articles from:
http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/
Iran News
Putin underlines political solution of Iran nuclear issue
Russia's President Vladimir Putin underlined political solution of Iran's nuclear issue. According to Russia's Presidential Office report on Wednesday, President Putin in a meeting with foreign ambassadors in Moscow said, "I believe regional conflicts, including Iran's nuclear program and Kosovo issue cannot be solved through force." Putin underlined the necessity of using non-military and peaceful means in carrying out international missions. He added, "Russia will never deviate from democratic route and will observe human rights and other freedoms."
Nov 29, 2007, 14:20
Iran News
Chinese official: Iran's nuclear dossier should be solved through talks
Visiting China's Communication Minister and a member of Chinese Communist Party Li-Hoon Tai Haven in a meeting with Secretary General of Islamic Coalition Party Mohammad Nabi Habibi underlined that Iran's nuclear dossier should be solved through talks. In the meeting, the Chinese minister said, "Exchanging views between Chinese Communist Party and Iranian political parties, especially Islamic Coalition Party, is so important." Habibi, for his part, by referring to the history of ties between the two parties said, "In the Asian Parties Meeting, we should work together and push the meeting towards establishment of Asian Parties Union."
Friday, November 30, 2007
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Israel and Palestine agree to talk peace, create Palestinian State
Israel and Palestinians okay peace and statehood negotiating plan
By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writer
Opening a high-stakes Mideast peace conference, President Bush announced a joint agreement among Israeli and Palestinian leaders Tuesday to reach a peace pact by the end of 2008. Negotiations would begin within weeks to establish "a democratic Palestinian state that will live side by side with Israel in peace and security," he said.
The agreement was reached after weeks of intense negotiations and it was not clear until Bush stepped to the podium in the majestic Memorial Hall at the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis that the two sides would come together on how to move forward on the path toward peace.
"Today, Palestinians and Israelis each understand that helping the other to realize their aspirations is the key to realizing their own, and both require an independent, democratic, viable Palestinian state," Bush said.
"Such a state will provide Palestinians with the chance to lead lives of freedom, purpose and dignity. And such a state will help provide Israelis with something they have been seeking for generations: to live in peace with their neighbors."
The first peace talks are to be held Dec. 12, Bush said, and are to continue biweekly after that.
Bush was followed by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who said in prepared remarks that any Mideast peace deal should ensure that Palestinians have East Jerusalem as their capital, and he also calls for a halt to Jewish settlements in disputed lands.
Bush spoke before representatives of more than 50 nations and organizations that he had summoned to Annapolis for a daylong conference aimed at restarting the stalled peace process.
"The task begun here in Annapolis will be difficult," Bush acknowledged. "This is the beginning of the process, not the end of it."
"The time is right, the cause is just, and with hard effort, I know they can succeed," he said.
Said Abbas: "Let us make peace of the brave, and protect it for the sake of our children and your children."
At the same time, the Palestinian leader gave no indication that his side was willing to concede on any of the flashpoint issues that have derailed previous peace efforts: the status of disputed Jerusalem, refugees, the borders of an independent Palestine and Israeli settlements.
"I have the right here to defend openly and with no hesitation the right of my people to see a new dawn, with no occupation, no settlement, no separation wall, no prisons with thousands of prisoners, no assassinations, no siege, and no roadblocks around villages and cities," Abbas said.
He called for a peace that "includes a halt to all settlement activities including natural growth, reopening the closed Jerusalem institutions, removing settlement outposts, roadblocks, and releasing prisoners, and facilitating our authority's tasks of imposing order and sovereignty of law."
And Abbas also said that it was his "duty" to say that the fate of Jerusalem, which both sides want to claim as their capital, must be central to any deal. "We want East Jerusalem to be our capital, and to have open relations with West Jerusalem, and to allow all believers from all faiths to practice their rituals and to reach sacred places without unfairness and on the basis of what is guaranteed by international and human laws," he said.
By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writer
Opening a high-stakes Mideast peace conference, President Bush announced a joint agreement among Israeli and Palestinian leaders Tuesday to reach a peace pact by the end of 2008. Negotiations would begin within weeks to establish "a democratic Palestinian state that will live side by side with Israel in peace and security," he said.
The agreement was reached after weeks of intense negotiations and it was not clear until Bush stepped to the podium in the majestic Memorial Hall at the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis that the two sides would come together on how to move forward on the path toward peace.
"Today, Palestinians and Israelis each understand that helping the other to realize their aspirations is the key to realizing their own, and both require an independent, democratic, viable Palestinian state," Bush said.
"Such a state will provide Palestinians with the chance to lead lives of freedom, purpose and dignity. And such a state will help provide Israelis with something they have been seeking for generations: to live in peace with their neighbors."
The first peace talks are to be held Dec. 12, Bush said, and are to continue biweekly after that.
Bush was followed by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who said in prepared remarks that any Mideast peace deal should ensure that Palestinians have East Jerusalem as their capital, and he also calls for a halt to Jewish settlements in disputed lands.
Bush spoke before representatives of more than 50 nations and organizations that he had summoned to Annapolis for a daylong conference aimed at restarting the stalled peace process.
"The task begun here in Annapolis will be difficult," Bush acknowledged. "This is the beginning of the process, not the end of it."
"The time is right, the cause is just, and with hard effort, I know they can succeed," he said.
Said Abbas: "Let us make peace of the brave, and protect it for the sake of our children and your children."
At the same time, the Palestinian leader gave no indication that his side was willing to concede on any of the flashpoint issues that have derailed previous peace efforts: the status of disputed Jerusalem, refugees, the borders of an independent Palestine and Israeli settlements.
"I have the right here to defend openly and with no hesitation the right of my people to see a new dawn, with no occupation, no settlement, no separation wall, no prisons with thousands of prisoners, no assassinations, no siege, and no roadblocks around villages and cities," Abbas said.
He called for a peace that "includes a halt to all settlement activities including natural growth, reopening the closed Jerusalem institutions, removing settlement outposts, roadblocks, and releasing prisoners, and facilitating our authority's tasks of imposing order and sovereignty of law."
And Abbas also said that it was his "duty" to say that the fate of Jerusalem, which both sides want to claim as their capital, must be central to any deal. "We want East Jerusalem to be our capital, and to have open relations with West Jerusalem, and to allow all believers from all faiths to practice their rituals and to reach sacred places without unfairness and on the basis of what is guaranteed by international and human laws," he said.
Iran orders new trial in death of Canadian photographer Kazemi
Iranian court reopens Zahra Kazemi case
Iran's Supreme Court has ordered a new investigation into the death of the Iranian-Canadian photojournalist, Zahra Kazemi, while in custody in 2003.
Judiciary spokesman Ali Reza Jamshidi said the court had objected to the acquittal in 2004 of an intelligence agent accused of beating her to death.
He said judges had "found some formal flaws" in previous investigations.
Kazemi, 54, died in Tehran in July 2003 having received head injuries during more than three days of interrogation.
She was arrested on 23 June 2003 while taking photographs outside Evin prison in the north of the capital, but was never formally charged with any offence.
The case severely strained relations between the Canadian and Iranian governments.
'Objection'
A presidential inquiry initially conducted into the journalist's death found that Kazemi had been killed by a "physical attack" while being held in custody in June 2003.
The verification branch found some formal flaws and had an objection regarding the jurisdiction of the court that dealt with the case
Ali Reza Jamshidi,
Iranian judiciary spokesman
In September 2003, the judiciary charged an intelligence ministry agent, Mohammad Reza Aghdam Ahmadi, with "semi-intentional murder". He pleaded not guilty at the opening of his trial a month later.
Mr Ahmadi was eventually acquitted in July 2004 "due to lack of sufficient evidence", a ruling that prompted the judiciary to conclude that Kazemi's head injuries had been the result of a fall caused by a drop in blood pressure brought on by a hunger strike.
In July 2005, a higher court rejected an appeal to investigate the death, saying it had no jurisdiction to reopen the case.
However, four months later an appeals court ordered the case to be reopened and upheld Mr Ahmadi's acquittal.
Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, Mr Jamshidi said the verification branch of Iran's Supreme Court had reviewed the lower courts' rulings and ordered a new investigation to be undertaken by the judiciary.
"The verification branch found some formal flaws and had an objection regarding the jurisdiction of the court that dealt with the case," he said.
"The file has been sent to the competent authority for investigation."
Canada has repeatedly demanded that Iran agree to an international investigation into the journalist's death.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/7115024.stm
© BBC MMVII
Iran's Supreme Court has ordered a new investigation into the death of the Iranian-Canadian photojournalist, Zahra Kazemi, while in custody in 2003.
Judiciary spokesman Ali Reza Jamshidi said the court had objected to the acquittal in 2004 of an intelligence agent accused of beating her to death.
He said judges had "found some formal flaws" in previous investigations.
Kazemi, 54, died in Tehran in July 2003 having received head injuries during more than three days of interrogation.
She was arrested on 23 June 2003 while taking photographs outside Evin prison in the north of the capital, but was never formally charged with any offence.
The case severely strained relations between the Canadian and Iranian governments.
'Objection'
A presidential inquiry initially conducted into the journalist's death found that Kazemi had been killed by a "physical attack" while being held in custody in June 2003.
The verification branch found some formal flaws and had an objection regarding the jurisdiction of the court that dealt with the case
Ali Reza Jamshidi,
Iranian judiciary spokesman
In September 2003, the judiciary charged an intelligence ministry agent, Mohammad Reza Aghdam Ahmadi, with "semi-intentional murder". He pleaded not guilty at the opening of his trial a month later.
Mr Ahmadi was eventually acquitted in July 2004 "due to lack of sufficient evidence", a ruling that prompted the judiciary to conclude that Kazemi's head injuries had been the result of a fall caused by a drop in blood pressure brought on by a hunger strike.
In July 2005, a higher court rejected an appeal to investigate the death, saying it had no jurisdiction to reopen the case.
However, four months later an appeals court ordered the case to be reopened and upheld Mr Ahmadi's acquittal.
Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, Mr Jamshidi said the verification branch of Iran's Supreme Court had reviewed the lower courts' rulings and ordered a new investigation to be undertaken by the judiciary.
"The verification branch found some formal flaws and had an objection regarding the jurisdiction of the court that dealt with the case," he said.
