The story of Chinese “princeling” Bo Xilai, his “Jackie Kennedy wife” Gu Kailai, and murdered “British businessman” Neil Heywood is a textbook case of mass media hypocrisy in covering international affairs.

Consider for example the Letter from China ( http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/evanosnos/2012/04/chin as-public-servants-why-bo-xilai-matters.html ) headlined “Corruption Nation: Why Bo Xilai Matters” in the last week’s New Yorker, and the investigative piece by Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-13/china- murder-suspect-s-sisters-ran-126-million-business- empire.html ) on Gu’s four sisters who “controlled a web of businesses from Beijing to Hong Kong to the Caribbean worth at least $126 million.”

In both articles, as in the general flow of news agency reporting of the matter, the focus is firmly on Chinese corruption. The cesspool represented by Neil Heywood, who Reuters reported was “poisoned after he threatened to expose a plan by a Chinese leader’s wife to move money abroad,” remains firmly in the shadows.

Heywood was no ordinary “British businessman.” He was a fixer for the global black market centered on and run from The City, London’s financial center. His main job seems to have been helping corrupt Chinese officials move hot money into safe havens abroad. On the side he reported to MI6, Britain’s nefarious spy agency (a link he advertised in a pathetically juvenile manner by incorporating 007 on his car license plate).

Why is China “corruption nation” and not Britain?

The New Yorker piece sins by omission; the Bloomberg article engages in active distortion. Noting the use of offshore tax havens by Gua’s sisters, it says that is “not unusual: P.O. boxes in jurisdictions such as the Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands can serve as the address for thousands of companies. While the majority of tax haven- based companies are set up for legitimate reasons, offshore jurisdictions have been linked to multiple frauds and corruption cases…”.

The Bloomberg authors do not say what “legitimate reasons” are served by accounts and shell companies with untraceable owners in off-shore tax havens (of which there are now over 70, most of them in tiny former British colonies). I can see none; those who use tax havens want to avoid taxes, evade legal responsibility, and stash the proceeds of crime.

Illicit outflows from China are the largest of any country in the world. Sarah Freitas (http://www.financialtaskforce.org/2012/04/16/murder-of-a- british-businessman-offers-a-glimpse-into-the-scale-of- chinese-corruption/ ) notes in her blog at Washington- based Global Financial Integrity that the country lost $2.74 trillion over the past decade. Partial estimates from a number of sources including the IMF and the World Bank indicate that global black market assets amount to over $30 trillion.

Assets in the trillions of dollars cannot be managed by hoods carrying around suitcases filled with high denomination currency notes. Major financial institutions are involved, and they operate in a coherent system that drains an estimated $1 trillion from developing countries every year.

Mainstream media have been incurious about such numbers, and especially in the mechanisms used to move and manage the money. The growth of a global black market that Britain developed as its Empire dwindled in the 1960s is perhaps the most uncovered international story of our time. The corruption represented by that enterprise is not just victimless “white collar” crime. The global black market sustains terrorist organizations, drug traffickers, civil wars, coups against elected governments, trafficking of women and children for the sex trade, and a host of other organized criminal activities. It feeds the huge speculative “hedge funds” that have driven oil prices beyond $100 a barrel during a global recession. It kills democracies. To bring the current situation into political focus it is necessary to see it as a second British Empire, one that employs drug mafias and “Islamic terrorists” instead of conquering armies and rewards its primary agents — bankers — not with titles and tiaras but with munificent “bonuses” even as their above-ground organizations wallow in public funds to avoid bankruptcy.

Public outrage about those bonuses is often reported in the mass media, but strangely, there has never been an investigation into the rationale for them. The halfhearted excuse that the bonuses are necessary to ensure the integrity of those who deal with billion dollar flows is not valid; there are thickets of safeguard procedures and special oversight and audit arrangements to impose honesty.

As we move into a period of individual connectivity rich with democratic promise it is critically important for people everywhere to recognize that corruption at the national level is sustained by a global system run by a violent and unprincipled elite. Unless we dismantle that system the world will continue to be in a state of perennial violent disorder.

*Bhaskar Menon worked for the United Nations in numerous capacities, including Editor in Chief of its flagship “Monthly Chronicle,” and later editor of “UNDIPLOMATIC TIMES.”

The Declaration adopted at the 17th Summit of the South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC), in Addu City, Maldives (November 2011), reiterated “the importance of comprehensive cooperation” to promote “effective linkages and connectivity for greater movement of people, enhanced investment and trade in the region”.

