Western Backed Ethiopian Leader Attempts Sell Out of African Interestsin Copenhagen

Copenhagen: Head of African bloc calls on poorer nations to compromise over climate funding’

The head of the African group of nations at the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen has proposed a finance deal where rich countries would pay for schemes to help poor states adapt to climate change and develop their economies using clean technology.

The proposal, from the Ethiopian prime minister, Meles Zenawi, of $50bn (£44bn) a year for poor countries by 2015 and $100bn (£89bn) by 2020, is far less than many developing nations had been calling for, but is roughly in line with a proposal in June by the UK prime minister, Gordon Brown, and an offer agreed by the EU in October.

Control over the funds would lie with the countries receiving the money. The G77 group of 130 countries, backed by the least developed countries and small island states, has long proposed that $400bn (£356bn) a year, or 1% of rich countries’ GDP, would be the appropriate figure.

Meles also proposed that 50% of the fund created should be allocated to vulnerable and poor countries as well as “regions such as Africa and small island states”.

In addition, he suggested that a group of high level financial experts investigate and report back within six months on possible “innovative” ways to raise the money. IMF special drawing rights, as proposed by the G77 and financier George Soros, a carbon tax, a possible “Tobin tax” on all financial transactions and even taxes on flights and shipping would all be assessed. His proposal is likely to have been largely agreed by rich countries following intense talks in the last 24 hours between Meles, Gordon Brown and other world leaders.

Meles admitted that many Africans would not be happy: “I know my proposal will disappoint those Africans who … have asked for full compensation … for damage done to our development prospects. My proposal dramatically scales back our expectation of the level of funding in return for more reliable funding and a seat at the table in the management of such fund.”

“Because we stand to lose more than others we have to be flexible,” he said, adding that there was a danger that no deal would be done. “That is not an idle threat but a solemn promise by Africa that we will strive for a fair and just deal,” he said.

The influential economist, Lord Nicholas Stern, welcomed the proposal as “strong and reasonable” and “with the interests of developing countries at its heart”. He said: “Of course, there will be those who say, understandably, that the plan should go further, but we are at a critical stage in the negotiations. This is a major step forward.

“The focus on new sources of finance provides confidence that new monies are genuinely new from the perspective of developing countries, and allows rich countries with very stressed public finances to explore new and internationally based sources of revenue.”

Developing countries have yet to react officially to the proposal, but it was dismissed by some African MPs and many development groups.

Liz Gallagher, climate finance specialist at Cafod, said: “Such a turnaround on the level of finance being asked for by Africa points to the influence of some of the big powers behind the scenes.

“To slash the figure from $400bn to $100bn is a high-risk strategy – on the one hand Africa could be showing its willingness to compromise; but on the other it is placing its trust in the US and other developed countries to deliver. Whether this strategy is wise or naive remains to be seen.”

Awudu Mbaya, president of the Pan-African Parliamentarians Network on Climate Change, said: “If Prime Minister Meles wants to sell out the lives and hopes of Africans for a pittance he is welcome to, but that is not Africa’s position”.

In a separate development, the UK’s Department for International Development announced £50m of funding for green energy projects in developing countries. The “Scaling-up Renewable Energy Programme” is administered by the World Bank and will focus on deploying renewable energy in a small number of low-income countries. On Monday, the US pledged £31m to the same fund, which with the UK contribution now stands at over £153m.

Climate talks resuming after row

By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website, Copenhagen

Formal negotiations have re-opened at the UN climate summit in Copenhagen after a delay of nine hours.

The hold-up was caused by wrangles over the texts to be used as the basis for the talks.

Beneath the dispute lies a long-running accusation from developing countries that the Danish hosts are trying to sideline their concerns.

New funds have been pledged, notably by Japan which will provide $5bn a year to poor nations if a deal is reached.

Earlier, police clashed with protesters who stormed barricades around Copenhagen’s Bella Centre.

Campaign groups have been angered about restrictions on access to the talks, and by the glacial progress of negotiations.

But Japan’s pledge ramps up significantly the amount of “fast start” money on the table.

Its $5bn per year - payable from 2010-2012 - adds to the £3.5bn per year commitment made by EU leaders at their summit last week.