"The file has been sent to the competent authority for investigation."
Canada has repeatedly demanded that Iran agree to an international investigation into the journalist's death.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/7115024.stm
© BBC MMVII
Monday, November 26, 2007
Mideast Peace talks bring optimism to Israeli and Palestinian leaders
Abbas and Olmert expressing hopes for future peace
By AMY TEIBEL and MOHAMMED DARAGHMEH, Associated Press Writers
WASHINGTON - Hours before the opening of a high-stakes international conference on the Middle East, President Bush, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas expressed hope that peace finally could be achieved. A senior member of the Palestinian delegation said Monday an elusive joint statement on the contours for future talks was within reach.
The three leaders offered hopeful words, but in brief statements also hinted at the serious divisions that exist over the best path to peace. Olmert and Abbas met separately with Bush at the White House.
"I'm looking forward to continuing our serious dialogue with you and the president of the Palestinian Authority to see whether or not peace is possible. I'm optimistic," Bush said at Olmert's side. Later, after a similar meeting with Abbas, Bush said, "We want to help you. We want there to be peace. We want the people in the Palestinian territories to have hope."
Olmert said that international support — from Bush and also, presumably, from the Arab nations that will attend the conference — "is very important to us" and could make all the difference.
"This time, it's different because we are going to have a lot of participation in what I hope will launch a serious process of negotiations between us and the Palestinians," Olmert said, referring to the talks expected to begin in earnest after this week's U.S.-hosted meetings.
For his part, Abbas stressed when he appeared with Bush the need for talks to address key issues of Palestinian statehood, sticky discussions that have doomed previous peace efforts — and for the president to be personally engaged.
"We have a great deal of hope that this conference will produce permanent status negotiations, expanded negotiations, over all permanent status issues that would lead to a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinian people," he said. "This is a great initiative and we need his (Bush's) continuing effort to achieve this objective."
After months of trying to forge a joint outline, Israel and the Palestinians have made an 11th-hour push in recent days to come up with a statement for presentation at Tuesday's gathering in Annapolis, Md. It is to be the first time that Israel, a large group of Arab states and international envoys from around the world will sit down together to try to relaunch a peace process. Later Monday, the conference gets under way with a dinner at the State Department.
"We will reach a joint paper today or tomorrow," Yasser Abed Rabbo, a senior aide to Abbas, told The Associated Press. "There is a persistent American effort to have this statement."
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters at midday Monday that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is expected to meet with representatives of both sides at the department later Monday to discuss the statement.
Talks on the joint statement had faltered over a Palestinian desire that it address, at least in general terms, so-called final status issues — final borders, sovereignty over disputed Jerusalem and the fate of Palestinian refugees who lost homes in Israel following its 1948 creation.
Israel has pressed for a broader, vaguer statement of commitment to two states living side-by-side in peace. It has promised to negotiate the contentious issues, however, in the formal negotiations that are to follow the conference.
Bush will open the Annapolis conference by making clear in a speech that Mideast peace is a top priority for the rest of his time in office through January 2009, but he is expected to conclude that the time is not right for him to advance his own ideas on how to achieve that, said national security adviser Stephen Hadley.
"The Israelis and Palestinians have waited a long time for this vision to be realized, and I call upon all those gathering in Annapolis this week to redouble their efforts to turn dreams of peace into reality," Bush said in a statement Sunday night.
The run-up to the meeting has been fraught with disputes, skepticism and suspicion about the opposing parties' good faith. And expectations remain low.
Clinching a joint statement of objectives from Abbas and Olmert, indeed, is seen as a tall order because of the charged issues that divide the two sides. Rice wasn't able to bridge the gaps, even after eight missions to the region this year.
Still, whatever joint agreement the Israelis and Palestinians present at Annapolis will be a starting point and is likely to sketch only vague bargaining terms with the big statehood to come later.
Saeb Erekat, a principal Palestinian negotiator, told The Associated Press on Monday that his side wants, among other things, language providing for the monitoring of two states living side by side in peace and also some specification that a peace treaty should be accomplished before the end of 2008.
The conference, which is taking place in Washington and Annapolis, Maryland, is meant to draw outside backing for the difficult talks that will follow. The Arab League endorsement of the gathering, while reluctant, was considered crucial because Abbas needs to be shored up, especially after Islamic Hamas militants routed his loyalists in the Gaza Strip in June and now rule there.
In his speech before the gathering on Tuesday, Olmert will reassert his position that implementation of any peace deal would require a halt to attacks on Israel from Gaza, Israeli government spokeswoman Miri Eisin said.
Hamas is the main wild card in renewed peace efforts. Israel and the Palestinians hope that progress on peacemaking will weaken the Islamic group and give Abbas the ability to extend his influence to include that territory, too. But there is no guarantee that logic will prevail and that Hamas will be removed.
Olmert has not explicitly called for the Islamic group's ouster.
In the West Bank town of Ramallah, Abbas' seat of government, Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Malki called on Israel to commit at the conference to a complete freeze on settlement construction.
Olmert made clear Sunday that Annapolis is but a start."
Syria, which has been in a state of war with Israel for six decades, agreed Sunday to attend the session, giving Bush full backing from all 16 Arab states who were invited, plus the Arab League. It hopes to use forum to press for the return of the Golan Heights, strategic territory Israel seized from Syria in the 1967 war.
Saudi Arabia's minister of transportation and minister of information and culture, Jbarah Al-Seresri, said Monday that the cabinet headed by King Abdullah has "expressed the kingdom's hope that the conference will deal with the essential issues of the Arab-Israeli conflict, aiming to approach fair and general peace in all aspects within a timetable, according to President George W. Bush's perspective, to establish a Palestinian state relying on international legitimacy, the road map and the Arab initiative."
___
Associated Press Writers Jennifer Loven at the White House and Muhammed Daraghmeh, in Annapolis, Md., contributed to this story.
By AMY TEIBEL and MOHAMMED DARAGHMEH, Associated Press Writers
WASHINGTON - Hours before the opening of a high-stakes international conference on the Middle East, President Bush, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas expressed hope that peace finally could be achieved. A senior member of the Palestinian delegation said Monday an elusive joint statement on the contours for future talks was within reach.
The three leaders offered hopeful words, but in brief statements also hinted at the serious divisions that exist over the best path to peace. Olmert and Abbas met separately with Bush at the White House.
"I'm looking forward to continuing our serious dialogue with you and the president of the Palestinian Authority to see whether or not peace is possible. I'm optimistic," Bush said at Olmert's side. Later, after a similar meeting with Abbas, Bush said, "We want to help you. We want there to be peace. We want the people in the Palestinian territories to have hope."
Olmert said that international support — from Bush and also, presumably, from the Arab nations that will attend the conference — "is very important to us" and could make all the difference.
"This time, it's different because we are going to have a lot of participation in what I hope will launch a serious process of negotiations between us and the Palestinians," Olmert said, referring to the talks expected to begin in earnest after this week's U.S.-hosted meetings.
For his part, Abbas stressed when he appeared with Bush the need for talks to address key issues of Palestinian statehood, sticky discussions that have doomed previous peace efforts — and for the president to be personally engaged.
"We have a great deal of hope that this conference will produce permanent status negotiations, expanded negotiations, over all permanent status issues that would lead to a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinian people," he said. "This is a great initiative and we need his (Bush's) continuing effort to achieve this objective."
After months of trying to forge a joint outline, Israel and the Palestinians have made an 11th-hour push in recent days to come up with a statement for presentation at Tuesday's gathering in Annapolis, Md. It is to be the first time that Israel, a large group of Arab states and international envoys from around the world will sit down together to try to relaunch a peace process. Later Monday, the conference gets under way with a dinner at the State Department.
"We will reach a joint paper today or tomorrow," Yasser Abed Rabbo, a senior aide to Abbas, told The Associated Press. "There is a persistent American effort to have this statement."
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters at midday Monday that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is expected to meet with representatives of both sides at the department later Monday to discuss the statement.
Talks on the joint statement had faltered over a Palestinian desire that it address, at least in general terms, so-called final status issues — final borders, sovereignty over disputed Jerusalem and the fate of Palestinian refugees who lost homes in Israel following its 1948 creation.
Israel has pressed for a broader, vaguer statement of commitment to two states living side-by-side in peace. It has promised to negotiate the contentious issues, however, in the formal negotiations that are to follow the conference.
Bush will open the Annapolis conference by making clear in a speech that Mideast peace is a top priority for the rest of his time in office through January 2009, but he is expected to conclude that the time is not right for him to advance his own ideas on how to achieve that, said national security adviser Stephen Hadley.
"The Israelis and Palestinians have waited a long time for this vision to be realized, and I call upon all those gathering in Annapolis this week to redouble their efforts to turn dreams of peace into reality," Bush said in a statement Sunday night.
The run-up to the meeting has been fraught with disputes, skepticism and suspicion about the opposing parties' good faith. And expectations remain low.
Clinching a joint statement of objectives from Abbas and Olmert, indeed, is seen as a tall order because of the charged issues that divide the two sides. Rice wasn't able to bridge the gaps, even after eight missions to the region this year.
Still, whatever joint agreement the Israelis and Palestinians present at Annapolis will be a starting point and is likely to sketch only vague bargaining terms with the big statehood to come later.
Saeb Erekat, a principal Palestinian negotiator, told The Associated Press on Monday that his side wants, among other things, language providing for the monitoring of two states living side by side in peace and also some specification that a peace treaty should be accomplished before the end of 2008.
The conference, which is taking place in Washington and Annapolis, Maryland, is meant to draw outside backing for the difficult talks that will follow. The Arab League endorsement of the gathering, while reluctant, was considered crucial because Abbas needs to be shored up, especially after Islamic Hamas militants routed his loyalists in the Gaza Strip in June and now rule there.
In his speech before the gathering on Tuesday, Olmert will reassert his position that implementation of any peace deal would require a halt to attacks on Israel from Gaza, Israeli government spokeswoman Miri Eisin said.
Hamas is the main wild card in renewed peace efforts. Israel and the Palestinians hope that progress on peacemaking will weaken the Islamic group and give Abbas the ability to extend his influence to include that territory, too. But there is no guarantee that logic will prevail and that Hamas will be removed.