Equally, SAARC leaders were “mindful of the plurality of cultures and diversities within the region “. Promotional material projected SAARC extending from Earth’s highest mountains to its deepest seas, “across 100 languages, 10 major religions, one-fifth of world population”.

Progress towards SAARC’s central objective , a South Asian Economic Union by 2020, is slow, despite agreements already adopted, respectively on Preferential Trading, and on Free Trading. Obstacles are not exclusively bloated “sensitive lists”, non-tariff barriers, and restricted passage across disputed/sensitive borders.

All eight SAARC countries– India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, the Maldives, Bhutan, Nepal and Afghanistan – are committed to democratic governance.

Given historical religious, cultural and ethnic differences, intra-regional economic disparities and lingering legacies of the colonial past, Central Governments are unable to control diverse political groups within their territories affecting neighbouring states.

At the UN, Indian Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh frankly conceded that “growing assertion of separate identities and ethnic, cultural and religious intolerance threaten our development efforts and cooperation to combat terrorism”.

In March, at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), Geneva, India supported a US-sponsored resolution on Sri Lanka, feeling that “concern should be addressed, so that Tamil people in Sri Lanka can get justice and lead a life of dignity “.

Asked by reporters of “a possibility of (separatist) Tamil Eelam” establishing in Sri Lanka, former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister , Karunanidhi replied that, for him, “that is the Goal”. That “goal” pursued with murderous violence by the terrorist “Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam” (LTTE) never had the support of a majority of Sri Lanka Tamils. India supported the resolution, inter alia, due to “Coalition Compulsions”.

However, India amended the resolution, so that UN involvement in Sri Lanka would be only “in consultation with, and concurrence” of Sri Lanka’s Government. Questions of accountability and reconciliation are, of course, for Sri Lankans to work out .

The Bhutan SAARC Summit (2010) set up the South Asia Forum (SAF) with “eminent persons of diverse backgrounds” functioning on “public-private partnership lines” to charter SAARC’s ” future course” .

At the first SAF meeting (September 2011, New Delhi ), official delegations, all at Ministerial level , included representatives of corporate sectors, economic research institutes, media, and civil society . The SAF, engaging vital non-Government inputs, is now institutionalized as a legitimate, functional operative organ of SAARC.

Advancing public-private partnership approaches, two preparatory meetings for the Addu Summit were held in Male and Kathmandu (October 2011). In Male, a former Secretary General of ASEAN and senior representatives of the European Union gave accounts of their own experiences as did, quite frankly, some retired, recycled SAARC Secretary-Generals.

An Outcome Document on Strengthening SAARC and its Institutional Mechanisms, based on emerging pragmatic proposals, was prepared, under Sri Lankan coordination, and submitted to the Addu Summit for its careful consideration and action.

At Addu, the Indian Prime Minister demonstrated India’s “special responsibility that flows from geography of the region and size of (her) economy and market”. He announced a notification, reducing items on India’s Sensitive List for Least Developed Countries (LDCs) under SAFTA, from 480 tariff lines to 25. Pakistan announced switching to a negative list regime for Indian products and granting Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status to India by end 2012.

India could then export about 6,800 items to Pakistan as against 1,950 at present. Indian External Affairs Minister Krishna welcomed this as “bringing economic content into political relationship”.

The Summit directed SAARC Finance Ministers to facilitate greater flows of financial capital and intra-regional investments now proceeding.

Connectivity in the SAARC services sector proceeds apace. The Summit called for conclusion of the Regional Railways Agreement and for a “demonstration run” of a container train linking Bangladesh, Nepal and India. The India-Sri Lanka Ferry Service will be regularized.

The SAARC SG is directed to finalise work for a wider Indian Ocean Cargo and Passenger Ferry Service. Aviation services and tourism are expanding .

Region-wide approaches on water issues, including water-shed management and on glacier melting was stressed by Pakistan Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Gilani. Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina proposed practical coordination among co-riparians of Ganges and Brahmaputra river basins , facilitating integrated development of diminishing water resources to nourish agriculture and provide greater access to drinking water.

Beyond SAARC, India has achieved global status including through her “Shared Vision for the 21st Century” partnered with China, in what is projected as “The Asian Century”. Some US strategists now rate “the Indo-Pacific region” as a vital strategic area.

Whatever the emerging Strategic World Map , all nations need to confront grave extremities threatening their economies, environments, energy exigencies, emigration patterns, and extra-national non-traditional security.