But it will only kick in “on the condition that successful political accord is achieved… that is a fair and effective framework with participation of all major emitting countries and agreement of their most ambitious targets”.

Japan has been especially determined that emission curbs from major developing countries should be legally binding.

China, its big regional economic rival, is adamantly opposed.

Another pledge came from a six-member group - Australia, France, Japan, Norway, the UK and US - which will collectively commit $3.5bn over three years to combating deforestation - again, “in the context of an ambitious and comprehensive outcome in Copenhagen”.

The UK commitment will come from its component of the EU’s $3.5bn per year.

Columbian Environment Minister Carlos Costa, whose country would benefit from such an initiative, said: “We welcome initiatives such as this one that provides prompt start finance that will allow developing countries, and their communities, to start work on the ground.”

Continuing divide

The formal negotiations, which were due to start at 1300 local time, eventually got underway at 2200 - a delay caused by the Danish hosts angering developing countries by trying to introduce new documents as the basis for negotiations.

Developing countries insisted on using documents that have come out of negotiations that have been going on for most of the year.

The new Danish texts were reportedly shown to a few key delegations and rejected out of hand. Delegates waited in the conference hall with no information about when the session would begin.

The issue illustrates the continuing divide between rich and poor blocs here, with developing countries repeatedly accusing the Danes of trying to impose a shape on the summit that will lead to the outcome desired by developed nations.

Towards the end of the evening, a group of about 30 protesters were preparing to spend the night in the centre, apparently with the blessing of security guards.

During the day, police detained more than 240 protesters during the clashes, which led to injuries on both sides.

In the main hall, meanwhile, a succession of presidents and prime ministers made set-piece speeches.

Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi gave some details of a proposal - drawn up with substantial French involvement - aimed at breaking the impasse here.

“Every one of us knows that Africa has contributed virtually nothing to global warming but has been hit first and hardest,” he said.

Mr Zenawi related some elements of his proposal, including that the sum of $50bn per year by 2015 and $100bn per year by 2020 should be raised for poorer countries through “creative financing mechanisms” such as taxes on financial transactions and aviation fuel.

He acknowledged that he knew his proposal “would disappoint those Africans who from the point of view of justice have asked for full compensation for the damage done to our development prospects”.

It certainly infuriated the African group of negotiators, because it also endorsed positions that most African countries oppose - notably, a target for maximum temperature rise of 2C (the G8 and EU target), whereas most African governments are committed to 1.5C.

It is not clear whether his proposal has support from other African leaders, however, or from further across the community of poor vulnerable countries such as small island states.

Lord Stern, who has had a strong hand in developing the proposal, said it was “strong and reasonable”.

“The rich countries should give their strong support to the Meles plan, which has been put forward by an African leader with the interests of developing countries at its heart.”

Worst impacts

Other speeches exemplified the fault lines running through the process.

While EU delegates spoke of achieving the 2C target “if everybody is now ready to overcome the procedural obstacles”, developing countries made clear that they viewed the continuing chaos over texts as a matter of principle, not procedure.

And Nauru’s president, Marcus Stephen, demanded proper legal negotiations on the lower temperature target.

“The science tells us that we must limit the rise in global temperature to well below 1.5C to preserve the chance of avoiding the worst impacts of climate change.

“To accept anything less would mean the destruction of our marine ecosystems, shortages of food and water, and the relocation of our communities. Please tell me - how is this practical?”

Earlier, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown conceded that a deal might not be achievable here.

But, he added: “If you don’t get an agreement this week, people will doubt whether you can get an agreement at all.”

Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/8417305.stm
Published: 2009/12/16 21:53:02 GMT

Zimbabwe Hail Talks Progress Involving Global Political Agreement

Principals hail talks progress

Herald Reporters

THE three principals to the Global Political Agreement met on Monday and ordered negotiators to expeditiously deal with the remaining issues and submit their comprehensive report ahead of their meeting next Monday.

Chief Secretary to the President and Cabinet Dr Misheck Sibanda said in a statement yesterday that in their meeting, the principals noted that the negotiators had made remarkable progress in addressing outstanding issues in the implementation of the GPA.

