article from: http://english.people.com.cn/200608/18/eng20060818_294224.html
Palestinian leaders to stop violence against Israel: Abbas
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas announced on Thursday that Palestinian militant groups had agreed on a ceasefire with Israel to end the almost-eight-week-old violence in the Gaza Strip.
"Yesterday, I met with all factions and they agreed on calmness and to stop all actions that could give others excuses to attack us," said Abbas during a speech in Gaza City.
Abbas also said that ceasefire was necessary for the Palestinians to "live in peace and security and to attract foreign investment."
Calmness and security were keys to economy, stabilization, education and an end to the Israeli sealing of Gaza, said Abbas, adding, "We want to move and we don't want the Rafah crossing to remain closed and we don't want to be isolated from the world."
The Rafah crossing, along with the other crossings on the Gaza borders, has been shut down by Israel since late June after Palestinian militants seized an Israeli soldier and Israel responded by launching a massive air and ground offensive.
As for the issue of the captive Israeli soldier, Abbas called for a prisoner swap.
"I think the issue of the Israeli soldier has to be ended. We have 10,000 heroes held in Israeli jails and they need freedom and safety," said Abbas.
Palestinian militants, who have taken the Israeli soldier hostage, have demanded Israel release Palestinian women, children and 1,000 prisoners.
But Israel has rejected it, insisting on the unconditional release of 19-year-old Gilad Shalit and a halt of the Palestinian militant rocket fire.
Over 160 Palestinians have been killed in the Israeli military offensive in Gaza, the first of its kind in the desert coastal strip since Israel pulled out of it last summer.
Source: Xinhua
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Canadian Venture Capitalists invest in alternative energy technology
article from:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1155678611206&call_pageid=968350072197&col=969048863851
Investment in clean power technology soars
$87 million in renewable energy, conservation and environment; Share of spending triples to 18 per cent
Aug. 16, 2006. 07:06 AM
TYLER HAMILTON, Toronto Star Energy Reporter
Canadian venture capitalists dramatically increased their investment in alternative-energy and environmental technologies during the second quarter of 2006, amid the backdrop of rising oil prices and heightened concerns over global warming and local smog.
While overall venture capital activity during the quarter plunged 25 per cent year-over-year to $496 million, companies focused on alternative-energy, environmental and other "emerging" technologies captured 18 per cent of the total. That was up from just 6 per cent in all of 2005, according to data released yesterday by the Venture Capital and Private Equity Association.
In dollar terms, $87 million was invested in the second quarter alone, compared with $109 million for all of last year.
Rick Nathan, president of the association and managing director of Kensington Capital Partners in Toronto, said it's too early to say whether the growing interest in such companies — often wrapped under the banner "clean technology" — is a quarterly blip or the sign of a long-term trend.
"It could be a one-off thing, but it's enough of a jump that it made us take notice," said Nathan.
"If we see this level of activity for another couple of quarters, then I think it would show the sector has really emerged as a core part of our industry."
It may be a case of Canada, comparatively conservative in venture capital circles, just catching up to the rest of the world.
"It's definitely not a blip," said Nicholas Parker, chairman and co-founder of the Cleantech Venture Network, which tracks venture capital investing in North American clean-technology companies. "It's entirely consistent with what we're seeing in Europe and the United States."
North American venture capital investment in "cleantech" companies rose to $843 million (U.S.) in the second quarter, up 129 per cent from the same quarter a year earlier, according to figures released last Thursday by the Cleantech Venture Network.
Parker said it was the eighth consecutive quarter of growth for the sector, which is largely focused on new energy technologies such as solar and ethanol. The sector also includes waste reduction, water purification, pollution control and energy efficiency.
Cleantech captured 13.4 per cent of total North American venture capital investments in the quarter.
The sector surpassed telecommunications and medical investments but remained behind biotech and software.
"This is happening almost in spite of public policy, and that's what's so fascinating and exciting," Parker said.
Canadian cleantech companies that raised funds in the second quarter included Ottawa-based cellulosic ethanol developer Iogen Corp.; solar-cell maker Arise Technologies Corp. of Kitchener; and Advanced Glazings Ltd., based in Sydney, N.S., a maker of a high-efficiency insulating glaze for windows.
Globally, clean-energy investments exceeded $2 billion (U.S.) in the second quarter, more than double the amount a year earlier, according to New Energy Finance, a London-based alternative-energy research company.
And momentum is building.
Earlier this month, Chrysalix Energy LP, a Vancouver-based venture capital firm that focuses on clean-energy technologies, announced the closing of a new fund totalling $70 million (Canadian).
The company said the fund will target investments in a number of clean-technology areas.
They will include solar, biofuels, fuel cells, clean coal, energy efficiency, energy storage and energy from waste.
SolarIntell.com - Alternative Energy Investing
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1155678611206&call_pageid=968350072197&col=969048863851
Investment in clean power technology soars
$87 million in renewable energy, conservation and environment; Share of spending triples to 18 per cent
Aug. 16, 2006. 07:06 AM
TYLER HAMILTON, Toronto Star Energy Reporter
Canadian venture capitalists dramatically increased their investment in alternative-energy and environmental technologies during the second quarter of 2006, amid the backdrop of rising oil prices and heightened concerns over global warming and local smog.
While overall venture capital activity during the quarter plunged 25 per cent year-over-year to $496 million, companies focused on alternative-energy, environmental and other "emerging" technologies captured 18 per cent of the total. That was up from just 6 per cent in all of 2005, according to data released yesterday by the Venture Capital and Private Equity Association.
In dollar terms, $87 million was invested in the second quarter alone, compared with $109 million for all of last year.
Rick Nathan, president of the association and managing director of Kensington Capital Partners in Toronto, said it's too early to say whether the growing interest in such companies — often wrapped under the banner "clean technology" — is a quarterly blip or the sign of a long-term trend.
"It could be a one-off thing, but it's enough of a jump that it made us take notice," said Nathan.
"If we see this level of activity for another couple of quarters, then I think it would show the sector has really emerged as a core part of our industry."
It may be a case of Canada, comparatively conservative in venture capital circles, just catching up to the rest of the world.
"It's definitely not a blip," said Nicholas Parker, chairman and co-founder of the Cleantech Venture Network, which tracks venture capital investing in North American clean-technology companies. "It's entirely consistent with what we're seeing in Europe and the United States."
North American venture capital investment in "cleantech" companies rose to $843 million (U.S.) in the second quarter, up 129 per cent from the same quarter a year earlier, according to figures released last Thursday by the Cleantech Venture Network.
Parker said it was the eighth consecutive quarter of growth for the sector, which is largely focused on new energy technologies such as solar and ethanol. The sector also includes waste reduction, water purification, pollution control and energy efficiency.
Cleantech captured 13.4 per cent of total North American venture capital investments in the quarter.
The sector surpassed telecommunications and medical investments but remained behind biotech and software.
"This is happening almost in spite of public policy, and that's what's so fascinating and exciting," Parker said.
Canadian cleantech companies that raised funds in the second quarter included Ottawa-based cellulosic ethanol developer Iogen Corp.; solar-cell maker Arise Technologies Corp. of Kitchener; and Advanced Glazings Ltd., based in Sydney, N.S., a maker of a high-efficiency insulating glaze for windows.
Globally, clean-energy investments exceeded $2 billion (U.S.) in the second quarter, more than double the amount a year earlier, according to New Energy Finance, a London-based alternative-energy research company.
And momentum is building.
Earlier this month, Chrysalix Energy LP, a Vancouver-based venture capital firm that focuses on clean-energy technologies, announced the closing of a new fund totalling $70 million (Canadian).
The company said the fund will target investments in a number of clean-technology areas.
They will include solar, biofuels, fuel cells, clean coal, energy efficiency, energy storage and energy from waste.
SolarIntell.com - Alternative Energy Investing
Unity Government in Palestine a first step to peace talks
Hallelujah brethren and sistren!!!
It seems as though Palestinian leaders are starting to see the light and work with each other rather than against each other and themselves.
Praise peace and all those who work for it!
Keep the Faith,
Yuya Joseph
Abbas, PM Haniyeh agree to form national unity government
article from: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/751295.html
By Aluf Benn and Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz Correspondents, and AP
Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas agreed Wednesday to start negotiations on forming a broader government, a government spokesman said.
The decision was made during a meeting between Abbas and Haniyeh, said Ghazi Hamad, a spokesman for the Hamas government.
"In principle, there is agreement on this issue," said Hamad. "They will start negotiations between the president and the Palestinian factions."
Haniyeh told Abbas a broader government can only be formed after a number of Hamas cabinet ministers and legislators, arrested by Israel in recent weeks, have been released.
"We have agreed to start discussions to form this government, based upon the National Unity Agreement," Haniyeh said, referring to the joint political platform the two had worked out earlier. The joint program includes the implicit recognition of Israel.
Haniyeh suggested that a national unity government would ease the international isolation of the Hamas government.
"This will help lift the embargo imposed on the Palestinians, ease their suffering," he said.
article continued at: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/751295.html
It seems as though Palestinian leaders are starting to see the light and work with each other rather than against each other and themselves.
Praise peace and all those who work for it!
Keep the Faith,
Yuya Joseph
Abbas, PM Haniyeh agree to form national unity government
article from: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/751295.html
By Aluf Benn and Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz Correspondents, and AP
Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas agreed Wednesday to start negotiations on forming a broader government, a government spokesman said.
The decision was made during a meeting between Abbas and Haniyeh, said Ghazi Hamad, a spokesman for the Hamas government.
"In principle, there is agreement on this issue," said Hamad. "They will start negotiations between the president and the Palestinian factions."
Haniyeh told Abbas a broader government can only be formed after a number of Hamas cabinet ministers and legislators, arrested by Israel in recent weeks, have been released.
"We have agreed to start discussions to form this government, based upon the National Unity Agreement," Haniyeh said, referring to the joint political platform the two had worked out earlier. The joint program includes the implicit recognition of Israel.
Haniyeh suggested that a national unity government would ease the international isolation of the Hamas government.
"This will help lift the embargo imposed on the Palestinians, ease their suffering," he said.
article continued at: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/751295.html
Monday, August 14, 2006
Prince of Jordan writes of need for respect, understanding
Let the voice of moderation speak
from http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/750044.html
By HRH Prince Hassan bin Talal
How much aggression in our region has been justified by the mantra that Western interests are under threat? The battle cries claim that all is at stake and every strike is a final defense of freedom and stability. But the premise behind this thinking has become all too obvious. Arabs and Muslims of whatever race or hue are not to be trusted. They are not to be dealt with fairly and the "liberal values" that protect the righteous of Israel or the United States are not for our defense or our protection. It seems that even the moderates in Arab societies lack the fiber that would grant them equality under international law. We are all as one, barbarians at the gate to be cowed and bullied into silent submission.
But we should be thankful that Arab moderation fights on with stoicism. Moderation will continue to battle for the hearts of those millions for whom this war on terror is an offense to their existential realities. Boaz Ganor, the prominent Israeli thinker, addressed the question of terrorism and demanded that there be "no prohibition without definition." Terrorism must be defined objectively, based upon accepted international laws and principles regarding what behavior is permitted in conventional wars between nations.
The roots of that Arab anger and disillusionment which allows legitimacy to be handed over to extremists cannot be ignored. Terrorism is a tactic borne out of a perversion of lines of representation. If we do not allow the many to speak, then the violent few will scream to be heard. It may be difficult for most Israelis to admit, but the Shi'a of southern Lebanon became politicized and militarized only in response to repeated Israeli aggression.
The citizens of Israel and the other states in the Middle East must be honest about the effects of decades of abuse of people and of international law, unless you believe that we Arabs possess a unique terrorist gene, which has ignited our responses in recent decades. If this is the case, then throw firewood on the blaze and let our region burn until you have killed or exiled every last Arab in your neighborhood.
The founders of Israel and, indeed, the United States, fought what they perceived as an occupation. Recently, some Israelis commemorated the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946 as a landmark act in ending the British Mandate. But surely this must be defined as an act of terror. A statement in the British House of Commons at the time described the attack, in which 92 people were murdered, as "one of the most dastardly and cowardly crimes in recorded history."
The Lebanese have been damned to repeat this phrase to describe attacks on their country. But in our world, righteousness belongs to the victor. If this is the way of the new world order, and international law no longer has a place - then, by all means, the extremists on all sides must fight to the death. The question is what can usefully be won in such a scenario? The evils of pain, suffering and moral bankruptcy are all the spoils of our new-world fighters.
The traumatic effects of the collective punishment of civilian populations will be felt for generations to come. The Israeli Defense Forces that occupy have made terror a daily reality for the civilian populations of Palestine and Lebanon, populations who have lived and continue to live under illegal occupation. For the other side of this global war on terror, violence is most often something to read about. The threat of terror is fetishized by media and politicians, and provides a scant excuse for policies that make terror a daily reality in the lives of millions of people in the Middle East.
No one can ignore the pain and suffering of the Israeli people in recent weeks, but the policies of disproportionate reprisal and abuse of humanitarian norms can only beget further violence. Jordan is a country that fought two world wars on the side of the Allies. We have suffered from the shockwaves of aggression on all sides and we have endured threats and terror right up to Zarqawi's terrible attacks on Amman. So do not patronize us by dubbing us allies in the war on terror and then dismiss our words when we question your policies.
Aricle continued at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/750044.html
from http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/750044.html
By HRH Prince Hassan bin Talal
How much aggression in our region has been justified by the mantra that Western interests are under threat? The battle cries claim that all is at stake and every strike is a final defense of freedom and stability. But the premise behind this thinking has become all too obvious. Arabs and Muslims of whatever race or hue are not to be trusted. They are not to be dealt with fairly and the "liberal values" that protect the righteous of Israel or the United States are not for our defense or our protection. It seems that even the moderates in Arab societies lack the fiber that would grant them equality under international law. We are all as one, barbarians at the gate to be cowed and bullied into silent submission.
But we should be thankful that Arab moderation fights on with stoicism. Moderation will continue to battle for the hearts of those millions for whom this war on terror is an offense to their existential realities. Boaz Ganor, the prominent Israeli thinker, addressed the question of terrorism and demanded that there be "no prohibition without definition." Terrorism must be defined objectively, based upon accepted international laws and principles regarding what behavior is permitted in conventional wars between nations.
The roots of that Arab anger and disillusionment which allows legitimacy to be handed over to extremists cannot be ignored. Terrorism is a tactic borne out of a perversion of lines of representation. If we do not allow the many to speak, then the violent few will scream to be heard. It may be difficult for most Israelis to admit, but the Shi'a of southern Lebanon became politicized and militarized only in response to repeated Israeli aggression.
The citizens of Israel and the other states in the Middle East must be honest about the effects of decades of abuse of people and of international law, unless you believe that we Arabs possess a unique terrorist gene, which has ignited our responses in recent decades. If this is the case, then throw firewood on the blaze and let our region burn until you have killed or exiled every last Arab in your neighborhood.
The founders of Israel and, indeed, the United States, fought what they perceived as an occupation. Recently, some Israelis commemorated the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946 as a landmark act in ending the British Mandate. But surely this must be defined as an act of terror. A statement in the British House of Commons at the time described the attack, in which 92 people were murdered, as "one of the most dastardly and cowardly crimes in recorded history."
The Lebanese have been damned to repeat this phrase to describe attacks on their country. But in our world, righteousness belongs to the victor. If this is the way of the new world order, and international law no longer has a place - then, by all means, the extremists on all sides must fight to the death. The question is what can usefully be won in such a scenario? The evils of pain, suffering and moral bankruptcy are all the spoils of our new-world fighters.
The traumatic effects of the collective punishment of civilian populations will be felt for generations to come. The Israeli Defense Forces that occupy have made terror a daily reality for the civilian populations of Palestine and Lebanon, populations who have lived and continue to live under illegal occupation. For the other side of this global war on terror, violence is most often something to read about. The threat of terror is fetishized by media and politicians, and provides a scant excuse for policies that make terror a daily reality in the lives of millions of people in the Middle East.
No one can ignore the pain and suffering of the Israeli people in recent weeks, but the policies of disproportionate reprisal and abuse of humanitarian norms can only beget further violence. Jordan is a country that fought two world wars on the side of the Allies. We have suffered from the shockwaves of aggression on all sides and we have endured threats and terror right up to Zarqawi's terrible attacks on Amman. So do not patronize us by dubbing us allies in the war on terror and then dismiss our words when we question your policies.
Aricle continued at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/750044.html
Sunday, August 13, 2006
NewEnergyFinance.com provides clean power info for investors
New Energy Finance is a specialist provider of financial information and associated services to the renewable energy and energy technology industry and its investors.
Euromoney Ernst & Young Renewable Energy Finance Information Provider of the Year 2005New Energy Finance operates across all sectors of renewable energy and low-carbon technology, wind, solar, biofuels and biomass. In September 2005 New Energy Finance was named Euromoney Ernst & Young Renewable Energy Information Provider of the Year.
Euromoney Ernst & Young Renewable Energy Finance Information Provider of the Year 2005New Energy Finance operates across all sectors of renewable energy and low-carbon technology, wind, solar, biofuels and biomass. In September 2005 New Energy Finance was named Euromoney Ernst & Young Renewable Energy Information Provider of the Year.
Friday, August 11, 2006
Photovoltaic solar energy, clean power from the sun explained
Solar Electric (PV)
article from: http://www.forsolar.org/?q=node/14
Solar cells, also called photovoltaics (PV) by solar cell scientists, convert sunlight directly into electricity. Solar cells are often used to power calculators and watches. They are made of semiconducting materials similar to those used in computer chips. When sunlight is absorbed by these materials, the solar energy knocks electrons loose from their atoms, allowing the electrons to flow through the material to produce electricity. This process of converting light (photons) to electricity (voltage) is called the photovoltaic (PV) effect.
Solar cells are typically combined into modules that hold about 40-100 cells; about 10 of these modules are mounted in PV arrays that can measure up to several meters on a side. These flat-plate PV arrays can be mounted at a fixed angle facing south, or they can be mounted on a tracking device that follows the sun, allowing them to capture the most sunlight over the course of a day. About 10 to 20 PV arrays can provide enough power for a household; for large electric utility or industrial applications, hundreds of arrays can be interconnected to form a single, large PV system.
Thin film solar cells use layers of semiconductor materials only a few micrometers thick. Thin film technology has made it possible for solar cells to now double as rooftop shingles, roof tiles, building facades, or the glazing for skylights or atria. The solar cell version of items such as shingles offer the same protection and durability as ordinary asphalt shingles.
Some solar cells are designed to operate with concentrated sunlight. These cells are built into concentrating collectors that use a lens to focus the sunlight onto the cells. This approach has both advantages and disadvantages compared with flat-plate PV arrays. The main idea is to use very little of the expensive semiconducting PV material while collecting as much sunlight as possible. But because the lenses must be pointed at the sun, the use of concentrating collectors is limited to the sunniest parts of the country. Some concentrating collectors are designed to be mounted on simple tracking devices, but most require sophisticated tracking devices, which further limit their use to electric utilities, industries, and large buildings.
The performance of a solar cell is measured in terms of its efficiency at turning sunlight into electricity. Only sunlight of certain energies will work efficiently to create electricity, and much of it is reflected or absorbed by the material that make up the cell. Because of this, a typical commercial solar cell has an efficiency of 15%—about one-sixth of the sunlight striking the cell generates electricity. Low efficiencies mean that larger arrays are needed, and that means higher cost. Improving solar cell efficiencies while holding down the cost per cell is an important goal of the PV industry, NREL researchers, and other U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) laboratories, and they have made significant progress. The first solar cells, built in the 1950s, had efficiencies of less than 4%. Today, solar manufacturers have achieved efficiencies above 20%.
article from: http://www.forsolar.org/?q=node/14
Solar cells, also called photovoltaics (PV) by solar cell scientists, convert sunlight directly into electricity. Solar cells are often used to power calculators and watches. They are made of semiconducting materials similar to those used in computer chips. When sunlight is absorbed by these materials, the solar energy knocks electrons loose from their atoms, allowing the electrons to flow through the material to produce electricity. This process of converting light (photons) to electricity (voltage) is called the photovoltaic (PV) effect.
Solar cells are typically combined into modules that hold about 40-100 cells; about 10 of these modules are mounted in PV arrays that can measure up to several meters on a side. These flat-plate PV arrays can be mounted at a fixed angle facing south, or they can be mounted on a tracking device that follows the sun, allowing them to capture the most sunlight over the course of a day. About 10 to 20 PV arrays can provide enough power for a household; for large electric utility or industrial applications, hundreds of arrays can be interconnected to form a single, large PV system.
Thin film solar cells use layers of semiconductor materials only a few micrometers thick. Thin film technology has made it possible for solar cells to now double as rooftop shingles, roof tiles, building facades, or the glazing for skylights or atria. The solar cell version of items such as shingles offer the same protection and durability as ordinary asphalt shingles.
Some solar cells are designed to operate with concentrated sunlight. These cells are built into concentrating collectors that use a lens to focus the sunlight onto the cells. This approach has both advantages and disadvantages compared with flat-plate PV arrays. The main idea is to use very little of the expensive semiconducting PV material while collecting as much sunlight as possible. But because the lenses must be pointed at the sun, the use of concentrating collectors is limited to the sunniest parts of the country. Some concentrating collectors are designed to be mounted on simple tracking devices, but most require sophisticated tracking devices, which further limit their use to electric utilities, industries, and large buildings.
The performance of a solar cell is measured in terms of its efficiency at turning sunlight into electricity. Only sunlight of certain energies will work efficiently to create electricity, and much of it is reflected or absorbed by the material that make up the cell. Because of this, a typical commercial solar cell has an efficiency of 15%—about one-sixth of the sunlight striking the cell generates electricity. Low efficiencies mean that larger arrays are needed, and that means higher cost. Improving solar cell efficiencies while holding down the cost per cell is an important goal of the PV industry, NREL researchers, and other U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) laboratories, and they have made significant progress. The first solar cells, built in the 1950s, had efficiencies of less than 4%. Today, solar manufacturers have achieved efficiencies above 20%.
Clean Power Venture Capital Investment firms look to energy efficiency companies
Energy Efficiency Looks Sexier
article from:
http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=17917&hed=Energy+Efficiency+Looks+Sexier§or=Industries&subsector=VentureCapital
Cleantech Venture Network: Venture investments in the niche more than triple.