These require SAARC cooperation with states beyond the region, particularly SAARC’s Observers : Australia, China, Iran, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mauritius, Myanmar, United States and European Union. The Addu Declaration has urged ” comprehensive review of all matters relating to engagement” with Observers.

In respect of global exigencies, human greed , environmental abuse, corporate laxity and excessive economic license seem to be fundamental causes. Corporate-czars like Madoff in the United States (and others, including SAARC-Czars like Sri Lankan Raj Rajaratnam ), made-off with millions.

At Addu , Bhutan’s Prime Minister attributed the planet’s flaws as “employing our genius and technology to extract more, and faster; sell, and consume more; waste, and pollute more; all in our singular aim for material gain and mistaken symbols of success”.

In New York’s Wall Street and other urban centres, mass demonstrations have been dominated by younger generations. Sri Lanka President Mahinda Rajapaksa, noted “a mood of urgency, even impatience… because a large influential part of our societies consist of young people, inspired by new ideas, looking forward with enthusiasm to promising futures.

They cannot wait long. Patience is not infinite”. Socio- economic disparities within SAARC , have bred frustration inciting revolt, revolution and terrorism, including in rural areas. Sri Lanka’s early recourse to poverty alleviation strategies in rural areas has been successful with the country ahead of all SAARC countries in terms of the UN Human Development Index (HDI).

The Indian Ocean Region (IOR), the world’s most traversed Ocean, provides East-West connectivity. It is rich in fisheries, oil, gas and mineral deposits. Indo-Sri Lanka cooperation proceeds in the IOR despite some bilateral issues.

Non-traditional security threats proliferate in the IOR including people-smuggling, gun-running, drug-trafficking, piracy and cyber crimes. Globalised criminal cartels craftily connive with residual rump LTTE groups in these activities. Cooperation within SAARC and beyond the region, is essential against these dangers. SAARC navies have consult often, including with other users of the IOR.

The Addu Declaration calls for action “to root out terrorism”, urging early conclusion of the UN Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism, and ratification of the SAARC Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters.

In the current global scenario, SAARC’s field of operation needs to extend beyond South Asia to ensure security and sustainable development for all its people.

**NIHAL RODRIGO, formerly Secretary General of SAARC; Sri Lanka Foreign Secretary; Ambassador to China and Permanent Representative to the United Nations.

By Daisaku Ikeda and - -
TOKYO, Apr 4 2012 (IPS)

In recent months, the dispute over the nature and intent of the Iranian nuclear development programme has generated increasing tensions throughout the Middle East region. When I consider all that is at stake here, I am reminded of the words of the British historian Arnold Toynbee, who warned that the perils of the nuclear age constituted a “Gordian knot that has to be untied by patient fingers instead of being cut by the sword.”

Amidst growing concerns that these tensions will erupt into armed conflict, I urge the political leaderships in all relevant states to recognise that now is the time to muster the courage of restraint and seek the common ground on which the current impasse can be resolved. The use of military force or other forms of hard power can never produce a lasting solution. Even if it may seem possible to suppress a particular threat, what is left behind is an even more deadly legacy of anger and hatred.

It is a sad constant of international politics that as tensions rise so do the levels of threat and invective that are exchanged. Recall how, when U.S. President John F. Kennedy and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev met in Vienna at the height of the 1961 Berlin Crisis, the latter is recorded as saying, “Force will be met by force. If the U.S. wants war, that is its problem. The calamities of a war will be shared equally.”

But we must not lose sight of the fact that, if war breaks out, it is the untold number of ordinary citizens that will bear the brunt of the suffering. This is something that the generations who lived through the wars of the 20th century know from painful experience. In my case, I lost one of my older brothers in battle and we were burned out of our home twice. I retain vivid memories of leading my younger brother, still a young child, by the hand as we fled through the bombs of an air raid. Any use of weapons of mass destruction would magnify and make irreparable this death and mayhem to an unimaginable degree. Nuclear weapons, in particular, must be recognized as weapons of ultimate inhumanity.

In both the Berlin Crisis and the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, the leaders of the two superpowers finally stepped back from the brink of conflict. In the midst of unbearable tensions, they no doubt saw the devastation that awaited their failure to defuse the situation.

In our present-day situation, we know that a military strike against the nuclear facilities of Iran would be intensely destabilising.

Retaliation would be inevitable, and it is impossible to predict the repercussions in a region now undergoing sweeping political transformation.

