Sudan News Update: NCP Condemns ICC Decision Against President Bashir;Southern Referendum Debated

Sudan ruling NCP condemns ICC decision against Bashir

Thursday 4 February 2010

February 4, 2010 (WASHINGTON) – The ruling National Congress Party (NCP) issued a statement on Thursday morning decrying what it described as “persistent targeting” by the International Criminal Court (ICC) against Sudan and president Omer Hassan Al-Bashir.

On Wednesday the five-member appeal chamber reversed a majority decision by the Pre-Trial Chamber that excluded the crime of genocide from the arrest warrant issued for the Sudanese president but kept the counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo accused Bashir of masterminding a campaign to get rid of the African tribes in Darfur; Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa, something which Khartoum vehemently denies labeling the accusations leveled at the Sudanese president as “lies” and a “Western conspiracy”.

Ocampo filed a challenge afterwards arguing that the Pre-Trial judges used a higher evidentiary threshold than is required at this stage of the proceedings in determining whether Bashir had genocidal intent.

“The Pre-Trial Chamber applied an erroneous standard of proof when evaluating the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor and, consequently, rejected his application for a warrant of arrest in respect of the crime of genocide. Therefore, the decision by the Pre-Trial Chamber not to issue a warrant of arrest in respect of that crime was materially affected by an error of law. It is therefore appropriate to reverse the Impugned Decision to that extent” the appeal chamber written decision read.

The case has been sent back to the Pre-Trial chamber to review the case anew and enter a new decision consistent with today’s ruling. The judges may take anywhere between a few weeks to one year before they complete their reconsideration of the genocide counts.

Sudan’s ruling party reiterated the country’s position that they do not recognize the jurisdiction of the court and threatening to repeat the scenario of expelling agencies that “exceed the law and violate the sovereignty and pride of Sudanese people”.

Following the March, 2009 ICC indictments, the Sudanese president expelled a dozen aid groups from Darfur accusing them of supplying false info to the Hague based court.

The NCP said that the timing of the decision coincides with peace talks in Doha and the April elections and urged the Sudanese people to ignore the court and focus on national building issues. The party led by Bashir hailed the African Union, Arab League, Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) and other groups in backing Sudan against the ICC moves.

Ocampo welcomed the decision and warned Bashir he needed to “get a lawyer,” adding he would present fresh evidence to the court in a second bid to have Bashir charged with genocide.

“Expelling humanitarian assistance is a great element of his genocidal intentions,” Moreno-Ocampo told Reuters.

“When he expelled these people who were providing the water and the food he confirmed his intention to destroy his people. So I would like to present this new aspect of the case.”

Several Rights groups around the world hailed today’s decision saying it brings the justice issue into the spotlight.

“Today’s decision is a strong reminder that President al-Bashir is wanted for heinous crimes committed in Darfur,” Elise Keppler, Human Rights Watch’s International Justice Program senior counsel, said in a release. “President al-Bashir is a fugitive from justice who needs to appear in The Hague to answer to the allegations against him.”

Amnesty International senior legal advisor Christopher Hall echoed the same position.

“I think little by little, the vice is closing in on him and at some point he will have to face a trial in the International Criminal Court in the same way that President Milosevic or President Taylor or numerous other officials from Rwanda and Sierra Leone have had to face trials,” said Christopher Hall.

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson said in Ghana that Bashir should go to the ICC to face justice. “We think that President Bashir should present himself to the court to face charges,” Carson told reporters.

There was no reaction so far from any of Bashir’s backers in the Arab, African or Islamic states.

Darfur’s main rebel group welcomed the ICC’s decision, saying it is the logical conclusion to be made.

“The destruction that was inflicted upon Darfuris speaks for itself. It was not a conventional warfare. Bashir was in charge and he had publicly told the army that he does not want any prisoners or wounded from Darfur” JEM official spokesperson Ahmed Hussein Adam told Sudan Tribune from Doha.

Adam reiterated that the ruling will have no impact on the political process currently underway with Khartoum.

“The legal path is separate from the political one. Justice and peace go hand in hand but as far as JEM is concerned peace remains our strategic objective and our position is unchanged. The ICC is an independent institution carrying out a legal task” he said.

Bashir flew to Qatar today on a brief visit in which he met with the ruler Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani . Sudanese state minister for foreign affairs said that the talks tackled the stalled peace talks hosted by Qatar between Khartoum and Darfur rebel groups.

Sudan renews confidence in Qatari efforts to end Darfur conflict

Thursday 4 February 2010

February 3, 2010 (DOHA) — President Omer Al-Bashir reiterated his support to the Qatari efforts to end the seven year conflict in Darfur, a Sudanese official said following a brief visit he paid to Doha today.

Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani meets Sudan’s President Omar Hassan Al-Bashir (R) at his office in the capital Doha, February 3, 2010. (QNA) Bashir was in the Qatari capital for talks with Emir of Qatar Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani on the peace process to end the armed conflict in Darfur.