August 10, 2006
Venture capital investment in energy efficiency technologies more than tripled in the second quarter year-over-year, according to a report released Thursday by the Cleantech Venture Network.
Energy efficiency investments reached $60.9 million, compared with $15.2 million in the same period last year, according to the industry monitor based in Ann Arbor
, Michigan.
“I think it’s just the beginning; there are a lot more companies that will be coming on line looking for funding,” said Joel Makower, a principal of research firm Clean Edge.
In May, energy management startup GridPoint raised $16 million, Prenova raised $11 million, and Broadband Energy Network raised more than $2 million. Fat Spaniel raised $3.5 million in March, and Comverge raised $5.5 million in April (see GridPoint Gets $16M Recharge, Energy Management Bags Cash, Energy Startup Gets $3.5M, Energy Management Gets Cash).
‘Energy efficiency is a sleeping giant.’
-Robert Wilder,
WilderShares
- ADVERTISEMENT -
All this in spite of the fact that industry watchers say energy efficiency is not “sexy.”
“Energy efficiency is a sleeping giant,” said Robert Wilder, CEO of WilderShares, which manages two clean-energy indices. “It doesn’t have the sexy allure of solar power or huge wind. But we have Saudi Arabia-sized oil reserves under our feet in America through energy efficiency.”
Mr. Makower agreed, saying venture capital funding for energy management companies typically is seen as less glamorous than funding high-tech energy production companies.
But as cleantech investments grow, investments in energy efficiency and energy management technologies are becoming more significant.
“For a long time in the venture community, it was said that efficiency isn’t sexy,” Mr. Makower said. “But I think we’re staring to see there is a lot of business to be done in the efficiency area, which is what energy advocates have been saying for a long time.”
Heat Wave Sparks Attention
The news of increased funding comes in the wake of a record-breaking heat wave last month that sparked power outages from California to New York. During one record-setting week in July, thousands of California customers lost power for days as 860 transformers—worth about $1 million—malfunctioned or stopped working, reported the Los Angeles Times.
While analysts said one such event is not going to influence funding, the blackouts certainly gave energy efficiency and storage companies a quick jot of attention from VCs and policy makers.
“This past week, without demand response, New England and New York would have faced the potential for rolling blackouts,” said Tim Healy, chief executive of EnerNOC.
Ultimately, technology that reduces the demand for electricity on the grid is as relevant to the electricity grid’s health as energy-producing technologies such as solar and wind power—even though those more glamorous technologies get the most attention from investors.
With energy costs on the rise, energy management companies see a significant trickle-effect of VC interest in their technologies (see Negawatts for Postive Returns).
Some VCs Still Shy
Still, some VCs shy away from funding efficiency companies because, for most of the year, energy demand is only at 60 to 70 percent of its capacity, said Chris Hickman, an executive vice president of Cellnet, a company that builds fixed wireless networks for energy metering.
But times of high demand on the grid—like during the heat wave that scorched the country earlier this summer—reveal its weaknesses.
“What we have forgotten about as a country is grid efficiency,” Mr. Hickman said. “If you can not consume megawatts on the grid, that is dramatically more valuable than constructing green megawatts. We have to let technology catch up with policy to make sure we don’t stress the grid beyond its true capabilities.”
Policy largely influences the financial success of energy efficiency companies. It takes localized government initiatives providing financial benefits to convince utility companies, retailers and industrial owners to sign up for energy reduction programs, industry watchers said.
“Utilities are under a lot of pressure to improve operating efficiencies, and this requires investment in many of the techs,” said Roberto Torres, a strategic analyst for Frost & Sullivan. “Yet they're also under lots of pressure to reduce spending and improve financial performance so there are budget constraints. They’re in a tight spot.”
New Models
That’s why some companies are targeting consumers, not just utilities. Demand-response companies, for example, monitor electricity demand and cut nonessential electricity in customer houses, stores, and industrial buildings to prevent blackouts in times of strain.
ConsumerPowerline, Comverge, and Red Herring 100 N.A. finalist EnerNOC entice retailers and homeowners with money: utilities pay them for the power they save, and they turn over a portion of their profits to the consumers (see Checks for Demand Response; Negawatts for Postive Returns).
Another new approach is that of Ice Energy’s Ice Bear, a device that stores off-peak energy by making ice using a standard compressor and releasing the stored energy in the ice during the day to provide cooling.
balance of article at:
http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=17917&hed=Energy+Efficiency+Looks+Sexier§or=Industries&subsector=VentureCapital
article from:
http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=17917&hed=Energy+Efficiency+Looks+Sexier§or=Industries&subsector=VentureCapital
Cleantech Venture Network: Venture investments in the niche more than triple.
August 10, 2006
Venture capital investment in energy efficiency technologies more than tripled in the second quarter year-over-year, according to a report released Thursday by the Cleantech Venture Network.
Energy efficiency investments reached $60.9 million, compared with $15.2 million in the same period last year, according to the industry monitor based in Ann Arbor
, Michigan.
“I think it’s just the beginning; there are a lot more companies that will be coming on line looking for funding,” said Joel Makower, a principal of research firm Clean Edge.
In May, energy management startup GridPoint raised $16 million, Prenova raised $11 million, and Broadband Energy Network raised more than $2 million. Fat Spaniel raised $3.5 million in March, and Comverge raised $5.5 million in April (see GridPoint Gets $16M Recharge, Energy Management Bags Cash, Energy Startup Gets $3.5M, Energy Management Gets Cash).
‘Energy efficiency is a sleeping giant.’
-Robert Wilder,
WilderShares
- ADVERTISEMENT -
All this in spite of the fact that industry watchers say energy efficiency is not “sexy.”
“Energy efficiency is a sleeping giant,” said Robert Wilder, CEO of WilderShares, which manages two clean-energy indices. “It doesn’t have the sexy allure of solar power or huge wind. But we have Saudi Arabia-sized oil reserves under our feet in America through energy efficiency.”
Mr. Makower agreed, saying venture capital funding for energy management companies typically is seen as less glamorous than funding high-tech energy production companies.
But as cleantech investments grow, investments in energy efficiency and energy management technologies are becoming more significant.
“For a long time in the venture community, it was said that efficiency isn’t sexy,” Mr. Makower said. “But I think we’re staring to see there is a lot of business to be done in the efficiency area, which is what energy advocates have been saying for a long time.”
Heat Wave Sparks Attention
The news of increased funding comes in the wake of a record-breaking heat wave last month that sparked power outages from California to New York. During one record-setting week in July, thousands of California customers lost power for days as 860 transformers—worth about $1 million—malfunctioned or stopped working, reported the Los Angeles Times.
While analysts said one such event is not going to influence funding, the blackouts certainly gave energy efficiency and storage companies a quick jot of attention from VCs and policy makers.
“This past week, without demand response, New England and New York would have faced the potential for rolling blackouts,” said Tim Healy, chief executive of EnerNOC.
Ultimately, technology that reduces the demand for electricity on the grid is as relevant to the electricity grid’s health as energy-producing technologies such as solar and wind power—even though those more glamorous technologies get the most attention from investors.
With energy costs on the rise, energy management companies see a significant trickle-effect of VC interest in their technologies (see Negawatts for Postive Returns).
Some VCs Still Shy
Still, some VCs shy away from funding efficiency companies because, for most of the year, energy demand is only at 60 to 70 percent of its capacity, said Chris Hickman, an executive vice president of Cellnet, a company that builds fixed wireless networks for energy metering.
But times of high demand on the grid—like during the heat wave that scorched the country earlier this summer—reveal its weaknesses.
“What we have forgotten about as a country is grid efficiency,” Mr. Hickman said. “If you can not consume megawatts on the grid, that is dramatically more valuable than constructing green megawatts. We have to let technology catch up with policy to make sure we don’t stress the grid beyond its true capabilities.”
Policy largely influences the financial success of energy efficiency companies. It takes localized government initiatives providing financial benefits to convince utility companies, retailers and industrial owners to sign up for energy reduction programs, industry watchers said.
“Utilities are under a lot of pressure to improve operating efficiencies, and this requires investment in many of the techs,” said Roberto Torres, a strategic analyst for Frost & Sullivan. “Yet they're also under lots of pressure to reduce spending and improve financial performance so there are budget constraints. They’re in a tight spot.”
New Models
That’s why some companies are targeting consumers, not just utilities. Demand-response companies, for example, monitor electricity demand and cut nonessential electricity in customer houses, stores, and industrial buildings to prevent blackouts in times of strain.
ConsumerPowerline, Comverge, and Red Herring 100 N.A. finalist EnerNOC entice retailers and homeowners with money: utilities pay them for the power they save, and they turn over a portion of their profits to the consumers (see Checks for Demand Response; Negawatts for Postive Returns).
Another new approach is that of Ice Energy’s Ice Bear, a device that stores off-peak energy by making ice using a standard compressor and releasing the stored energy in the ice during the day to provide cooling.
balance of article at:
http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=17917&hed=Energy+Efficiency+Looks+Sexier§or=Industries&subsector=VentureCapital
Israel and Lebanon in UN Middle East Peace Plan
Ramifications of Lebanon conflict deepen
article from: http://www.chinapost.com.tw/editorial/detail.asp?GRP=I&id=87760
2006/8/12
By John J. Metzler PARIS, Special to The China Post
Lebanon's imbroglio deepens. Militarily, the Israeli offensive to seek and destroy the Hezbollah terrorists has not delivered the quick knockout punch as expected. The Hezbollah militias who started the conflict have proven resilient and have acquired prestige in the Arab world. Syria gains stature as a regional power. Islamic Iran profits from the conflict as it provides a diversion from Teheran's nuclear proliferation. And tragically the Lebanese people are caught in the middle.
Diplomatic solutions to settle the Lebanon's deepening conflict have become more complicated as initial Franco/American cooperation in the United Nations Security Council appears to have stalled. Pressures from the Lebanese government as well as much of the Arab world calling for an immediate ceasefire in the Israeli offensive seem to have swayed the French.
The original U.N. draft resolution spoke of an end to hostilities but without a specific timeframe. Now reflecting Middle Eastern opinion, President Jacques Chirac has put the U.S. on notice that a resolution calling for anything less than an "immediate ceasefire" was "immoral."
Israel sees the situation in Lebanon as "a strategic nightmare," cites former Lebanese Premier Amine Gemayel in an interview with the French daily Le Figaro who adds, "Israel looks at the issue only from a plan of strict geographic security and many countries take the same approach. It forgets the national dimension of the Lebanese problem, it forgets the Lebanese Republic with its democratic institutions and democratic values. France is a country who understands well the considerations in this crisis."
According to Le Figaro, "France plays a key role in finding a diplomatic solution to the war in Lebanon, but is not able despite its tandem with the U.S. to impose a ceasefire." All the fine points of agreement were well received in Israel but rejected in Lebanon the Arab countries and Russia.
Keeping Franco/American entente in the Security Council rather than allowing these divisions to beach the resolution on the sandbar of political semantics remains vital.
While Washington has pressed for an international peacekeeping force to separate the antagonists and disarm the Hezbollah militias, many voices on Lebanese political landscape opposes the concept. The new military force of 15,000 would replace the now effectively defunct UNIFIL observer force under whose noses the Hezbollah operate with near impunity.
But here's the dilemma. Deploying any United Nations force needs the consent of the host country's sovereign government and the parties to the conflict. Moreover finding troop contributors for a military mission with "robust rules of engagement" means sending combat troops with a risky mission. Not many countries wish to sign up to an enforcement operation where the U.N. blue helmets are not viewed as neutral but are seen as sitting ducks.
Syria, long a supporter of Hezbollah, is said to hold the trump card to "settle" the conflict. A few years ago, Franco/American diplomatic cooperation led to resolution #1559 which forced Syrian occupation forces out of Lebanon. That resolution moreover demanded the disarming of militias such as Hezbollah, which never happened. Syria, who occupied Lebanon for nearly thirty years, yearns to get back to its bailiwick.
The Bush Administration is not willing to deal with the Assad dictatorship in Syria.
Neither are the French who are equally loath to settle with Syria since the shadow of the Damascus regime hangs over the assassination of former Lebanese Premier Rafiq Hariri, a personal friend of Jacques Chirac.
Maverick left-wing French politico Jack Lang, a luminary of the Socialist Party popped up in Damascus to float ideas on a political settlement. Lang said "We support French diplomacy, except on one point: We believe we must speak with Syria." He added that "the Syrian president spoke at length of his disappointment at French intransigence."
Lang, who calls himself a "militant for peace" and who extended his hand to the Syrian dictator Bashir Assad, had earlier in the month launched a vulgar TV tirade against George W. Bush, "He's a fanatic and an imbecile," He added of the American president "This guy, after four years, drives this region (Middle East) and the world to chaos."
Lebanon faces an open ended and probably widening conflict unless the diplomats get this situation under control. Finding the framework for a new Franco/American draft resolution and getting it through the Security Council must proceed quickly, lest the momentum towards peace is lost and the inertia towards yet wider conflict becomes unstoppable.
John J. Metzler is a United Nations correspondent covering diplomatic and defense issues. jjmcolumn@att.net
article from: http://www.chinapost.com.tw/editorial/detail.asp?GRP=I&id=87760
article from: http://www.chinapost.com.tw/editorial/detail.asp?GRP=I&id=87760
2006/8/12
By John J. Metzler PARIS, Special to The China Post
Lebanon's imbroglio deepens. Militarily, the Israeli offensive to seek and destroy the Hezbollah terrorists has not delivered the quick knockout punch as expected. The Hezbollah militias who started the conflict have proven resilient and have acquired prestige in the Arab world. Syria gains stature as a regional power. Islamic Iran profits from the conflict as it provides a diversion from Teheran's nuclear proliferation. And tragically the Lebanese people are caught in the middle.
Diplomatic solutions to settle the Lebanon's deepening conflict have become more complicated as initial Franco/American cooperation in the United Nations Security Council appears to have stalled. Pressures from the Lebanese government as well as much of the Arab world calling for an immediate ceasefire in the Israeli offensive seem to have swayed the French.
The original U.N. draft resolution spoke of an end to hostilities but without a specific timeframe. Now reflecting Middle Eastern opinion, President Jacques Chirac has put the U.S. on notice that a resolution calling for anything less than an "immediate ceasefire" was "immoral."
Israel sees the situation in Lebanon as "a strategic nightmare," cites former Lebanese Premier Amine Gemayel in an interview with the French daily Le Figaro who adds, "Israel looks at the issue only from a plan of strict geographic security and many countries take the same approach. It forgets the national dimension of the Lebanese problem, it forgets the Lebanese Republic with its democratic institutions and democratic values. France is a country who understands well the considerations in this crisis."
According to Le Figaro, "France plays a key role in finding a diplomatic solution to the war in Lebanon, but is not able despite its tandem with the U.S. to impose a ceasefire." All the fine points of agreement were well received in Israel but rejected in Lebanon the Arab countries and Russia.
Keeping Franco/American entente in the Security Council rather than allowing these divisions to beach the resolution on the sandbar of political semantics remains vital.
While Washington has pressed for an international peacekeeping force to separate the antagonists and disarm the Hezbollah militias, many voices on Lebanese political landscape opposes the concept. The new military force of 15,000 would replace the now effectively defunct UNIFIL observer force under whose noses the Hezbollah operate with near impunity.
But here's the dilemma. Deploying any United Nations force needs the consent of the host country's sovereign government and the parties to the conflict. Moreover finding troop contributors for a military mission with "robust rules of engagement" means sending combat troops with a risky mission. Not many countries wish to sign up to an enforcement operation where the U.N. blue helmets are not viewed as neutral but are seen as sitting ducks.
Syria, long a supporter of Hezbollah, is said to hold the trump card to "settle" the conflict. A few years ago, Franco/American diplomatic cooperation led to resolution #1559 which forced Syrian occupation forces out of Lebanon. That resolution moreover demanded the disarming of militias such as Hezbollah, which never happened. Syria, who occupied Lebanon for nearly thirty years, yearns to get back to its bailiwick.
The Bush Administration is not willing to deal with the Assad dictatorship in Syria.
Neither are the French who are equally loath to settle with Syria since the shadow of the Damascus regime hangs over the assassination of former Lebanese Premier Rafiq Hariri, a personal friend of Jacques Chirac.
Maverick left-wing French politico Jack Lang, a luminary of the Socialist Party popped up in Damascus to float ideas on a political settlement. Lang said "We support French diplomacy, except on one point: We believe we must speak with Syria." He added that "the Syrian president spoke at length of his disappointment at French intransigence."
Lang, who calls himself a "militant for peace" and who extended his hand to the Syrian dictator Bashir Assad, had earlier in the month launched a vulgar TV tirade against George W. Bush, "He's a fanatic and an imbecile," He added of the American president "This guy, after four years, drives this region (Middle East) and the world to chaos."
Lebanon faces an open ended and probably widening conflict unless the diplomats get this situation under control. Finding the framework for a new Franco/American draft resolution and getting it through the Security Council must proceed quickly, lest the momentum towards peace is lost and the inertia towards yet wider conflict becomes unstoppable.
John J. Metzler is a United Nations correspondent covering diplomatic and defense issues. jjmcolumn@att.net
article from: http://www.chinapost.com.tw/editorial/detail.asp?GRP=I&id=87760
500 megawatts of solar energy will power 350,000 northern California homes
Solar power to reach 350,000 Bay Area homes by 2010
By Pat Murphy
Copyright SanFranciscoSentinel.com 2006
from: http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/news_in_brief/pge_solar_power_060811.shtml
August 11, 2006
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) will deliver solar power to 350,000 Bay Area homes by the Spring of 2010, the San Francisco based utility announced Thursday.
Company officials detailed the project to Mayor Newsom yesterday at City Hall, whose administration policy calls for "all municipal energy supply come from clean, renewable sources by 2010."
"Any attempts to engage in green strategies should be commended," Newsom said following the meeting.
Both City government and the utility prioritize carbon emissions free energy. (LINK - essential -
At present 50% of PG&E free is carbon free, a company vice president reported last week.
"...we are saying with a very firm voice that the science is there, the problem exists, the time for action is now, and we're saying it unequivocally," Nancy McFadden told the Sentinel. McFadden serves as PG&E vice president for governmental relations.
Under a signed agreement, PG&E will purchase 500 megawatts of solar energy from Luz II, LCC.
LUZ II produces solar energy through a hybrid solar-gas design which meets the California Renewables Portfolio Standard, according to PG&E.
With that technology, "...the dream of cost-effective solar power is finally going to become a reality," Arnold Goldman said. Goldman serves as chairman of LUZ II.
A PG&E spokesman described the utility as industry leader for clean energy delivery.
"This new project has the potential to be a tremendous additional resource and to help further solidify our leadership when it comes to providing customers with clean, climate friendly energy," predicted Fong Wan, PG&E vice president for energy procurement.
"PG&E already has one of the nation's most climate friendly supplies of electric power with carbon emissions that are among the lowest in the utility industries.
"Thirty percent of the power we deliver comes from hydroelectric and eligible renewables like wind, biomass, and geothermal facilities.
"More than 50% of the power we deliver comes from zero-carbon emission sources - we look forward to expanding that going forward," Wan added.
According to Wan, PG&E is "aggressively adding renewable electric power resources to its supply at a planned rate of more than 300 megawatts per year. This year the company has entered into new agreements to purchase 274 megawatts of wind, solar, geothermal and other renewable energy."
The company's solar power development has been underway for some time, Wan continued.
It is "the nation's leading distributed solar utility with over 12,000 solar customers who generate approximately 88 megawatts of solar electricity, which is more than 60% of the distributed solar energy generated in the entire state of California," Wan recalled.
"In 2004 alone, PG&E interconnected more than half of the new solar electric systems installed in the entire nation."
By Pat Murphy
Copyright SanFranciscoSentinel.com 2006
from: http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/news_in_brief/pge_solar_power_060811.shtml
August 11, 2006
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) will deliver solar power to 350,000 Bay Area homes by the Spring of 2010, the San Francisco based utility announced Thursday.
Company officials detailed the project to Mayor Newsom yesterday at City Hall, whose administration policy calls for "all municipal energy supply come from clean, renewable sources by 2010."
"Any attempts to engage in green strategies should be commended," Newsom said following the meeting.
Both City government and the utility prioritize carbon emissions free energy. (LINK - essential -
At present 50% of PG&E free is carbon free, a company vice president reported last week.
"...we are saying with a very firm voice that the science is there, the problem exists, the time for action is now, and we're saying it unequivocally," Nancy McFadden told the Sentinel. McFadden serves as PG&E vice president for governmental relations.
Under a signed agreement, PG&E will purchase 500 megawatts of solar energy from Luz II, LCC.
LUZ II produces solar energy through a hybrid solar-gas design which meets the California Renewables Portfolio Standard, according to PG&E.
With that technology, "...the dream of cost-effective solar power is finally going to become a reality," Arnold Goldman said. Goldman serves as chairman of LUZ II.
A PG&E spokesman described the utility as industry leader for clean energy delivery.
"This new project has the potential to be a tremendous additional resource and to help further solidify our leadership when it comes to providing customers with clean, climate friendly energy," predicted Fong Wan, PG&E vice president for energy procurement.
"PG&E already has one of the nation's most climate friendly supplies of electric power with carbon emissions that are among the lowest in the utility industries.
"Thirty percent of the power we deliver comes from hydroelectric and eligible renewables like wind, biomass, and geothermal facilities.
"More than 50% of the power we deliver comes from zero-carbon emission sources - we look forward to expanding that going forward," Wan added.
According to Wan, PG&E is "aggressively adding renewable electric power resources to its supply at a planned rate of more than 300 megawatts per year. This year the company has entered into new agreements to purchase 274 megawatts of wind, solar, geothermal and other renewable energy."
The company's solar power development has been underway for some time, Wan continued.
It is "the nation's leading distributed solar utility with over 12,000 solar customers who generate approximately 88 megawatts of solar electricity, which is more than 60% of the distributed solar energy generated in the entire state of California," Wan recalled.
"In 2004 alone, PG&E interconnected more than half of the new solar electric systems installed in the entire nation."
MD-based SunEdison acquires Sacramento solar energy company Team Energy Inc.