Even though the dynamics of international politics seem locked in a spiral of threat and mistrust, we must not ignore the voices of the countless individuals living in the region who desire to see it freed from all nuclear weapons. These can be heard, for example, in research released by the Brookings Institute last December, which found that, by a ratio of two to one, Israelis support an agreement that would make the Middle East a nuclear-weapon-free zone, including Iran and Israel.

The international conference scheduled for this year on establishing a Middle East zone free of weapons of mass destruction is an attempt to respond to the aspirations of the region’s peoples, and all efforts must be made to ensure its success. The elimination of all weapons of mass destruction from the region represents a path toward meeting the common security interests of both Iran and Israel and of the entire region. The efforts of Finland to host this conference have been laudable and I hope that Japan, as a country that has experienced the effects of nuclear weapons in war, will play a positive role in creating the conditions for dialogue.

President Kennedy, having dealt with two potentially apocalyptic crises, once stated: “Our hopes must be tempered with the caution of history.” To date, aspirations for a world without nuclear weapons have been fostered and forged through the unrelenting efforts of those who have met and surmounted the trials of crisis. The process that produced the Treaty of Tlatelolco, which established the first nuclear-weapon-free zone in a populated region, for example, was given new urgency by the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Despite cynical dismissals that such efforts were a waste of time, that there would never be agreement on such a treaty, the negotitors persisted. Today, all 33 states in Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as the five declared nuclear-weapon states, are parties to the Treaty of Tlatelolco.

In order to resolve the crisis currently hanging over the Middle East, there must be a renewed determination within international society never to abandon dialogue, a deepened conviction that what now seems impossible can indeed be made possible. No matter how daunting the present realities or how treacherous the path forward, we must remember that hope is fostered only through ceaseless, tenacious efforts for peace.

(*) Daisaku Ikeda is a Japanese Buddhist philosopher and peacebuilder and president of the Soka Gakkai International (SGI).

Excerpt:

By Thalif Deen and - -
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 13 2012 (IPS)

Fathulla Jameel, who passed away after a brief illness in Singapore last week, had the distinction of being Foreign Minister of the Maldives for more than 27 years, second only to his counterpart in Bahrain back in the 1990s. At the U.N. delegate’s lounge, he was once blessed with the title: “Dean of foreign ministers.” And he missed finding a place in the Guinness Book of World Records as “Foreign Minister for Life.”

The sharp-witted Jameel, a former Permanent Representative of the Maldives to the United Nations, was a superlative raconteur with a vibrant sense of humour. Whenever he addressed the General Assembly, he repeatedly singled out the dangers facing his island nation — dependent on tourism and fishing for its economic survival — which was predicted to be wiped off the face of the earth due to rising sea levels.

“The Maldives is like a can of tuna fish,” he once told a journalist, as he chomped on his (Cuban?) cigar, “because it comes with an expiry date”. But Jameel’s own expiry date, at age 69, was way ahead of the environmental doom awaiting his country — if the climatologists are to be believed.

When he made his annual pilgrimage to the United Nations every September he would hold court at the delegate’s lounge regaling his friends with anecdotes he picked up during his visits, mostly to the Middle East. Fluent in Arabic, he built a special rapport with diplomats and Foreign Ministers in the Arab world.

After one of his visits to the Middle East, he recounted the story of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s longtime visions of a pan-Arab Islamic federation — a goal that eluded even Egypt’s charismatic president Gamal Abdel Nasser.

At various times, Gaddafi tried to form Arab federations linking his country with Egypt, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Morocco, Chad and Algeria. But his ambitious plans never got off the ground.

When he visited China in the mid-1980s, as Jameel recounted the story, Gaddafi plucked up courage to ask the Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping about a possible federation between Libya and China. China’s supreme leader, who was then presiding over a country with over 900 million people, pondered for a while and asked Gaddafi how big his country was.

Told that Libya’s population at that time was only a paltry three million people, Deng put his arm around Gaddafi and said rather affectionately: “When you next visit Beijing, why don’t you bring them along with you.”

The audience in the delegate’s lounge broke into fits of laughter — mercifully with no Libyan diplomats around.

After an abortive mercenary coup in the Maldives in 1988, Jameel was one of the strongest proponents of a U.N. resolution calling for the “Protection and Security of Small States.” When he addressed the General Assembly in 1994, he said the inherent vulnerability of small states was no more clearly demonstrated than in the case of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

“Who would have indeed thought that a fully sovereign state of the United Nations, economically strong and with powerful friends, would be in a position of being imminently wiped off from the political map of the world?,” he asked. “And if a country such as Kuwait can be thrust into such a precarious position, then where lies the security of much smaller and economically weaker states” (read: Maldives), he declared.