Since September 2008, Qatar has been chosen as venue for the peace talks in Darfur after Libya’s failure in 2007 to bring rebels to talks it had hosted. But, the joint efforts of Qatar and the AU-UN mediator seem bothered by continuous interferences from different countries and organizations.

Sudan, through Bashir’s visit has reaffirmed its support and confidence in the Qatari initiative to resolve the problem in Darfur and stressed its continuation with the Qatari venue, said Amin Hassan Omer, government top negotiator.

Omer also said Sudan has pledged to make the needed efforts in order to ensure its success, adding the talks tackled ways to enhance and accelerate the peace process.

Sudan and the rebel Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) signed a goodwill agreement one year ago in February 2009. However as the government did not implement the agreement the rebel JEM suspended its participation in the process.

Since the mediation convinced JEM to resume the peace talks with Khartoum with the participation of the other rebel groups reunited after efforts by the Libyan and American facilitators. But JEM rejects their participations asking these groups to merge within the movement.

Also, the efforts of the mediation seem obstructed by criticisms made by the US envoy Scott Gration who has bad relations with the main rebel groups and an initiative launched by the former South African President Thabo Mbeki. In addition recently the new UNAMID head said he wants “to make peace in Darfur” because there is no peace to keep there.

Chad’s Deby to visit Sudan on Monday

Thursday 4 February 2010

February 3, 2010 (NDJAMENA) — Chadian President Idriss Deby Itno announced Wednesday he will fly to Khartoum next Monday for talks on normalization process with his Sudanese counterpart Omer Al-Beshir.

Visiting president Deby and president Al-Bashir shake hands in Khartoum on December 10 2003 (AFP) “I am going to Khartoum on 8th of February to have talks with President al-Beshir,” Deby told a visiting delegation from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Francophonie on Wednesday.

“At the time I am talking to you, he has not yet been informed, so I’m giving you this scoop. He will be informed at the end of this meeting,” he further said.

The visit comes after direct talks between the two countries to normalize relations and settle the five year difference over support to rebel groups in both countries.

The two countries are expected to deploy patrols soon along the border to prevent rebels from crossing on both sides.

Since last October, President Al-Bashir sent his adviser Ghazi Salah Al-Deen Attabanti to inform President Deby of Sudan’s readiness to improve ties and end the tensions between the two countries.

However, Chadian President seemed for some time reluctant and asked Sudan to take concrete steps to prove its willingness.

“I am a man of dialogue and openness. War has never settled things and I know what I’m talking about, dear parliamentarians. Chad wants to live in perfect harmony with all its neighbours,” Deby said.

Bashir and Deby were close allies in the past. It was reported that when security reports mentioned flow of arms from Chad to the rebels in Darfur, he had refused such reports. The former rebel Deby took power in a military coup in 1990, with Sudan’s backing.

Kenya supports Southern Sudan self-determination referendum - Odinga

Thursday 4 February 2010.

February 4, 2010 (NAIROBI) — The Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga has urged the international community to support a referendum to be held next year on southern Sudan self-determination adding Kenya is committed to outcome of this popular consultation.

Raila Odinga Odinga remarks supporting southern Sudan independence come following statements by the chiefs of the African Union, Jean Ping and the United Nations Ban Ki-Moon on the need to preserve Sudan’s unity.

Following a protest letter by the President of southern Sudan government to the Secretary General of the United Nations Ban Ki-Moon, the UN said Ban was supporting efforts to make unity attractive.

“I strongly urge the entire international community to pursue a similar course and offer maximum assistance in implementing the referendum’s outcome, whatever it might be,” said Raila on Wednesday.

He emphasized that Kenya was fully committed to and would respect the outcome of the self determination referendum, whether it favors maintaining unity or creation of an independent state in southern Sudan.

The Kenyan Prime Minister said the AU and UN stand would undermine the principle of peaceful resolution of disputes of which the CPA is an outstanding example globally. “Having done so much to advance this historic process of self-determination, it is preposterous that anyone would seek a pre-determined outcome in the referendum,” he added.

Raila called on the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), which sponsored the peace process hosted at the time Kenyan government to take lead in the ensuring the implementation of the CPA.

“IGAD was familiar with all the issues concerning the CPA and was in a better position to resolve outstanding issues such border demarcations at the oil-rich Abyei region and the population census process.”

UNAMID denies Sudan’s claim that it aided Darfur rebels

Thursday 4 February 2010

February 3, 2010 (EL FASHER) – The African Union – United Nations Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) strongly denied that it had given supplies to rebels, dismissing the accusations recently made by the spokesman of the Sudanese Armed Forces that the Mission is in collaboration with the Justice and Equality Movement.

Nigerian soldiers serving with the United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) The hybrid peacekeeping mission was responding to allegations made Monday that the peacekeepers willingly supplied the rebel Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) with food and fuel.