“The three principals to the Global Political Agreement, His Excellency President R.G. Mugabe, Honourable Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai and Honourable Deputy Prime Minister Professor Arthur Mutambara met yesterday (Monday), 14 December 2009 to review recommendations submitted by the negotiating teams and also to consider the names of candidates recommended to them by the Parliamentary Standing Rules and Orders Committee (SROC) to serve on the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission, the Zimbabwe Media Commission and the Human Rights Commission,” he said.

Dr Sibanda said that with regard the appointment of the commissions, the three principals agreed with most of the recommendations of the SROC except for the few appointees, where consultations on the individuals concerned were taking place.

“An announcement of the appointment will be made shortly,” he said.

The directive made by the three principals follows a series of meetings by the negotiators in the past weeks in their quest to iron out their differences in the implementation of the GPA.

The meetings were directed by the Sadc Organ on Politics, Defence and Security Co-operation when members met in Mozambique recently to review progress made in the implementation of the GPA.

South African President Jacob Zuma also sent a three-member facilitation team last week to check on progress made in the implementation of the outstanding GPA issues.

However, it emerged this week that discussions on the full implementation of outstanding issues would not resume as some of the negotiators were reported to be out of the country on Government business.

The talks were adjourned last week following the visit of a facilitation team appointed by South African President Mr Zuma.

Zanu-PF co-negotiator Cde Patrick Chinamasa indicated last week that the negotiators would take a break to consult party principals and within party structures after presenting a report to the facilitators.

Cde Chinamasa said the negotiation teams would consult each other on a date to resume discussions.

However, in an interview yesterday, Cde Chinamasa said some of the negotiators, especially from the MDC formations, were currently seized with Government business outside Zimbabwe.

“We have not yet discussed the day to resume the talks as we are currently waiting for the other negotiators to come back into the country,” he said.

“Professor Ncube and Minister (Priscilla) Misihairabwi-Mushonga are also out of the country on Government business. So, we are waiting for them to come back so that we set a date for the talks to resume.”

Minister Chinamasa dismissed reports that the negotiations were set to resume this Friday.

“I am not aware of that. I do not know anything and I cannot comment on that,” he said.

Negotiators — Cdes Chinamasa and Nicholas Goche (Zanu-PF), Mr Biti and Mr Elton Mangoma from MDC-T and Prof Ncube and Mrs Misihairambwi-Mushonga (MDC) — handed over a joint report to the facilitation team.

The facilitation team of President Zuma’s special advisor on international relations Ms Lindiwe Zulu and former cabinet ministers Charles Nqakula and Mac Maharaj visited Zimbabwe last week.

Ms Zulu, the facilitators’ spokesperson, indicated that they were impressed by the progress made in the discussions.

The facilitation team will prepare a report for President Zuma to submit to the Sadc Organ on Politics, Defence and Security chairperson Mozambique President Armando Guebuza.

President Guebuza will then decide whether or not to convene an extraordinary Sadc Troika meeting on Zimbabwe.

Among contentious issues cited by Zanu-PF is the lifting of illegal sanctions, the continued broadcasting of hate language by pirate radio stations, external interference in Zimbabwe’s affairs and establishment of parallel Government structures in the Prime Minister’s Office.

MDC-T called for the immediate swearing in of agriculture deputy minister nominee Roy Bennett and a review of the appointments of Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Governor Gideon Gono and Attorney-General Mr Johannes Tomana.

DR Congo: UN forces, army adopt new directives with civilian protection at core

United Nations peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and the national army adopted new directives today for operations against rebels with the protection of civilians as the core focus following reports of massacres and other serious human rights violations by Congolese soldiers.

Barack Obama is Bad for Black America

Barack Obama is Bad for Black America

by Solomon Comissiong

When then US Senator Barack Obama announced his candidacy for president of the United States on February 10, 2007 it marked the beginning of the superficial “Change You Can Believe In” express.