The resolution was adopted unanimously.

Jameel was educated at the Al-Azhar University in Cairo where he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Philosophy and Islamic Studies. A computer buff, he faithfully recorded all his speeches and his travel itinerary in a laptop he carried with him during his travels overseas.

Excerpt:

By IPS Correspondents and - -
KATHMANDU, Mar 12 2012 (IPS)

Reports of United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s planned visit to Lumbini, the birth place of Lord Gautam Buddha, and a UNESCO World Heritage site in Nepal in April 2012, have caused a mixture of excitement and apprehension in Kathmandu.

The people of Nepal warmly welcome the personal interest of the head of the UN to promote the development of Lumbini. It was Burma’s U Thant, the first Asian Secretary-General of the UN, who took a personal interest in the development of Lumbini as a major world pilgrimage site.

At U Thant’s initiative the UN established an international committee for Lumbini, and helped prepare a master-plan for its development, which unfortunately has remained largely unimplemented.

Under normal circumstances, the personal commitment of the UN’s second Asian Secretary-General, and his desire to visit Lumbini to promote its development would be welcomed whole- heartedly, not only by Nepalis but the world’s one billion Buddhists. But these are not normal circumstances in Nepal.

The country is currently struggling to come out of a decade- long violent civil war which ended six years ago, but genuine peace has not yet dawned. The drafting of a new national Constitution has not been completed yet.

Fifteen thousand Nepalis, most of them civilians, were killed during the decade-long insurgency, and horrendous human rights violations were committed, some amounting to crimes against humanity. But not a single individual has been prosecuted for war-time atrocities, and many known perpetrators of heinous crimes are occupying high positions in government institutions.

Instead of establishing a credible Truth and Reconciliation Commission consistent with international norms, the ruling political party, the United Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (UCPN-Maoist) is negotiating the terms of blanket general amnesty with other major political parties.

The United Nations’ Mission to Nepal (UNMIN) was asked to leave the country before its task of helping complete the peace process was concluded. The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) is being thrown out of the country before the core issues of transitional justice and accountability for grave violations of human rights have been satisfactorily completed. And now, Ban Ki-moon has accepted an invitation to co-chair an international conference on Lumbini with the head of UCPN-Maoist, whose officially declared policy glorifies violence with the motto: “power comes from the barrel of the gun”.

Ban Ki-moon’s host and counterpart, Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’, is the Chairman of the ruling Maoist Party, who was recently appointed as Chair of a national committee for the development of Lumbini by the incumbent Maoist-led Government of Nepal.

Dahal led a violent armed insurgency resulting in the death and disappearance of tens of thousands, and displacement of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Although Dahal’s party signed a Comprehensive Peace Agreement, contested elections and became the largest political party and formed a government under its leadership twice, it has not formally renounced violence as a method of political change. It continues to be the Party’s official policy to “capture state power” by any means – either through ballots or bullets, through its actions in the parliament, the government or “people’s revolt” from the streets.

The main rationale for UN’s involvement in Lumbini is to spread the culture of peace, not to condone the glorification of violence. It would be most ironic for the Secretary-General of the UN to co-chair a meeting with an unrepentant leader with blood in his hand in the holy birth place of Buddha, known as the Prince of Peace, who renounced his Kingdom to spread the message of peace and non-violence throughout the world.

If Ban Ki-moon is to co-chair a high profile meeting with Dahal, he must insist that Dahal’s party officially renounce the use of violence in politics in the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations. Otherwise, the Secretary-General co- chairing a conference with a leader who refuses to renounce violence would be contrary to the UN Charter, and to do so at a holy religious site would be a sacrilege insulting not just peace-loving Nepalis but millions of Buddhists around the world.

Ban Ki-moon must also take account of earlier attempts by a rather mysterious Hongkong-based private foundation called the Asia-Pacific Cooperation and Exchange Foundation (APECF), of which Dahal is a Co-chairman, to involve the UN Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) rather than UNESCO which has a more legitimate role for the development of a World Heritage site like Lumbini.

When the highly unusual manner in which the Beijing office of UNIDO was found to have been enlisted to help APECF, without the knowledge or approval of its own Headquarters or the Government of Nepal, UNIDO was embarrassed and promptly disowned its country office’s decision and reprimanded its country Director.