The Sudanese army spokesman said that JEM hijacked six trucks belonging to UNAMID, after which the peacekeepers did not report the incident to authorities. He also claimed that on January 25 another two trucks loaded with 70 barrels of fuel had gone missing.

JEM rebels in recent months are reported to have returned into Darfur from rear bases in Chad, due to improving relations between the capitals at Khartoum and N’djamena.

“UNAMID has never and will never collaborate in the form described with any parties to the conflict in Darfur. The Mission does not and shall not deviate from its responsibility and mandated obligation to serve as an impartial and honest broker in the peace process,” stated the Mission’s public information division.

The peacekeepers said that they have established good relations with the Government of Sudan at all levels, which these “unfounded allegations” will not affect.

The Mission added that it “remains committed to implementing its mandate and its priorities, as established by the new Joint Special Representative Ibrahim Gambari, of enhancing the security of civilians and internally displaced people in Darfur; continuing to provide proactive support to the ongoing peace process; and assisting in the normalization of relations between Chad and the Sudan.”

UN chief’s anti-secession remark triggers South Sudan protest

Tuesday 2 February 2010.
By Philip Thon Aleu

February 1, 2010 (BOR) – A group of Southern Sudanese marched to the base of the United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) here Monday protesting an anti-secessionist statement attributed to the UN Secretary General. This remark also generated criticism among South Sudanese academics in Khartoum.

Protesters at the UNMIS base in Bor on February 1, 2010. Ban Ki-moon had said Saturday that UN and the AU would work to avoid southern Sudan secession in a referendum scheduled for January 2011. The UN chief in a joint interview with AFP and RFI radio said “The UN has a big responsibility with the AU to maintain peace in Sudan and make unity attractive… We’ll work hard to avoid a possible secession.” His statement came one day after similar statements by the chairman of the African Union (AU) Commission Jean Ping who said secession would lead to another war in Sudan and push Darfur rebels to seek self-determination.

The protesters hold banners saying “our future lies in our independence.” In a written speech delivered at UNMIS compound, the angered group claims that Ban Ki-moon’s remarks at the 14th African Union (AU) summit on Saturday in Addis Ababa never “examined the negative part of [Sudan’s] unity.”

Bor protesters say Ban’s statement indicates that the UN admires Sudan’s wars, slavery and illiteracy under Khartoum administration. “Sudan has never been in peace not because the people Sudanese communities are against peace but…the government had been misruling….rich cultures,” the protest speech reads in part.

The demonstrators, mainly youth, call on the UN chief to apologize saying “Ban Ki-moon, repent before judgment.”

An officer at the UN camp, flanked by his colleagues at the UNMIS says at the time the letter was issued that the peacekeepers’ mandate does not include deciding on the future of Southern Sudan. The officer apologized for the local understanding of the UN chief’s statement and pledged to hand the letter to higher authorities.

SOUTH SUDANESE INTELLECTUALS OPPOSE UNITY

In an interview today with Professor Deng Awuor who teaches social studies at Juba university campus at Kodoro, east of Khartoum, he outlined historical reasons for the split expected next year in the 2011 referendum for secession of the South.

He said that British and Egyptians jointly ruled Sudan for over 40 years but failed to make unity attractive between Sudanese Africans in the south and Arabs in the north. Instead they initiated and introduced detrimental policies of divide and rule which were later on adopted by successive Khartoum-based ruling elites, he said.

He said they never succeeded in anything including making unity of the country attractive nor did they lay down strong foundation for unity but deployed divisive policies which recognize provincial leaderships.

The independence of the country on 1st January 1956 came when issue of identity became the central issue to those who regards themselves as the real Sudanese through oppressive initiatives in managing affairs of the African tribes.

In forum discussions at the university, one of the contributors said that the Comprehensive Peace Agreement was to build and repair the long strained south-north relationship, giving a last chance – a period of six years – to the repressive and extremist leaders in Khartoum to make unity attractive, but they failed to make it.

“If Sudanese people and government could not make it possible to make unity attractive, can the AU and the UN Secretary General make unity attractive within one year?” he posed.

According to the participant, Africans, whether they are Sudanese, Muslims or Christians want the best initiative against discriminatory tradition and culture, and work to liberate the corrupted African minds, hearts and souls by tradition and culture that do not respect human rights.

“If UN and AU can do this within one year, before the deadline for referendum, the enslaved and oppressed African people of the southern Sudan may accept to stay as one in a United States of Sudan,” he said.

However, he was quick to add UN, the AU and the free developed world know the history of the struggle of the African people in Sudan, especially the people of the southern Sudan and Darfur to transform the colonial thinking and minds of those who have clung to power using religion. He said individuals in the center, since entrance of Mohamed Ali in 1820, have continued to behave like a colonial power and treat the indigenous African tribes as slaves.

“African tribes in Sudan today are enslaved and their mind being corrupted by Arab Islamic ideology, and imprisoned by imposed Arab religion, tradition and culture which only serve the interest of the Arab Islamic leaders, and care less about the unity of Sudan,” he explained.