Olmert has not explicitly called for the Islamic group's ouster.
In the West Bank town of Ramallah, Abbas' seat of government, Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Malki called on Israel to commit at the conference to a complete freeze on settlement construction.
Olmert made clear Sunday that Annapolis is but a start."
Syria, which has been in a state of war with Israel for six decades, agreed Sunday to attend the session, giving Bush full backing from all 16 Arab states who were invited, plus the Arab League. It hopes to use forum to press for the return of the Golan Heights, strategic territory Israel seized from Syria in the 1967 war.
Saudi Arabia's minister of transportation and minister of information and culture, Jbarah Al-Seresri, said Monday that the cabinet headed by King Abdullah has "expressed the kingdom's hope that the conference will deal with the essential issues of the Arab-Israeli conflict, aiming to approach fair and general peace in all aspects within a timetable, according to President George W. Bush's perspective, to establish a Palestinian state relying on international legitimacy, the road map and the Arab initiative."
___
Associated Press Writers Jennifer Loven at the White House and Muhammed Daraghmeh, in Annapolis, Md., contributed to this story.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak enthused by Syrian attendance at Peace Summit
artisle from JPost.com
Barak: 'High chance' summit will succeed
yaakov katz and gil hoffman , THE JERUSALEM POST Nov. 23, 2007
Syrian participation at the Annapolis peace summit next week would be a positive step that could "open the door" for full-fledged peace negotiations between Syria and Israel, Defense Minister Ehud Barak told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday.
"I hope that Syria and Saudi Arabia come to the summit," Barak said in an interview with the Post ahead of his trip to the US Saturday night to attend next week's Middle East summit at the Annapolis Naval Academy.
While the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the "key issue" on the summit's agenda, Barak said "it will be good for Israel" if Syria participates.
Barak is scheduled to meet with US Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Tuesday to discuss regional security issues. Barak was in Washington in October for talks with Gates and US defense chiefs.
"In principle it is important to keep the door open for the Syrians so that when the time comes we will be able to negotiate with them," he said.
Barak said he planned to do everything in his power to ensure that the summit would be successful. He has met in recent months several times with Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salaam Fayad and was a proponent of the decision to allow 500 armed Palestinian policemen to deploy in Nablus.
While Barak said there was a "high chance" that the summit would be successful, defense officials have warned that it is possible Palestinian terror groups will escalate their terror activity before, during and after the summit.
"There is a high chance that it [the summit] will succeed," he said. "It will begin the process. The real test will be when we discuss the core issues when the talks begin after the summit."
Barak said he did not believe a "wave of terror" would erupt in Israel if the summit failed. But he warned "inaction" could prove more dangerous than action. "All dialogue is important and we have a moral responsibility - from a security and diplomatic point of view - to find a peaceful way," he said.
Barak added that Israel did not plan on skipping over the first stage of the US-backed road map peace plan, which calls on the Palestinians to dismantle terror infrastructure in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
"We are keeping for ourselves the right to operate and to fight terror," he said in reference to the Gaza Strip. "The first stage of the road map needs to be implemented. This is what is holding Gaza back."
Meanwhile Thursday, a group of hundreds of Jewish university students began what they billed as a "three-day march" around and through Jerusalem to encourage Olmert to make an agreement to divide the city in Annapolis.
They marched Thursday to the Western Wall and they will hold a rally in front of the Prime Minister's Office on Saturday night. The students said they would continue marching despite the rain and even if it would snow.
"If the summit addresses the need for compromises in Jerusalem, we will have succeeded, but if it ends in mere slogans, then we have failed and the extremists will only become stronger," said Nir Yanovsky, one of the leaders of the march.
Find Alternative Energy Stocks
Barak: 'High chance' summit will succeed
yaakov katz and gil hoffman , THE JERUSALEM POST Nov. 23, 2007
Syrian participation at the Annapolis peace summit next week would be a positive step that could "open the door" for full-fledged peace negotiations between Syria and Israel, Defense Minister Ehud Barak told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday.
"I hope that Syria and Saudi Arabia come to the summit," Barak said in an interview with the Post ahead of his trip to the US Saturday night to attend next week's Middle East summit at the Annapolis Naval Academy.
While the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the "key issue" on the summit's agenda, Barak said "it will be good for Israel" if Syria participates.
Barak is scheduled to meet with US Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Tuesday to discuss regional security issues. Barak was in Washington in October for talks with Gates and US defense chiefs.
"In principle it is important to keep the door open for the Syrians so that when the time comes we will be able to negotiate with them," he said.
Barak said he planned to do everything in his power to ensure that the summit would be successful. He has met in recent months several times with Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salaam Fayad and was a proponent of the decision to allow 500 armed Palestinian policemen to deploy in Nablus.
While Barak said there was a "high chance" that the summit would be successful, defense officials have warned that it is possible Palestinian terror groups will escalate their terror activity before, during and after the summit.
"There is a high chance that it [the summit] will succeed," he said. "It will begin the process. The real test will be when we discuss the core issues when the talks begin after the summit."
Barak said he did not believe a "wave of terror" would erupt in Israel if the summit failed. But he warned "inaction" could prove more dangerous than action. "All dialogue is important and we have a moral responsibility - from a security and diplomatic point of view - to find a peaceful way," he said.
Barak added that Israel did not plan on skipping over the first stage of the US-backed road map peace plan, which calls on the Palestinians to dismantle terror infrastructure in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
"We are keeping for ourselves the right to operate and to fight terror," he said in reference to the Gaza Strip. "The first stage of the road map needs to be implemented. This is what is holding Gaza back."
Meanwhile Thursday, a group of hundreds of Jewish university students began what they billed as a "three-day march" around and through Jerusalem to encourage Olmert to make an agreement to divide the city in Annapolis.
They marched Thursday to the Western Wall and they will hold a rally in front of the Prime Minister's Office on Saturday night. The students said they would continue marching despite the rain and even if it would snow.
"If the summit addresses the need for compromises in Jerusalem, we will have succeeded, but if it ends in mere slogans, then we have failed and the extremists will only become stronger," said Nir Yanovsky, one of the leaders of the march.
Find Alternative Energy Stocks
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
USA hosting November 27 conference on Palestinian statehood in Annapolis, Maryland
US confirms Middle East peace conference on Israel and Palestine
Egypt, Turkey coming to Mideast Peace Conference in US
Iran and Syria veto candidates for Lebanese President, endangering Washington’s Middle East conference
Tony Blair in talks with Saudi Arabian King regarding USA Israel-Palestine conference
Mideast Peace Plan including Asia West Parliament proposed for Syria
Arab League meeting Cairo to plan Israeli – Palestinian conference
Sweden invited to USA-hosted Middle East Peace gathering
Alternative Energy Investing Info
Egypt, Turkey coming to Mideast Peace Conference in US
Iran and Syria veto candidates for Lebanese President, endangering Washington’s Middle East conference
Tony Blair in talks with Saudi Arabian King regarding USA Israel-Palestine conference
Mideast Peace Plan including Asia West Parliament proposed for Syria
Arab League meeting Cairo to plan Israeli – Palestinian conference
Sweden invited to USA-hosted Middle East Peace gathering
Alternative Energy Investing Info
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Branson plans on being aviation's clean fuel pioneer
Virgin founder Richard Branson – a true philanthropist – shares philosophy on giving, hosts charity gala, promotes ecologival ventures
Sandro Contenta, Feature Writer, TheStar.com
Richard Branson insists there's method to his madness.
Sure, he has crash-landed hot air balloons and jumped off a 40-storey building – all in the name of publicizing his Virgin Group business empire. But he says the self-described "mad escapades" have helped amass the kind of phenomenal wealth needed to make a positive difference worldwide.
"If capitalism is not going to be given a bad name, it's up to successful capitalists to make sure that they use that wealth constructively," Branson said in an interview yesterday.
At 57, Branson is turning his thoughts to a legacy beyond having built the largest group of private companies in Europe. Like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, two of the world's richest men, Branson has decided to focus part of his energy and fortune on philanthropy.
Last night, he hosted a fundraising gala in Toronto for his charitable organization, Virgin Unite, which helps local groups battle challenges such as poverty, access to health care and global warming. Funds from the event went to support a project dubbed Heaven's Angels. It provides motorcycles to African caregivers, helping them reach communities that are difficult to access.
Another initiative is to set up a "war room" in South Africa to examine hundreds of non-governmental projects across Africa to determine and publicize "best practices," such as the best way to fight malaria.
But the British entrepreneur couldn't help mixing business with philanthropy.
Earlier in the day, he used high-profile magician Criss Angel – in town mainly to perform at the gala – to promote Virgin Mobile's entry next year in the contract-based cellphone business.
Indeed, Branson makes clear that what's good for the environment and social justice is also good for business.
"For customers who come into contact with Virgin, they will view Virgin better if we're using our resources in a positive way than a negative way," he said.
The swashbuckling entrepreneur's rise to riches has been well documented. A dyslexic who dropped out of high school at 16, he launched a magazine for young people that sold 75,000 copies an issue.
He used the money to set up a record company – Virgin, a name that reflected his inexperience in business.
The first artist he signed, Mike Oldfield, produced Tubular Bells, an album that made the record label an overnight success and later became the soundtrack to the movie The Exorcist.
Branson built an empire of more than 250 companies running everything from trains to space travel. In 2006, Forbes magazine estimated his net worth at $2.8 billion (U.S.).
Branson, who owns an island in the Caribbean, won't say what that fortune is today.
Virtually all the wealth, he said, is tied up and reinvested in companies he doesn't plan to sell.
"Yes, if I sold everything I would have an embarrassing amount of riches in a bank account, but personally I think that would be almost a sin," he said, sipping a low-fat latte at a King St. W. club.
Once described by a close aide as "ruthlessly capitalist in business but socially communist," Branson said he'd rather put his money to work toward an ideal.
"I think communism is definitely an ideal. It would be wonderful if communism worked, but it's been proven not to work," he said.
"But the idea of everybody being able to have food, and everybody being able to have medical help, and everyone being able to live roughly equal lives, makes sense."
Sir Richard – he was knighted in 2000 – has been criticized by environmentalists for proclaiming global warming the most pressing challenge today, yet running airlines that contribute to it.
Branson said he only became aware of global warming about four years ago.