Given this context, it would be most unwise for Ban Ki-moon to lend his name and the prestige of the UN to help white- wash the image of a political leader who refuses to renounce violence. One of the grave mistakes that Kofi Annan made for which he feels forever guilty and embarrassed was to call back General Romeo Delaire, the Head of UN Peace-keeping troops in Rwanda, just before that country plunged into a catastrophic genocide. Ban Ki-moon should be careful not to make a similar mistake in Nepal which he might have to regret.

As Nepal’s peace process is at a critical juncture, the Secretary-General of the UN could help expedite it and regain the lost lustre of the UN in Nepal by insisting on three preconditions for his planned visit: a) insist that Dahal and his Party officially renounce the politics of violence, b) officially announce that the proposed Truth and Reconciliation Commission and Disappearance Commission will fully comply with the norms enshrined in relevant UN Conventions to which Nepal is a State Party, and that there will be no blanket general amnesty for heinous criminal acts, war crimes and crimes against humanity, and c) insist that the long-delayed integration and rehabilitation of the Maoist combatants is completed in the next few weeks, culminating in the closure of all remaining cantonments prior to the Secretary-General’s visit to Nepal. Ban Ki-moon must convey such message bluntly and forthrightly, not in the ambiguous diplomatic language calling for “flexibility and compromise by all parties”. He should cancel his trip to Lumbini unless and until these preconditions are fully met.

It is understood that part of the reason for Ban Ki-moon’s strong interest in the development of Lumbini has to do with his devout Buddhist mother’s wishes. We Nepalis deeply respect her wishes.

If that is the case, Mr. Ban is welcome to visit Lumbini any time for a pilgrimage, but without mixing it with the political connotations of hobnobbing with Maoist leaders who refuse to fully abide by the Buddha’s teachings of peace and non-violence.

• Mr. Gautam is a former Deputy Executive Director of UNICEF and Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations. He served as the Chair of the Gautam Buddha International Peace Award Committee, Nepal in 2010-2011. Contact: kulgautam@hotmail.com ; www.kulgautam.org

Excerpt:

By Somar Wijayadasa and - -
NEW YORK, Mar 8 2012 (IPS)

Another dramatic election fiasco is over. Russian voters have elected Vladimir Putin with an overwhelming 63% majority. In 2000 and 2004, he won with 53% and 71% majority, respectively. Though his victory never seemed in doubt, his election garnered more negative publicity than any other foreign election, thanks to the awesome Russian Spring.

As an avid observer of Russian politics for 50 years, I could not find a single opponent who could defeat Putin. All his opponents (Zyuganov, Prokhorov, Zhirinovsky) were neither popular nor had sufficient political experience to attract Russian voters. Putin remains genuinely popular with a large segment of the Russian population.

It seems to me that the Russians sensibly contemplated which party and candidate would be able to resolve underlying problems and uplift the working masses who have quietly suffered for decades. The dark eras of Brezhnev and Gorbachev and later “joker” Yeltsin’s regime brought outright disgrace to Russia. It was Putin who injected law and order into the society, and brought respect and credibility to Russia.

When Putin first came to power in 2000, Russia was in a deep recession following the devastating 1998 debt crisis. He developed the economy with new industries and investments; decreased poverty by boosting agricultural production and construction; and increased workers salaries and granted better pensions to poor pensioners who silently suffered for decades. To stabilize the economy, he introduced a flat tax rate, reduced corporate taxes, and established a stabilization fund to accumulate oil revenue to repay all of Russia’s debts. Later the fund was split into the Reserve Fund to protect Russia from future financial crisis, and the National Welfare Fund to enhance pension reforms.

Today Russia is not Stalinist Soviet Union with dictatorial powers. Russia went through generational change after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and has created a strong, professional middle class in many parts of the vast country. It is now a pluralistic society with various civic groups, political parties, and social organizations. These people are well traveled, well educated and familiar with democracy and freedom. These new classes of Russians do not need outside influence to make decisions. Russians voted for Putin for the significant improvements he made in living standards and for reclaiming Russia’s recognition and respect as a world power.

But Putin’s external affairs are another matter. He has been publicly and increasingly critical of foreign policies of the United States and other Western countries – making them dislike him.