SunEdison acquires California solar energy company
Baltimore Business Journal - 10:12 AM EDT Friday
by Alan Zibel, Staff
from:
http://sanantonio.bizjournals.com/baltimore/stories/2006/08/07/daily33.html?t=printable
SunEdison LLC, a Baltimore company that finances and installs solar electric systems in commercial buildings, said Thursday it had acquired a California-based solar panel installer.
SunEdison, which recently closed an investment round of more than $26 million led by Goldman Sachs, said the acquisition of Sacramento-based Team Solar Inc. will make it the largest nationwide installer of solar systems for large electricity customers.
Team Solar will remain based in Sacramento. Terms of the deal were not disclosed. Jigar Shah, CEO of SunEdison, said in a statement that the acquisition will expand the company's capabilities in California, which he called "the most active solar market" thanks to generous state subsidies.
In December 2005, SunEdison merged with a Southern California firm, New Vision Technologies, that installs solar systems.
SunEdison was founded in 2003. The company has developed a financing model that helps large companies such as Whole Foods Market Inc. and Staples Inc. install rooftop solar panels without having to commit the upfront costs of installing such a system, which can be $500,000 or more.
SunEdison does so by rounding up investors to pay for the solar installation. The companies and government agencies that use the panels pay a fixed price for electricity for 10 to 20 years. They also get the public relations boost that comes with using green energy.
SunEdison's growth comes as venture capital firms pour money into numerous alternative energy startups. Market research firm Clean Edge Inc. predicts the worldwide market for solar power will grow from $11.2 billion last year to more than $51 billion by 2015.
Baltimore Business Journal - 10:12 AM EDT Friday
by Alan Zibel, Staff
from:
http://sanantonio.bizjournals.com/baltimore/stories/2006/08/07/daily33.html?t=printable
SunEdison LLC, a Baltimore company that finances and installs solar electric systems in commercial buildings, said Thursday it had acquired a California-based solar panel installer.
SunEdison, which recently closed an investment round of more than $26 million led by Goldman Sachs, said the acquisition of Sacramento-based Team Solar Inc. will make it the largest nationwide installer of solar systems for large electricity customers.
Team Solar will remain based in Sacramento. Terms of the deal were not disclosed. Jigar Shah, CEO of SunEdison, said in a statement that the acquisition will expand the company's capabilities in California, which he called "the most active solar market" thanks to generous state subsidies.
In December 2005, SunEdison merged with a Southern California firm, New Vision Technologies, that installs solar systems.
SunEdison was founded in 2003. The company has developed a financing model that helps large companies such as Whole Foods Market Inc. and Staples Inc. install rooftop solar panels without having to commit the upfront costs of installing such a system, which can be $500,000 or more.
SunEdison does so by rounding up investors to pay for the solar installation. The companies and government agencies that use the panels pay a fixed price for electricity for 10 to 20 years. They also get the public relations boost that comes with using green energy.
SunEdison's growth comes as venture capital firms pour money into numerous alternative energy startups. Market research firm Clean Edge Inc. predicts the worldwide market for solar power will grow from $11.2 billion last year to more than $51 billion by 2015.
Lebanese PM Fuad Saniora said to support UN ceasefire text
from: http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,20101722-5006301,00.html
THE UN Security Council adopted a resolution calling for an end to the fighting between Israel and Hizbollah today.
The resolution also authorises the deployment of 15,000 UN peacekeepers to help Lebanese troops take control of south Lebanon as Israel withdraws.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her counterparts from Britain, France and several other council nations voted on the draft today.
The resolution offers the best chance yet for peace after more than four weeks of war that has killed more than 800 people, destroyed Lebanon's infrastructure and inflamed tensions across the Middle East.
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said hundreds of millions of people around the world shared his frustration that the council had taken so long to act.
That inaction has "badly shaken the world's faith in its authority and integrity,'' he said.
"I would be remiss if I did not tell you how profoundly disappointed I am that the council did not reach this point much, much earlier,'' he said.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert endorsed the emerging ceasefire deal after a day of dramatic brinksmanship including a threat to expand the ground war. A senior US official said Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora had assured Rice that Lebanon supports the text.
Olmert will recommend that his government approve the deal in its scheduled meeting on Sunday, but his nation's military offensive will continue for the time being, Israeli officials said. Earlier in the day, Israel ordered an expanded ground offensive in southern Lebanon, and troops massed along the border in preparation.
The zigzag reflected Israel's dilemma after a month of fighting. Israel has been unable to defeat Hizbollah by force and is concerned about growing Israeli casualties and international condemnation if the war persists.
However, Olmert also fears accepting a ceasefire deal that does not rein in the guerrillas could lead to another war and hurt him politically.
Rice said the "hard work of diplomacy'' was only beginning with the passage of the resolution and that it would be unrealistic to expect an immediate end to all violence. She said the United States would increase its assistance to Lebanon to $US50 million ($A65.24 million), and demanded other nations stop interfering in its affairs.
"Today we call upon every state, especially Iran and Syria, to respect the sovereignty of the Lebanese government and the will of the international community,'' Rice told the council.
The Security Council resolutions leaves out several key demands from both Israel and Lebanon in efforts to come up with a workable arrangement.
"You never get a deal like this with everybody getting everything that they want,'' Beckett said.
"The question is, has everybody got enough for this to stick and for it to be enforceable? Nobody wants to go back to where we were before this last episode started.''
Despite Lebanese objections, Israel will be allowed to continue defensive operations, and a dispute over the Chebaa Farms area along the Syria-Lebanon-Israel border will be left for later.
Israel won't get its wish for an entirely new multinational force separate from the UN
peacekeepers that have been stationed in south Lebanon since 1978.
There is also no call for the release of Lebanese prisoners held by Israel or a demand for the immediate withdrawal of Israeli troops.
Although the draft resolution emphasises the need for the "unconditional release'' of the two Israeli soldiers whose July 12 capture by Hizbollah sparked the conflict, that call is not included in the list of steps required for a lasting ceasefire.
The next possible contentious issue will be when to implement the cessation of hostilities. Israel said its campaign would continue until Sunday, when its Cabinet will meet to endorse the resolution; yet Qatar's Foreign Minister Hamad bin Jassem Al Thani said the resolution obligated all parties to stop hostilities once it was adopted.
Annan said he planned to meet as soon as possible to determine the exact date of a ceasefire.
Diplomats acknowledged each side would have to make sacrifices but said the negotiators' key goal had been to come up with a draft that spells out a lasting political solution to the hostilities between Israel and Hizbollah along the Israel-Lebanon border.
The standoff has bedeviled the region for more than two decades.
At the heart of the resolution are two elements: It seeks an immediate halt to the fighting that began July 12 when Hizbollah militants kidnapped two Israeli troops along the Blue Line, the UN-demarcated border separating Israel; and it spells out a series of steps that would lead to a permanent ceasefire and long-term solution.
That would be done by creating a new buffer zone in south Lebanon "free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the government of Lebanon and UNIFIL'' - the acronym of the UN force deployed in the region since 1978.
The force now has 2,000 troops; the resolution would expand it to a maximum of 15,000.
South Lebanon had been under de facto Hizbollah control for several years until Israeli forces occupied parts of it after the start of the fighting last month.
The political solution would include implementation of previous Security Council resolutions calling for Hizbollah's disarmament.
Under the resolution, UNIFIL would be significantly beefed up to help coordinate when 15,000 Lebanese troops deploy to the region.
As Lebanese forces take control of the south, Israeli troops would withdraw.
Israel is chiefly concerned that Hizbollah not be allowed to regain its strength in south Lebanon once a cessation of hostilities goes into effect. It had originally demanded the creation of a new multinational force separate from UNIFIL, which it claimed was powerless.
AP; balance of story at: http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,20101722-5006301,00.html
THE UN Security Council adopted a resolution calling for an end to the fighting between Israel and Hizbollah today.
The resolution also authorises the deployment of 15,000 UN peacekeepers to help Lebanese troops take control of south Lebanon as Israel withdraws.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her counterparts from Britain, France and several other council nations voted on the draft today.
The resolution offers the best chance yet for peace after more than four weeks of war that has killed more than 800 people, destroyed Lebanon's infrastructure and inflamed tensions across the Middle East.
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said hundreds of millions of people around the world shared his frustration that the council had taken so long to act.
That inaction has "badly shaken the world's faith in its authority and integrity,'' he said.
"I would be remiss if I did not tell you how profoundly disappointed I am that the council did not reach this point much, much earlier,'' he said.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert endorsed the emerging ceasefire deal after a day of dramatic brinksmanship including a threat to expand the ground war. A senior US official said Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora had assured Rice that Lebanon supports the text.
Olmert will recommend that his government approve the deal in its scheduled meeting on Sunday, but his nation's military offensive will continue for the time being, Israeli officials said. Earlier in the day, Israel ordered an expanded ground offensive in southern Lebanon, and troops massed along the border in preparation.
The zigzag reflected Israel's dilemma after a month of fighting. Israel has been unable to defeat Hizbollah by force and is concerned about growing Israeli casualties and international condemnation if the war persists.
However, Olmert also fears accepting a ceasefire deal that does not rein in the guerrillas could lead to another war and hurt him politically.
Rice said the "hard work of diplomacy'' was only beginning with the passage of the resolution and that it would be unrealistic to expect an immediate end to all violence. She said the United States would increase its assistance to Lebanon to $US50 million ($A65.24 million), and demanded other nations stop interfering in its affairs.
"Today we call upon every state, especially Iran and Syria, to respect the sovereignty of the Lebanese government and the will of the international community,'' Rice told the council.
The Security Council resolutions leaves out several key demands from both Israel and Lebanon in efforts to come up with a workable arrangement.
"You never get a deal like this with everybody getting everything that they want,'' Beckett said.
"The question is, has everybody got enough for this to stick and for it to be enforceable? Nobody wants to go back to where we were before this last episode started.''
Despite Lebanese objections, Israel will be allowed to continue defensive operations, and a dispute over the Chebaa Farms area along the Syria-Lebanon-Israel border will be left for later.
Israel won't get its wish for an entirely new multinational force separate from the UN
peacekeepers that have been stationed in south Lebanon since 1978.
There is also no call for the release of Lebanese prisoners held by Israel or a demand for the immediate withdrawal of Israeli troops.
Although the draft resolution emphasises the need for the "unconditional release'' of the two Israeli soldiers whose July 12 capture by Hizbollah sparked the conflict, that call is not included in the list of steps required for a lasting ceasefire.
The next possible contentious issue will be when to implement the cessation of hostilities. Israel said its campaign would continue until Sunday, when its Cabinet will meet to endorse the resolution; yet Qatar's Foreign Minister Hamad bin Jassem Al Thani said the resolution obligated all parties to stop hostilities once it was adopted.
Annan said he planned to meet as soon as possible to determine the exact date of a ceasefire.
Diplomats acknowledged each side would have to make sacrifices but said the negotiators' key goal had been to come up with a draft that spells out a lasting political solution to the hostilities between Israel and Hizbollah along the Israel-Lebanon border.
The standoff has bedeviled the region for more than two decades.
At the heart of the resolution are two elements: It seeks an immediate halt to the fighting that began July 12 when Hizbollah militants kidnapped two Israeli troops along the Blue Line, the UN-demarcated border separating Israel; and it spells out a series of steps that would lead to a permanent ceasefire and long-term solution.
That would be done by creating a new buffer zone in south Lebanon "free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the government of Lebanon and UNIFIL'' - the acronym of the UN force deployed in the region since 1978.
The force now has 2,000 troops; the resolution would expand it to a maximum of 15,000.
South Lebanon had been under de facto Hizbollah control for several years until Israeli forces occupied parts of it after the start of the fighting last month.
The political solution would include implementation of previous Security Council resolutions calling for Hizbollah's disarmament.
Under the resolution, UNIFIL would be significantly beefed up to help coordinate when 15,000 Lebanese troops deploy to the region.
As Lebanese forces take control of the south, Israeli troops would withdraw.
Israel is chiefly concerned that Hizbollah not be allowed to regain its strength in south Lebanon once a cessation of hostilities goes into effect. It had originally demanded the creation of a new multinational force separate from UNIFIL, which it claimed was powerless.
AP; balance of story at: http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,20101722-5006301,00.html
UN Security Council calls for halt to violence and end to war in Lebanon and Israel
UN approves Lebanon ceasefire resolution
from http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6010224,00.html
Press Association
Saturday August 12, 2006 2:18 AM
The United Nations Security Council voted unanimously today to approve a resolution aimed at ending the month-long Lebanon crisis.
The text, finally agreed by diplomats yesterday after days of fraught negotiations in New York, calls for a full cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah followed by the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon "at the earliest".
It also authorises the deployment of a 15,000-strong UN peacekeeping force with beefed-up powers working together with 15,000 Lebanese troops in the south of the country.
Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert earlier endorsed the ceasefire deal, even though it fell short of some of Israel's demands, which included an even stronger mandate for the UN forces to take on Hezbollah guerillas.
The resolution authorises the UN force, known by its acronym Unifil, to take "all necessary action" to stop the area it patrols from being using for any kind of hostile activities.
But in a significant concession to the Lebanese it will still have a traditional peacekeeping mandate, under Chapter 6 of the UN charter.
A Chapter 7 mandate, which Israel had wanted, allows troops to use military force to enforce peace.
In a statement, Prime Minister Tony Blair said: "It is tragic that so many innocent lives, Lebanese and Israeli, have been lost over the past weeks. We must now take the steps necessary to ensure it is never repeated.
"The passage of the UNSCR [UN security council resolution] is immensely welcome.
"The hostilities on both sides should cease immediately now that the resolution has finally been agreed by the whole of the international community."
© Copyright Press Association Ltd 2006, All Rights Reserved.
from http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6010224,00.html
Press Association
Saturday August 12, 2006 2:18 AM
The United Nations Security Council voted unanimously today to approve a resolution aimed at ending the month-long Lebanon crisis.
The text, finally agreed by diplomats yesterday after days of fraught negotiations in New York, calls for a full cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah followed by the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon "at the earliest".
It also authorises the deployment of a 15,000-strong UN peacekeeping force with beefed-up powers working together with 15,000 Lebanese troops in the south of the country.
Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert earlier endorsed the ceasefire deal, even though it fell short of some of Israel's demands, which included an even stronger mandate for the UN forces to take on Hezbollah guerillas.
The resolution authorises the UN force, known by its acronym Unifil, to take "all necessary action" to stop the area it patrols from being using for any kind of hostile activities.
But in a significant concession to the Lebanese it will still have a traditional peacekeeping mandate, under Chapter 6 of the UN charter.
A Chapter 7 mandate, which Israel had wanted, allows troops to use military force to enforce peace.
In a statement, Prime Minister Tony Blair said: "It is tragic that so many innocent lives, Lebanese and Israeli, have been lost over the past weeks. We must now take the steps necessary to ensure it is never repeated.
"The passage of the UNSCR [UN security council resolution] is immensely welcome.
"The hostilities on both sides should cease immediately now that the resolution has finally been agreed by the whole of the international community."
© Copyright Press Association Ltd 2006, All Rights Reserved.
Israeli PM Ehud Olmert agrees to UN ceasefire terms
JERUSALEM, August 11 (AP)- Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has accepted an emerging Mideast cease-fire deal and informed the United States of his decision, Israeli officials said Friday. Olmert will recommend that his government approve the deal in its meeting on Sunday, the officials said on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to brief journalists on the internal discussions.
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Church of Reality says Israel is not different; Yuya says, aaahhhh, I beg 2 differ
from www.funnyfarmonline.org
Hey Bro,
It was good seein U on the weekend; Caribana was wild and life-filled as usual!
I checked out the Church of Reality; interesting, though to me it seems somewhat sophomoric, with a bit of a "head-in-the-sand" mentality. For example, I was lol at the quote "Israel is no different than any other country" ... well, no, not true. Let me count the ways ...
Still, seems more logical than scientology (vehemently anti-science) and the most oxymoronic group, Christian Scientists, which are neither Christian (belief) nor scientists (knowledge).
Keep rotating the fields at the farm here, and be sure to leave some ground fallow, for the children.
Peace and Blessings,
Yuya Joe
Posted by Yuya Joseph at August 7, 2006 11:29 AM
Hey Joe!
Right back at ya - it was good to see you and yours, too.
I would like to take issue with some of your comments regarding the Church of Reality, however:
I can understand, and even agree to some extent, about it being sophomoric. I would also think that that should be expected of a belief system started from scratch within the last ten years.
I would question your 'head in the sand' statement, however. That statement sorta runs counter to the teachings espoused by the Realists - as far as I can see, they are particularly focused on keeping their heads out of the sand and trying to find what is real. And I would challenge you to provide an example within their writings that exhibits the sort of mentality that you ascribe to them..
I would also ask that you truly do count the ways that you can objectively prove that Israel (the physical country itself) is different than any other country, and spell them out so all can take note of them. Israel, like any other nation, is different from the others in that it is in a different physical location upon the globe, and that it has its' own unique history and historical culture (and, possibly, as some other places on the globe do, its' own unique species native to that place and no other). But (and I am sorry if this seems to be a somewhat unpopular opinion these days) it is just another piece of land on the planet. I would ask for proof should you claim that it is no different from any other set of arbitrary lines that are portioning the globe that have been drawn by human hands.
Posted by (: Tom :) at August 7, 2006 06:29 PM
hey bro,
sure, i'm up for the challenge regarding Israel, but let me first preface my comments by saying that I do think the Church of Reality is cool, and truly hope it doesn't become powerful and corrupt, eg. "unreal" ...
here are just a few reasons why Israel is in fact different than any other country on our planet, a home i lovingly call our "spinning ball of blue, green and brown fun in the sky":
- this land is Sacred to Christians, Jews and Muslims; no other land is
- the Jews were driven into Diaspora at least twice, once in Babylon and Persia (circa 600-450 BC) and once in Europe (70 ad to 1948 ad); three times if you count the sojurn in Egypt as an exile (I don't, I look at it as a formative stage of the faith and the people); is there any other nation on earth where the people returned after being away for 1,900 years, claiming God has given them the land for all eternity?
- the Second World War was fought partly to save the Jews from extermination by Hitler and Mussolini, and also to protect hard-won freedoms in the West; Israel was created in 1948 partly as a result of the devastation caused by that war
- Israel is surrounded by many peoples who seek her total destruction, and even in nations that have peace treaties with Israel (eg. Egypt, Jordan), there remain many citizens who object to their own government's tolerance for those of the Judaic persuasion. Is there any other nation on the planet who is surrounded by hostile enemies who seek the destruction of the country and the death and suffering of her people?
- Jerusalem, aaaahhhhh Jerusalem, Holiest City to Jews and Christians, 3rd Holiest (behind Mecca and Medina, ahead of Harar, Ethiopia) City to Muslims. Jeru-Salem means "To Teach-Peace" and the lessons learned from this troubled region are to be a foreshadow of a wider global peace. If Jerusalem can be shared by Israelis and Palestinians, by Jews, Muslims and Christians, then there truly is hope for all humanity. If not, we could be headed for even bigger troubles. So, back to the point of why Israel is different, I ask you to honestly consider this: Is there any other nation on earth whose capital is not only claimed by two different peoples (Israelis and Palestinians), but is also a central focus of worship of many faiths, including Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Bahia and Rastafari?
Those are 5 reasons why Israel IS different, I am sure there are many more, and any student of geopolitics knows that its uniqueness underlies many of the regional tensions.
The reason I went straight for that link on the www.ChurchOfReality.org page is that even the title (Why Israel's Invasion of Lebanon Is Wrong) seemed preachy, but that would have been okay if the article had been an in-depth analysis of the Hezbollah conflict, or an explanation of why this war was contrary to Israel's longer-term interests. Instead, more Israel-bashing, something that is to me a slippery slope; on the way down that slide there is a lot of anti-semitism (read: Jew-hating), and coddling of cultures that are filled with hate towards other faiths (including atheists), and sell 11 and 12 year old girls into slavery as third and fourth "wives". Isreal is the closest thing the Middle East has to the freedoms and dignity we find in Canada, USA, Europe, South America, Japan and other freedom-loving nations. There are times when I hate the governments of Israel and the United States, but I would never hate the people or the nations themelves.
Peace Bro,
Yuya
Hey Bro,
It was good seein U on the weekend; Caribana was wild and life-filled as usual!
I checked out the Church of Reality; interesting, though to me it seems somewhat sophomoric, with a bit of a "head-in-the-sand" mentality. For example, I was lol at the quote "Israel is no different than any other country" ... well, no, not true. Let me count the ways ...
Still, seems more logical than scientology (vehemently anti-science) and the most oxymoronic group, Christian Scientists, which are neither Christian (belief) nor scientists (knowledge).
Keep rotating the fields at the farm here, and be sure to leave some ground fallow, for the children.
Peace and Blessings,
Yuya Joe
Posted by Yuya Joseph at August 7, 2006 11:29 AM
Hey Joe!
Right back at ya - it was good to see you and yours, too.
I would like to take issue with some of your comments regarding the Church of Reality, however:
I can understand, and even agree to some extent, about it being sophomoric. I would also think that that should be expected of a belief system started from scratch within the last ten years.
I would question your 'head in the sand' statement, however. That statement sorta runs counter to the teachings espoused by the Realists - as far as I can see, they are particularly focused on keeping their heads out of the sand and trying to find what is real. And I would challenge you to provide an example within their writings that exhibits the sort of mentality that you ascribe to them..
I would also ask that you truly do count the ways that you can objectively prove that Israel (the physical country itself) is different than any other country, and spell them out so all can take note of them. Israel, like any other nation, is different from the others in that it is in a different physical location upon the globe, and that it has its' own unique history and historical culture (and, possibly, as some other places on the globe do, its' own unique species native to that place and no other). But (and I am sorry if this seems to be a somewhat unpopular opinion these days) it is just another piece of land on the planet. I would ask for proof should you claim that it is no different from any other set of arbitrary lines that are portioning the globe that have been drawn by human hands.
Posted by (: Tom :) at August 7, 2006 06:29 PM
hey bro,
sure, i'm up for the challenge regarding Israel, but let me first preface my comments by saying that I do think the Church of Reality is cool, and truly hope it doesn't become powerful and corrupt, eg. "unreal" ...
here are just a few reasons why Israel is in fact different than any other country on our planet, a home i lovingly call our "spinning ball of blue, green and brown fun in the sky":
- this land is Sacred to Christians, Jews and Muslims; no other land is
- the Jews were driven into Diaspora at least twice, once in Babylon and Persia (circa 600-450 BC) and once in Europe (70 ad to 1948 ad); three times if you count the sojurn in Egypt as an exile (I don't, I look at it as a formative stage of the faith and the people); is there any other nation on earth where the people returned after being away for 1,900 years, claiming God has given them the land for all eternity?