Many saw his candidacy, and impending coronation as president, as a breath of fresh air from the sulfur stench left in the atmosphere by the Bush/Cheney administration. Some even saw his candidacy as potentially great for Black America. On both counts, those people were, unfortunately, wrong. Barack Obama’s presidency has seen a continuation of many of the Bush administration’s repugnant policies. And President Obama has been one of the worst things to happen to a great many African Americans, pyschologically, in quite some time. Barack Obama has been horribly bad for Black America.

To say that Barack Obama has been anything but a blessing to Black America is enough to send many Obamanistas into full body convulsions. Unfortunately, far too many people are still inebriated on the Obama-aid punch. This mental drunkenness impedes their ability to see President Obama for what he really is: a war mongering, amoral, corporate puppet. President Obama has pursued policies that, if he were white, would have driven legions of so-called progressives and black people into mass protest.

However, because Obama is a phenotypical brown man who possesses extraordinary skills of oratory, he continually gets a pass. His $700 million campaign war chest enabled his handlers to strategically place hollow slogans everywhere the eye could see. His campaign even claimed two top prizes at the Cannes Lions International Advertising Awards ceremony. Obama’s presidential campaign will be studied for decades to come, from top to bottom, as a textbook exercise in style over substance. However, few analysts will examine the damage his candidacy and tenure has done to the consciousness of many Black Americans. I am not talking about the instilling of “hope” and the bringing of “change” – quite the opposite.

I can understand the initial frenzy that Barack Obama’s candidacy caused among black Americans. Jesse Jackson was the last black presidential candidate to excite African American passions. Barack Obama appeared to have a real chance at capturing the White House, and millions of black Americans saw their own interests as inextricably linked with those of the Illinois senator. However, as the Obama campaign moved forward, it was obvious that the feeling was not mutual. Obama’s utter disregard for African Americans and their continued struggles became more noticeable with each passing day. He showed a reluctance to address race based issues that even white Democratic candidates, such as John Edwards, did not.

The more I tried to convince black Obamanistas that he did not give a damn about them, the more I received excuses such as, “He is not running for the president of black America.” I always found that rationale amusing, but sad; by such logic, black people must not be a part of America. Obama certainly didn’t seem to think so. He trivialized blacks’ day to day struggles, and their historical quest for human rights.

When Barack Obama essentially justified the police murder/lynching of a young black New Yorker named Sean Bell, it should have been obvious that he did not give a damn about the average black person’s life. Sean Bell was shot (unarmed) over 40 times by the NYPD in the wee hours of his wedding day morning. After a morally corrupt judge acquitted the officers that murdered Bell, Obama told black America that they should stop protesting and respect the verdict. It was the verbal equivalent of spitting in the face of every African American who has protested, marched, and fought for civil and human rights. From Malcolm X to Martin Luther King, and from Ida B. Wells to Ella Baker, black Americans have created new paths for humanity based on their ceaseless willingness to protest, organize and fight! Police brutality disproportionately affects black communities, in contrast to white ones. In America unarmed black men are still targeted and murdered by police – crimes that are facilitated by the same institutional racism that President Obama has ignored since announcing his candidacy. Apparently, Obama harbors no principles – aside from those valued on Wall Street.

Obama has never claimed to have an allegiance with black Americans and their unique struggles in this country. As a result of Black America’s misguided love affair with the Democratic Party, more than 94 percent of the Black vote goes to Democrats in presidential elections. Obama knew he could count on black votes no matter what he said or did in the campaign. In essence, he had the freedom to disrespect black America, and he exercised it. However, Obama had to convince white America that he was a safe enough Negro to vote for – that he would not rock the boat with real progressive change that might narrow the social gap between them and their black counterparts. His job was to assure whites that he was the opposite of his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, whom he disinvited from his campaign launch.

Obama became so comfortable genuflecting to white America, he began publicly castigating blacks in what were dubbed “tough love” speeches. Whites loved to hear about his lectures on social maladies in black communities. “Blame the black folks” was Obama’s mantra. Of course, Obama would never have the guts to go into a white church and lecture white men on being better fathers. But he quite felt comfortable telling the NAACP’s 100th anniversary dinner that they should accept the fact that black youth have to work two and three times harder than their white counterparts simply to gain the same opportunities. In Obamaland, social injustices to black people are acceptable. Black people should grin, bear it and suck it up while their white counterparts continually reap all the benefits from their shiftless ancestors who stole land and people to build wealth.