The African people of the southern Sudan have given them enough time to change their discriminatory behaviors and culture and to live as equal citizens in Sudan but refused and continued to kill, discriminate, corrupt the mind, heart and soul of our people to make them go to hell, he said.

Another participant too furiously said the Secretary General has acted out of his capacity hence making it impossible for him to understand – “he comes from the culture equal our own as South Korea was once part of North Korea,” he said.

“How come he is so quick to forget such history?” he posed.

Ngor Arol Garang contributed to this report from Khartoum.

Central African Republic receives new UN peacebuilding funds

The United Nations today announced a further allocation of $20 million from its Peacebuilding Fund to the Central African Republic (CAR) to support security sector reform, economic revitalization and the rule of law in consolidating peace in the impoverished African country.

Soldiers Deaths Draw Focus to U.S. in Pakistan

February 4, 2010

Soldier Deaths Draw Focus to U.S. in Pakistan

By JANE PERLEZ
New York Times

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — The deaths of three American soldiers in a Taliban suicide attack on Wednesday lifted the veil on United States military assistance to Pakistan that the authorities here would like to keep quiet and the Americans, as the donors, chafe at not receiving credit for.

The soldiers were among at least 60 to 100 members of a Special Operations team that trains Pakistan’s paramilitary Frontier Corps in counterinsurgency techniques, including intelligence gathering and development assistance. The American service members are from the Special Operations Command of Adm. Eric T. Olson.

At least 12 other American service members have been killed in Pakistan since Sept. 11, 2001, in hotel bombings and a plane crash, according to the United States Central Command, but these were the first killed as part of the Special Operations training, which has been under way for 18 months.

That training has been acknowledged only gingerly by both the Americans and the Pakistanis, but has deliberately been kept low-key so as not to trespass onto Pakistani sensitivities about sovereignty, and not to further inflame high anti-American sentiment.

Even though the United States calls Pakistan an ally, the country, unlike Afghanistan and Iraq, has not allowed American combat forces to operate here, a point that is stressed by the Pentagon and the Pakistani Army, the most powerful institution in Pakistan.

Instead, the Central Intelligence Agency operates what has become the main American weapon in Pakistan, the drones armed with missiles that have struck with increasing intensity against militants with the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the lawless tribal areas.

The American soldiers were probably made targets as a result of the drone strikes, said Syed Rifaat Hussain, professor of international relations at Islamabad University. “The attack seems a payback for the mounting frequency of the drone attacks,” Professor Hussain said.

If the American soldiers were the targets, the attack raised the question of whether the Taliban had received intelligence or cooperation from within the Frontier Corps.

The three soldiers were killed, and two other service members wounded, in the region of Lower Dir, which is close to the tribal areas. According to police officials in the region, the armored vehicle in which they were traveling was hit by a suicide bomber driving a car. Earlier reports from Pakistani security officials said the soldiers had been killed by a roadside explosive device.

To disguise themselves in a way that is common for Western men in Pakistan, the American soldiers were dressed in traditional Pakistani garb of baggy trousers and long tunic, known as shalwar kameez, according to a Frontier Corps officer. They also wore local caps that helped cover their hair, he said.

Their armored vehicle was equipped with electronic jammers sufficient to block remotely controlled devices and mines, the officer said. Vehicles driven by the Frontier Corps were placed in front and behind the Americans as protection, he said.

Still, the Taliban bomber was able to penetrate their cordon. In all 131 people were wounded, most of them girls who were students at a high school adjacent to the site of the suicide attack, the Lower Dir police said.

The soldiers were en route to the opening of a girls school that had been rebuilt with American money, the United States Embassy said in a statement. The school was destroyed by the Taliban last year as they swept through Lower Dir and the nearby Swat Valley, where a battle raged for months between the Pakistani Army and the Taliban.

A spokesman for the Pakistani Taliban called reporters hours after the attack against the Americans and claimed that his group was responsible.

The Pakistani Army currently occupies Swat, and in an effort to strengthen the civilian institutions there and in Dir, some of the American service members on the Special Operations team have been quietly working on development projects, an American official said.

The presence of the American military members in an area known to be threaded with Taliban militants would also raise questions, said Khalid Aziz, a former chief secretary of the North-West Frontier Province, which includes Swat and Dir.

Mr. Aziz said it was odd that American soldiers would go to such a volatile area where Taliban militants were known to be prevalent even though the Pakistani security forces insisted that they had been flushed out.

The usual practice for development work in Dir and Swat called for Pakistani aid workers or paramilitary soldiers to visit the sites, he said.

The Americans’ involvement in training Frontier Corps recruits in development assistance was little known until Wednesday’s attack.

“People are going to be very suspicious,” said Mr. Aziz, who is now involved in American assistance projects elsewhere. “There is going to be big blowback in the media.”

An American development official said that encouraging the Frontier Corps to become expert in humanitarian aid was an important part of the trainers’ counterinsurgency curriculum.