Putin publicly opposed plans for the US missile shield in Europe, and offered many viable alternatives. He proved that he is firm, sharp and intelligent enough to take a strong position that favors Russia. That was demonstrated during many international conflicts over Ukraine and Georgia, gas and oil deliveries to Ukraine and Europe, and currently on affairs in Syria and Iran. He is not a person who can be easily manipulated by world leaders no matter how powerful they are. However, during his Presidency, Putin maintained friendly working relations with many world leaders including President George W Bush.

Having listened to the grievances and demands of hundreds of thousands of Russians who demonstrated during the past few months, Putin may adopt policies to rectify shortcomings. But Putin would not change his foreign policy to please the United States or Western countries. Putin has always maintained that he wants to avoid another Cold War. He has often said that “we do not want confrontation: we want to engage in dialogue but a dialogue that acknowledges the equality of both parties’ interests”. This could be the premise for United States and Western nations to form better relations with Russia – provided all parties agree to respectfully disagree.

It is time for all nations to respect the UN Charter, adhere to International Law, use diplomacy to resolve international conflicts, and work harmoniously and in partnership to establish a world order that ensures security and prosperity for all.

The writer, a former Representative at the United Nations, is a Moscow educated international lawyer, who worked in the United Nations System (IAEA, FAO, UNESCO, WHO/UNAIDS) for twenty-five years.

Excerpt:

By - -
NEW YORK, Jan 19 2012 (IPS)

After much huffing, puffing, loss of sleep and negotiations that set a record for Conference of the Parties (COP) meetings, (the longest COP ever!), the 17th UN Convention on Climate Change COP in Durban last December produced a modest outcome. A bemused Sri Lankan delegate observed that it was like digging a mighty mountain and finding a tiny mouse.

COP 17 thankfully did not set out to achieve ambitious emissions reductions goals (like COP 15 in Copenhagen) or to address the problem of climate change in one fell swoop. With constraints imposed by current global realities (the continuing financial crises, particularly in Europe, looming elections in the US, widespread unemployment and cut backs of social entitlements in many developed countries, etc), the modest Durban outcomes left many delegates unhappy, especially those from the developing South, and many island states fearing for their very survival.

The US, unsurprisingly expressed satisfaction with this modest result. The UK hailed the success of European diplomacy. The tone of the meeting was still of “doing a deal”, not of sympathetically addressing a problem which will impact on the existence of a number of countries and the future of millions of poor. The end to the negotiations and agreement on the outcomes came early on Sunday morning, on 11 December, after many developing country delegations had left for home on Friday night or on Saturday.

Importantly, the key outcome of COP 17 was the agreement on the Durban Platform which includes establishing an Ad Hoc Working Group for Enhanced Action (AWG – DP). The AWG-DP is mandated to develop a “protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all the parties”.

Somewhat unclear, this is intended to be the post Kyoto framework to be completed by 2015 and to take effect in 2020, hopefully containing more ambitious emissions reductions commitments for all parties. India and other developing countries accepted this formula in the end because of the possibility that it would be a platform from which to address their concerns. The AWG-DP is expected to begin work in the first half of 2012. At the negotiations (and in the lead up), the US resisted agreeing to a legally binding instrument (a possible negative domestic reaction in a difficult economic environment may be the underlying reason) while the EU pushed for one to replace Kyoto.

The developing countries which had argued for a legally binding agreement in the lead up to Durban, balked at the content of what the EU proposed. This negative reaction was to be expected as the Platform omitted the principles of equity and the Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR), language long incorporated in international climate change instruments and used as shorthand for exempting developing countries from making emissions reduction commitments. This was a major setback from a developing country perspective as these principles, clearly reflected in the Rio Declaration, had been part of the established expectations framework from climate change negotiations for many years. The AWG-DP will now need to take this bull by the horns.

While the Kyoto Protocol has been extended, the length of the post Kyoto commitments periods are unclear and are still to be determined, raising the question whether the Kyoto Protocol is now history. In addition, the Durban Platform operationalized the Green Climate Fund (GCF), agreed at Cancun, by laying out the process for its implementation. The GCF will have a legal personality and its secretariat will be an autonomous unit within the UNFCCC Secretariat. The Board of the GCF will approve requests for funding through a no-objection procedure, to ensure compatibility of the GCF’s actions with domestic climate policies (departing from language in the original governing instrument that would have allowed the private sector also to borrow from the fund without approval from national authorities – a concern for developing countries at the conference). Drawing on the successful GEF, the 24 board members of the GCF would be evenly divided between developing and developed countries.