- the Second World War was fought partly to save the Jews from extermination by Hitler and Mussolini, and also to protect hard-won freedoms in the West; Israel was created in 1948 partly as a result of the devastation caused by that war
- Israel is surrounded by many peoples who seek her total destruction, and even in nations that have peace treaties with Israel (eg. Egypt, Jordan), there remain many citizens who object to their own government's tolerance for those of the Judaic persuasion. Is there any other nation on the planet who is surrounded by hostile enemies who seek the destruction of the country and the death and suffering of her people?
- Jerusalem, aaaahhhhh Jerusalem, Holiest City to Jews and Christians, 3rd Holiest (behind Mecca and Medina, ahead of Harar, Ethiopia) City to Muslims. Jeru-Salem means "To Teach-Peace" and the lessons learned from this troubled region are to be a foreshadow of a wider global peace. If Jerusalem can be shared by Israelis and Palestinians, by Jews, Muslims and Christians, then there truly is hope for all humanity. If not, we could be headed for even bigger troubles. So, back to the point of why Israel is different, I ask you to honestly consider this: Is there any other nation on earth whose capital is not only claimed by two different peoples (Israelis and Palestinians), but is also a central focus of worship of many faiths, including Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Bahia and Rastafari?
Those are 5 reasons why Israel IS different, I am sure there are many more, and any student of geopolitics knows that its uniqueness underlies many of the regional tensions.
The reason I went straight for that link on the www.ChurchOfReality.org page is that even the title (Why Israel's Invasion of Lebanon Is Wrong) seemed preachy, but that would have been okay if the article had been an in-depth analysis of the Hezbollah conflict, or an explanation of why this war was contrary to Israel's longer-term interests. Instead, more Israel-bashing, something that is to me a slippery slope; on the way down that slide there is a lot of anti-semitism (read: Jew-hating), and coddling of cultures that are filled with hate towards other faiths (including atheists), and sell 11 and 12 year old girls into slavery as third and fourth "wives". Isreal is the closest thing the Middle East has to the freedoms and dignity we find in Canada, USA, Europe, South America, Japan and other freedom-loving nations. There are times when I hate the governments of Israel and the United States, but I would never hate the people or the nations themelves.
Peace Bro,
Yuya
UK's REG Ltd. Buys Ontario, Canada wind energy firm AIM PowerGen
British wind energy investor buys Canada's AIM PowerGen
RICHARD BLACKWELL
A British firm that invests in alternative energy projects has established a foothold in Canada's burgeoning wind-power business, with the purchase of Toronto's AIM PowerGen Corp.
Renewable Energy Generation Ltd., (REG) which trades on the London Stock Exchange's alternative investment market, said yesterday it is paying $29.1-million for AIM.
AIM is a private developer of wind power, with projects planned in several provinces. Its one complete project is the 66-turbine Erie Shores Wind Farm in Southern Ontario, which has been delivering about 99 megawatts of power to the Ontario power grid since the spring.
AIM developed the project and still has a consulting contract, but it has sold Erie Shores to Canadian Power Income Fund.
AIM president Mike Crawley, who will stay on to lead the company under the new ownership, said the deal with REG will give his firm access to capital and expertise to get other projects up and running. AIM has about 2,600 megawatts of projects in various stages of development, and hopes to have several small ones in Ontario up and running by next year. Others are planned for Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Newfoundland.
"The Canadian market is certainly very exciting because it really is at the cusp of a boom," Mr. Crawley said. While many other countries are further along in using the technology, "Canada is just at the beginning of it."
Renewable Energy Generation was established a little over a year ago exclusively to fund renewable energy projects, and has raised about $115-million (U.S.) in two stock offerings, chief executive officer Andrew Whalley said.
RICHARD BLACKWELL
A British firm that invests in alternative energy projects has established a foothold in Canada's burgeoning wind-power business, with the purchase of Toronto's AIM PowerGen Corp.
Renewable Energy Generation Ltd., (REG) which trades on the London Stock Exchange's alternative investment market, said yesterday it is paying $29.1-million for AIM.
AIM is a private developer of wind power, with projects planned in several provinces. Its one complete project is the 66-turbine Erie Shores Wind Farm in Southern Ontario, which has been delivering about 99 megawatts of power to the Ontario power grid since the spring.
AIM developed the project and still has a consulting contract, but it has sold Erie Shores to Canadian Power Income Fund.
AIM president Mike Crawley, who will stay on to lead the company under the new ownership, said the deal with REG will give his firm access to capital and expertise to get other projects up and running. AIM has about 2,600 megawatts of projects in various stages of development, and hopes to have several small ones in Ontario up and running by next year. Others are planned for Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Newfoundland.
"The Canadian market is certainly very exciting because it really is at the cusp of a boom," Mr. Crawley said. While many other countries are further along in using the technology, "Canada is just at the beginning of it."
Renewable Energy Generation was established a little over a year ago exclusively to fund renewable energy projects, and has raised about $115-million (U.S.) in two stock offerings, chief executive officer Andrew Whalley said.
Hydrogenics (HYG) revenue down, loss up: BUYING Opportunity
FROM CANADIAN PRESS
MISSISSAUGA — Hydrogenics Corp. (TSX: HYG), a developer and manufacturer of hydrogen and fuel cell products, widened its net losses slightly in the second quarter on a 15 per cent revenue drop as operating and quality problems persisted in the company's key division.
The Toronto-area company reported Tueday it lost $9.6 million US or 11 cents a share in the three months ended June 30, up from a loss of $9.5 million or 10 cents for the same period in 2005.
Revenues at the company, which reports in U.S. dollars, fell 15 per cent to $5.4 million from $6.3 million. That was primarily due to previously announced production delays in the company's OnSite Generation division, which makes hydrogen units used in industry.
"Over the course of the second quarter we made progress towards resolving the supply chain and component quality issues that we identified earlier this year within our OnSite Generation group," said Pierre Rivard, president and chief executive of the company.
"However . . . we have now identified further operational and production quality issues which we believe we are addressing through appropriate corrective measures. While optimistic that we will have these issues resolved in the latter half of the year, we cannot be definitive as to when deliveries by our OnSite Generation business unit will return to historical levels."
At the end of the second quarter, Hydrogenics had $73.1 million in cash and cash equivalents and short-term investments.
Hydrogenics develops clean energy technology such as hydrogen and fuel cell products. The company is based in Mississauga, just west of Toronto, and has operations in North America, Europe and Asia.
MISSISSAUGA — Hydrogenics Corp. (TSX: HYG), a developer and manufacturer of hydrogen and fuel cell products, widened its net losses slightly in the second quarter on a 15 per cent revenue drop as operating and quality problems persisted in the company's key division.
The Toronto-area company reported Tueday it lost $9.6 million US or 11 cents a share in the three months ended June 30, up from a loss of $9.5 million or 10 cents for the same period in 2005.
Revenues at the company, which reports in U.S. dollars, fell 15 per cent to $5.4 million from $6.3 million. That was primarily due to previously announced production delays in the company's OnSite Generation division, which makes hydrogen units used in industry.
"Over the course of the second quarter we made progress towards resolving the supply chain and component quality issues that we identified earlier this year within our OnSite Generation group," said Pierre Rivard, president and chief executive of the company.
"However . . . we have now identified further operational and production quality issues which we believe we are addressing through appropriate corrective measures. While optimistic that we will have these issues resolved in the latter half of the year, we cannot be definitive as to when deliveries by our OnSite Generation business unit will return to historical levels."
At the end of the second quarter, Hydrogenics had $73.1 million in cash and cash equivalents and short-term investments.
Hydrogenics develops clean energy technology such as hydrogen and fuel cell products. The company is based in Mississauga, just west of Toronto, and has operations in North America, Europe and Asia.
Monday, August 07, 2006
Arab leaders critical of proposed UN resolution
from www.BangkokPost.COM
New York (dpa) - Dissatisfied with current diplomatic efforts in New York to end deadly fighting in Lebanon, envoys from the Arab League plan to demand on Tuesday that the UN Security Council call for an immediate ceasefire.
A three-member delegation from the league was to take part in an open debate with the 15-nation council at 3 pm (1900 GMT) at UN headquarters to press also for other demands, the full extent of which had not been revealed.
The debate comes a day after the Lebanese cabinet agreed to send 15,000 Lebanese troops to southern Lebanon once Israeli troops withdraw from Lebanese territory. Information Minister Ghazi Aridi told reporters that the army would be "the only force in southern Lebanon."
Israel has for years demanded that the Lebanese government disarm the Iranian-backed Hezbollah guerrilla militia that now controls southern Lebanon.
Hezbollah, in open conflict with Israel since July 12, has accepted the Lebanese cabinet's decision to secure the border with Israel, sources close to the movement said.
A spokesman for the Israeli foreign ministry, Mark Regev, told Cable News Network that it was "difficult for me to believe as an Israeli that Hezbollah is going to voluntarily disarm."
The Arab League's representative in New York, Ambassador Yahya Mahmassani, criticized a UN draft resolution agreed upon by France and United States as "discriminatory in tone."
"We don't accept it," Mahmassani said, following a meeting of Arab foreign ministers in Beirut, who decided to send the delegation to New York immediately to try to amend the draft, which they considered supporting Israel more than the wish of the Lebanese government. Beirut had been calling for the withdrawal of the 10,000 soldiers of the Israeli Defence Forces from Lebanon.
Mahmassani said that the draft should demand a ceasefire, UN control over the disputed Shebaa farms and the simultaneous release of captured Israeli and Hezbollah soldiers.
"We are back to square one," Mahmassani said.
The three-member delegation includes high-ranking foreign ministry officials from Qatar and the United Arab Emirates and the league's Secretary-General Amr Moussa.
Faced with strong objections from Arab governments, the UN council decided to hold the public debate on Tuesday to allow the Arabs to air their demands. But there was no certainty that the demands would be accepted.
US Ambassador John Bolton, who spent lengthy negotiating rounds with French Ambassador Jean-Marc de la Sabliere before they reached agreement on the draft resolution on Saturday, warned that the council cannot satisfy every demand.
"It's not as though we drafted this resolution in a closet somewhere and suddenly sprang on any governments," Bolton said. "We, the US and France, were in close contact with the governments of Lebanon and Israel throughout this entire process of negotiations."
Bolton said Washington and Paris had been in touch with Beirut and Jerusalem several times while diplomats worked on the draft in New York.
"The effort has to be not to achieve a perfect agreement, or completely satisfy everyone (because) it's not possible at this present juncture, but to take the concrete steps we need to get on the road for a lasting solution," Bolton told reporters.
Bolton said the council will listen to views from both sides, but is determined to move on with the adoption of the draft once it is finished. De la Sabliere also concurred.
"We will listen to views here (in New York), we will hear the views of the Arab League (Tuesday) and we will work to achieve our objectives," de la Sabliere said.
"The draft remains the core of all discussions, inside and outside the UN Security Council," de la Sabliere said, referring to work at the UN as well as a meeting of the Arab League and Arab foreign ministers in Beirut.
De la Sabliere said that Beirut's request for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanon, including the disputed Shebaa farms, was taken into consideration.
"We have to listen to what's happening (in Lebanon), and we'll continue to work to improve the text, taking into consideration the concerns by all," he said.
"We want a resolution that can bring peace and not create domestic problems (in Lebanon)," said Qatar Ambassador Nasser al-Nasser, the only Arab representative in the council. He said the three-member Arab delegation will present amendments to the current draft.
The UN said Monday the fighting has so far killed 958 people and injured 3,369 others in Lebanon. In addition close to 1 million people have been displaced by the war between the Israeli Defence Forces and the Iranian-backed Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah, including 700,000 inside Lebanon.
De la Sabliere said that the draft resolution "remains a good one" because it addresses the urgent needs to end the nearly four-week conflict and ease the plight of civilians.
The draft agreed upon by France and the United States calls for a "full cessation of hostilities, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hezbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations."
It calls on Israel and Lebanon to support a permanent ceasefire and long-term solution based on respect of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of both Israel and Lebanon, the demarcation of Lebanon's international borders, security arrangements to prevent the resumption of fighting and the disarmament of "all armed groups" in Lebanon. The draft text states that there will be "no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese state."
The draft calls for establishment of an international arms embargo and the "elimination of foreign forces in Lebanon without the consent of the (Lebanese) government."
New York (dpa) - Dissatisfied with current diplomatic efforts in New York to end deadly fighting in Lebanon, envoys from the Arab League plan to demand on Tuesday that the UN Security Council call for an immediate ceasefire.
A three-member delegation from the league was to take part in an open debate with the 15-nation council at 3 pm (1900 GMT) at UN headquarters to press also for other demands, the full extent of which had not been revealed.
The debate comes a day after the Lebanese cabinet agreed to send 15,000 Lebanese troops to southern Lebanon once Israeli troops withdraw from Lebanese territory. Information Minister Ghazi Aridi told reporters that the army would be "the only force in southern Lebanon."
Israel has for years demanded that the Lebanese government disarm the Iranian-backed Hezbollah guerrilla militia that now controls southern Lebanon.
Hezbollah, in open conflict with Israel since July 12, has accepted the Lebanese cabinet's decision to secure the border with Israel, sources close to the movement said.
A spokesman for the Israeli foreign ministry, Mark Regev, told Cable News Network that it was "difficult for me to believe as an Israeli that Hezbollah is going to voluntarily disarm."
The Arab League's representative in New York, Ambassador Yahya Mahmassani, criticized a UN draft resolution agreed upon by France and United States as "discriminatory in tone."
"We don't accept it," Mahmassani said, following a meeting of Arab foreign ministers in Beirut, who decided to send the delegation to New York immediately to try to amend the draft, which they considered supporting Israel more than the wish of the Lebanese government. Beirut had been calling for the withdrawal of the 10,000 soldiers of the Israeli Defence Forces from Lebanon.
Mahmassani said that the draft should demand a ceasefire, UN control over the disputed Shebaa farms and the simultaneous release of captured Israeli and Hezbollah soldiers.
"We are back to square one," Mahmassani said.
The three-member delegation includes high-ranking foreign ministry officials from Qatar and the United Arab Emirates and the league's Secretary-General Amr Moussa.
Faced with strong objections from Arab governments, the UN council decided to hold the public debate on Tuesday to allow the Arabs to air their demands. But there was no certainty that the demands would be accepted.
US Ambassador John Bolton, who spent lengthy negotiating rounds with French Ambassador Jean-Marc de la Sabliere before they reached agreement on the draft resolution on Saturday, warned that the council cannot satisfy every demand.
"It's not as though we drafted this resolution in a closet somewhere and suddenly sprang on any governments," Bolton said. "We, the US and France, were in close contact with the governments of Lebanon and Israel throughout this entire process of negotiations."
Bolton said Washington and Paris had been in touch with Beirut and Jerusalem several times while diplomats worked on the draft in New York.
"The effort has to be not to achieve a perfect agreement, or completely satisfy everyone (because) it's not possible at this present juncture, but to take the concrete steps we need to get on the road for a lasting solution," Bolton told reporters.
Bolton said the council will listen to views from both sides, but is determined to move on with the adoption of the draft once it is finished. De la Sabliere also concurred.
"We will listen to views here (in New York), we will hear the views of the Arab League (Tuesday) and we will work to achieve our objectives," de la Sabliere said.
"The draft remains the core of all discussions, inside and outside the UN Security Council," de la Sabliere said, referring to work at the UN as well as a meeting of the Arab League and Arab foreign ministers in Beirut.
De la Sabliere said that Beirut's request for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanon, including the disputed Shebaa farms, was taken into consideration.
"We have to listen to what's happening (in Lebanon), and we'll continue to work to improve the text, taking into consideration the concerns by all," he said.
"We want a resolution that can bring peace and not create domestic problems (in Lebanon)," said Qatar Ambassador Nasser al-Nasser, the only Arab representative in the council. He said the three-member Arab delegation will present amendments to the current draft.
The UN said Monday the fighting has so far killed 958 people and injured 3,369 others in Lebanon. In addition close to 1 million people have been displaced by the war between the Israeli Defence Forces and the Iranian-backed Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah, including 700,000 inside Lebanon.
De la Sabliere said that the draft resolution "remains a good one" because it addresses the urgent needs to end the nearly four-week conflict and ease the plight of civilians.
The draft agreed upon by France and the United States calls for a "full cessation of hostilities, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hezbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations."
It calls on Israel and Lebanon to support a permanent ceasefire and long-term solution based on respect of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of both Israel and Lebanon, the demarcation of Lebanon's international borders, security arrangements to prevent the resumption of fighting and the disarmament of "all armed groups" in Lebanon. The draft text states that there will be "no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese state."
The draft calls for establishment of an international arms embargo and the "elimination of foreign forces in Lebanon without the consent of the (Lebanese) government."
Peace Plans for Israel and Palestine
from Mideastweb.org
Historical Background
Numerous final status and peace plans have been advanced to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They are all based on variants of a few ideas that have a venerable history. The plans must address the following issues:
Sovereignty - Each people wants the right to self determination, but some plans deny self determination to one people or the other.
Borders - If there are two states, the land must be apportioned between them and some people will probably need to move. Palestinians demand that all Israeli settlers would leave any separate Palestinian state.
Immigration - Israel has a law of return that allows Jews from all over the world to immigrate to Israel and be granted citizenship automatically. Israel actively seeks Jewish immigration. Palestinian refugees who fled Israeli in 1948 and 1967 want the right to return to their homes in Israel (Right of Return), and Palestinians historically have tried to limit Jewish immigration to Israel and abolish the Law of Return. Many Palestinian refugee families have kept keys to their homes in what is now Israel, even though the homes themselves no longer exist. Return of Palestinian refugees and their descendants, including all those who claim the status of Palestinian refugees, would establish an Arab majority in Israel and would therefore mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state.
Resources - If the states are divided, scarce common resources must be apportioned between them.
Historic Peace Plans
One Jewish State - The Zionists envisioned a single Jewish state that would encompass all of the land from beyond the Jordan river to the sea, as well as Gaza and parts of what is now Lebanon. The single Jewish state plan was abandoned by most Zionists when it became apparent that the Jews could not be a decisive majority in all of Palestine. Today, settlers and right wing Zionists propose various single state solutions that all seek to maintain a Jewish majority in the land, either by expelling Palestinians or by denying or abridging their political rights.
One Arab State - Arab states and Palestinian leaders called for a single Palestinian Arab state in Palestine. This "plan" has been put forward from time to time with different variants. All of them would put an end to Zionism and would not allow free Jewish immigration to Israel. After WW II The Palestinian leader Haj Amin el Husseini, told the British that the Jewish problem in Palestine should be solved in the same was as it had been "solved" by Hitler in Europe (by murdering the Jews). In 1967, on the eve of the 6-day war, Ahmed Shokhairy, then head of the PLO, spoke at UN, giving the Palestinian one-state solution. He explained that "if it will be our privilege to strike the first blow," the PLO would exile from Israel all Zionists who arrived after 1917 and create a "secular democratic state. This secular democratic state became the program of the Palestine Liberation Organization and of the Fateh which sought to "liberate" Palestine from the Zionists by armed struggle. The Hamas and Islamic Jihad prefer an Islamic state, in which Jews and other religious minorities can remain as dhimmis (second class citizens).
Binational State - This idea was advanced by Dr. Yehuda Magnes, President of the Hebrew University and the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber. This state would have Jewish and Arab cantons, similar to the Swiss German and French Cantons. The idea was presented to the Anglo-American commission in 1946, was favored by the Mapam party and by the USSR. However, the idea lost support after the Arab states and Palestinian leadership totally rejected it. The binational state has a few modern proponents, including Meron Benvenisti, Noam Chomsky and Edward Said.
Two State Partition Solution - The British first partitioned Palestine in 1922, cutting off Transjordan from the Palestine mandate of the League of nations, along with the announcement by Winston Churchill that the Mandate called for a Jewish home in Palestine, but not necessarily in all of Palestine. The Peel and Woodhead commissions of 1937 and 1938 recommended a further partition, into a tiny Jewish state and much larger Arab state. The Arabs rejected this solution and the British abandoned it. The UN called for the establishment of two states in UN General Assembly Resolution 181, which became the basis for the establishment of Israel. The Arab countries opposed Resolution 181, and were also not enthusiastic about creating a Palestinian state, preferring to divide the territory of Palestine between them.
Alon Plan - Israeli general and political leader Yigal Alon formulated this plan for partition of the West Bank with part of the land to be returned to Jordan as a solution for the Israeli Palestinian conflict.
Autonomy - Israel PM Menachem Begin proposed that Israel would give autonomy to Palestinians, in the framework of the Israeli - Egyptian peace treaty. The "autonomy" would allow Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza to run their internal affairs, but would give them no rights at all over the land, and no representation as a sovereign state. They could have Jordanian or Egyptian citizenship. A plan consistent with autonomy was submitted by the Israeli government in 1989.
The Barak Offer, Taba talks and Clinton Compromise - During 2000 and early 2001, Israelis and Palestinians negotiated unsuccessfully regarding a final status solution. Though the overall result was a failure, there were many points of agreement. The nature of the settlement and the proposed maps are detailed here and here.
Recent Peace Plans, Final Status Plans and Peace Initiatives
Introduction - Not every plan for a settlement is a peace plan. Some of the recent proposals are expressly designed to subjugate one side or the other and cannot be considered "peace plans." Some of the initiatives are intended to be the basis for a peace plan or a method of arriving at a peace plan, but aren't complete solutions and don't pretend to be. See How many states? and The Emperor's New Peace Plan and "The Two State Solution" for some background. An explanation of most of the different proposals follows.
The Quartet Road map - The Road Map , now endorsed by the UN, is not a final status plan, but a series of steps designed to calm the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, create a provisional Palestinian state and allow for negotiations of a final status agreement. The "road map" calls for a three-phased implementation of U.S. President George W. Bush's June 24, 2002 speech : that would make possible Israel and Palestinians "living side by side in peace and security." However, the roadmap does not specify the final borders of Palestine and Israel or any other other details of the solution.