Last summer, for example, the American military trainers helped distribute food and water in camps for the more than one million people displaced from the Swat Valley by the fighting, the official said. But that American assistance, too, was kept quiet.

The 500,000-strong Pakistani Army led by Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the standard-bearer of Pakistan’s strong sense of nationalism, is resistant to the appearance of overt military assistance, least of all from the unpopular Americans, that would make the army look less than self-reliant on the battlefield.

Over the last several years, as the Qaeda-backed insurgents increased their hold on Pakistan’s tribal areas and used their base to attack American and NATO forces in Afghanistan, the United States military asked for permission for combat soldiers to operate in the tribal zone, according to American officials. Pakistan rebuffed the requests, they said.

Whether American soldiers are based in Pakistan is often raised by Pakistani politicians, students and average Pakistanis, many of them suspicious of American motives.

The question of the presence of American soldiers in Pakistan is also prompted by the fact that the American military provides important equipment to the Pakistani Army, including F-16 fighter jets, Cobra attack helicopters and howitzers.

Capt. Jack Hanzlik, a spokesman for the United States Central Command in Tampa, Fla., said 12 other service members had been killed in Pakistan since Sept. 11, 2001. The three soldiers who died Wednesday had been assigned to a Special Operations command in Pakistan. But he said they were not commandos from the elite Delta Force or Special Forces, also known as the Green Berets. The United States has about 200 military service members in Pakistan, Captain Hanzlik said.

The three names of the soldiers killed were not released Wednesday because United States military officials were still notifying the next of kin.

Reporting was contributed by Ismail Khan from Peshawar, Pakistan; Pir Zubair Shah from Islamabad; and Elisabeth Bumiller and Eric Schmitt from Washington.

Independent UN expert urges immediate cancellation of Haiti’s external debt

An independent United Nations human rights expert today called for the immediate cancellation of Haiti’s external debt to allow it to recover from the devastating earthquake that struck the nation last month and move towards reconstruction.

Our licence fees pay for climate denial

The BBC spouts rightwing bias while ignoring environmental science. So why not give other conspiracies a platform too?

Sunny Hundal
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 3 February 2010 12.00 GMT

After watching last night’s Newsnight, I can only come to one conclusion: the BBC has become this country’s most pernicious climate-change-denying media outlet in the UK.
There is simple reasoning behind this grand statement. While the assorted commentators who regularly spout ill-informed propaganda across the media are usually taken with a pinch of salt, the BBC is broadly trusted as an impartial and trustworthy reporter of news. It sets the agenda. Which makes the rubbish it has been producing lately on climate change even more dangerous.
Let me start by saying I believe that man-made activity is the prime driver behind global warming. I don’t have time for tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy nuts who think it is one big plot by scientists across the world. I do believe CC deniers are no different to 9/11 Truthers. But that point is moot while we focus on the country’s biggest culprit.
The hook for last night’s Newsnight report was today’s Guardian reporting that the IPCC head Dr Rajendra Pachauri rightly refusing to apologise for a mistake that wasn’t made under his watch.
He admitted the mistake and accepted that other recent scandals such as the illegal hacking of UEA emails had boosted the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) deniers.
But presenter Kirsty Wark’s agenda was to try and rubbish the IPCC’s entire report — the biggest piece of scientific work undertaken on the topic. The IPCC contains hundreds if not thousands of graphs and claims — and yet one or two slips were used as an excuse to rubbish the whole thing.
At one point, she said “Are you surprised the public are really worried about this?” — let’s be clear, public opinion on global warming has stayed the same (and accepting of AGW) even after the UEA scandal.
This is despite attempts by newspapers like The Times to try and distort public opinion.
This sort of crap isn’t the only example from the BBC. Last week the BBC’s so-called “ethical man” Justin Rowlatt presented an absurd programme that argued the green movement was bad for the environment. That’s right, the likes of Nigel Lawson and Exxon Mobil will save the environment instead.
The agenda is simple: rather than focus on bogus claims and bogus science of deniers, BBC journalists are trying to deflect accusations of “bias” towards AGW by bashing hippies. Meanwhile Nigel Lawson, Melanie Phillips et al are invited on programmes regularly without much fact-checking.
Oh and then there’s Andrew Neil. The avowed right-winger not only presents the Daily Politics show, but also writes blogs on the BBC site claiming that the “dam is cracking” on the science behind AGW. And yet you won’t find any other senior presenters allowed to publish such blantantly partisan propaganda, nor have any of their journalists question it.
And don’t forget Jeremy Clarkson — another prominent presenter given full reign to spout AGW denying nonsense.
There have been other prominent incidents. In one, a BBC article actually claimed global warming had ceased, but contained several inaccuracies. Then there was the cancellation of Planet Relief several years ago.
The BBC is continually painted as some liberal-left dominated haven, but it remains deeply institutional and rightwing. The subject of climate change is the latest instance where this is becoming increasingly obvious.
If its journalists are so intent on providing balance on every issue, why doesn’t it invite 9/11 and 7/7 Truthers to every discussion of those terrorist attacks? If overwhelming evidence is an unnecessary guide to coverage, why not invite the Birther to discuss President Obama’s origins on a more regular basis?
The BBC needs an in-depth review to how it covers global warming. And it needs some science to inform its journalism.