Contributions to the fund have begun to be pledged, although in modest amounts. Fears exist whether the $100 billion anticipated annually by 2020 will ever materialise. Sri Lanka has already made a request for $.5 billion for adaptation programmes for the period 2011 to 2016.

The insistence by developed countries, especially the US, on emissions reductions commitments by developing countries will remain a sticking point for the negotiations. While some developing countries with rapidly surging economic capabilities (eg. China, Brazil, India, Republic of Korea, etc) may be able to progressively reduce national emissions levels and also continue to grow, a large number of them will simply not be capable of reducing emissions and progress along a growth path without substantial external financial assistance and technology transfers.

The funding for this purpose is simply not available and the current economic problems in developed economies do not bode well for future financial assistance. While the GCF is an encouraging start, the non-delivery of pledges made to assist with the realisation of the MDGs and the Monterrey Accords raises a worrying red flag. The slide away from the CBDR may rankle with developing countries which have insisted on their right to a fair share of the global carbon space which has been over-occupied by the developed countries for a century or more. The current consumption levels of developed countries may be difficult or impossible to reduce.

While the world grapples with such weighty issues, many members of AOSIS will worry about their very existence, as they mull a possible rise of 3.5c in the mean global temperature this century. Raising fears all round of an unmanageable precedent, Canada which had been an enthusiastic champion of of the environment in the past, denounced the Kyoto Protocol on 10 December.

Excerpt:

By IPS Correspondents
UNITED NATIONS, NEW YORK, Dec 23 2011 (IPS)

Experience shows that South-South and triangular cooperation, backed by adequate funding, are key tools for tackling the development challenges of our time. But South-South cooperation only complements and does not replace North-South cooperation. All such partnerships are particularly pertinent given the challenges facing our global economy and sustainable development.

Of these challenges, guaranteeing food security for all is paramount. Around the world, almost 925 million people go to bed hungry each night, and most of them are in the South of the planet.

The world community has been able to reduce considerably the overall figures, but there is still much to be done now and in years to come.

Our resolve to look critically at strategies for battling food insecurity demonstrates our solidarity with these vulnerable populations.

United Nations outcomes in sustainable development, including climate change, biodiversity, and desertification, make it clear that we should be more vigilant.

We have to expand the search for innovative and sustainable solutions to food insecurity.

To that end, we can exchange lessons learned and showcase successful Southern strategies and technologies for, among other things:

One, improving agricultural productivity;

Two, increasing social protection and building up the resilience of the most vulnerable;

Three, managing fragile ecosystems;

Four, improving nutrition;

And five, combating diseases.

These approaches should contribute to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

We will also look at renewable energy sources and agri- business models that are working to put sufficient nutritious food on the table.

Many Southern countries have lifted millions and millions of people out of extreme poverty and hunger.

These countries have at their disposal considerable knowledge and technical know-how that can be put to further good use through enhanced South-South exchanges of information, experience, and technology with a view to raising agricultural productivity and improving food distribution to benefit more populations.

For example, the Global Dry Land Alliance-Partnering for Food Security aims to strengthen cooperation among dry land nations. It has developed innovative solutions and best practices that can be shared broadly with dry land countries worldwide.

Another example is the African Union’s Great Green Wall Initiative, the goal of which is to plant of a wall of trees across Africa, from Senegal in the west to Djibouti in the east, in an effort to tackle both environmental and poverty- related challenges, including land degradation and rising aridity and desertification.

Such initiatives are designed to support and complement efforts to achieve the MDGs, particularly MDG 1 -Eradicating Extreme Poverty and Hunger- and MDG 7, Ensuring Environmental Sustainability.

Through South-South solidarity we can also learn from countries that are reforming customary norms and practices to ensure that women are no longer denied equal access to land and other productive assets that contribute to food security. In doing so, women will be empowered and gain their rightful place in society.

Investment in agricultural research is another important area for South-South cooperation. It can help improve funding for research on tropical crops, on which millions of poor people in the South depend.

Partnerships to engage leading agricultural institutions in the Global South would go a long way towards strengthening the capacity of all Southern countries to feed their citizens, raise production capacities, and gainfully participate in food supply chains created to meet rising food demands in rapidly growing populations.

As President of the United Nations General Assembly, I am committed to promoting South-South and triangular cooperation as an important part of building a united global partnership.

Only such a partnership, based on open dialogue and mutual understanding, can enable efficient collective action in a globalised, inter-dependent world.

(*) Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser, Ambassador from Qatar, is the current President of the United Nations General Assembly. (COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt: