing might prove difficult.
The gas-guzzling Hummer doesn’t exactly fit with China’s newfound focus on energy efficiency, something that’s had Beijing offering subsidies to automakers building greener cars. A green light to the Hummer deal will fly in the face of such progressive policy trends, especially since Tengzhong’s longer term aim seems to be to sell the Hummer in China.
Efforts by Hummer’s technicians to come up with more fuel-efficient models, will be crucial to overcoming this. Certainly Hummer is hoping that it will retain access to GM’s fuel efficiency technology even after they split.
The deal fits some patterns the government’s trying to encourage, such as giving Chinese companies greater access to technology.
Whether that will be enough to convince the Chinese authorities of the viability of Tengzhong’s acquisition plans remains to be seen.
The company certainly seems to think it will. The environmental misfit adds a final uncertainty to a deal that’s always been out of left field.
Write to Andrew Peaple at andrew.peaple@dowjones.com

Bangkok climate talks end in recrimination

Bitter delegates say no agreement on money or emissions cuts means a deal at Copenhagen will be weak at best
John Vidal in Bangkok
guardian.co.uk, Friday 9 October 2009 15.41 BST
Global climate change talks came to an end in Bangkok today in an atmosphere of distrust and recrimination, with the rift between rich and poor countries seemingly wider than ever. After two weeks of negotiations there have been no breakthroughs on big issues such as money or emissions cuts.
With just five days of negotiating time now left before the concluding talks in Copenhagen in December, delegates said it appeared a weak deal was the most likely outcome, and no deal at all was a possibility.
However, President Obama’s expected visit to Oslo to receive the Nobel peace prize in the middle of the climate talks raised hopes that he would make the short journey to Copenhagen to galvanise governments.
“World leadership is now vital if the talks are not to fail completely. It is inconceivable that Obama could now ignore the climate change talks,” said one diplomat.
The citation for the prize specifically mentions the president “now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting”.
However, China, India, Brazil and other major developing countries lined up with environment and development groups to condemn both the US and EU for demanding a brand-new climate agreement.
This would bring the US aboard an agreement but in the eyes of most countries would mean the effective end of the Kyoto protocol and possibly allow countries to set their own targets and timetables for cuts.
“It’s irresponsible to even contemplate the idea of discarding the Kyoto protocol. It’s the lifeblood of any future agreement. It is the only legally binding agreement that gives the certainty of moving rapidly to addressing the climate concerns of billions of people,” said said Di-Aping Lumumba, Sudanese chair of the G77, a group of 130 developing countries.
“Developed countries have a massive leadership deficit. It’s now up to their leaders to intervene and give a direction to the negotiations rather than waste everyone’s time,” he said.
Shyam Saran, Indian special envoy on climate change, said: “The EU must change its position. There have been inadmissible attempts to abandon the Kyoto protocol. This would mean rewriting the key principles. This is not what we agreed by consensus.”
But the EU and UN brushed off concerns. “We are not killing Kyoto,” said Anders Turesson, chair of the EU working group in the negotiations. “We want to preserve the contents [of the protocol]. The only way to do that is to find a new home for it in a new single legal instrument.”
“This is trying to build something bigger and better than Kyoto. The fear is that there would be a race to the bottom. It is the opposite,” he said.
Yvo de Boer, executive director of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted there were now “serious” problems. “The spirit remains constructive and we have seen advances in Bangkok, but there is a strong fear that there is an attempt to kill the Kyoto protocol. That is causing great dissatisfaction,” he said.
Environment and development groups accused the EU and US of holding poor countries to ransom. “The rift between rich and poor has intensified because rich countries have not put serious money on the table to help poor countries adapt to escalating impacts of climate change,” said Oxfam senior climate adviser Antonio Hill. “The US has been silent on the scale of finance it will commit to.”
“Both the US and the EU have tried to shift the burden on to developing countries, arguing that they should even pay towards the costs of adapting to climate change despite their minimal contribution to the problem,” said Tom Sharman, ActionAid’s head of climate change. The only bright spot in the negotiations was Norway’s decision to increase its emissions reduction target to 40% on 1990 levels by 2020, he said.
“The EU has only increased developing country mistrust and the US is trying to impose its own domestic limitations on the world. It’s time for President Obama to be the climate leader he says he is,” said Martin Kaiser, Greenpeace International climate policy adviser.

While wind farms run out of puff our bills will build up a head of steam

Wind. It’s a touchy subject. Pete ‘n’ Dud spotted the problem back in 1961 when they were preparing for the End of The World.

By Alistair OsbornePublished: 8:13PM BST 09 Oct 2009
“Will this wind be so mighty as to lay low the mountains of the earth?” inquired the fretful Dud. “No. It will not be quite as mighty as that,” Pete replied. “That is why we have come up on the mountain, you stupid nit – to be safe from it.”
As it turned out, the wind failed to show up – a recurrent theme that Ofgem reprised yesterday as it highlighted the “variability” of such an energy supply. So variable in fact that the energy regulator is currently assuming that, in the future, windfarms are available for just 15pc of the time.
Ofgem is not a political animal. But there was plenty of ammo in Friday’s report for critics of Labour energy policy.
Realising fish can’t vote, the Government’s major contribution has been to approve pricey, unreliable offshore windfarms – while refusing, for far too long, to address the nuclear option.
The upshot is that cash-strapped Britain is now facing a looming energy gap, priced yesterday by Ofgem at up to £200bn. This is the sum that may be required to build new energy infrastructure while meeting environmental targets.
Who pays, you wonder. Well, you do, with the pain intensifying around 2015 when Britain shuts down its most polluting coal-fired power plants and our old nukes. Then, household bills could jump by 60pc – enough to make anyone’s hair stand on end.
There are two main reasons for this little shocker. First, that Britain has signed up to emission targets that call for 40pc of our electricity to be generated by renewable energy by 2020.
And second, that because we’ve been so slow in replacing our dwindling North Sea reserves with other forms of energy, we’ve become increasingly reliant on gas from Russia and Qatar – with all the attendant political risks.
It’s enough to put the wind up any incoming Government.