School to Probe Climate Scientist

By KEITH JOHNSON
Pennsylvania State University has begun a formal investigation into whether a prominent faculty member is guilty of scientific misconduct for the way he carried out research into climate change.
But the university said a preliminary inquiry into Dr. Michael Mann’s work, completed late last month, cleared him of allegations that he conspired with other scientists to squelch views and data at odds with their belief that the earth is warming.
Those allegations arose after an unknown computer hacker stole hundreds of emails and other documents from a British scientific center, the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, in late November.
The emails and documents were published online shortly before the United Nations’ climate summit in Copenhagen. Global-warming skeptics said the documents called into question the validity of U.N.-sponsored reports contending that the earth is heating up and that human activity is almost certainly the primary contributor.
Dr. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State, was a leading contributor to the U.N. reports. He is perhaps best known for his controversial “hockey stick” chart, which showed the earth’s temperatures rising rapidly.
In a statement released Wednesday, Dr. Mann said he believed Penn State’s first review, which centered on material in the hacked emails, cleared him of misconduct. But he said he fully supports the new inquiry into his scientific methods, “which may be the best way to remove any lingering doubts.”
Penn State said it is undertaking the new inquiry because the purloined emails may be undermining public confidence in Dr. Mann’s findings, “in science in general and climate science specifically.”
Officials at East Anglia University determined last month that scientists there had failed to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests to share their data. The director of the climate-research unit, Dr. Phil Jones, subsequently stepped down from his post.
The U.N.’s climate-change group has also admitted there was no scientific basis for its predictions that warming would lead to the demise of Himalayan glaciers. It has promised more-rigorous scrutiny of research.

Utah on Wolves:We Don’t Want any of them Here

Help Stop Utah’s Anti-Wolf Bill Donate now to help stop anti-wolf extremists in Utah from shooting wolves on sight. Hysterical anti-wolf hatred has hit a new high in Utah. Spurred on by the so-called “Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife,” anti-wolf legislators are expected to pass a bill as early as this week that would allow state officials to remove any wolves that migrate back to their historic range in Utah. Defenders of Wildlife’s resources are stretched thin with the increasing human threats to these long persecuted animals, but we’re fighting hard to block this outrageous anti-wolf bill. We need your emergency donation of $30.00, or whatever you can afford today to stop the Utah anti-wolf bill from becoming law. Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife is the very same group whose Idaho chapter has been holding wolf-killing derbies to raise funds for anti-wolf litigation. We can’t let these extremists win. Please help us stop this bill, save the lives of our wolves and other imperiled animals in the wild. Working with our allies on the ground, Defenders of Wildlife is fighting hard to block this anti-wolf bill in Utah and to restore federal protections for these magnificent animals. Wolves once roamed freely in Utah, playing an important part in balanced ecosystems in the state. But aggressive hunting, trapping and poisoning exterminated these important animals from the state during the last century. Now there is hope as more wolves migrate from the Greater Yellowstone region into states like Utah. We won’t allow these wolves to be met by a hail of bullets. Can you help us fight for the lives of these wolves? Please donate now. Defenders supporters in Utah have already sent nearly 1,000 messages to state legislators, and we’re gearing up for an intensive effort to stop this bill over the next week. Your caring contribution today will help us fight Utah’s anti-wolf extremists and win our court fight to restore life-saving federal protections for wolves in the northern Rockies — including and especially in states like Utah, where anti-wolf hatred is running at a fever pitch. We can’t win for wolves without your help. Please help support these vital efforts with your caring donation today. For the Wild Ones, Rodger Schlickeisen President Defenders of Wildlife P.S. We can’t allow the anti-wolf group like Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife to dictate the future of wolves in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Utah. Please make an emergency donation on our secure website today or call 1-800-385-9712 to donate by phone. Making a Difference for Wildlife “I emailed Cabela’s and told them they had lost my business for good. So did many of my friends.” — Cindy R. (via Facebook) Since Friday morning, more than 50,000 dedicated Defenders activists have called on outdoor retailers Cabela’s and Sportsman’s Warehouse to stop supporting “predator derbies” that target our wolves.