"By then I owned five airlines in the world, a train company and a space company," he said. "I know that if I sold those companies somebody else would operate them."
Branson said he came up with a better solution by pledging to commit all profits from his Virgin air and train companies over the next decade – an estimated $3 billion (U.S.) – to tackle climate change. The money will go into one of his newer companies, Virgin Fuel, which is researching alternatives to oil-based fuels, such as sugar-based ethanol.
Virgin will partly use "clean fuel" to test-fly a 747 airplane next year, without passengers, Branson said.
"I hope within five years all our planes will be flying on clean fuels, not dirty fuels, so people who own airlines won't have to feel guilty and people who fly on airlines won't have to feel guilty," he said.
Alternative Energy Stocks Website
Sandro Contenta, Feature Writer, TheStar.com
Richard Branson insists there's method to his madness.
Sure, he has crash-landed hot air balloons and jumped off a 40-storey building – all in the name of publicizing his Virgin Group business empire. But he says the self-described "mad escapades" have helped amass the kind of phenomenal wealth needed to make a positive difference worldwide.
"If capitalism is not going to be given a bad name, it's up to successful capitalists to make sure that they use that wealth constructively," Branson said in an interview yesterday.
At 57, Branson is turning his thoughts to a legacy beyond having built the largest group of private companies in Europe. Like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, two of the world's richest men, Branson has decided to focus part of his energy and fortune on philanthropy.
Last night, he hosted a fundraising gala in Toronto for his charitable organization, Virgin Unite, which helps local groups battle challenges such as poverty, access to health care and global warming. Funds from the event went to support a project dubbed Heaven's Angels. It provides motorcycles to African caregivers, helping them reach communities that are difficult to access.
Another initiative is to set up a "war room" in South Africa to examine hundreds of non-governmental projects across Africa to determine and publicize "best practices," such as the best way to fight malaria.
But the British entrepreneur couldn't help mixing business with philanthropy.
Earlier in the day, he used high-profile magician Criss Angel – in town mainly to perform at the gala – to promote Virgin Mobile's entry next year in the contract-based cellphone business.
Indeed, Branson makes clear that what's good for the environment and social justice is also good for business.
"For customers who come into contact with Virgin, they will view Virgin better if we're using our resources in a positive way than a negative way," he said.
The swashbuckling entrepreneur's rise to riches has been well documented. A dyslexic who dropped out of high school at 16, he launched a magazine for young people that sold 75,000 copies an issue.
He used the money to set up a record company – Virgin, a name that reflected his inexperience in business.
The first artist he signed, Mike Oldfield, produced Tubular Bells, an album that made the record label an overnight success and later became the soundtrack to the movie The Exorcist.
Branson built an empire of more than 250 companies running everything from trains to space travel. In 2006, Forbes magazine estimated his net worth at $2.8 billion (U.S.).
Branson, who owns an island in the Caribbean, won't say what that fortune is today.
Virtually all the wealth, he said, is tied up and reinvested in companies he doesn't plan to sell.
"Yes, if I sold everything I would have an embarrassing amount of riches in a bank account, but personally I think that would be almost a sin," he said, sipping a low-fat latte at a King St. W. club.
Once described by a close aide as "ruthlessly capitalist in business but socially communist," Branson said he'd rather put his money to work toward an ideal.
"I think communism is definitely an ideal. It would be wonderful if communism worked, but it's been proven not to work," he said.
"But the idea of everybody being able to have food, and everybody being able to have medical help, and everyone being able to live roughly equal lives, makes sense."
Sir Richard – he was knighted in 2000 – has been criticized by environmentalists for proclaiming global warming the most pressing challenge today, yet running airlines that contribute to it.
Branson said he only became aware of global warming about four years ago.
"By then I owned five airlines in the world, a train company and a space company," he said. "I know that if I sold those companies somebody else would operate them."
Branson said he came up with a better solution by pledging to commit all profits from his Virgin air and train companies over the next decade – an estimated $3 billion (U.S.) – to tackle climate change. The money will go into one of his newer companies, Virgin Fuel, which is researching alternatives to oil-based fuels, such as sugar-based ethanol.
Virgin will partly use "clean fuel" to test-fly a 747 airplane next year, without passengers, Branson said.
"I hope within five years all our planes will be flying on clean fuels, not dirty fuels, so people who own airlines won't have to feel guilty and people who fly on airlines won't have to feel guilty," he said.
Alternative Energy Stocks Website
United Nations says act now or expect worsening impact or warming
Top climate experts say global warming effects already being seen; US and China urged to lead
Peter Gorrie
Environment Reporter, The Star.com
Without urgent, aggressive steps to stop greenhouse gas emissions, climate change will cause devastating heat waves, floods, starvation and disease, says a report written by the world's top climate scientists and endorsed by 140 nations yesterday.
Environment Minister John Baird immediately welcomed the document, from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "Canada, like the rest of the world, needs to take immediate action," he said in a written statement.
But critics said the minister and the rest of the Conservative government still pay lip service to the problem while promoting a plan that would make it worse.
"The government is acting to protect industry and its shareholders instead of the planet and future generations," said John Bennett, of Ottawa-based ClimateforChange.
Impacts have already begun, declares a 23-page summary of thousands of pages of scientific evidence.
Without action, human activity could lead to "abrupt and irreversible changes" that make Earth unrecognizable.
As early as 2020, 75 million to 250 million people in Africa will suffer water shortages, while residents of Asia's megacities will be at great risk of river and coastal flooding.
The new report is the fourth and final statement this year from the panel – the roughly 2,000 scientists who assess research on the rapid increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere.
It draws conclusions from the previous three documents and sets the stage for next month's UN conference in Bali, Indonesia, where governments are supposed to resolve how to set targets for emission cuts after 2012, when the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol ends.
Climate change imperils "the most precious treasures of our planet," UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said in Valencia, Spain, where, in five days of often-tense negotiations, governments haggled over the summary's wording.
Ban urged the United States and China – the two biggest greenhouse gas sources – to do more.
Panel reports, issued every five years for the past two decades, tend to be conservative.
This one, though, is stark and urgent.
"If there's no action before 2012, that's too late," said Rajendra Pachauri, a scientist and economist who heads the IPCC.
"What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.''
Yvo de Boer, the UN's top climate change official, said what's new is the clarity of the scientific message, adding that, while the report isn't binding, "The politicians have no excuse not to act."
"The timing of this report couldn't be better," Baird said in his statement.
"Canada has been a leader in bringing the world together... and we will continue that work in Bali."
But critics said his plan – which rejects absolute emission caps – would let Canada's greenhouse emissions grow with the economy.
The panel says emissions must fall at least 25 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 to prevent catastrophic impacts. Canada's target is a 20 per cent cut below 2006 levels by 2020 – which if achieved would still leave us slightly above our 1990 total.
But many say the Conservatives' proposals aren't capable of hitting even that weak target.
"The government is not acting on the science," said Matthew Bramley, of the Pembina Institute.
"They're trumpeting bogus targets as if they're meaningful," said Green Party Leader Elizabeth May.
"I'd believe John Baird if he came out with a plan that includes things like a carbon tax and a moratorium on growth in (Alberta's) tar sands."
Peter Gorrie
Environment Reporter, The Star.com
Without urgent, aggressive steps to stop greenhouse gas emissions, climate change will cause devastating heat waves, floods, starvation and disease, says a report written by the world's top climate scientists and endorsed by 140 nations yesterday.
Environment Minister John Baird immediately welcomed the document, from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "Canada, like the rest of the world, needs to take immediate action," he said in a written statement.
But critics said the minister and the rest of the Conservative government still pay lip service to the problem while promoting a plan that would make it worse.
"The government is acting to protect industry and its shareholders instead of the planet and future generations," said John Bennett, of Ottawa-based ClimateforChange.
Impacts have already begun, declares a 23-page summary of thousands of pages of scientific evidence.
Without action, human activity could lead to "abrupt and irreversible changes" that make Earth unrecognizable.
As early as 2020, 75 million to 250 million people in Africa will suffer water shortages, while residents of Asia's megacities will be at great risk of river and coastal flooding.
The new report is the fourth and final statement this year from the panel – the roughly 2,000 scientists who assess research on the rapid increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere.
It draws conclusions from the previous three documents and sets the stage for next month's UN conference in Bali, Indonesia, where governments are supposed to resolve how to set targets for emission cuts after 2012, when the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol ends.
Climate change imperils "the most precious treasures of our planet," UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said in Valencia, Spain, where, in five days of often-tense negotiations, governments haggled over the summary's wording.
Ban urged the United States and China – the two biggest greenhouse gas sources – to do more.
Panel reports, issued every five years for the past two decades, tend to be conservative.
This one, though, is stark and urgent.
"If there's no action before 2012, that's too late," said Rajendra Pachauri, a scientist and economist who heads the IPCC.
"What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.''
Yvo de Boer, the UN's top climate change official, said what's new is the clarity of the scientific message, adding that, while the report isn't binding, "The politicians have no excuse not to act."
"The timing of this report couldn't be better," Baird said in his statement.
"Canada has been a leader in bringing the world together... and we will continue that work in Bali."
But critics said his plan – which rejects absolute emission caps – would let Canada's greenhouse emissions grow with the economy.
The panel says emissions must fall at least 25 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 to prevent catastrophic impacts. Canada's target is a 20 per cent cut below 2006 levels by 2020 – which if achieved would still leave us slightly above our 1990 total.
But many say the Conservatives' proposals aren't capable of hitting even that weak target.
"The government is not acting on the science," said Matthew Bramley, of the Pembina Institute.
"They're trumpeting bogus targets as if they're meaningful," said Green Party Leader Elizabeth May.
"I'd believe John Baird if he came out with a plan that includes things like a carbon tax and a moratorium on growth in (Alberta's) tar sands."
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Links to Alternative Energy and Solar Power
Directory of Renewable Energy Websites and Blogs
alternative energy investing, home solar energy kits, renewable power investments, wind system for farm and cottage, home power generators, alternative energy investing, renewable power products, clean fuel technology, photovoltaic solar panels, wind energy projects, solar energy for the home, solar power as a peace technology, solar energy stocks and clean power mutual funds.