Arab Peace Initiative The Saudi-initiated plan for a comprehensive peace calls for settlement of the Palestine-Israel conflict and other outstanding disputes, followed by termination of the state of war that has existed between Israel and all Arab countries and recognition of Israel. As part of the Palestinian settlement, the plan calls more or less explicitly for return of the Palestinian refugees to Israel.
Third Party Peace Initiatives:
Geneva Accord - The "Geneva Accord" is a a proposed final status agreement between Israelis and Palestinians s initiated by former justice minister Yossi Beilin and former Palestinian minister of information Yasser Abed Rabbo. Talks on the agreement took place over the past year and were funded, in part, by the Swiss government. Israelis who signed the agreement included Labor MKs Amram Mitzna, Avraham Burg, Yuli Tamir and MK Haim Oron (Meretz), former MK Nehama Ronen; General Giora Inbar, Former Chief of Staff Amnon Lipkin-Shahak and authors Amos Oz and David Grossman.
The agreement provides in great detail for an independent and demilitarized Palestine living alongside Israel. Borders between the states would be based on the 1967 lines with slight modifications, giving Israel the Gush Etzion settlements, Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, the Jewish quarter of the Old City and the settlement of Ma'aleh Edumim. An international religious authority would control central holy sites, with the Temple Mount officially under Palestinian sovereignty and the Western Wall and Jewish Quarter of the Old City under Israeli sovereignty. Israel would decide how many Palestinian refugees would be admitted to Israel. Other refugees would get compensation from international funds and would be accepted either into Palestine the countries in which they are currently residing or other countries.
According to a public opinion poll jointly sponsored by the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in Houston and the International Crisis Group in Washington, DC , 53.3 percent of Israelis polled said they would support such a proposal while 43.9 percent said they would oppose it. On the Palestinian side, 55.6 percent expressed support. Other polls gave the proposals about 30 percent support in Israel, but it is not clear that respondents understood the plan.
The complete text of the accord is here. Unofficial maps of the accord are here. The Geneva accord is similar to earlier plans put forward by Gush Shalom and Peace Now.
Ayalon-Nusseibeh Plan (Peoples' Voice) - The Peoples' Voice initiative was launched in June by former Shin Bet head Ami Ayalon and Sari Nusseibeh, the former PLO representative in Jerusalem. The initiative is based on a six-point Statement of Principles, calling for a demilitarized Palestinian state; an open Jerusalem; compensation for Palestinian refugees and explicitly relinquishing the Palestinian claim for the right of Palestinian Refugees to return to Israel ("Right of Return"). . More information is at the Peoples' Voice website.
One Voice - One Voice is a grassroots peace initiative that seeks to find common ground between the "silent majority" of Israelis and Palestinians. One Voice has about 100,000 signatures on a petition empowering a panel of experts to propose a solution, and will soon present a detailed set of principles, or "pillars" on which people will be able to vote through the Web using facilities to be donated, as well as through other means. statement of principles, and is working on a says it has managed to "achieve consensus on 20 Pillars that may form the basis for Palestinian-Israeli conflict resolution." The "pillars," which are still confidential, "are the beginning of a process to achieve historic grassroots consensus for conflict resolution," according to the One Voice website. More information can be found on the One Voice website
Plans of Israeli Political Factions
Ya'ad Plan - Ya'ad is a new political party formed of Meretz and Yossi Beilin's Shahar movement, that will adopt the Geneva Accord as its plan for a solution of the conflict.
Israel Communist Party - Calls for evacuation of the Occupied territories to the June 4, 1967 lines, and right of return for Palestinian refugees.
Shinui Party peace plan - The center Shinui Party's peace plan calls for Israel to renew the peace process with the Abu Ala government with the intention of reaching an arrangement in accordance with the "road map." The Shinui plan calls for the declaration of an unlimited cease-fire, with the Palestinian Authority making every effort to end terror, Israel will stop all targeted killing, except against terrorists who continue to initiate and carry out acts of terror. If the cease-fire holds, Israel would replace the settlers in the Gaza Netzarim settlement with soldiers, and eventually evacuate them.
Labor Party peace platform - The opposition Labor Party's plan is based on a return to the June 4, 1967 borders "with slight revisions due to security reasons and around blocs of Jewish settlements." Similar to the Geneva Accord, condemned by Labor politicians, Jerusalem would be divided into Israeli and Palestinian capitals, and partitioned according into Jewish and Arab parts based on current population. Palestinians would give up right of return. All "illegal" outposts are to be dismantled immediately according to the Labor plan.
The Sharon and Olmert Plans - Israeli PM Ariel Sharon and Deputy PM Ehud Olmert, former mayor of Jerusalem, have laid out broad hints about a plan or plans for unilateral steps that would be taken soon if no agreement with Palestinians is possible and there was no progress in implementing the road map. These plans would almost certainly include evacuation of the small Israeli settlements in Gaza including Netzarim and scattered settlements in the West Bank. The plan area that would be defended by Israel would probably correspond with the current fence
Historical Background
Numerous final status and peace plans have been advanced to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They are all based on variants of a few ideas that have a venerable history. The plans must address the following issues:
Sovereignty - Each people wants the right to self determination, but some plans deny self determination to one people or the other.
Borders - If there are two states, the land must be apportioned between them and some people will probably need to move. Palestinians demand that all Israeli settlers would leave any separate Palestinian state.
Immigration - Israel has a law of return that allows Jews from all over the world to immigrate to Israel and be granted citizenship automatically. Israel actively seeks Jewish immigration. Palestinian refugees who fled Israeli in 1948 and 1967 want the right to return to their homes in Israel (Right of Return), and Palestinians historically have tried to limit Jewish immigration to Israel and abolish the Law of Return. Many Palestinian refugee families have kept keys to their homes in what is now Israel, even though the homes themselves no longer exist. Return of Palestinian refugees and their descendants, including all those who claim the status of Palestinian refugees, would establish an Arab majority in Israel and would therefore mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state.
Resources - If the states are divided, scarce common resources must be apportioned between them.
Historic Peace Plans
One Jewish State - The Zionists envisioned a single Jewish state that would encompass all of the land from beyond the Jordan river to the sea, as well as Gaza and parts of what is now Lebanon. The single Jewish state plan was abandoned by most Zionists when it became apparent that the Jews could not be a decisive majority in all of Palestine. Today, settlers and right wing Zionists propose various single state solutions that all seek to maintain a Jewish majority in the land, either by expelling Palestinians or by denying or abridging their political rights.
One Arab State - Arab states and Palestinian leaders called for a single Palestinian Arab state in Palestine. This "plan" has been put forward from time to time with different variants. All of them would put an end to Zionism and would not allow free Jewish immigration to Israel. After WW II The Palestinian leader Haj Amin el Husseini, told the British that the Jewish problem in Palestine should be solved in the same was as it had been "solved" by Hitler in Europe (by murdering the Jews). In 1967, on the eve of the 6-day war, Ahmed Shokhairy, then head of the PLO, spoke at UN, giving the Palestinian one-state solution. He explained that "if it will be our privilege to strike the first blow," the PLO would exile from Israel all Zionists who arrived after 1917 and create a "secular democratic state. This secular democratic state became the program of the Palestine Liberation Organization and of the Fateh which sought to "liberate" Palestine from the Zionists by armed struggle. The Hamas and Islamic Jihad prefer an Islamic state, in which Jews and other religious minorities can remain as dhimmis (second class citizens).
Binational State - This idea was advanced by Dr. Yehuda Magnes, President of the Hebrew University and the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber. This state would have Jewish and Arab cantons, similar to the Swiss German and French Cantons. The idea was presented to the Anglo-American commission in 1946, was favored by the Mapam party and by the USSR. However, the idea lost support after the Arab states and Palestinian leadership totally rejected it. The binational state has a few modern proponents, including Meron Benvenisti, Noam Chomsky and Edward Said.
Two State Partition Solution - The British first partitioned Palestine in 1922, cutting off Transjordan from the Palestine mandate of the League of nations, along with the announcement by Winston Churchill that the Mandate called for a Jewish home in Palestine, but not necessarily in all of Palestine. The Peel and Woodhead commissions of 1937 and 1938 recommended a further partition, into a tiny Jewish state and much larger Arab state. The Arabs rejected this solution and the British abandoned it. The UN called for the establishment of two states in UN General Assembly Resolution 181, which became the basis for the establishment of Israel. The Arab countries opposed Resolution 181, and were also not enthusiastic about creating a Palestinian state, preferring to divide the territory of Palestine between them.
Alon Plan - Israeli general and political leader Yigal Alon formulated this plan for partition of the West Bank with part of the land to be returned to Jordan as a solution for the Israeli Palestinian conflict.
Autonomy - Israel PM Menachem Begin proposed that Israel would give autonomy to Palestinians, in the framework of the Israeli - Egyptian peace treaty. The "autonomy" would allow Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza to run their internal affairs, but would give them no rights at all over the land, and no representation as a sovereign state. They could have Jordanian or Egyptian citizenship. A plan consistent with autonomy was submitted by the Israeli government in 1989.
The Barak Offer, Taba talks and Clinton Compromise - During 2000 and early 2001, Israelis and Palestinians negotiated unsuccessfully regarding a final status solution. Though the overall result was a failure, there were many points of agreement. The nature of the settlement and the proposed maps are detailed here and here.
Recent Peace Plans, Final Status Plans and Peace Initiatives
Introduction - Not every plan for a settlement is a peace plan. Some of the recent proposals are expressly designed to subjugate one side or the other and cannot be considered "peace plans." Some of the initiatives are intended to be the basis for a peace plan or a method of arriving at a peace plan, but aren't complete solutions and don't pretend to be. See How many states? and The Emperor's New Peace Plan and "The Two State Solution" for some background. An explanation of most of the different proposals follows.
The Quartet Road map - The Road Map , now endorsed by the UN, is not a final status plan, but a series of steps designed to calm the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, create a provisional Palestinian state and allow for negotiations of a final status agreement. The "road map" calls for a three-phased implementation of U.S. President George W. Bush's June 24, 2002 speech : that would make possible Israel and Palestinians "living side by side in peace and security." However, the roadmap does not specify the final borders of Palestine and Israel or any other other details of the solution.
Arab Peace Initiative The Saudi-initiated plan for a comprehensive peace calls for settlement of the Palestine-Israel conflict and other outstanding disputes, followed by termination of the state of war that has existed between Israel and all Arab countries and recognition of Israel. As part of the Palestinian settlement, the plan calls more or less explicitly for return of the Palestinian refugees to Israel.
Third Party Peace Initiatives:
Geneva Accord - The "Geneva Accord" is a a proposed final status agreement between Israelis and Palestinians s initiated by former justice minister Yossi Beilin and former Palestinian minister of information Yasser Abed Rabbo. Talks on the agreement took place over the past year and were funded, in part, by the Swiss government. Israelis who signed the agreement included Labor MKs Amram Mitzna, Avraham Burg, Yuli Tamir and MK Haim Oron (Meretz), former MK Nehama Ronen; General Giora Inbar, Former Chief of Staff Amnon Lipkin-Shahak and authors Amos Oz and David Grossman.
The agreement provides in great detail for an independent and demilitarized Palestine living alongside Israel. Borders between the states would be based on the 1967 lines with slight modifications, giving Israel the Gush Etzion settlements, Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, the Jewish quarter of the Old City and the settlement of Ma'aleh Edumim. An international religious authority would control central holy sites, with the Temple Mount officially under Palestinian sovereignty and the Western Wall and Jewish Quarter of the Old City under Israeli sovereignty. Israel would decide how many Palestinian refugees would be admitted to Israel. Other refugees would get compensation from international funds and would be accepted either into Palestine the countries in which they are currently residing or other countries.
According to a public opinion poll jointly sponsored by the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in Houston and the International Crisis Group in Washington, DC , 53.3 percent of Israelis polled said they would support such a proposal while 43.9 percent said they would oppose it. On the Palestinian side, 55.6 percent expressed support. Other polls gave the proposals about 30 percent support in Israel, but it is not clear that respondents understood the plan.
The complete text of the accord is here. Unofficial maps of the accord are here. The Geneva accord is similar to earlier plans put forward by Gush Shalom and Peace Now.
Ayalon-Nusseibeh Plan (Peoples' Voice) - The Peoples' Voice initiative was launched in June by former Shin Bet head Ami Ayalon and Sari Nusseibeh, the former PLO representative in Jerusalem. The initiative is based on a six-point Statement of Principles, calling for a demilitarized Palestinian state; an open Jerusalem; compensation for Palestinian refugees and explicitly relinquishing the Palestinian claim for the right of Palestinian Refugees to return to Israel ("Right of Return"). . More information is at the Peoples' Voice website.
One Voice - One Voice is a grassroots peace initiative that seeks to find common ground between the "silent majority" of Israelis and Palestinians. One Voice has about 100,000 signatures on a petition empowering a panel of experts to propose a solution, and will soon present a detailed set of principles, or "pillars" on which people will be able to vote through the Web using facilities to be donated, as well as through other means. statement of principles, and is working on a says it has managed to "achieve consensus on 20 Pillars that may form the basis for Palestinian-Israeli conflict resolution." The "pillars," which are still confidential, "are the beginning of a process to achieve historic grassroots consensus for conflict resolution," according to the One Voice website. More information can be found on the One Voice website
Plans of Israeli Political Factions
Ya'ad Plan - Ya'ad is a new political party formed of Meretz and Yossi Beilin's Shahar movement, that will adopt the Geneva Accord as its plan for a solution of the conflict.
Israel Communist Party - Calls for evacuation of the Occupied territories to the June 4, 1967 lines, and right of return for Palestinian refugees.
Shinui Party peace plan - The center Shinui Party's peace plan calls for Israel to renew the peace process with the Abu Ala government with the intention of reaching an arrangement in accordance with the "road map." The Shinui plan calls for the declaration of an unlimited cease-fire, with the Palestinian Authority making every effort to end terror, Israel will stop all targeted killing, except against terrorists who continue to initiate and carry out acts of terror. If the cease-fire holds, Israel would replace the settlers in the Gaza Netzarim settlement with soldiers, and eventually evacuate them.
Labor Party peace platform - The opposition Labor Party's plan is based on a return to the June 4, 1967 borders "with slight revisions due to security reasons and around blocs of Jewish settlements." Similar to the Geneva Accord, condemned by Labor politicians, Jerusalem would be divided into Israeli and Palestinian capitals, and partitioned according into Jewish and Arab parts based on current population. Palestinians would give up right of return. All "illegal" outposts are to be dismantled immediately according to the Labor plan.
The Sharon and Olmert Plans - Israeli PM Ariel Sharon and Deputy PM Ehud Olmert, former mayor of Jerusalem, have laid out broad hints about a plan or plans for unilateral steps that would be taken soon if no agreement with Palestinians is possible and there was no progress in implementing the road map. These plans would almost certainly include evacuation of the small Israeli settlements in Gaza including Netzarim and scattered settlements in the West Bank. The plan area that would be defended by Israel would probably correspond with the current fence
Proposal to establish a West Asia Parliament in Syria
The western portion of Asia (an area commonly referred to as the Middle East) is perhaps the last remaining region on earth where large numbers of people still believe that violence is an effective means of solving political problems. While it is true that hatred and bitterness are not likely to disappear overnight, healthier conditions can be created that allow these corroding symptoms to dissipate over years and decades, and for genuine cooperation to return. There was a time when Muslims and Jews ruled the world together for almost four hundred years, during the seventh to eleventh centuries. Northern Ireland is a more recent example of a nation overcoming deep-rooted violence, and other countries and regions that have recovered from wars should also be studied.
Any efforts that regional and international partners can put forth that promote dialogue rather than push war, are dearly desired at this time. Ideally every nation would have some form of direct democratic representation on as many as five levels: local/municipal, regional, provincial / state, national, continental /multinational. Allowing West Asian citizens to vote on their representatives to a new regional parliament would instill both cooperation and participation in decision making, where they are clearly needed most. This is not a magic pill and will not transform societies overnight, but having a say in how their region is represented could lead to people experiencing the value of this form of communication, and many would likely want to experience more elections. The Palestinians learned a hard lesson when they voted for Hamas and war, because they got what they voted for. If Abbas can put together a Unity Government with Fatah sharing power with moderate and reformed Hamas parliamentarians, then Abbas will have the authority and respect required to launch the new nation of Palestine into full statehood.
A four-nation agreement between Palestine, Israel, Lebanon and Jordan is not difficult to imagine, but many readers are likely to have problems envisioning the currently pro-terrorist Baath regime in Syria ever agreeing to a meaningful peace deal. OK, first picture a scenario where both Hamas and Hezbollah leaders are about to sign peace treaties with Israel and Lebanon, and word hits Damascus that Amman is getting in on a four-nation trade bloc. If instead of being left on the sidelines, Syria were to agree to implement democratic initiatives at the regional and national levels, and to grant the Palestinians some or all of the Golan lands, then Syria would receive massive development funding and a full endorsement as host of the proposed Asia West Parliament. This new regional facility would be constructed along the Damascus Beirut highway, west of Damascus near the Lebanese border. If the five nations in the agreement and the international community all support Syria as host of the new house of representatives, then the West Asian powerhouses such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iraq are unlikely to dissent.
The establishment of an Asia West Parliament in southwestern Syria, on this road between Beirut and Damascus, is therefore advised for the security and prosperity of the region. It is suggested that this home of governance be built about 10 to 30 kilometers from the Lebanon border, possibly east of Zabadani, said to be near the ancient village of Aristobulus, a Herodian king known for his wise, peaceful ways. If Syria is not amenable to the democratic and peace developments, alternative locations would be on the same road, but another twenty to thirty kilometers to the west, on the Lebanese side of the border, or in Jordan near Amman.
Though Lebanon and Jordan would each make exemplary hosts for the Asia West Parliament, selecting Syria as host nation has distinct advantages. With Israel, Palestine, Jordan and Lebanon already forming an oasis of tolerance, adding Syria to the progressive zone widens peace efforts and helps bring Sunni-Shia concerns to the negotiating table, and off the battlefield. The alternative, of ostracizing and alienating Syria, could help turn that great nation into a battleground for sectarian and ideological concerns. By including Syria in both of the security and the economic blocks, and by locating the regional parliament here, stability in the entire area is improved.
If regional stability is not restored, then Palestinian nationhood could be delayed further, and nobody wants another Baghdad or Gaza where secure Damascus now sits. Why should the hopes and dreams of Palestinian and Lebanese citizenry be held hostage to Sunni-Shia conflicts, or worse, to abstract ideas of potential administration turnover?
Under this proposed comprehensive regional peace, security and democracy plan, each West Asian nation will receive between 3 and 15 parliamentary seats in the Asia West Parliament / Parliament Asia Ouest, to be elected by popular ballot.
Total estimated representation would initially be estimated at 155 to 170 members, to be elected by direct national voting. Construction on the parliament buildings is proposed to begin in 2007, with the first election to be held in autumn of 2009, for sitting beginning winter 2010.
To be continued and expanded upon
Any efforts that regional and international partners can put forth that promote dialogue rather than push war, are dearly desired at this time. Ideally every nation would have some form of direct democratic representation on as many as five levels: local/municipal, regional, provincial / state, national, continental /multinational. Allowing West Asian citizens to vote on their representatives to a new regional parliament would instill both cooperation and participation in decision making, where they are clearly needed most. This is not a magic pill and will not transform societies overnight, but having a say in how their region is represented could lead to people experiencing the value of this form of communication, and many would likely want to experience more elections. The Palestinians learned a hard lesson when they voted for Hamas and war, because they got what they voted for. If Abbas can put together a Unity Government with Fatah sharing power with moderate and reformed Hamas parliamentarians, then Abbas will have the authority and respect required to launch the new nation of Palestine into full statehood.
A four-nation agreement between Palestine, Israel, Lebanon and Jordan is not difficult to imagine, but many readers are likely to have problems envisioning the currently pro-terrorist Baath regime in Syria ever agreeing to a meaningful peace deal. OK, first picture a scenario where both Hamas and Hezbollah leaders are about to sign peace treaties with Israel and Lebanon, and word hits Damascus that Amman is getting in on a four-nation trade bloc. If instead of being left on the sidelines, Syria were to agree to implement democratic initiatives at the regional and national levels, and to grant the Palestinians some or all of the Golan lands, then Syria would receive massive development funding and a full endorsement as host of the proposed Asia West Parliament. This new regional facility would be constructed along the Damascus Beirut highway, west of Damascus near the Lebanese border. If the five nations in the agreement and the international community all support Syria as host of the new house of representatives, then the West Asian powerhouses such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iraq are unlikely to dissent.
The establishment of an Asia West Parliament in southwestern Syria, on this road between Beirut and Damascus, is therefore advised for the security and prosperity of the region. It is suggested that this home of governance be built about 10 to 30 kilometers from the Lebanon border, possibly east of Zabadani, said to be near the ancient village of Aristobulus, a Herodian king known for his wise, peaceful ways. If Syria is not amenable to the democratic and peace developments, alternative locations would be on the same road, but another twenty to thirty kilometers to the west, on the Lebanese side of the border, or in Jordan near Amman.
Though Lebanon and Jordan would each make exemplary hosts for the Asia West Parliament, selecting Syria as host nation has distinct advantages. With Israel, Palestine, Jordan and Lebanon already forming an oasis of tolerance, adding Syria to the progressive zone widens peace efforts and helps bring Sunni-Shia concerns to the negotiating table, and off the battlefield. The alternative, of ostracizing and alienating Syria, could help turn that great nation into a battleground for sectarian and ideological concerns. By including Syria in both of the security and the economic blocks, and by locating the regional parliament here, stability in the entire area is improved.
If regional stability is not restored, then Palestinian nationhood could be delayed further, and nobody wants another Baghdad or Gaza where secure Damascus now sits. Why should the hopes and dreams of Palestinian and Lebanese citizenry be held hostage to Sunni-Shia conflicts, or worse, to abstract ideas of potential administration turnover?
Under this proposed comprehensive regional peace, security and democracy plan, each West Asian nation will receive between 3 and 15 parliamentary seats in the Asia West Parliament / Parliament Asia Ouest, to be elected by popular ballot.
Total estimated representation would initially be estimated at 155 to 170 members, to be elected by direct national voting. Construction on the parliament buildings is proposed to begin in 2007, with the first election to be held in autumn of 2009, for sitting beginning winter 2010.