Plugging the holes left by Copenhagen

Without a binding deal on climate change, countries need to find ways to bring carbon emissions under control before it is too late
Edward Fennell
The Copenhagen climate change summit was a classic adolescents’ house party. Over-anticipation, chaos, gate-crashers and then the tears and disappointment when the grown-ups arrived to bring it all to an end.
Now it’s time to pick up the pieces. Last weekend marked the deadline for governments to reaffirm their commitment to the agreement reached at Copenhagen and, by Sunday, 55 countries (accounting for 78 per cent of global emissions from energy use) had signed up. But what does this mean?
Well, the Copenhagen Accord is not legally binding but, as Matt Towns-end, of Allen & Overy, says, it was unrealistic to think that it might be. “The hyping up of expectations by the NGOs to pressurise governments into a deal was never going to succeed. Nonetheless, the Copenhagen Accord represents an important first step in what is bound to be a long journey.”
The challenge now is to establish what direction that journey should take. In particular whether it is even possible to achieve restraint on greenhouse gases through a global, legally binding agreement, or whether other measures should be pursued.
Anthony Hobley, of Norton Rose, is clear that worldwide agreement is essential. “If we are to restrict temperature increase to two degrees or less then it needs a global, concerted push expressed through an international agreement. Otherwise we will achieve nowhere near the scale of reduction needed by 2020.”
However, Tallat Hussain, of White & Case, predicts that it will be at least a decade — maybe two — before the world unites to create such an agreement. And some people believe that the chaotic elements of Copenhagen may mean that the international community loses confidence in the UN’s ability to deliver at all.
“The outcome may be that there will be a splintering of international efforts so that individual groupings of countries adopt go-it-alone policies.” Townsend says.
Such a gradual approach is seen by some as a viable way forward. In the European Union, for example, there are mechanisms in place for emissions trading. “Carbon trading is the mechanism to deliver climate-change measures,” Townsend says. “The EU is taking the lead in carbon emissions trading and providing incentives for renewables. Despite some of the failings of Copenhagen, the EU Emissions Trading Scheme will continue after 2012.”
The aim would be for similar schemes to be established by countries belonging to, say, the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) and the Association of South East Asian Nations (Asean). In time, all the systems would be linked together.
However, Hussain foresees that regionally based systems could become “tools of protectionism” with “regional differentiation” emerging. As a result, the big trading blocs would compete with each other and deploy their “climate change” regimes — like their tax or health and safety regimes — as a way of attracting investment. This does not mean “a race to the bottom” in terms of the least onerous requirements. For example the EU could offer incentives for greenhouse gas reductions that would more than off-set the costs to companies of introducing green technology.
In any case, Hussain says, market forces will do most to shape the world’s response to climate change. “Business has got the message about energy costs, and shareholders will put pressure on management to introduce energy-saving measures because they will impact on the bottom line.”
Certainly, as things stand, market forces may be the vital factor in shaping the development of emission-free industries, such as wind energy. Andrew Iyer, of Ince & Co, who is heavily involved with the offshore wind turbine sector, points out that the huge costs of building these vast structures in inhospitable environments make them viable only when the price of oil is high. “Oil at $80 dollars a barrel means good profits for the oil companies but without being prohibitive for the consumer,” Iyer says. But it does not create an incentive to invest in offshore developments. So oil prices may need to be consistently higher if offshore wind power is to become a really attractive option.
The result is that intervention by a regulatory framework may still be essential to steer the world away from its addiction to carbon.
While regional fragmentation may have its merits, it could be disastrous for industries such as aviation and shipping. As Georgina Crowhurst, of Clyde & Co, points out, the Copenhagen Accord failed to address the shipping industry at all. “Shipping industry observers had expected that, at a minimum, the Copenhagen summit would reach a political agreement on bunker fuels [used to power ships and aircraft], perhaps together with a carbon emissions trading scheme,” she says. “But the bunker fuels working group was unable to reach consensus. In the end nothing was included in the Accord which, in the words of the International Chamber of Shipping, leaves the way ahead uncertain.”
With doubts also about the ability of the International Maritime Organisation to make significant progress, it is possible, Crowhurst says, that the European Commission will introduce legislation to include shipping in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. That may sound good, but if the world ends up with a patchwork of incompatible regimes for ships and aeroplanes then gridlock could result — and illustrate graphically why a global, legally binding agreement is needed after all.

Wetlands to be recreated in England

Farmland in England is to be flooded to recreate wetlands under Government plans to boost wildlife and tackle climate change.

By Louise Gray, Environment CorrespondentPublished: 7:00AM GMT 03 Feb 2010
Government watchdogs the Environment Agency will be building ditches, planting reeds and flooding fields between Huntingdon and Peterborough in a project to return 20 square miles to ancient fenland.
It is part of a controversial nationwide project to increase the amount of wetlands in Britain.