Obama has settled into the role of white America’s sycophant. He seems to enjoy doing whatever he can to make large pockets of white people feel comfortable in their ways, even when their ways are destructive. Having beer on the White House lawn with a racist white police officer from Massachusetts, is a shining example of life in Obamaland. The Obama Effect’s psychological damage to black America has been devastating. His message to black people (young and older) is that if you don’t rock the boat, white America might let you in their house – while the rest of your people continue to catch hell.

Despite President Barack Obama’s blatant neglect of Black America and the enumerable racial inequities that continue (and multiply!) in America today, many African Americans still support him, unconditionally. With this kind of unwavering allegiance, why would he ever feel the need to address the root causes of mass black incarceration, disproportionate unemployment rates and police brutality, to name a few? The only way president Obama will ever get on the right side of justice is if black America comes to its senses and collectively pressures the brown man in the White House. Time and time again, Obama has shown that, when pressured, he will collapse like a house of cards.

Politicians like Barack Obama and superficial movements (a la Change You Can Believe In) do not deserve our votes and support. They do not support us. Movements like the Black is Back Coalition (blackisbackcoalition.org) and activists like Cynthia McKinney support us, and we must reciprocate. As Barack Obama escalate his wars of aggression, the black community must mobilize, organize, and demand justice and equality. There is no other way.

Solomon Comissiong is an educator, community activist, author, public speaker and the host of the Your World News radio program (www.blogtalkradio.com/Your-World-News). He may be reached at: sunderland77@hotmail.com.

Security Council extends UN disengagement force on Israeli-Syrian front

The Security Council today renewed the 35-year-old United Nations mission observing the ceasefire between Israel and Syria on the Golan Heights for another six months, after Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called its presence “essential” due to overlying regional tensions despite calm on that particular front.

Copenhagen could make ‘worst of all possible worlds’

If a deal is done, the world could be stuck with more of the time-consuming and legally difficult “twin track” approach of Kyoto, says Fred Pearce

Venezuelan leader violates independence of judiciary - UN rights experts

Decrying what they called “a blow by President Hugo Chávez to the independence of judges and lawyers in the country,” three independent United Nations human rights experts today called for the immediate release of a Venezuelan judge arrested after ordering the conditional release of a prisoner held for almost three years without trial.

Pentagon preps for conflicts sparked by climate change

CAIRO, Egypt – Dr. Mamdouh Hamza stood on a salty, barren stretch of caked sand and pointed to a clutch of rich green date palms a few hundred yards away. “What you’re looking at over there – that gives life to people.” Then he pointed down, towards his muddied shoes. “And this is land which gives death to people. That’s the difference – life and death.”

For this 50-something environmental engineer, what is happening to his beloved Nile Delta is nothing less than lethal. The funnel-shaped ancient land of the delta, the most fertile area in the Middle East, is Hamza’s birthplace, and home to some 60 million Egyptians.

But the delta is under attack from the Mediterranean Sea, which has risen one foot in about 70 years – some scientists believe as a result of global warming. The rising water has already crept into aquifers and lapped across fields of crops, turning them into marshland.

VIDEO: Could climate change spark conflict?

“It’s terrifying,” said farmer Mohamed Helawany as he pruned his few surviving guava plants. “We’ve built barriers with wood and reeds, but the water keeps coming on the plants and kills them.”

Some scientists predict that, based on current data, the sea will rise another three feet in about 30 years. Hamza translated that projection into flesh-and-blood reality. “It will mean losing at least a quarter, perhaps 40 percent of our delta. It’s not only agriculture, it’s roads, it’s railways, hospitals, schools, banks, government buildings – it will be an economic disaster.”
…(read more)

Copenhagen could produce ‘the worst of all possible worlds’

If a deal is done, the world could be stuck with a continuation of the time-consuming and legally difficult “twin track” approach of Kyoto, says Fred Pearce

Today on New Scientist: 16 December 2009

Today’s stories on newscientist.com, at a glance, including: the secret mathematics of Alice in Wonderland, the battle for climate data, and the alien planet that could be the ultimate water world