To be continued and expanded upon
Disputed Shebaa Farms the new hot potato
Note from Yuya: Lebanon wants this area "internationalized" as part of the ceasefire propsal, but the UN feels it is Syrian land, so the situation gets more complex. In my peace plan I propose that the Palestininians should be allocated this area and most of the Golan, in addition to Gaza and the West Bank. To me it seems the most contentious issues are Jeruslaem and the right of return. Shebaa Farms and Golan could go a long way to making the new Palestinian state not only viable, but healthy and progressive. Please see Canadian Peace Plan for Mideast
By Evelyn Leopold, Reuters
UNITED NATIONS, Aug 7 (Reuters) - Lebanon wants a new U.N. truce resolution that would enable U.N. peacekeepers to take over the Shebaa farms from Israel until sovereignty over the border area can be established.
Israel captured the area at its border with Lebanon and Syria in the 1967 Middle East war. After Israel pulled out of south Lebanon in 2000, ending a 22-year occupation, the United Nations ruled Shebaa farms were part of Syria not Lebanon.
But Hizbollah, the Shi'ite "Party of God," insists the land is part of Lebanon and has made it a reason for war with Israel for nearly a month. Now the United States and France are trying to hammer out a U.N. cease-fire resolution.
The 10-square-mile area (25 sq km) area, which overlooks Israeli towns, has become a matter of national honor for the Beirut government. Lebanon demands the resolution call for an "immediate withdrawal" of Israeli forces.
The area, where some Lebanese farmers live, would be placed in "U.N. custody, pending delineation of the border in this area between Lebanon and Syria," the Lebanese amendment says.
U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said on Monday the issue was one for Syria and Lebanon to resolve and the draft resolution asks U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to come up with proposals to settle the borders.
Bolton said that before the current crisis, Hizbollah guerrillas had branded Shebaa as Israeli-occupied Lebanese territory and used it as an excuse to arm.
U.N. SAYS IT'S SYRIAN
"It is surely a pretext that Hizbollah ... maintains anti-ship cruise missiles in its arsenal in order to liberate the Shebaa farms," Bolton told reporters.
Israel occupied southern Lebanon in 1978 and withdrew in May 2000. The United Nations was asked to delineate the borders to certify Israeli troops had left.
After studying dozens of maps dating back to the 1949 Armistice Agreements between Syria and Israel, the United Nations said Shebaa farms were in Syrian territory but both sides were free to make changes, which they have not.
Hizbollah, which had fought the Israeli occupation, insisted it needed to keep up its armed resistance because it said Israel was still on Lebanese territory in Shebaa.
In October 2005, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan released for the first time a letter written by Lebanese President Emile Lahoud in June 2000, accepting the temporary border.
Lahoud said that "while the United Nations notes that this line can in no way be regarded as affecting the rights of the parties concerned with respect to their international boundaries, Lebanon has accepted this assessment until such time as a joint formula for the farmlands area can be agreed by Lebanon and Syria for submission to the United Nations."
By Evelyn Leopold, Reuters
UNITED NATIONS, Aug 7 (Reuters) - Lebanon wants a new U.N. truce resolution that would enable U.N. peacekeepers to take over the Shebaa farms from Israel until sovereignty over the border area can be established.
Israel captured the area at its border with Lebanon and Syria in the 1967 Middle East war. After Israel pulled out of south Lebanon in 2000, ending a 22-year occupation, the United Nations ruled Shebaa farms were part of Syria not Lebanon.
But Hizbollah, the Shi'ite "Party of God," insists the land is part of Lebanon and has made it a reason for war with Israel for nearly a month. Now the United States and France are trying to hammer out a U.N. cease-fire resolution.
The 10-square-mile area (25 sq km) area, which overlooks Israeli towns, has become a matter of national honor for the Beirut government. Lebanon demands the resolution call for an "immediate withdrawal" of Israeli forces.
The area, where some Lebanese farmers live, would be placed in "U.N. custody, pending delineation of the border in this area between Lebanon and Syria," the Lebanese amendment says.
U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said on Monday the issue was one for Syria and Lebanon to resolve and the draft resolution asks U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to come up with proposals to settle the borders.
Bolton said that before the current crisis, Hizbollah guerrillas had branded Shebaa as Israeli-occupied Lebanese territory and used it as an excuse to arm.
U.N. SAYS IT'S SYRIAN
"It is surely a pretext that Hizbollah ... maintains anti-ship cruise missiles in its arsenal in order to liberate the Shebaa farms," Bolton told reporters.
Israel occupied southern Lebanon in 1978 and withdrew in May 2000. The United Nations was asked to delineate the borders to certify Israeli troops had left.
After studying dozens of maps dating back to the 1949 Armistice Agreements between Syria and Israel, the United Nations said Shebaa farms were in Syrian territory but both sides were free to make changes, which they have not.
Hizbollah, which had fought the Israeli occupation, insisted it needed to keep up its armed resistance because it said Israel was still on Lebanese territory in Shebaa.
In October 2005, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan released for the first time a letter written by Lebanese President Emile Lahoud in June 2000, accepting the temporary border.
Lahoud said that "while the United Nations notes that this line can in no way be regarded as affecting the rights of the parties concerned with respect to their international boundaries, Lebanon has accepted this assessment until such time as a joint formula for the farmlands area can be agreed by Lebanon and Syria for submission to the United Nations."
India moving beyond oil with massive solar electricity generators
India Building Large-Scale Solar Thermal Capacity
By Gordon Feller,m EcoWorld.com
Rajastan, India
EcoWorld.com Editor's Note: Just as on a small scale, hybrid engines stretch a gallon of gas, in the same manner a hybrid power plant can stretch its own supply of fossil fuel. In India, a huge new power station using hybrid systems is close to completing their financing and breaking ground in the sunny state of Rajasthan. This fossil fuel / solar hybrid will produce a whopping 140 megawatts of electric power, and 40 of those megawatts will be produced from a field of solar thermal parabolic troughs. Not as glamorous as photovoltaics, but still much more cost-effective, parabolic systems use mirrors to focus sunlight that in turn heats a thermal media (gas, steam) to drive a turbine generator. The project described below is projected to go in at about US $1 million per megawatt, which is competitive with conventional fuels. Read on...
Leonardo DaVinci dreamed of this day
India's power sector has a total installed capacity of approximately 102,000 MW of which 60% is coal-based, 25% hydro, and the balance gas and nuclear-based. Power shortages are estimated at about 11% of total energy and 15% of peak capacity requirements and are likely to increase in the coming years. In the next 10 years, another 10,000 MW of capacity is required. The bulk of capacity additions involve coal thermal stations supplemented by hydroelectric plant development. Coal-based power involve environmental concerns relating to emissions of suspended particulate matter (SPM), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, methane and other gases. On the other hand, large hydroplants can lead to soil degradation and erosion, loss of forests, wildlife habitat and species diversity and most importantly, the displacement of people. To promote environmentally sound energy investments as well as help mitigate the acute shortfall in power supply, the Government of India is promoting the accelerated development of the country's renewable energy resources and has made it a priority thrust area under India's National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP).
The Indian government estimates that a potential of 50,000 MW of power capacity can be harnessed from new and renewable energy sources but due to relatively high development cost experienced in the past these were not tapped as aggressively as conventional sources. Nevertheless, development of alternate energy has been part of India's strategy for expanding energy supply and meeting decentralized energy needs of the rural sector. The program, considered one of the largest among developing countries, is administered through India's Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy Sources (MNES), energy development agencies in the various States, and the Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited (IREDA).
Throughout the 1990's, India's private sector interest in renewable energy increased due to several factors: (i) India opened the power sector to private sector participation in 1991; (ii) tax incentives are now offered to developers of renewable energy systems; (iii) there has been a heightened awareness of the environmental benefits of renewable energy relative to conventional forms and of the short-gestation period for developing alternate energy schemes. Recognizing the opportunities afforded by private sector participation, the Indian Government revised its priorities in July 1993 by giving greater emphasis on promoting renewable energy technologies for power generation. To date, over 1,500 MW of windfarm capacity has been commissioned and about 1,423 MW capacity of small hydro installed. The sector's contribution to energy supply has grown from 0.4% of India's power capacity in 1995 to 3.4% by 2001.
India is located in the equatorial sun belt of the earth, thereby receiving abundant radiant energy from the sun. The India Meteorological Department maintains a nationwide network of radiation stations which measure solar radiation and also the daily duration of sunshine. In most parts of India, clear sunny weather is experienced 250 to 300 days a year. The annual global radiation varies from 1600 to 2200 kWh/sq.m. which is comparable with radiation received in the tropical and sub-tropical regions. The equivalent energy potential is about 6,000 million GWh of energy per year. The highest annual global radiation is received in Rajasthan and northern Gujarat. In Rajasthan, large areas of land are barren and sparsely populated, making these areas suitable as locations for large central power stations based on solar energy.
The main objectives of the project are these: (i) To demonstrate the operational viability of parabolic trough solar thermal power generation in India; (ii) support solar power technology development to help lead to a reduction in production cost; and (iii) help reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) global emissions in the longer term. Specifically, operational viability will be demonstrated through operation of a solar thermal plant with commercial power sales and delivery arrangements with the grid. Technology development would be supported through technical assistance and training. The project would be pursued under The World Bank's Global Environment Fund (GEF) -- which has a leading program objective focused on climate change. This project is envisaged as the first step of a long term program for promoting solar thermal power in India that would lead to a phased deployment of similar systems in the country and possibly in other developing nations.
India supports development of both solar thermal and solar photovoltaics (PV) power generation. To demonstrate and commercialize solar thermal technology in India, MNES is promoting megawatt scale projects such as the proposed 35MW solar thermal plant in Rajasthan and is encouraging private sector projects by providing financial assistance from the Ministry.
One of the prime objectives of the demonstration project is to ensure capacity build-up through 'hands on' experience in the design, operation and management of such projects under actual field conditions. Involvement in the project of various players in the energy sector, such as local industries, the private construction and operations contractors, Rajasthan State Power Corporation Limited (RSPCL), Rajasthan State Electricity Board (RSEB), Rajasthan Energy Development Agency (REDA), Central Electricity Authority (CEA), MNES and others, will help to increase the capacity and capability of local technical expertise and further sustain the development of solar power in India in the longer term.
The project's sustainability will depend on to what extent the impact of the initial investment cost is mitigated, operating costs fully recovered, professional management introduced, and infrastructure and equipment support for operation and maintenance made accessible. Accordingly, while the solar thermal station will be state-owned, it will be operated during the initial five years under a management contract with the private sector; subsidy support will be limited to capital costs. Fuel input, power supply and other transactions would be on a commercial basis and backed up by acceptable marketable contracts. Staff selection and management would be based on business practices; the project site would be situated where basic infrastructure is well developed and engineering industries established.
This project is consistent with the World Bank's Global Environment Fund's operational strategy on climate change in support of long-term mitigation measures. In particular, the project will help reduce the costs of proven parabolic trough solar technology so as to enhance its commercial viability. This initiative is part of an anticipated multi-country solar thermal promotion program, the objectives of which will be to accelerate the process of cost reduction and demonstrate the technology in a wider range of climate and market conditions.
Demonstrating the solar plant's operational viability under Indian conditions is expected to result in follow-up investments by the private sector both in the manufacture of the solar field components and in larger solar stations within India.
Insights into local design and operating factors such as meteorological and grid conditions, and use of available back-up fuels, are expected to lead to its replicability under Indian conditions, opening up avenues for larger deployment of solar power plants in India and other countries with limited access to cheap competing fuels. Creation of demand for large scale production of solar facilities will in turn lead to reductions in costs of equipment supply and operation. It is also expected to revive and sustain the interest of the international business and scientific community in improving systems designs and operations of solar thermal plants.
The Project is expected to result in avoided annual emissions of 714,400 tons of CO2, or 17.9 million tons over the life of the project, relative to generation from a similar-sized coal-fired power station. The cost of carbon avoidance is estimated at $6.5 per ton.
The project involves: (i) Construction of a solar thermal/fossil-fuel hybrid power plant of about 140MW incorporating a parabolic trough solar thermal field of 35 MW to 40 MW; and (ii) Technical assistance package to support technology development and commercialization requirements.
Investment Component. The solar thermal/hybrid power station will comprise: (i) a solar field with a collection area of 219,000 square meters to support a 35MWe to 40MWe solar thermal plant; and (ii) a power block based on mature fossil fuel technology (i.e, regasified LNG). The proposed project will be sited at Mathania, near Jodhpur, Rajasthan in an arid region. In addition to high solar insulation levels (5.8 kWh/m2 daily average), the proposed site involves approximately 800,000 square meters of relatively level land with access to water resources and electric transmission facilities. The solar thermal/hybrid station will operate as a base load plant with an expected plant load factor of 80%. The final choice of the fossil-fired power block would be left to the bidders, subject to performance parameters set out in the tender specifications.
The design choice is an Integrated Solar Combined Cycle (ISCC) involving the integrated operation of the parabolic trough solar plant with a combined cycle gas turbine using naphtha. Such a plant would consist of the solar field; a combined cycle power block involving two gas turbines each connected to a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) and a steam turbine connected to both HRSG; and ancillary facilities and plant services such as fire protection, regasified liquefied natural gas supply and storage system, grid interconnection system, water supply and treatment systems, etc. A control building will house a central microprocessor control system that monitors and controls plant operations.
The success of the solar thermal/hybrid power plant as a demonstration project will determine if this technology is replicable in other parts of India. The project will provide technical assistance to ensure that adequate institutional and logistical support for the technology is available for future expansion of solar thermal power.
Specifically, funds will be made available for promoting commercialization of solar thermal technologies among potential investors; staff training and development of a local consultancy base; upgrading of test facilities; mproved collection and measurement of solar insolation data and other solar resource mapping activities; and development of pipeline investments.
The total cost of the investment component is estimated at US$ 201.5 million, including interest during construction, physical and price contingencies as well as duties and taxes. Of these costs, the cost of supplies (excluding contingencies) for the solar component including the steam generator amounts to $41 million, and that for the conventional power plant component is $72 million. The cost of the technical assistance component for promoting replication of the solar power technology is estimated at $4 million.
Investors Note: For more information on the solar thermal project in Rajasthan, India, please contact:
Mr. G. L. Somani, General Manager
Rajasthan State Power Corporation Ltd.
E-166, Yudhisthar Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur, India
Telephone No.: (91-141) 384055
Fax No.: (91-141) 382759
About the Author: Gordon Feller is the CEO of Urban Age Institute (www.UrbanAge.org). During the past twenty years he has authored more than 500 magazine articles, journal articles or newspaper articles on the profound changes underway in politics, economics, and ecology - with a special emphasis on sustainable development. Gordon is the editor of Urban Age Magazine, a unique quarterly which serves as a global resource and which was founded in 1990. He can be reached at GordonFeller@UrbanAge.org and he is available for speaking to your organization about the issues raised in this and his other numerous articles published in EcoWorld.
By Gordon Feller,m EcoWorld.com
Rajastan, India
EcoWorld.com Editor's Note: Just as on a small scale, hybrid engines stretch a gallon of gas, in the same manner a hybrid power plant can stretch its own supply of fossil fuel. In India, a huge new power station using hybrid systems is close to completing their financing and breaking ground in the sunny state of Rajasthan. This fossil fuel / solar hybrid will produce a whopping 140 megawatts of electric power, and 40 of those megawatts will be produced from a field of solar thermal parabolic troughs. Not as glamorous as photovoltaics, but still much more cost-effective, parabolic systems use mirrors to focus sunlight that in turn heats a thermal media (gas, steam) to drive a turbine generator. The project described below is projected to go in at about US $1 million per megawatt, which is competitive with conventional fuels. Read on...
Leonardo DaVinci dreamed of this day
India's power sector has a total installed capacity of approximately 102,000 MW of which 60% is coal-based, 25% hydro, and the balance gas and nuclear-based. Power shortages are estimated at about 11% of total energy and 15% of peak capacity requirements and are likely to increase in the coming years. In the next 10 years, another 10,000 MW of capacity is required. The bulk of capacity additions involve coal thermal stations supplemented by hydroelectric plant development. Coal-based power involve environmental concerns relating to emissions of suspended particulate matter (SPM), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, methane and other gases. On the other hand, large hydroplants can lead to soil degradation and erosion, loss of forests, wildlife habitat and species diversity and most importantly, the displacement of people. To promote environmentally sound energy investments as well as help mitigate the acute shortfall in power supply, the Government of India is promoting the accelerated development of the country's renewable energy resources and has made it a priority thrust area under India's National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP).
The Indian government estimates that a potential of 50,000 MW of power capacity can be harnessed from new and renewable energy sources but due to relatively high development cost experienced in the past these were not tapped as aggressively as conventional sources. Nevertheless, development of alternate energy has been part of India's strategy for expanding energy supply and meeting decentralized energy needs of the rural sector. The program, considered one of the largest among developing countries, is administered through India's Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy Sources (MNES), energy development agencies in the various States, and the Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited (IREDA).
Throughout the 1990's, India's private sector interest in renewable energy increased due to several factors: (i) India opened the power sector to private sector participation in 1991; (ii) tax incentives are now offered to developers of renewable energy systems; (iii) there has been a heightened awareness of the environmental benefits of renewable energy relative to conventional forms and of the short-gestation period for developing alternate energy schemes. Recognizing the opportunities afforded by private sector participation, the Indian Government revised its priorities in July 1993 by giving greater emphasis on promoting renewable energy technologies for power generation. To date, over 1,500 MW of windfarm capacity has been commissioned and about 1,423 MW capacity of small hydro installed. The sector's contribution to energy supply has grown from 0.4% of India's power capacity in 1995 to 3.4% by 2001.
India is located in the equatorial sun belt of the earth, thereby receiving abundant radiant energy from the sun. The India Meteorological Department maintains a nationwide network of radiation stations which measure solar radiation and also the daily duration of sunshine. In most parts of India, clear sunny weather is experienced 250 to 300 days a year. The annual global radiation varies from 1600 to 2200 kWh/sq.m. which is comparable with radiation received in the tropical and sub-tropical regions. The equivalent energy potential is about 6,000 million GWh of energy per year. The highest annual global radiation is received in Rajasthan and northern Gujarat. In Rajasthan, large areas of land are barren and sparsely populated, making these areas suitable as locations for large central power stations based on solar energy.
The main objectives of the project are these: (i) To demonstrate the operational viability of parabolic trough solar thermal power generation in India; (ii) support solar power technology development to help lead to a reduction in production cost; and (iii) help reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) global emissions in the longer term. Specifically, operational viability will be demonstrated through operation of a solar thermal plant with commercial power sales and delivery arrangements with the grid. Technology development would be supported through technical assistance and training. The project would be pursued under The World Bank's Global Environment Fund (GEF) -- which has a leading program objective focused on climate change. This project is envisaged as the first step of a long term program for promoting solar thermal power in India that would lead to a phased deployment of similar systems in the country and possibly in other developing nations.
India supports development of both solar thermal and solar photovoltaics (PV) power generation. To demonstrate and commercialize solar thermal technology in India, MNES is promoting megawatt scale projects such as the proposed 35MW solar thermal plant in Rajasthan and is encouraging private sector projects by providing financial assistance from the Ministry.
One of the prime objectives of the demonstration project is to ensure capacity build-up through 'hands on' experience in the design, operation and management of such projects under actual field conditions. Involvement in the project of various players in the energy sector, such as local industries, the private construction and operations contractors, Rajasthan State Power Corporation Limited (RSPCL), Rajasthan State Electricity Board (RSEB), Rajasthan Energy Development Agency (REDA), Central Electricity Authority (CEA), MNES and others, will help to increase the capacity and capability of local technical expertise and further sustain the development of solar power in India in the longer term.
The project's sustainability will depend on to what extent the impact of the initial investment cost is mitigated, operating costs fully recovered, professional management introduced, and infrastructure and equipment support for operation and maintenance made accessible. Accordingly, while the solar thermal station will be state-owned, it will be operated during the initial five years under a management contract with the private sector; subsidy support will be limited to capital costs. Fuel input, power supply and other transactions would be on a commercial basis and backed up by acceptable marketable contracts. Staff selection and management would be based on business practices; the project site would be situated where basic infrastructure is well developed and engineering industries established.
This project is consistent with the World Bank's Global Environment Fund's operational strategy on climate change in support of long-term mitigation measures. In particular, the project will help reduce the costs of proven parabolic trough solar technology so as to enhance its commercial viability. This initiative is part of an anticipated multi-country solar thermal promotion program, the objectives of which will be to accelerate the process of cost reduction and demonstrate the technology in a wider range of climate and market conditions.
Demonstrating the solar plant's operational viability under Indian conditions is expected to result in follow-up investments by the private sector both in the manufacture of the solar field components and in larger solar stations within India.
Insights into local design and operating factors such as meteorological and grid conditions, and use of available back-up fuels, are expected to lead to its replicability under Indian conditions, opening up avenues for larger deployment of solar power plants in India and other countries with limited access to cheap competing fuels. Creation of demand for large scale production of solar facilities will in turn lead to reductions in costs of equipment supply and operation. It is also expected to revive and sustain the interest of the international business and scientific community in improving systems designs and operations of solar thermal plants.
The Project is expected to result in avoided annual emissions of 714,400 tons of CO2, or 17.9 million tons over the life of the project, relative to generation from a similar-sized coal-fired power station. The cost of carbon avoidance is estimated at $6.5 per ton.
The project involves: (i) Construction of a solar thermal/fossil-fuel hybrid power plant of about 140MW incorporating a parabolic trough solar thermal field of 35 MW to 40 MW; and (ii) Technical assistance package to support technology development and commercialization requirements.
Investment Component. The solar thermal/hybrid power station will comprise: (i) a solar field with a collection area of 219,000 square meters to support a 35MWe to 40MWe solar thermal plant; and (ii) a power block based on mature fossil fuel technology (i.e, regasified LNG). The proposed project will be sited at Mathania, near Jodhpur, Rajasthan in an arid region. In addition to high solar insulation levels (5.8 kWh/m2 daily average), the proposed site involves approximately 800,000 square meters of relatively level land with access to water resources and electric transmission facilities. The solar thermal/hybrid station will operate as a base load plant with an expected plant load factor of 80%. The final choice of the fossil-fired power block would be left to the bidders, subject to performance parameters set out in the tender specifications.
The design choice is an Integrated Solar Combined Cycle (ISCC) involving the integrated operation of the parabolic trough solar plant with a combined cycle gas turbine using naphtha. Such a plant would consist of the solar field; a combined cycle power block involving two gas turbines each connected to a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) and a steam turbine connected to both HRSG; and ancillary facilities and plant services such as fire protection, regasified liquefied natural gas supply and storage system, grid interconnection system, water supply and treatment systems, etc. A control building will house a central microprocessor control system that monitors and controls plant operations.
The success of the solar thermal/hybrid power plant as a demonstration project will determine if this technology is replicable in other parts of India. The project will provide technical assistance to ensure that adequate institutional and logistical support for the technology is available for future expansion of solar thermal power.
Specifically, funds will be made available for promoting commercialization of solar thermal technologies among potential investors; staff training and development of a local consultancy base; upgrading of test facilities; mproved collection and measurement of solar insolation data and other solar resource mapping activities; and development of pipeline investments.
The total cost of the investment component is estimated at US$ 201.5 million, including interest during construction, physical and price contingencies as well as duties and taxes. Of these costs, the cost of supplies (excluding contingencies) for the solar component including the steam generator amounts to $41 million, and that for the conventional power plant component is $72 million. The cost of the technical assistance component for promoting replication of the solar power technology is estimated at $4 million.
Investors Note: For more information on the solar thermal project in Rajasthan, India, please contact:
Mr. G. L. Somani, General Manager
Rajasthan State Power Corporation Ltd.
E-166, Yudhisthar Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur, India
Telephone No.: (91-141) 384055
Fax No.: (91-141) 382759
About the Author: Gordon Feller is the CEO of Urban Age Institute (www.UrbanAge.org). During the past twenty years he has authored more than 500 magazine articles, journal articles or newspaper articles on the profound changes underway in politics, economics, and ecology - with a special emphasis on sustainable development. Gordon is the editor of Urban Age Magazine, a unique quarterly which serves as a global resource and which was founded in 1990. He can be reached at GordonFeller@UrbanAge.org and he is available for speaking to your organization about the issues raised in this and his other numerous articles published in EcoWorld.
August 7, 2006: George Bush and Condi Rice speak on Israel, Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Text of comments Monday by President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at a news conference at Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, as transcribed by CQ Transcriptions:
PRESIDENT BUSH: Good morning. Since the crisis in Lebanon began more than three weeks ago, the United States and other key nations have been working for a comprehensive solution that would return control of Lebanon to its government and to provide a sustainable peace that protects the lives of both the Lebanese and the Israeli people.
Secretary Rice and diplomats from other countries are developing United Nations resolutions to bring about a cessation of hostilities and establish a foundation for lasting peace.
The first resolution, which the Security Council is now considering, calls for a stop of all hostilities. Under its terms, Hezbollah will be required to immediately stop all attacks; Israel will be required to immediately stop all offensive military operations; and, in addition, the resolution calls for an embargo on the shipment of any arms into Lebanon except as authorized by the Lebanese government.
A second resolution, which the Security Council will begin working on as soon as possible, will help establish a sustainable and enduring cease-fire and provide a mandate for a robust international force that will help the legitimate government of Lebanon extend its authority over all of Lebanon's territory.
Under the second resolution, the Lebanese armed forces, supported by the international force, would deploy to southern Lebanon. This international force will help Lebanon patrol its border with Syria and prevent illegal arms shipments to Hezbollah.
As these Lebanese and international forces deploy, the Israeli Defense Forces will withdraw and both Israel and Lebanon will respect the Blue Line that divides them.
These two resolutions are designed to bring an immediate end to the fighting, to help restore sovereignty over Lebanese soil to Lebanese democratic government - to Lebanon's democratic government, excuse me - to strike a blow against the terrorists and their supporters, and to help bring lasting peace to the region.
advertising
By taking these steps, it will prevent armed militias like Hezbollah and its Iranian and Syrian sponsors from sparking another crisis. It'll protect innocent Lebanese and Israelis. And it will help the international community deliver humanitarian relief and support Lebanon's revival and reconstruction.
The loss of life on both sides of the Lebanese-Israeli border has been a great tragedy. Millions of Lebanese civilians have been caught in the crossfire of military operations because of the unprovoked attack and kidnappings by Hezbollah.
The humanitarian crisis in Lebanon is of deep concern to all Americans, and alleviating it will remain a priority of my government.
I also believe that innocent civilians in Israel should not have to live in bunkers in fear of missile attacks.
To establish a lasting peace that protects innocent civilians on both sides of the border, we must address the underlying conditions that are the root cause of this crisis. I believe that the two resolutions I have discussed and that Secretary Rice is working on will put us on that path.
And now I'll be glad to answer some questions.
QUESTION: Lebanon has rejected the draft proposal, and Israel is not speaking out in support of it. How do you get a resolution that both sides will support?
BUSH: Everyone wants the violence to stop. People are - understand that there needs to be a cessation of hostilities in order for us to address the root causes of the problem. That was the spirit of - that came out of the G-8 conference, that came out of the Rome conference that Secretary Rice attended.
We all recognize that the violence must stop, and so that's what Secretary Rice is working toward with our friends and allies.
Look, everybody - I understand both parties aren't going to agree with all aspects of the resolution.
But the intent of the resolutions is to strengthen the Lebanese government so Israel has got a partner in peace. The intent of the resolution is to make sure that we address the root cause - the resolutions is to address the root cause, which was a state operating within the state. Hezbollah was - or is an armed movement that provoked the crisis. And so whatever comes out of the resolutions must address that root cause.
And so the task today for the secretary and her counterparts is to develop a resolution that can get passed. It is essential that we create the conditions for the Lebanese government to move her own forces, with international help, into the south of Lebanon to prevent Hezbollah and its sponsors from creating another crisis. And so that's where we're headed.
QUESTION: The Lebanese prime minister's demanding a quick and decisive cease-fire after an Israeli air raid today killed 40 people. When will we see this resolution? And if it's approved, when will we see a cessation of violence?
BUSH: I'll let Condi talk about the details of what she's going to do today, if you care to hear from her.
But we will work with our partners to get the resolution laid down as quickly as possible. And the resolution will call for a cessation of violence.
And the concern, by the way, from the parties in the region is whether or not the resolution will create a vacuum into which Hezbollah and its sponsors will be able to promote more instability.
We all agree that we ought to strengthen this government, the Lebanese government. That's the purpose of the resolutions, as well as, you know, to stop the violence.
And I don't know if you want to comment on...
RICE: Sure, if you'd like.
BUSH: Yes.
RICE: First of all, we are working from what we believe to be a strong basis for a cessation of hostilities; that is the U.S.-French draft - a strong basis for the cessation of hostilities and then, as the president said, to have a process, then, that can address the root causes.
And we also believe that it's going to be very important that this first resolution lay a very quick foundation for a passage of a second resolution. So these have to be worked, in a sense, together.
I spoke last night - yesterday with Prime Minister Olmert, with Prime Minister Saniora, with Secretary General Kofi Annan, with a number of others. And I think we believe that there is a way forward.
Now, we understand that this has been a very emotional and, indeed, devastating and tragic set of circumstances for Lebanon and for Israel. And, obviously, the parties have views on how to stop this. Their views are not going to necessarily be consonant about how to stop it. The international community has a view.
But of course we're going to take a little time and listen to the concern of the parties and see how they can be addressed.
But I want to just note, we believe that the extant draft resolution is a firm foundation, is the right basis, but of course we're going to listen to the concerns of the parties and see how they might be addressed. And that's really what's going to be going on today, particularly after the Arab League meets and Prime Minister Siniora emerges from that.
QUESTION: Mr. President, officials have been quoted saying that the international force would not include U.S. troops. And I wonder if you can explain why that is. Is it because the military is already overtaxed? Is it because you're afraid that the U.S. doesn't have credibility in the region?
BUSH: No, I think, first of all, there's been a history in Lebanon with U.S. troops.
Secondly, I have said that if the international force would like some help with logistics and command and control, we'd be willing to offer logistics and command and control.
You know, there's some places where - it's like Darfur. People say to me, Well, why don't you commit U.S. troops to Darfur as part of an international peacekeeping?
And the answer there is that those troops would be - would create a sensation around the world that may not enable us to achieve our objective.
And so when we commit troops, we commit troops for a specific reason with the intent of achieving an objective. And I think command and control and logistical support is probably the best - is the best use of U.S. forces.
QUESTION: Many strategists say that we'll never get to the bottom of this crisis unless the U.S. engages directly with Syria and Iran.
Why not talk to them directly about this and have a back-and-forth conversation?
BUSH: Yes, that's an interesting question. I have been reading about that, that people have been posing that question.
We have been in touch with Syria. Colin Powell sent a message to Syria in person. Dick Armitage traveled to Syria. Bill Burns traveled to Syria. We've got a consulate office in Syria.
Syria knows what we think.
The problem isn't us telling Syria what's on our minds, which is to stop harboring terror and to, you know, help the Iraqi democracy evolve. They know exactly what our position is.
The problem is that their response hasn't been very positive. As a matter of fact, it hasn't been positive at all.
In terms of Iran, we made it clear to the Iranians that if they would honor previous obligations and verifiably stop enrichment of nuclear materials, we would sit at a table.
So there's a way forward for both countries. The choice is theirs.
Now, you know, I appreciate people focusing on Syria and Iran. And we should. Because Syria and Iran sponsor and promote Hezbollah activities all aimed at creating chaos, all aimed at using terror to stop the advance of democracies.
You know, our objectives, our policy, is to give voice to people through democratic reform.
And that's why we strongly support the Saniora government. That's why I've articulated a two-state solution between the Israel and Palestinians, two democracies living side by side in peace. That's why Condi went to see President Abbas, the president of the Palestinian territories, to assure him that we're committed to a democracy. That's why we're making sacrifices in Iraq to build democracy. Because we believe democracy yields peace.
And the actions of Hezbollah, through its sponsors of Iran and Syria, are trying to stop that advance of democracy.
Hezbollah launched this attack.
Hezbollah is trying to create the chaos necessary to stop the advance of peace. And the world community must come together to address this problem.
QUESTION: Mr. President, in the last couple weeks, every time the question was asked, Why not get an immediate cessation and then go to sustainable - terms for a sustainable cease-fire after you get the hostility stopped? It was categorically rejected. Yet a few weeks later here we are.
Can you explain why this wasn't done a couple of weeks ago?
BUSH: Sure.
Because, first of all, the international community hadn't come together on a concept of how to address the root cause of the problem.
Part of the problem in the past in the Middle East was people would paper over the root cause of the problem. And therefore the situation would seemingly be quiet and then, lo and behold, there'd be another crisis and innocent people would suffer.
And so our strategy all along has been, of course we want to have a cessation of hostilities. But what we want to do at the same time is to make sure that there is a way forward for the Lebanese government to secure its own country so that there's peace in the region. And that deals with an international peacekeeping force to complement a Lebanese army moving into the south to make sure that Resolution 1559, passed two years ago by the U.N., was fully upheld.
Had the parties involved fully implemented 1559, which called for the disarmament of Hezbollah, we would not be in the situation we're in today.
QUESTION: Mr. President, what are the specific stumbling blocks that are preventing this first resolution from being passed quickly? What are the people - what are the parties objecting to in the language that needs to be altered?
RICE: I think that, first of all, I'm not going to get into specifics about the views of the parties. I think that we have to do that privately and talk with the parties privately.
But obviously, this particular resolution is important because it sets an agenda for the basis for a sustainable peace.
And so, it will not surprise you that the Lebanese have views of what should be on that agenda. The Israelis have views of what should be on that agenda. They aren't always the same views.
And so working together to get to what that agenda should be is part of what's going on here.
But I will say something that's very interesting. There is more agreement than you might think about how to prevent, again, a situation in which you have a state within a state able to launch an attack across the Blue Line.
For instance, there is agreement that the Lebanese government needs to extend its authority throughout the country, that it needs to have the Lebanese armed forces move to take care of this vacuum that has been existing in the south, that there should not be any armed groups able just to operate in the south the way that Hezbollah has been able to operate in the south, that there ought to be respect for the Blue Line. These are all agreements between the two parties.
And so there is going to be some pressure from both sides to get things onto the agenda because they want to get them onto the agenda. But I think we have a reasonable basis here that both sides can accept.
I think there are some issues of timing and sequence that need to be worked out.
There are some concerns about when an international force would actually be available.
And so we're going to continue to work to address those concerns of the two parties.
But as the president said, this last three weeks has been extremely important. Had we done this three weeks ago, we were talking about what people - an unconditional cease-fire that I can guarantee you would not have addressed any of these items that both sides know are going to have to be addressed if we're going to have a sustainable cease-fire in the future.
So this has been time that's been well-spent over the last couple of weeks.
But everybody agrees it's time to have a cessation. We're going to work a little bit more with the parties. And I think this resolution will be the right basis, both to cease the hostilities and to move forward.
QUESTION: Mr. President, you've spoken with Prime Minister Blair and Chancellor Merkel about this. Have you spoken directly with Prime Ministers Olmert and Saniora? And if not, why not?
BUSH: Because Condi's handling those conversations, and she's doing a fine job of doing so.
QUESTION: Mr. President, you've been quite specific in Hezbollah's role in the creator of the conflict. But what is the magnet, what is the pressure point, what is the hook to get this group to accept a cease-fire, to stop shooting and to stop kidnapping soldiers from across the border of another country?
BUSH: Yes, I would hope it would be international pressure on not only Hezbollah - the group of Hezbollah within Lebanon, but also its sponsors.
And that's the whole purpose of the United States working with allies and friends is to send a clear message that sponsoring terror is unacceptable.
It's the great challenge of the 21st century, really...
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
BUSH: Let me finish for a minute.
It is the great challenge of this century. And it's this: As young democracies flourish, terrorists try to stop their progress. And it's the great challenge of the United States and others who are blessed with living in free countries.
Not only do terrorists try to stop the advance of democracy through killing innocent people within the countries, they also try to shake the will of the Western world by killing innocent Westerners. They try to spread their jihadist message, a message I call - it's totalitarian in nature - Islamic radicalism, Islamic fascism. They try to spread it as well by taking the attack to those of us who love freedom.
And as far as this administration is concerned, we clearly see the problem and we're going to continue to work to advance, stable, free countries.
We don't expect every country to look like the United States, but we do want countries to accept some basic conditions for a vibrant society: human rights, human decency, the power of the people to determine the fate of their governments.
And admittedly, this is hard work because it flies in the face of previous policy, which basically said stability is more important than form of government.
And as a result of that policy, anger and resentment bubbled forth with an attack - with a series of attacks, the most dramatic of which was on September the 11th.
And your question is, Can we get people - a terrorist group to change their attitude?
Well, what we can do is we can get state sponsors of terror to understand this behavior is unacceptable and that we can convince some people in terrorist groups that there is a better way forward for them and their families.
Remember, Hezbollah is a political party within Lebanon. They actually ran people for office.
The problem is, is that they're a political party with a militia that is armed by foreign nations. And, obviously, this political party with militia was willing to try to influence the Middle East through unprovoked attacks.
And what Condi is working on and I work on is to remind people about the stakes in the Middle East. And those stakes include not only helping the Lebanese government firm up its democracy.
Remember, we worked with the French two years ago to boot out Syria. Syria was inside Lebanon. And we felt that in order for a democracy to flourish Syria needed to remove not only her troops but her agents; her intelligence agents, for example.
And, obviously, there are some in the region that don't want the Lebanese government to succeed.
I also happen to believe that as Prime Minister Olmert was making progress in reaching out to President Abbas and others in the region to develop a Palestinian state, that that caused a terrorist reaction.
Remember, this all started with the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier by militant Hamas, followed shortly thereafter by the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah.
And finally, the third most notable battleground in the advance of liberty is Iraq.
And it's interesting, if you go back to the work of Mr. Zarqawi, he talked about fomenting sectarian violence in order to stop the advance of democracy.
The challenge of the 21st century is for free nations to help those who aspire to liberty. And, you know, the first question is, do people aspire to liberty? And the answer is absolutely. Look at the 12 million people who voted in Iraq, or look at the people who went to the polls in Lebanon.
And it's just clear to me that there will be terrorist activities that will try to stop people from living a decent, hopeful life.
And what you're watching now is diplomatic efforts to address the problem.
You know, I know - I sense a certain impatience in your voice about diplomacy, you know, coming to a conclusion. What Secretary Rice is doing, as well as me, is we are dealing with a lot of different interests.
Remember, each nation at the Security Council has got its own domestic issues to deal with, as well. And so it is - I wish things happened quicker in the diplomatic realm. Sometimes it takes a while to get things done.
But what the American people need to know is we've got a strategy, strategy for freedom in the Middle East which protects the American people in the long run. And we've got a strategy to deal with the situations that arise in the Middle East: first, Lebanon, and, of course, the Iranian nuclear weapon issue.
And as you remember, right before the G-8, the question on your mind was would we ever get a resolution out of the U.N. on the Iranians' desire to have a nuclear weapon, as well as whether or not we'd ever get a resolution out of the U.N. to deal with North Korea.
As a matter of fact, there was great skepticism, I felt, in some circles, as to whether or not we'd be able to put, you know, a diplomacy in place that would deal with these two difficult problems.
And, in fact, during the G-8, two resolutions were passed - by the way, those resolutions overshadowed by the situation in Lebanon. And I'm confident that, working with our friends, if we stay on principle and remind people of the stakes, that we will be able to accomplish the diplomatic objectives that we have set out, which is dealing with this problem and addressing the long-term issues.
QUESTION: If I can follow on (inaudible) question, she had asked...
BUSH: I can't remember that far back.
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: ... Lebanon's parliament's speaker, Nabih Berri, whose been negotiating for Hezbollah, has rejected the first resolutions as unacceptable; they want the Israeli troops to pull out immediately.
Is that a negotiable point?
And also, will Secretary Rice - will you be reaching out to Berri, as you had spoken with him before?
BUSH: Whatever happens in the U.N., we must not create a vacuum into which Hezbollah and its sponsors are able to move more weapons.
Sometimes the world likes to take the easy route in order to solve a problem. Our view is it's time to address root causes of problems.
And to create a vacuum is unacceptable. It would mean that we haven't addressed the root cause.
The idea is to have the Lebanese government move into the south so that the government of Lebanon can protect its own territory, and that there be an international force to provide the help necessary for the Lebanese government to secure its country.
Remember, in Germany, the first thing I said was - or one of the first things I said - I think I said this - help me out here if I didn't...
(LAUGHTER)
RICE: If you didn't.
BUSH: ... was we want the Saniora government to survive and to be strengthened. The lynchpin of the policy is to support democracies.
And so the strategy at the U.N., the diplomatic strategy, is to support that notion. Because a democracy in Lebanon will not only help that nation address its long-term issues, such as rebuilding and providing a hopeful life, but a democracy on Israel's northern border will stabilize - help stabilize the region.
We are committed to a democracy in the Palestinian territory. President Abbas, in our conversations - in his conversations with Condi, talked about moving forward with democracy.
But there are people who can't stand the thought of a society based upon universal liberty from emerging. And that in itself ought to be a warning signal to those of us who care deeply for peace, that people would be willing to kill innocent citizens in order to stop the advance of liberty.
Now, I've talked a lot about the universal appeal of liberty. And I readily concede some people aren't willing to - some say, Well, you know, liberty may not be universal in this sense: American imposes its will.
We don't impose liberty. Liberty is universal. And it's one of the interesting debates of the 21st century, I think, that some would be willing to say that it's OK for people not to live in a free society.
It's not OK for us. If you love peace, in order to achieve peace, you must help people realize that which is universal. And that is freedom.
She asked you a question.
RICE: Right.
Our point of contact for the Lebanese government is obviously Prime Minister Saniora. As you know, I have also spoken to Speaker Berri on a couple of occasions.
I understand how emotional this is for the Lebanese. They have been through a very difficult war. It's emotional for Israel as well.They're in the midst of a difficult war.
Let me just say that, in terms of what the end state will look like here, I didn't think there's any disagreement that the right solution is the one that the president referred to. It's the Lebanese and the Lebanese armed forces able to secure their territory.
And the international help is so that Lebanon can secure its territory.
And I don't believe anybody anticipates that there should be foreign forces on Lebanese soil as a result of what has happened here.
And so I think there is room on this issue to work on this issue, because everybody has the same vision: that it's the Lebanese army, with support from an international force, that can actually prevent that vacuum from obtaining again in the south so that we're not right back here three or four or five months from now in the same situation.
QUESTION: Mr. President, I don't think we've heard from you since Fidel Castro has fallen ill. Can you give us what you know of his current condition, what your administration's contingency plans are for his death and how they address the desire of the Cuban exiles in this country to eventually go home and reclaim their property?
BUSH: First of all, Cuba is not a very transparent society, so the only thing I know is what has been speculated, and that is that, on the one hand, he's very ill and, on the other hand, he's going to be coming out of a hospital. I don't know. I really don't know.
And, secondly, that our desire is for the Cuban people to be able to choose their own form of government. And we would hope that - and we'll make this very clear - that as Cuba has the possibility of transforming itself from a tyrannical situation to a different type of society, the Cuban people ought to decide. The people on the island of Cuba ought to decide.
And once the people of Cuba decide to form a government, then Cuban-Americans can take an interest in that country and redress the issues of property confiscation.
But first things first, and that is the Cuban people need to decide the future of their country.
QUESTION: Mr. President, if I could turn to Iraq for a moment, when you and Prime Minister Blair met at the White House a few months ago, you were asked about mistakes and missteps. And he said the one mistake he made was miscalculating and thinking that a young democracy, as you put it, would be born very quickly after the fall of Saddam.
Are you prepared today to agree with him and acknowledge that you had the same expectations which were wrong?
BUSH: Actually, I think - I can't remember his answer. I'm sure you've characterized it perfectly.
My attitude is that a young democracy has been born quite quickly. And I think the Iraqi government has shown remarkable progress on the political front. And that is that they developed a modern constitution that was ratified by the people and then 12 million people voted for a government.
Which gives me confidence about the future in Iraq, by the way. You know, I hear people say, Well, civil war this, civil war that. The Iraqi people decided against civil war when they went to the ballot box. And a unity government is working to respond to the will of the people. And, frankly, it's quite a remarkable achievement on the political front.
And the security front is where there has been troubles. And it's going to be up to the Maliki government, with U.S. help, to use the trained forces and eventually a trained police force to take care of those who are trying to foment sectarian violence.
We've made some progress against some of those folks, particularly when Mr. Zarqawi met his demise. Remember, al-Qaida is in the country, all attempting to stop the advance of democracy. And, you know, the blowing up of the mosque created an opportunity for those who were trying to foment sectarian violence to achieve their objective. But the Iraqi people rejected that kind of sectarian violence. Their army stood strong.
No question it's still difficult. On the other hand, the political process is part of helping to achieve our objective, which is a free country, an ally in the war on terror, that can sustain itself and govern itself and defend itself.
Text of comments Monday by President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at a news conference at Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, as transcribed by CQ Transcriptions:
PRESIDENT BUSH: Good morning. Since the crisis in Lebanon began more than three weeks ago, the United States and other key nations have been working for a comprehensive solution that would return control of Lebanon to its government and to provide a sustainable peace that protects the lives of both the Lebanese and the Israeli people.
Secretary Rice and diplomats from other countries are developing United Nations resolutions to bring about a cessation of hostilities and establish a foundation for lasting peace.
The first resolution, which the Security Council is now considering, calls for a stop of all hostilities. Under its terms, Hezbollah will be required to immediately stop all attacks; Israel will be required to immediately stop all offensive military operations; and, in addition, the resolution calls for an embargo on the shipment of any arms into Lebanon except as authorized by the Lebanese government.
A second resolution, which the Security Council will begin working on as soon as possible, will help establish a sustainable and enduring cease-fire and provide a mandate for a robust international force that will help the legitimate government of Lebanon extend its authority over all of Lebanon's territory.
Under the second resolution, the Lebanese armed forces, supported by the international force, would deploy to southern Lebanon. This international force will help Lebanon patrol its border with Syria and prevent illegal arms shipments to Hezbollah.
As these Lebanese and international forces deploy, the Israeli Defense Forces will withdraw and both Israel and Lebanon will respect the Blue Line that divides them.
These two resolutions are designed to bring an immediate end to the fighting, to help restore sovereignty over Lebanese soil to Lebanese democratic government - to Lebanon's democratic government, excuse me - to strike a blow against the terrorists and their supporters, and to help bring lasting peace to the region.
advertising
By taking these steps, it will prevent armed militias like Hezbollah and its Iranian and Syrian sponsors from sparking another crisis. It'll protect innocent Lebanese and Israelis. And it will help the international community deliver humanitarian relief and support Lebanon's revival and reconstruction.
The loss of life on both sides of the Lebanese-Israeli border has been a great tragedy. Millions of Lebanese civilians have been caught in the crossfire of military operations because of the unprovoked attack and kidnappings by Hezbollah.
The humanitarian crisis in Lebanon is of deep concern to all Americans, and alleviating it will remain a priority of my government.
I also believe that innocent civilians in Israel should not have to live in bunkers in fear of missile attacks.
To establish a lasting peace that protects innocent civilians on both sides of the border, we must address the underlying conditions that are the root cause of this crisis. I believe that the two resolutions I have discussed and that Secretary Rice is working on will put us on that path.
And now I'll be glad to answer some questions.
QUESTION: Lebanon has rejected the draft proposal, and Israel is not speaking out in support of it. How do you get a resolution that both sides will support?
BUSH: Everyone wants the violence to stop. People are - understand that there needs to be a cessation of hostilities in order for us to address the root causes of the problem. That was the spirit of - that came out of the G-8 conference, that came out of the Rome conference that Secretary Rice attended.
We all recognize that the violence must stop, and so that's what Secretary Rice is working toward with our friends and allies.
Look, everybody - I understand both parties aren't going to agree with all aspects of the resolution.
But the intent of the resolutions is to strengthen the Lebanese government so Israel has got a partner in peace. The intent of the resolution is to make sure that we address the root cause - the resolutions is to address the root cause, which was a state operating within the state. Hezbollah was - or is an armed movement that provoked the crisis. And so whatever comes out of the resolutions must address that root cause.
And so the task today for the secretary and her counterparts is to develop a resolution that can get passed. It is essential that we create the conditions for the Lebanese government to move her own forces, with international help, into the south of Lebanon to prevent Hezbollah and its sponsors from creating another crisis. And so that's where we're headed.
QUESTION: The Lebanese prime minister's demanding a quick and decisive cease-fire after an Israeli air raid today killed 40 people. When will we see this resolution? And if it's approved, when will we see a cessation of violence?
BUSH: I'll let Condi talk about the details of what she's going to do today, if you care to hear from her.
But we will work with our partners to get the resolution laid down as quickly as possible. And the resolution will call for a cessation of violence.
And the concern, by the way, from the parties in the region is whether or not the resolution will create a vacuum into which Hezbollah and its sponsors will be able to promote more instability.
We all agree that we ought to strengthen this government, the Lebanese government. That's the purpose of the resolutions, as well as, you know, to stop the violence.
And I don't know if you want to comment on...
RICE: Sure, if you'd like.
BUSH: Yes.
RICE: First of all, we are working from what we believe to be a strong basis for a cessation of hostilities; that is the U.S.-French draft - a strong basis for the cessation of hostilities and then, as the president said, to have a process, then, that can address the root causes.
And we also believe that it's going to be very important that this first resolution lay a very quick foundation for a passage of a second resolution. So these have to be worked, in a sense, together.
I spoke last night - yesterday with Prime Minister Olmert, with Prime Minister Saniora, with Secretary General Kofi Annan, with a number of others. And I think we believe that there is a way forward.
Now, we understand that this has been a very emotional and, indeed, devastating and tragic set of circumstances for Lebanon and for Israel. And, obviously, the parties have views on how to stop this. Their views are not going to necessarily be consonant about how to stop it. The international community has a view.
But of course we're going to take a little time and listen to the concern of the parties and see how they can be addressed.
But I want to just note, we believe that the extant draft resolution is a firm foundation, is the right basis, but of course we're going to listen to the concerns of the parties and see how they might be addressed. And that's really what's going to be going on today, particularly after the Arab League meets and Prime Minister Siniora emerges from that.
QUESTION: Mr. President, officials have been quoted saying that the international force would not include U.S. troops. And I wonder if you can explain why that is. Is it because the military is already overtaxed? Is it because you're afraid that the U.S. doesn't have credibility in the region?
BUSH: No, I think, first of all, there's been a history in Lebanon with U.S. troops.
Secondly, I have said that if the international force would like some help with logistics and command and control, we'd be willing to offer logistics and command and control.
You know, there's some places where - it's like Darfur. People say to me, Well, why don't you commit U.S. troops to Darfur as part of an international peacekeeping?
And the answer there is that those troops would be - would create a sensation around the world that may not enable us to achieve our objective.
And so when we commit troops, we commit troops for a specific reason with the intent of achieving an objective. And I think command and control and logistical support is probably the best - is the best use of U.S. forces.
QUESTION: Many strategists say that we'll never get to the bottom of this crisis unless the U.S. engages directly with Syria and Iran.
Why not talk to them directly about this and have a back-and-forth conversation?
BUSH: Yes, that's an interesting question. I have been reading about that, that people have been posing that question.
We have been in touch with Syria. Colin Powell sent a message to Syria in person. Dick Armitage traveled to Syria. Bill Burns traveled to Syria. We've got a consulate office in Syria.
Syria knows what we think.
The problem isn't us telling Syria what's on our minds, which is to stop harboring terror and to, you know, help the Iraqi democracy evolve. They know exactly what our position is.
The problem is that their response hasn't been very positive. As a matter of fact, it hasn't been positive at all.
In terms of Iran, we made it clear to the Iranians that if they would honor previous obligations and verifiably stop enrichment of nuclear materials, we would sit at a table.
So there's a way forward for both countries. The choice is theirs.
Now, you know, I appreciate people focusing on Syria and Iran. And we should. Because Syria and Iran sponsor and promote Hezbollah activities all aimed at creating chaos, all aimed at using terror to stop the advance of democracies.
You know, our objectives, our policy, is to give voice to people through democratic reform.
And that's why we strongly support the Saniora government. That's why I've articulated a two-state solution between the Israel and Palestinians, two democracies living side by side in peace. That's why Condi went to see President Abbas, the president of the Palestinian territories, to assure him that we're committed to a democracy. That's why we're making sacrifices in Iraq to build democracy. Because we believe democracy yields peace.
And the actions of Hezbollah, through its sponsors of Iran and Syria, are trying to stop that advance of democracy.
Hezbollah launched this attack.
Hezbollah is trying to create the chaos necessary to stop the advance of peace. And the world community must come together to address this problem.
QUESTION: Mr. President, in the last couple weeks, every time the question was asked, Why not get an immediate cessation and then go to sustainable - terms for a sustainable cease-fire after you get the hostility stopped? It was categorically rejected. Yet a few weeks later here we are.
Can you explain why this wasn't done a couple of weeks ago?
BUSH: Sure.
Because, first of all, the international community hadn't come together on a concept of how to address the root cause of the problem.
Part of the problem in the past in the Middle East was people would paper over the root cause of the problem. And therefore the situation would seemingly be quiet and then, lo and behold, there'd be another crisis and innocent people would suffer.
And so our strategy all along has been, of course we want to have a cessation of hostilities. But what we want to do at the same time is to make sure that there is a way forward for the Lebanese government to secure its own country so that there's peace in the region. And that deals with an international peacekeeping force to complement a Lebanese army moving into the south to make sure that Resolution 1559, passed two years ago by the U.N., was fully upheld.
Had the parties involved fully implemented 1559, which called for the disarmament of Hezbollah, we would not be in the situation we're in today.
QUESTION: Mr. President, what are the specific stumbling blocks that are preventing this first resolution from being passed quickly? What are the people - what are the parties objecting to in the language that needs to be altered?
RICE: I think that, first of all, I'm not going to get into specifics about the views of the parties. I think that we have to do that privately and talk with the parties privately.
But obviously, this particular resolution is important because it sets an agenda for the basis for a sustainable peace.
And so, it will not surprise you that the Lebanese have views of what should be on that agenda. The Israelis have views of what should be on that agenda. They aren't always the same views.
And so working together to get to what that agenda should be is part of what's going on here.
But I will say something that's very interesting. There is more agreement than you might think about how to prevent, again, a situation in which you have a state within a state able to launch an attack across the Blue Line.
For instance, there is agreement that the Lebanese government needs to extend its authority throughout the country, that it needs to have the Lebanese armed forces move to take care of this vacuum that has been existing in the south, that there should not be any armed groups able just to operate in the south the way that Hezbollah has been able to operate in the south, that there ought to be respect for the Blue Line. These are all agreements between the two parties.
And so there is going to be some pressure from both sides to get things onto the agenda because they want to get them onto the agenda. But I think we have a reasonable basis here that both sides can accept.
I think there are some issues of timing and sequence that need to be worked out.
There are some concerns about when an international force would actually be available.
And so we're going to continue to work to address those concerns of the two parties.
But as the president said, this last three weeks has been extremely important. Had we done this three weeks ago, we were talking about what people - an unconditional cease-fire that I can guarantee you would not have addressed any of these items that both sides know are going to have to be addressed if we're going to have a sustainable cease-fire in the future.
So this has been time that's been well-spent over the last couple of weeks.
But everybody agrees it's time to have a cessation. We're going to work a little bit more with the parties. And I think this resolution will be the right basis, both to cease the hostilities and to move forward.
QUESTION: Mr. President, you've spoken with Prime Minister Blair and Chancellor Merkel about this. Have you spoken directly with Prime Ministers Olmert and Saniora? And if not, why not?
BUSH: Because Condi's handling those conversations, and she's doing a fine job of doing so.
QUESTION: Mr. President, you've been quite specific in Hezbollah's role in the creator of the conflict. But what is the magnet, what is the pressure point, what is the hook to get this group to accept a cease-fire, to stop shooting and to stop kidnapping soldiers from across the border of another country?
BUSH: Yes, I would hope it would be international pressure on not only Hezbollah - the group of Hezbollah within Lebanon, but also its sponsors.
And that's the whole purpose of the United States working with allies and friends is to send a clear message that sponsoring terror is unacceptable.
It's the great challenge of the 21st century, really...
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
BUSH: Let me finish for a minute.
It is the great challenge of this century. And it's this: As young democracies flourish, terrorists try to stop their progress. And it's the great challenge of the United States and others who are blessed with living in free countries.
Not only do terrorists try to stop the advance of democracy through killing innocent people within the countries, they also try to shake the will of the Western world by killing innocent Westerners. They try to spread their jihadist message, a message I call - it's totalitarian in nature - Islamic radicalism, Islamic fascism. They try to spread it as well by taking the attack to those of us who love freedom.
And as far as this administration is concerned, we clearly see the problem and we're going to continue to work to advance, stable, free countries.
We don't expect every country to look like the United States, but we do want countries to accept some basic conditions for a vibrant society: human rights, human decency, the power of the people to determine the fate of their governments.
And admittedly, this is hard work because it flies in the face of previous policy, which basically said stability is more important than form of government.
And as a result of that policy, anger and resentment bubbled forth with an attack - with a series of attacks, the most dramatic of which was on September the 11th.
And your question is, Can we get people - a terrorist group to change their attitude?
Well, what we can do is we can get state sponsors of terror to understand this behavior is unacceptable and that we can convince some people in terrorist groups that there is a better way forward for them and their families.
Remember, Hezbollah is a political party within Lebanon. They actually ran people for office.
The problem is, is that they're a political party with a militia that is armed by foreign nations. And, obviously, this political party with militia was willing to try to influence the Middle East through unprovoked attacks.
And what Condi is working on and I work on is to remind people about the stakes in the Middle East. And those stakes include not only helping the Lebanese government firm up its democracy.
Remember, we worked with the French two years ago to boot out Syria. Syria was inside Lebanon. And we felt that in order for a democracy to flourish Syria needed to remove not only her troops but her agents; her intelligence agents, for example.
And, obviously, there are some in the region that don't want the Lebanese government to succeed.
I also happen to believe that as Prime Minister Olmert was making progress in reaching out to President Abbas and others in the region to develop a Palestinian state, that that caused a terrorist reaction.
Remember, this all started with the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier by militant Hamas, followed shortly thereafter by the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah.
And finally, the third most notable battleground in the advance of liberty is Iraq.
And it's interesting, if you go back to the work of Mr. Zarqawi, he talked about fomenting sectarian violence in order to stop the advance of democracy.
The challenge of the 21st century is for free nations to help those who aspire to liberty. And, you know, the first question is, do people aspire to liberty? And the answer is absolutely. Look at the 12 million people who voted in Iraq, or look at the people who went to the polls in Lebanon.
And it's just clear to me that there will be terrorist activities that will try to stop people from living a decent, hopeful life.
And what you're watching now is diplomatic efforts to address the problem.
You know, I know - I sense a certain impatience in your voice about diplomacy, you know, coming to a conclusion. What Secretary Rice is doing, as well as me, is we are dealing with a lot of different interests.
Remember, each nation at the Security Council has got its own domestic issues to deal with, as well. And so it is - I wish things happened quicker in the diplomatic realm. Sometimes it takes a while to get things done.
But what the American people need to know is we've got a strategy, strategy for freedom in the Middle East which protects the American people in the long run. And we've got a strategy to deal with the situations that arise in the Middle East: first, Lebanon, and, of course, the Iranian nuclear weapon issue.
And as you remember, right before the G-8, the question on your mind was would we ever get a resolution out of the U.N. on the Iranians' desire to have a nuclear weapon, as well as whether or not we'd ever get a resolution out of the U.N. to deal with North Korea.
As a matter of fact, there was great skepticism, I felt, in some circles, as to whether or not we'd be able to put, you know, a diplomacy in place that would deal with these two difficult problems.
And, in fact, during the G-8, two resolutions were passed - by the way, those resolutions overshadowed by the situation in Lebanon. And I'm confident that, working with our friends, if we stay on principle and remind people of the stakes, that we will be able to accomplish the diplomatic objectives that we have set out, which is dealing with this problem and addressing the long-term issues.
QUESTION: If I can follow on (inaudible) question, she had asked...
BUSH: I can't remember that far back.
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: ... Lebanon's parliament's speaker, Nabih Berri, whose been negotiating for Hezbollah, has rejected the first resolutions as unacceptable; they want the Israeli troops to pull out immediately.
Is that a negotiable point?
And also, will Secretary Rice - will you be reaching out to Berri, as you had spoken with him before?
BUSH: Whatever happens in the U.N., we must not create a vacuum into which Hezbollah and its sponsors are able to move more weapons.
Sometimes the world likes to take the easy route in order to solve a problem. Our view is it's time to address root causes of problems.
And to create a vacuum is unacceptable. It would mean that we haven't addressed the root cause.
The idea is to have the Lebanese government move into the south so that the government of Lebanon can protect its own territory, and that there be an international force to provide the help necessary for the Lebanese government to secure its country.
Remember, in Germany, the first thing I said was - or one of the first things I said - I think I said this - help me out here if I didn't...
(LAUGHTER)
RICE: If you didn't.
BUSH: ... was we want the Saniora government to survive and to be strengthened. The lynchpin of the policy is to support democracies.
And so the strategy at the U.N., the diplomatic strategy, is to support that notion. Because a democracy in Lebanon will not only help that nation address its long-term issues, such as rebuilding and providing a hopeful life, but a democracy on Israel's northern border will stabilize - help stabilize the region.
We are committed to a democracy in the Palestinian territory. President Abbas, in our conversations - in his conversations with Condi, talked about moving forward with democracy.
But there are people who can't stand the thought of a society based upon universal liberty from emerging. And that in itself ought to be a warning signal to those of us who care deeply for peace, that people would be willing to kill innocent citizens in order to stop the advance of liberty.
Now, I've talked a lot about the universal appeal of liberty. And I readily concede some people aren't willing to - some say, Well, you know, liberty may not be universal in this sense: American imposes its will.
We don't impose liberty. Liberty is universal. And it's one of the interesting debates of the 21st century, I think, that some would be willing to say that it's OK for people not to live in a free society.
It's not OK for us. If you love peace, in order to achieve peace, you must help people realize that which is universal. And that is freedom.
She asked you a question.
RICE: Right.
Our point of contact for the Lebanese government is obviously Prime Minister Saniora. As you know, I have also spoken to Speaker Berri on a couple of occasions.
I understand how emotional this is for the Lebanese. They have been through a very difficult war. It's emotional for Israel as well.They're in the midst of a difficult war.
Let me just say that, in terms of what the end state will look like here, I didn't think there's any disagreement that the right solution is the one that the president referred to. It's the Lebanese and the Lebanese armed forces able to secure their territory.
And the international help is so that Lebanon can secure its territory.
And I don't believe anybody anticipates that there should be foreign forces on Lebanese soil as a result of what has happened here.
And so I think there is room on this issue to work on this issue, because everybody has the same vision: that it's the Lebanese army, with support from an international force, that can actually prevent that vacuum from obtaining again in the south so that we're not right back here three or four or five months from now in the same situation.
QUESTION: Mr. President, I don't think we've heard from you since Fidel Castro has fallen ill. Can you give us what you know of his current condition, what your administration's contingency plans are for his death and how they address the desire of the Cuban exiles in this country to eventually go home and reclaim their property?
BUSH: First of all, Cuba is not a very transparent society, so the only thing I know is what has been speculated, and that is that, on the one hand, he's very ill and, on the other hand, he's going to be coming out of a hospital. I don't know. I really don't know.
And, secondly, that our desire is for the Cuban people to be able to choose their own form of government. And we would hope that - and we'll make this very clear - that as Cuba has the possibility of transforming itself from a tyrannical situation to a different type of society, the Cuban people ought to decide. The people on the island of Cuba ought to decide.
And once the people of Cuba decide to form a government, then Cuban-Americans can take an interest in that country and redress the issues of property confiscation.
But first things first, and that is the Cuban people need to decide the future of their country.
QUESTION: Mr. President, if I could turn to Iraq for a moment, when you and Prime Minister Blair met at the White House a few months ago, you were asked about mistakes and missteps. And he said the one mistake he made was miscalculating and thinking that a young democracy, as you put it, would be born very quickly after the fall of Saddam.
Are you prepared today to agree with him and acknowledge that you had the same expectations which were wrong?
BUSH: Actually, I think - I can't remember his answer. I'm sure you've characterized it perfectly.
My attitude is that a young democracy has been born quite quickly. And I think the Iraqi government has shown remarkable progress on the political front. And that is that they developed a modern constitution that was ratified by the people and then 12 million people voted for a government.
Which gives me confidence about the future in Iraq, by the way. You know, I hear people say, Well, civil war this, civil war that. The Iraqi people decided against civil war when they went to the ballot box. And a unity government is working to respond to the will of the people. And, frankly, it's quite a remarkable achievement on the political front.
And the security front is where there has been troubles. And it's going to be up to the Maliki government, with U.S. help, to use the trained forces and eventually a trained police force to take care of those who are trying to foment sectarian violence.
We've made some progress against some of those folks, particularly when Mr. Zarqawi met his demise. Remember, al-Qaida is in the country, all attempting to stop the advance of democracy. And, you know, the blowing up of the mosque created an opportunity for those who were trying to foment sectarian violence to achieve their objective. But the Iraqi people rejected that kind of sectarian violence. Their army stood strong.
No question it's still difficult. On the other hand, the political process is part of helping to achieve our objective, which is a free country, an ally in the war on terror, that can sustain itself and govern itself and defend itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
JOIN Betfair through link below, you "Choose Your Bonus!"
SEARCH Leading Alternative Energy and Ethical Investing websites
Custom Search
Research Green Energy stocks, Clean Energy investing information
Find wind power investing info online, clean energy mutual funds, geothermal stocks, solar energy investments.
Green Energy Investing Network:
Green Stocks Investing Clean Power Blog
SolarIntell.com Renewable Power Investing Website
Wind Intell.com Wind Energy Stocks Company Links
Geothermal Power Investing Public Companies
PV Intell.com Leading Photovoltaic Solar Energy Stocks
Custom Search
Green Energy Investing Network:
Green Stocks Investing Clean Power Blog
SolarIntell.com Renewable Power Investing Website
Wind Intell.com Wind Energy Stocks Company Links
Geothermal Power Investing Public Companies
PV Intell.com Leading Photovoltaic Solar Energy Stocks