Lord Smith of Finsbury, the Chairman of the Environment Agency, said wetlands not only act as carbon sinks but provide a home to rare birds like the bittern.
“We need to greatly increase the amount of wetland that we have because it is incredibly important for our biodiversity and for ensuring that we maintain some of the very valuable species and plants that we have,” he said.
England used to be covered in wetland but most of it was drained for agricultural land. There is now just 350,000 hectares left, just 10 per cent of what existed 500 years ago.
Wetlands provide habitat for rare birds like avocet as well as thousands of species of insects and plants. Boggy land also stores carbon dioxide, preventing it from being released into the atmosphere and causing global warming.
The Great Fen project, run by the EA in partnership with the National Trust, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and other conservation groups, will see farmland and scrub transformed into a huge nature reserve over the next 100 years.
Visiting Wicken Fen for World Wetlands Day, Lord Smith, insisted only poor farmland will be flooded.
“Across England we’ve inherited only a few small and fragmented areas of wetland, often under pressure from pollution and development. Our remaining wetlands and their wildlife are deteriorating just as we are beginning to understand how vital they are in helping people and wildlife adapt to an increasingly uncertain future,” he said.
“Through partnership projects such as Great Fen and Wicken Fen, working hand in hand with agriculture, conservation organisations and local communities, the Environment Agency is playing its part in managing the effects of climate change and increasing the chances of survival for some of our most threatened wildlife.”
Allan Buckwell, policy director of the Country Land and Business Association, pointed out that a lot of the best agricultural land in England is low lying.
“Given the global situation any Government should think very carefully before flooding,” he said.

Time to Embrace the Nuclear Option

Nuclear power has the potential to help solve the problems of climate change and energy security, writes Russian businessman Oleg Deripaska
By OLEG DERIPASKA
The World Economic Forum rightly prides itself on innovative thinking about global problems. But the solution to the challenges of energy security and cutting carbon emissions lies, I believe, in a technology celebrating its 50th anniversary.
It is 50 years since the first commercial nuclear power plants began to generate electricity. Even in the dark days of the Cold War, these reactors, in France and the U.S., were seen as vital to the world’s future. They were expected to mark the beginning of a new peaceful atomic age that would help meet our energy needs.

Nuclear power now generates 15% of the world’s electricity. But a combination of alternative and plentiful energy sources, high costs, the impact of the Chernobyl disaster as well as scare campaigns has meant nuclear power has failed to live up to its pioneers’ loftiest ambitions.
Oil is, however, no longer cheap or plentiful. There are serious worries about future supplies. At the same time, demand for energy continues to accelerate to support the growth of developing economies. Climate change caused by emissions from fossil fuels poses a threat to our quality of life. It is no surprise that the balance is tipping back in favor of nuclear power.
The International Atomic Energy Agency expects at least 70 new plants to be opened within the next 15 years. This could result in a doubling of the amount of electricity produced by nuclear plants.
I believe, however, that nuclear power offers far greater potential than this. It can help power economic growth and drive the switch to a low-carbon future. But we will only reap the full benefits if we focus on lifting the barriers that are currently preventing its expansion.
Governments must increase support for their own nuclear industries. More bilateral and international effort is needed to help introduce the industry to new countries—and particularly the energy-poor developing world.
The small- and medium-sized reactors now in development could help meet energy needs in the more remote areas of the world. They don’t run on fossil fuels so their location isn’t constrained by access to oil, gas or coal. Nor do they require the expensive infrastructure of national electricity grids.
These new reactors are a further improvement on everything we have learned about reliable, safe and value-for-money power generation. They remove safety problems associated with operator error and equipment failure. Their working lives will be much longer than past reactors thanks to advances in fuel technology, coolants and metal alloys. We also stand on the edge of a breakthrough with new fast reactors that can reuse fuel and leave little waste.
Modern reactors will be cheaper to run and with a safety record which can’t be beaten. They will also be cheaper to build. There are reactors in development that could be cost competitive with natural gas and coal.
With the right help, we could see nuclear power at last living up to the hopes of its pioneers 50 years ago. But this requires governments to act rather than just talk about their determination to meet the important and interlinked challenges of energy security and climate change.
The continuing global economic crisis offers new opportunities to meet these goals in a way that will help stimulate high-tech research and manufacturing. Governments should make new nuclear-power projects central to their economic- stimulus packages.
We also need increased cooperation at a bilateral and international level to help expand nuclear power to new countries. At the moment the plans for new reactors are concentrated in those countries that already have civilian nuclear programs, predominantly in Asia. Electricity generation from nuclear power in China and India is projected to grow at an average annual rate of around 9%.
But unless we help new countries join the club, we will fail to see nuclear power helping to tackle global poverty and support development. This is not just about sharing expertise and technology and providing funding. Equally important is help in drawing up the right regulatory framework and support for training.
At an international level we need to think innovatively about new safeguards to counter proliferation fears. We should work swiftly to agree and implement a multilateral fuel bank under IAEA auspices. This would guarantee a supply of nuclear fuel for states that agree not to pursue enrichment and reprocessing activities of their own. This could run alongside steps to standardize technology and equipment and the handling and transportation rules for nuclear material.
If we can get these conditions right, we can accelerate the expansion of civil nuclear power for the good of our economies and our environment. It is a goal which needs international organizations, governments, businesses and the scientific community to work together to ease concerns and reap the maximum benefits. But it is a goal which, I strongly believe, is both achievable and in all our interests.
Mr. Deripaska is the chief executive of Basic Element, a Moscow-based industrial holding company.