Global Directory of Renewable Power Websites
Directory of Solar Energy Information On the Web
Investing in Wind Energy - Directory of Windpower Companies Online
Clean Vehicle Technology – Green Cars and Mass Transit Directory
Alternative Energy / Green Power Investing Directory
Directory of Solar Electric / Photovoltaic Power Manufactures
Guide to Investing in Recycling Technology Companies
Guide to Investing in Geothermal Energy Companies
Directory of Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Companies
Energy Storage, Backup Power and Flywheel Stocks
Conservation and Energy Efficiency Investments
Guide to Wind Energy, Solar, Hydro and other Green Power Firms
Directory of Biofuel, Ethanol and Biomass Stocks
Master List of Alternative Energy Investing Links
alternative energy investing, home solar energy kits, renewable power investments, wind system for farm and cottage, home power generators, alternative energy investing, renewable power products, clean fuel technology, photovoltaic solar panels, wind energy projects, solar energy for the home, solar power as a peace technology, solar energy stocks and clean power mutual funds.
Global Directory of Renewable Power Websites
Directory of Solar Energy Information On the Web
Investing in Wind Energy - Directory of Windpower Companies Online
Clean Vehicle Technology – Green Cars and Mass Transit Directory
Alternative Energy / Green Power Investing Directory
Directory of Solar Electric / Photovoltaic Power Manufactures
Guide to Investing in Recycling Technology Companies
Guide to Investing in Geothermal Energy Companies
Directory of Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Companies
Energy Storage, Backup Power and Flywheel Stocks
Conservation and Energy Efficiency Investments
Guide to Wind Energy, Solar, Hydro and other Green Power Firms
Directory of Biofuel, Ethanol and Biomass Stocks
Master List of Alternative Energy Investing Links
Solar Power products for sale online
For a range of new and leading-edge solar energy technology products, visit SolarBuzz.com Product Expo
Find solar panel products and systems for sale online at Amazon.com, find photovoltaic solar energy panels on the internet, research home enrgy systems, buy photovoltaic panels online:
Buy solar energy how-to books online, find home solar power kit, build home-based solar power system, complete turnkey solar electric system for house.
Find solar panel products and systems for sale online at Amazon.com, find photovoltaic solar energy panels on the internet, research home enrgy systems, buy photovoltaic panels online:
Buy solar energy how-to books online, find home solar power kit, build home-based solar power system, complete turnkey solar electric system for house.
Books on Solar Energy, DIY solar power manuals
Solar Photovoltaic Books at Amazon.com
Everything you need for a home, farm or business solar energy system, purchase windpower turbines and photovoltaic panels online. Towards a sustainable, efficient, ecological society, with diverse biofuels and a decentralized grid of distributed power generation including fuel cells, natural gas microturbines, photovoltaics, windpower and small-scale hydro.
Find books on solar photovoltaic systems engineering, design, installation and maintenance manuals, building a solar electric home, how-to and do-it-yourself books on photovoltaic solar home electricity systems, buy solar panels online.
Solar Photovoltaic Books at Amazon.com
Ads and Website Revenue Generation Techniques
Solar-powered Tools and Hardware
Better Energy Solar iPod Recharger
Solar Battery Recharger for sale online
Solar-powered Electronics Gifts Watches
Everything you need for a home, farm or business solar energy system, purchase windpower turbines and photovoltaic panels online. Towards a sustainable, efficient, ecological society, with diverse biofuels and a decentralized grid of distributed power generation including fuel cells, natural gas microturbines, photovoltaics, windpower and small-scale hydro.
Find books on solar photovoltaic systems engineering, design, installation and maintenance manuals, building a solar electric home, how-to and do-it-yourself books on photovoltaic solar home electricity systems, buy solar panels online.
Solar Photovoltaic Books at Amazon.com
Ads and Website Revenue Generation Techniques
Solar-powered Tools and Hardware
Better Energy Solar iPod Recharger
Solar Battery Recharger for sale online
Solar-powered Electronics Gifts Watches
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana says Mideast peace possible by end of 2008
article from www.Haaretz.com
Solana: Israeli-Palestinian peace deal possible by the end of 2008
By Haaretz Service and News Agencies
An Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement could be in place by the end
of next year, European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana said Wednesday at a joint news conference with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni in Jerusalem.
"My impression is that the whole process is doable, it can be done. Everyone has to work so the process ends up well," he said.
Earler, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office said he told Solana that "the foundation for the post-Annapolis negotiations with the Palestinians be recognition of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people".
Differences over the issue emerged this week when Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat said Palestinians would not accept Israel as a "Jewish state," a definition that could enable Olmert to argue against the right of return for refugees in a final deal.
Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad echoed Erekat's statement on Wednesday. "We do not accept conditions of this type, not at all," he said on Al Arabiya television. However, Olmert told Solana that the matter was non-negotiable.
Livni, for her part, agreed with Solana that the upcoming international Annapolis peace summit was an opportunity for the peace process to move forward.
She said, however, that what was important about the meeting was "the day after."
The success of the parley, she went on, lay in the fact that it could re-launch an Israeli-Palestinian peace process, which has been dormant for the past seven years, since the outbreak of the Palestinian uprising in September 2000.
Livni also stressed that the Palestinians needed the support of Arab countries, who are expected to be present at Annapolis, "for the sake of the peace process."
"These countries must not dictate terms, or place obstacles in the way of
negotiations, but instead support bilateral Israeli- Palestinian talks," she said.
Arab countries were not present at the last serious attempt to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, at Camp David in the summer of 2000.
That summit fell apart as the sides were unable to agree on how to resolve core issues, and the Palestinian uprising broke out a few months later.
Solana met earlier with Olmert, who briefed him on preparations for the Annapolis meeting.
see my new site also:
Alternative Energy Investing
Solana: Israeli-Palestinian peace deal possible by the end of 2008
By Haaretz Service and News Agencies
An Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement could be in place by the end
of next year, European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana said Wednesday at a joint news conference with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni in Jerusalem.
"My impression is that the whole process is doable, it can be done. Everyone has to work so the process ends up well," he said.
Earler, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office said he told Solana that "the foundation for the post-Annapolis negotiations with the Palestinians be recognition of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people".
Differences over the issue emerged this week when Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat said Palestinians would not accept Israel as a "Jewish state," a definition that could enable Olmert to argue against the right of return for refugees in a final deal.
Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad echoed Erekat's statement on Wednesday. "We do not accept conditions of this type, not at all," he said on Al Arabiya television. However, Olmert told Solana that the matter was non-negotiable.
Livni, for her part, agreed with Solana that the upcoming international Annapolis peace summit was an opportunity for the peace process to move forward.
She said, however, that what was important about the meeting was "the day after."
The success of the parley, she went on, lay in the fact that it could re-launch an Israeli-Palestinian peace process, which has been dormant for the past seven years, since the outbreak of the Palestinian uprising in September 2000.
Livni also stressed that the Palestinians needed the support of Arab countries, who are expected to be present at Annapolis, "for the sake of the peace process."
"These countries must not dictate terms, or place obstacles in the way of
negotiations, but instead support bilateral Israeli- Palestinian talks," she said.
Arab countries were not present at the last serious attempt to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, at Camp David in the summer of 2000.
That summit fell apart as the sides were unable to agree on how to resolve core issues, and the Palestinian uprising broke out a few months later.
Solana met earlier with Olmert, who briefed him on preparations for the Annapolis meeting.
see my new site also:
Alternative Energy Investing
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Low Temperature Geothermal may save our biosphere
Canadian Homebuilder's energy plan goes green
from TheStar.com - Business:
http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/274220
Reid's Homes is constructing a Kincardine, Ontario subdivision that's heated and cooled entirely by geothermal power
November 07, 2007
Tyler Hamilton, Star Energy Reporter
Homebuyers have for years been hearing about the "green" benefits of using geothermal energy to heat and cool a residence, but ask most home builders in Canada's risk-averse housing sector if they plan to embrace the technology and the excuses start flying.
Geothermal systems and other technologies aimed at improving a home's energy efficiency are too expensive and complex to install, they argue. This has left most projects over the past decade in the hands of architects, custom-home builders and principled homeowners looking to do their own retrofits.
Now, one of the largest home builders in southern Ontario is breaking from the pack. Reid's Heritage Homes has unveiled plans to build the province's first residential community to be heated and cooled entirely with geothermal energy.
The 150-home subdivision will be located in Kincardine, about three hours northwest of Toronto, and could prove a wake-up call for other home builders across Ontario that have resisted the trend.
"Geothermal is going to be standard on all the homes," said Paul Mertes, chief executive officer of Clean Energy Developments, the Toronto-based company that is designing and installing the systems for Reid's Heritage.
He estimated that the systems, including radiant heating in the floors, add a premium of $10,000 to $12,000 on each home.
"It's pretty exciting," he said.
Reid's made headlines earlier this year when one of its homes in Guelph became the first in Canada to get LEED (leadership in energy and environment design) certification. It was also one of only a handful of homes in North America to achieve LEED's rigorous platinum rating.
Reid's spokesperson Rebecca Mountain said focus groups showed that 77 per cent of potential home buyers would prefer to purchase a property that was cooled and heated with geothermal energy, even if it came with a premium.
Based on that feedback, the company decided to make it a standard feature in its Kincardine development and likely for future projects, including a 1,000 home community in Owen Sound. Each home is expected to achieve 60 per cent energy savings.
"You pay the thing back in 4.7 years. That's a pretty fast payback," said Mountain, adding that consumers are increasingly looking at the ongoing costs of home ownership, not just an upfront price tag, when shopping around for a property.
Geothermal or "geoexchange" systems are based on technology that's decades old. They take advantage of the fact that two metres or more below the Earth's surface the temperature is a constant 10 to 15 degrees Celsius.
The systems work by circulating a glycol solution underground through a grid of tubing. The glycol absorbs heat from the ground in the winter and dumps it there in the summer, and a device called a heat pump manages the balance by switching between heating and cooling, depending on outside temperatures.
It's considered a clean-energy technology because it eliminates the need for natural gas or oil, though electricity is required to run the heat pump.
"Every subdivision should be done this way," said Ron Dembo, whose Toronto-based company Zerofootprint Energy is trying to push for broader acceptance of the technology. "It's such a no-brainer."
The systems are easier and less expensive to install in new subdivisions because, unlike retrofits on existing homes, all ground drilling, tube laying and equipment installation can be done before grass is laid and basements are finished, Mertes said.
Home developer Marshall Homes announced in February 2006 that it would give homebuyers the option of having a combined geothermal-solar system installed in homes at its Copperfield community in Oshawa.
The difference with the Reid's announcement is that there will be no option – all 150 homes will come with geothermal as a standard feature.
There are 200,000 new homes being built each year across the country, according to Statistics Canada. Provincial governments need to upgrade building codes to make it easier for home developers to pursue geothermal as a standard offering in planned communities, said Dembo. "This needs to happen on a big scale."
Clean Energy Developments was created to guide home developers in that direction. William Tharp, chief executive of Climate Change Infrastructure, a major investor and co-founder of Clean Energy, said the Kincardine subdivision is a major step for green housing in Ontario.
"There is no question that the scale of this residential project and the financial and market commitment being made by both the company and a leading property developer are ground-breaking," Tharp said.
"Financially, it's very viable – from homeowner through to developer, and from a climate change or environmental position, it's clear leadership."
Online Directory of Geothermal Energy Stocks
from TheStar.com - Business:
http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/274220
Reid's Homes is constructing a Kincardine, Ontario subdivision that's heated and cooled entirely by geothermal power
November 07, 2007
Tyler Hamilton, Star Energy Reporter
Homebuyers have for years been hearing about the "green" benefits of using geothermal energy to heat and cool a residence, but ask most home builders in Canada's risk-averse housing sector if they plan to embrace the technology and the excuses start flying.
Geothermal systems and other technologies aimed at improving a home's energy efficiency are too expensive and complex to install, they argue. This has left most projects over the past decade in the hands of architects, custom-home builders and principled homeowners looking to do their own retrofits.
Now, one of the largest home builders in southern Ontario is breaking from the pack. Reid's Heritage Homes has unveiled plans to build the province's first residential community to be heated and cooled entirely with geothermal energy.
The 150-home subdivision will be located in Kincardine, about three hours northwest of Toronto, and could prove a wake-up call for other home builders across Ontario that have resisted the trend.
"Geothermal is going to be standard on all the homes," said Paul Mertes, chief executive officer of Clean Energy Developments, the Toronto-based company that is designing and installing the systems for Reid's Heritage.
He estimated that the systems, including radiant heating in the floors, add a premium of $10,000 to $12,000 on each home.
"It's pretty exciting," he said.
Reid's made headlines earlier this year when one of its homes in Guelph became the first in Canada to get LEED (leadership in energy and environment design) certification. It was also one of only a handful of homes in North America to achieve LEED's rigorous platinum rating.
Reid's spokesperson Rebecca Mountain said focus groups showed that 77 per cent of potential home buyers would prefer to purchase a property that was cooled and heated with geothermal energy, even if it came with a premium.
Based on that feedback, the company decided to make it a standard feature in its Kincardine development and likely for future projects, including a 1,000 home community in Owen Sound. Each home is expected to achieve 60 per cent energy savings.
"You pay the thing back in 4.7 years. That's a pretty fast payback," said Mountain, adding that consumers are increasingly looking at the ongoing costs of home ownership, not just an upfront price tag, when shopping around for a property.
Geothermal or "geoexchange" systems are based on technology that's decades old. They take advantage of the fact that two metres or more below the Earth's surface the temperature is a constant 10 to 15 degrees Celsius.
The systems work by circulating a glycol solution underground through a grid of tubing. The glycol absorbs heat from the ground in the winter and dumps it there in the summer, and a device called a heat pump manages the balance by switching between heating and cooling, depending on outside temperatures.
It's considered a clean-energy technology because it eliminates the need for natural gas or oil, though electricity is required to run the heat pump.
"Every subdivision should be done this way," said Ron Dembo, whose Toronto-based company Zerofootprint Energy is trying to push for broader acceptance of the technology. "It's such a no-brainer."
The systems are easier and less expensive to install in new subdivisions because, unlike retrofits on existing homes, all ground drilling, tube laying and equipment installation can be done before grass is laid and basements are finished, Mertes said.
Home developer Marshall Homes announced in February 2006 that it would give homebuyers the option of having a combined geothermal-solar system installed in homes at its Copperfield community in Oshawa.
The difference with the Reid's announcement is that there will be no option – all 150 homes will come with geothermal as a standard feature.
There are 200,000 new homes being built each year across the country, according to Statistics Canada. Provincial governments need to upgrade building codes to make it easier for home developers to pursue geothermal as a standard offering in planned communities, said Dembo. "This needs to happen on a big scale."
Clean Energy Developments was created to guide home developers in that direction. William Tharp, chief executive of Climate Change Infrastructure, a major investor and co-founder of Clean Energy, said the Kincardine subdivision is a major step for green housing in Ontario.
"There is no question that the scale of this residential project and the financial and market commitment being made by both the company and a leading property developer are ground-breaking," Tharp said.
"Financially, it's very viable – from homeowner through to developer, and from a climate change or environmental position, it's clear leadership."
Online Directory of Geothermal Energy Stocks
SolarIntell.com new home for alternatve energy investing info
Solar Power Investing Blog
Friends and colleagues who have been utilizing this blog as a source of information alternative energy investing may wish to add our new clean power investments blog SolarIntell.com to their bookmarks, currently hosted at http://solarintell.blogspot.com .
There you will find info on clean energy technology news, renewable power investing, photovoltaic solar panels, windpower projects, home solar energy, alternative energy investing, renewable energy products, solar power as a peace technology, solar power stocks, wind turbines, alternative energy investments, home solar kits, renewable energy investments, wind systems for farm and cottage, generators, solar power stocks and clean power funds.
Guide to Alternative Energy Investing
Friends and colleagues who have been utilizing this blog as a source of information alternative energy investing may wish to add our new clean power investments blog SolarIntell.com to their bookmarks, currently hosted at http://solarintell.blogspot.com .
There you will find info on clean energy technology news, renewable power investing, photovoltaic solar panels, windpower projects, home solar energy, alternative energy investing, renewable energy products, solar power as a peace technology, solar power stocks, wind turbines, alternative energy investments, home solar kits, renewable energy investments, wind systems for farm and cottage, generators, solar power stocks and clean power funds.
Guide to Alternative Energy Investing
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Avoiding war in the Horn of Africa
Ethiopia and Eritrea: Stopping the Slide to War
from the National Crisis Group, as published on Nazret.com
I. OVERVIEW
The risk that Ethiopia and Eritrea will resume their war in the next several weeks is very real. A military build-up along the common border over the past few months has reached alarming proportions. There will be no easy military solution if hostilities restart; more likely is a protracted conflict on Eritrean soil, progressive destabilisation of Ethiopia and a dramatic humanitarian crisis. To prevent this, the international community – in particular, the UN Security Council and the U.S., which is the single most influential outsider – must act immediately to give both sides the clearest possible message that no destabilising unilateral action will be tolerated. Once the immediate danger is past, efforts should be reinvigorated to ensure that the parties comply with their international law obligations, disengage on the ground and restore the Temporary Security Zone (TSZ) – in a longer time frame – to develop political and economic initiatives for resolving the fundamental problems between the old foes.
Citing Eritrean encroachment into the TSZ, Ethiopia announced on 25 September 2007 that it was considering terminating the Algiers agreement, which ended the war in 2000. In reply Eritrea accused it of repeated violations of that peace treaty and called again for the Security Council to enforce the decision of the Boundary Commission Algiers established. The U.S. now estimates that Eritrea has 4,000 troops, supported by artillery and armour, in the supposedly demilitarised TSZ and an additional 120,000 troops nearby. In August it estimated that Ethiopia maintains 100,000 troops along the border.
Both sides agreed in Algiers to submit the border dispute to the Boundary Commission, whose mandate was to “delimit and demarcate the colonial treaty border based on pertinent colonial treaties (1900, 1902 and 1908) and applicable international law”. They further agreed that its decision would be final and binding. In April 2002 the Commission gave its ruling, delimiting the border on the map and in so doing locating the village of Badme, the site of the original dispute that sparked off the war in 1998, in Eritrea.
Since then Ethiopia, though it won on other aspects of the ruling, has blocked demarcation of the border on the ground, while Eritrea has called for the international community to insist on this without further delay. Eritrea has right on its side on this point but has played its cards very badly. Frustrated by the lack of progress, it has alienated many of its supporters, including a number of Western states, aid agencies and the UN. It has seized their vehicles, restricted their monitoring teams, expelled their personnel and arrested Eritreans working for embassies. In addition, its repression of its own people and lack of democracy have left it shunned by all but a handful of states.
The stalemate came to a head at the Commission’s most recent unproductive meeting, in September 2007, during which the Ethiopian delegate insisted on prior satisfaction of a range of extraneous measures. On balance, however, Ethiopia has played its hand skilfully. It has used its position as the major power in the region to win U.S. toleration of its intransigence and to keep criticism of its own human rights record to a minimum. Its military intervention in Somalia has drawn little overt adverse response. It would not be surprising if Addis Ababa believes an effort in the near future to stage a coup in Asmara and use force against an Eritrean government that has few friends would also be tolerated in Washington.
The rapidly approaching danger point is the end of November, when the Boundary Commission indicates it will close down unless it is allowed to proceed to demarcation. Before then it is essential that the two sides be left in no doubt that use of force, directly or indirectly, is not acceptable and that a party that resorts to it will be held accountable. Specifically this means that:
the U.S. should convey a firm private message to both sides that direct or indirect use of force to resume the conflict and reach a unilateral solution would be unacceptable and, specifically to Ethiopia where its influence is at this time stronger, that it will take appropriate diplomatic and economic measures against it if it attacks or seeks to overthrow the Eritrean regime; and
the Security Council should pass a resolution reiterating its support for the Boundary Commission decision, requesting it to remain in being beyond the end of November so that it is available to demarcate the border, and stating that even without such demarcation the border as found by the Commission is acknowledged as the legal boundary between the two countries.
Once this line has been drawn, the international community should resume with new urgency its efforts to break the immediate stalemate. Consideration might be given to the following:
a Security Council resolution or statement reiterating the requirement on Ethiopia to accept the Boundary Commission ruling unconditionally and cooperate in its implementation, including by pulling back from its forward military positions south of the border, and on Eritrea to withdraw its army from the TSZ;
appointment by the Secretary-General of a new Special Representative and head of the UN mission (UNMEE), who should press both sides to allow the international peacekeepers to reoccupy the positions they have been forced to leave in the TSZ and proceed unhindered in their work; and
discussion among members of the Security Council and within other key international constituencies including the guarantors and witnesses of the Algiers agreement – the African Union (AU), the UN, the U.S. and the European Union (EU) – about incentives (primarily economic) and disincentives (credible sanctions) that would likely be required to obtain cooperation in de-escalating the situation on the ground and implementing the Commission decision.
In the somewhat longer run, Addis Ababa and Asmara will need to end their military and financial support for rebels operating on the other’s soil, respect the arms embargo on Somalia and restart a dialogue with the support of their regional and other international friends. None of the steps to break the current deadlock and begin to rebuild mutually beneficial relations will be easy or quick. But the immediate need is to prevent the war from restarting so that there is time to work on them.
II. THE PRESENT DANGER
The rumblings of war are growing louder along the Ethiopia-Eritrea border. The two sides have tens of thousands of troops dug in along their 1,000km disputed frontier. According to the peace agreement they signed in Algiers on 12 December 2000 to end their last war, a 25km-wide Temporary Security Zone (TSZ) was to be established all along the border to separate the contending forces. The aim was to keep the armies out of artillery range of each other. This has failed. According to Ethiopian Foreign Minister Seyoum Mesfin, troops are now separated in some places by no more than 70 to 80 metres or a dry riverbed. While he added that “Ethiopia does not want war”, he did not conceal the risk.
Eritrea played down the warnings of a fresh conflict: Acting Information Minister Ali Abdu told journalists in Asmara his country “will do every possible thing to avoid war”. However, the threat of a fresh war was underlined in the latest report of the UN Secretary-General, which described the situation in the TSZ as “tense and potentially unstable”; highlighted the severe restrictions imposed on UN peacekeepers; and concluded that “the Eritrean Defence Forces [have] effectively occupied large swathes of the Zone with military personnel numbering in the thousands”, while Ethiopian forces have been observed “carrying out large-scale training and preparing defences, including around the highly sensitive area of Badme (the village at the centre of the 1998-2000 war)”.
The 1,700 UN peacekeepers spread out along the border have done their best to maintain the fragile peace. Four Eritrean raids have been reported, as has the defusing of a potentially dangerous incident during which Ethiopian soldiers threatened to fire on Eritrean militia doing reconnaissance on a bridge. With Ethiopian tank movements just south of the TSZ and Eritreans digging in with artillery, the situation could hardly be more explosive.
Diplomatic and intelligence sources in the Horn tell Crisis Group a new war could be just weeks away. One scenario identified by Western civilian and military intelligence analysts begins with an Ethiopian-backed coup attempt against President Isaias Afwerki, followed by an Ethiopian military intervention, leading to a long conflict. The risks are perceived to be all the greater because there is much speculation the U.S. would accept, perhaps even endorse, such a move and protect Addis Ababa from international condemnation. The danger is further heightened by the failure of previous attempts at mediation to resolve a seemingly intractable dispute and the loss of prestige the Security Council has suffered as a result of its seeming impotence. There is intense frustration and some exhaustion in the international community
III. CONFLICTING PERSPECTIVES
At its heart, resolution of the issue appears deceptively straightforward. Ethiopia has no legal option but to accept in full and without further delay the Boundary Commission’s ruling on the border of April 2002 and to cooperate in its implementation. Eritrea has to withdraw from the TSZ and allow UNMEE full freedom of movement, as it agreed to do at the 6-7 September 2007 meeting of the Boundary Commission in The Hague. At the heart of the problem, however, is the nature of the regimes in both countries and their attitudes towards each other. Each came to power in 1991 through the barrel of the gun and remains locked in the secretive, militaristic perspective that guided it through the years of struggle against governments in Addis Ababa. Each seeks change of the other’s regime and to this end hosts and supports the other’s opposition.
While Ethiopia held democratic elections in 2005, the results were overturned and the opposition to the TPLF- dominated government brutally repressed. Power has been held by the same small cluster of former insurgents who took it sixteen years ago and have no intention to genuinely democratise. Eritrea cannot even make a claim to democracy. It is a one-party state with an unfree press, one of the most repressive regimes in Africa. Both countries are controlled by narrow elites, who use the border dispute to justify militarisation and to pursue regime-change agendas. Both believe that sovereignty over Badme is symbolically vital, even if of little intrinsic economic value. Whoever finally owns that village will be able to claim victory and justify the war’s enormous sacrifices.
A. THE ETHIOPIAN VIEW
Prime Minister Meles Zenawi gave his view of the Badme problem in an extensive interview in October 2003:
First of all we do not believe that the Boundary Commission decision is proper and legal. It is contrary to the mandate that they have been given. And the indications are that some in the Boundary Commission have become both plaintiffs and judges. And so the Boundary Commission is clearly part of the problem now. The boundary issue is to be settled peacefully, and the only way to settle the problem peacefully is through dialogue. As you know there is an Ethiopian army there [in Badme]. The only way it [taking possession] can be done is by removing the Ethiopian army and the Ethiopian administration. And if dialogue is ruled out, the only way of doing that is by force of arms, and if they do so they will have decided to initiate a conflict. It did not work last time around and it will not work this time.
Q: Can you foresee any eventuality according to which Ethiopia accepts that Badme is in Eritrea?
A: Had Badme legally been part of Eritrea, I would have accepted it without any hesitation. But I know the place inside out, and so I know the established practice of the parties because I have been around that place for many years. And there is no way in hell that the decision on Badme which says it is part of Eritrea can be anything other than illegal and unjust.
The prime minister added that Badme was no more than a “godforsaken village”.
Ethiopia’s position towards the border dispute has, on the surface, been moderated since then, with its “Five Point Proposal” of November 2004. However, in reality there has been no fundamental change, as can be seen from the stance it adopted at the most recent Boundary Commission meeting. Despite his dismissive remarks about Badme, the domestic pressures upon Meles make it difficult for him to consider concessions even if he wanted to. Indeed, he is under domestic pressure to take an even tougher line with Eritrea. Siye Abraha, a former defence minister who was recently released from a six-year jail term, has criticised the prime minister for halting the 1998-2000 war when he did, instead of pushing on to take the strategically important port of Assab. Another hardliner, the former regional president of Tigray, Gebru Asrat, is reported to be establishing his own party to challenge the TPLF in next year’s local elections. He too attacked the decision not to take Assab, describing ownership of the port as Ethiopia’s “historical and legal right”.
Meles’s political difficulties should not be exaggerated, however. The TPLF (like the Eritrean ruling party) is tightly run, and he is a past master at confronting his opponents within it. Reports of his vulnerability have been deployed by Ethiopia in its dealings with Western diplomats to suggest that he would be unlikely to survive politically if he yielded on Badme. The foreign ministry has played effectively on Western fears that anyone else would take an even tougher line and might be less willing to work with the international community also on other regional issues. This has led to Western hesitation in dealings with Addis Ababa and reduced pressure on the government to live up to its original Algiers commitment to implement the Boundary Commission’s ruling.
The U.S. has repeatedly indicated that it regards Ethiopia as one of its major African partners, much to the annoyance of Eritrea, which sees this as a sign of international bias. The UK suspended development aid to Ethiopia following the killings associated with the 2005 elections, while the U.S. took no similar action. This relationship with Washington is important to the Meles government. The uncertainty whether a future U.S. administration would be as supportive may make Ethiopia more inclined to push for an early solution by force of its Eritrean problem.
B. THE ERITREAN VIEW
The position adopted by Eritrea on the Boundary Commission ruling has been simple: implement it in full, without further discussion. Attempts to open talks with President Isaias Afwerki on the subject have been repeatedly rebuffed, since his government considers any discussion could begin to unravel the ruling. This was clearly stated in a recent official editorial:
The Eritrean-Ethiopian border issue has once and for all been legally resolved through a final and binding ruling. However, conspiracies have been devised to derail the case from its legal course in the name of seemingly plausible “talks”. The push for fresh “talks” while the border issue has been given a final ruling after a long legal debate can have no other motive but to drag the case back to square one and keep it circling there. Naturally, questions like “what kind of talks?” and “for what purpose?” [have] been raised but remain yet to be answered….Hence, the only solution still remains to be the implementation of the final and binding EEBC ruling, on the ground.
There can be no alternative solution!
Behind the rhetoric are three interlinked points. First, Eritrea won its independence from Ethiopia through 30 years of war, with very limited outside help at a time when its enemy was armed first by the U.S., then by the Soviet Union. Secondly, Eritrea, despite being far smaller than Ethiopia in size and population, sees itself as the predominant power in the Horn. The ruling party regards its historic role in assisting Ethiopia’s TPLF rise to power as evidence that it is the “big brother” in the region – an attitude deeply resented in Addis Ababa.
Thirdly, Eritrea acts from a weak position that makes concessions difficult. Not only is its population one fifteenth Ethiopia’s (4.7 million vs. 80.1 million), but its economy is in decline, while Ethiopia’s is growing at an annual rate of some 9 per cent. There is a real fear among Eritreans of all persuasions that their larger neighbour has not really accepted the independence they won at such cost in 1993, particularly since that independence jeopardises the political strength and economic prosperity of Tigray within Ethiopia and undermines the prospects of Tigray’s own possible ambition of independence. Making concessions from this position is particularly difficult.
This weakness has been translated into stubborn determination. All outside pressure has been met with implacable hostility. As a result, relations with Western countries that wished Eritrea well in the first years of independence are in tatters. UNMEE has found Asmara intensely difficult. The Secretary-General’s reports demonstrate the gradual erosion of trust. Eritrea was incensed that the UN failed to force Ethiopia to remove its troops from one location within the TSZ in 2001, and relations deteriorated from that time. Similarly, Eritrea has accused the UN of bad faith in accepting Ethiopia’s refusal to allow UNMEE to fly the most direct route between Asmara and Addis Ababa, requiring it to proceed via Djibouti at a cost of tens of millions of dollars.
The TSZ, which is entirely within Eritrean territory, has been an imposition on its sovereignty. It is considerably wider than 25km in some areas in the west, since it includes areas Ethiopia occupied before the outbreak of hostilities. As long as the TSZ exists – and it appears to have become a semi-permanent feature – Eritrea has lost exclusive control over an area in excess of 25,000 sq. km. It accepted UNMEE deployment and the TSZ as temporary measures to allow expeditious fixing of the boundary. By moving troops back into the TSZ and returning villagers displaced during the fighting to border villages, it sees itself as protesting the delay.
IV. THE BOUNDARY COMMISSION MEETING
Before the Boundary Commission finally managed to get both parties to attend a meeting in The Hague on 6-7 September 2007, it had listed the many obstacles they put in the way of a resolution of the dispute and informed them of the following:
As the Commission evidently cannot remain in existence indefinitely, it proposes that the Parties should, over the next twelve months, terminating at the end of November 2007, consider their positions and seek to reach agreement on the emplacement of pillars. If, by the end of that period, the Parties have not by themselves reached the necessary agreement and proceeded significantly to implement it, or have not requested and enabled the Commission to resume its activity, the Commission hereby determines that the boundary will automatically stand as demarcated by the boundary points listed in the Annex hereto and that the mandate of the Commission can then be regarded as fulfilled.
At the session, each was given a list of concerns to address. Those conveyed to Eritrea were that it:
lift restrictions on UNMEE in so far as they impacted on the Commission;
withdraw from the TSZ in so far as it impacted on the Commission;
provide security assurances allowing demarcation; and
provide security assurances for pillar location.
For once Eritrea managed to take the diplomatic high ground and show the kind of flexibility urged on it since the Boundary Commission made its 2002 ruling. It said it agreed to each point but expected Ethiopia to cooperate with the Commission as well.
The concerns conveyed to Ethiopia were that it:
indicate unqualified acceptance of the Commission’s finding on the border without requiring broader negotiations between the parties;
lift restriction on the movement of Commission personnel;
provide security;
meet its payment arrears to the costs of the Commission; and
allow free access to pillar locations.
Its legal representative told the meeting that Ethiopia accepted the Commission’s delimitation decision and was ready to implement it. At the same time, however, he maintained that implementation was impossible, since Eritrea was occupying the TSZ, and attempting demarcation in those circumstances would put international staff in jeopardy. It demanded not only that Eritrea withdraw fully from the TSZ but also that it allow UNMEE to operate without restrictions and end its support for rebel groups attempting to overthrow the Ethiopian state.
Raising national security brought into play issues well beyond the Commission’s competence, leaving its president, Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, little option but to accept that no further progress could be made and to end the meeting. Unless Ethiopia gives way, the Commission will wait until the end of November, declare the border stands as demarcated even though no pillars are in place, and wash its hands of the affair.
While the Commission has done all that was asked of it legally, it has been less skilful politically. For example, when the border decision was made in 2002, it failed to make clear that Badme had been awarded to Eritrea. The result was days of confusion, during which the parties became entrenched in their current positions. It is also arguable that the drafters of the Algiers agreement put the Commission in a difficult position from the beginning by giving it the task of demarcating the border as well as delimiting it.
V. WAR BY PROXY – THE “GREAT GAME” IN THE HORN
The stalemate in the border dispute has resulted in an intensification of the “Great Game” in the region. Just as Britain and Russia confronted each other in Central Asia by manipulating local forces during the nineteenth century, Ethiopia and Eritrea have attempted to use proxies in their struggle. With the UN standing between their armies, however thinly, each has backed the other’s insurgents. While both have played this card, Eritrea has been more active and obvious.
A. SOMALIA AND THE OGADEN
Eritrea has a longstanding policy of support for groups in the Horn (and beyond) that further its political goals. It has had formal links with movements like the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) since the 1980s, when a combination of Eritrean and Ethiopian rebels fought to overthrow the Mengistu government. As relations between Asmara and Addis deteriorated, those links were reactivated, and the OLF and a number of other groups operating inside Ethiopia are recipients of Eritrean support, including, most significantly, the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF), which is now active in the Somali part of Ethiopia known as Region 5.
The extent of these links, and the arms supplied, has been known for some time but the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia in support of Somalia’s Transitional Federal Government (TFG) in mid-December 2006 raised the stakes considerably. One factor that helped convince Meles to engage in this action was the growing flow of weapons from Eritrea to the Islamic Court Union (ICU), especially the faction known as the Shabaab. Reports to the UN have catalogued the extent of these arms shipments, in contravention of the Security Council embargo. The latest report said the Monitoring Group had observed “a clear pattern of involvement by the Government of Eritrea in arms embargo violations.” It also accused Eritrea of using a variety of techniques to hide its activities, including front companies, false documents and false flight plans. The UN monitors directly implicated it in supplying the surface-to-air missiles used by the Shabaab to shoot down a Belarus plane at Mogadishu airport in March 2007.
In September 2007, Eritrea hosted a conference of Somali opposition figures, including ICU members. More than 300 delegates, including a leading member of the ICU, Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys, met in Asmara to launch the Alliance for the Re-Liberation of Somalia. Its declared aim is to remove the Ethiopian-backed government of Somalia, by negotiation or by force. A spokesman for the Alliance said with regard to Ethiopian forces supporting the TFG, “we warn Ethiopia to withdraw immediately. It is now or never, and in a few weeks they will not have a route to withdraw”.
Eritrean arms were also provided to other movements fighting inside Ethiopia, through their bases inside Somalia. This included the ONLF, which is reported to have received weapons on at least eight occasions. Eritrea gives a home to Ethiopian opposition movements as well as arming and training their military wings. This support – as well as the diversion of Ethiopian troops to Somalia – has allowed the ONLF to step up its activities in Ethiopia’s Region 5 considerably. In April 2007 it attacked a Chinese-run oilfield in Abole, killing 65 Ethiopians and nine Chinese workers.
In response, Ethiopia launched a major counter-insurgency operation, including a trade and, possibly, food blockade of five districts in the region, affecting 1.4 million people. Some villagers were also forcibly relocated. International organisations, including the Red Cross, were ordered out of the area. In response to allegations of human rights violations and great hardship, the UN sent a mission, which called for an independent investigation of the former and for the authorities to give aid agencies access. It said the food situation was deteriorating rapidly and could reach emergency levels soon and that there was an acute shortage of drugs and other medical supplies.
B. ETHIOPIA’S SUPPORT FOR THE ERITREAN OPPOSITION
Ethiopia’s backing for groups attempting to overthrow the Eritrean government has received little scrutiny, in part because no UN group monitors the activities. It has for many years given Eritrean groups safe haven, as well as training and arms. Its relations with and support for Eritrean opposition groups date from the early 1980s. Some, like the Eritrean Revolutionary Democratic Front, have had long-established ties. Berhane Yemane, the movement’s leader, openly collaborated with Ethiopia during the 1998-2000 war. His forces entered Eritrea behind the advancing Ethiopian army and established a presence in the occupied territory.
For the rest of the Eritrean opposition, relations with Ethiopia have not been as easy to accept while the two countries are in engaged in hostilities. Nevertheless, they have used Addis Ababa as a meeting place, and they accept training and military and financial support. The refugee camps in Shiraro and Shimbela, close to the Eritrean border, have been used as recruiting grounds At the same time, the divisions within the Eritrean opposition are so extensive that it poses little threat to the Isaias government. Some groups, like Islamic Jihad, have operated from Ethiopia and Sudan to plant mines or undertake the occasional hit-and-run raid against Eritrean army positions but these are small-scale activities.
Ethiopia’s present backing for the Eritrean opposition is more of a contingency policy. Should war with Eritrea resume, Ethiopian troops are unlikely to halt operations, as they did last time. They would almost certainly attempt to take Asmara, as well as the port of Assab, and to oust the Isaias government. The Eritrean opposition now operating from Addis Ababa would then form the backbone of an Eritrean puppet administration, an important resource that might shield Ethiopia from a charge in the UN and the AU of snuffing out a member state.
The “Great Game” in the Horn is fuelled by a prevailing belief in both Addis Ababa and Asmara that the other side is on its last legs. Eritrea has long publicly claimed that Ethiopia’s policy of “ethnic federalism” is doomed to fail, since it fosters ethnic resentment, and that the Meles government is about to collapse. Ethiopia sees its neighbour as isolated and weak and the Isaias government as but a small elite that resorts to repression to remain in power. Both governments say that with time the other will fall.
VI. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE
A. THE IMMEDIATE PRIORITY: STOPPING A WAR
Crisis Group has previously analysed the steps ultimately necessary to break the long stalemate, end the conflict and bring real peace. They begin with the application of international pressure particularly on Ethiopia to persuade it to accept and implement the Boundary Commission decision; extend through cooperation with UNMEE and mutual withdrawal of forces from dangerous positions in and near the TSZ; and go on to international initiatives to encourage the sides to cease support of the other’s enemies, normalise relations and enter into dialogue on mutually beneficial economic cooperation such as sharing the benefits of ports like Assab. These actions all remain relevant but neither the parties themselves nor the international community are likely to assemble the political will to take them quickly.
The immediate need is to prevent a return to war so as to gain the time that will be necessary to move toward peaceful and sustainable conflict resolution. The danger point is the end of November when the Boundary Commission anticipates declaring its work finished: in the prevailing venomous atmosphere a single spark, accidental or wilful, can easily convert into a conflagration. The outside forces that can and must act in these weeks to build a firewall are the U.S. and the Security Council, though their messages should be reinforced by as many other actors as possible, in particular from the other witnesses and guarantors of the Algiers agreement: the African Union (as the successor to the Organisation of African Unity) and its member states, and the European Union and its member states.
1. The U.S.
The U.S. is the pre-eminent external influence on the Horn of Africa. With strong military forces based in Djibouti and the financial resources to support the ever-present aid requirements, it has played the role of the unquestioned dominant outside power since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Both Ethiopia and Eritrea take their relations with Washington seriously, though neither would welcome unpalatable American advice or ever sacrifice vital security interests under U.S. pressure. U.S. relations with Ethiopia are cordial, if sometimes difficult, but those with Eritrea are close to the breaking point.
The State Department recently warned Eritrea that it may declare it a state sponsor of terrorism. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer said the U.S. has intelligence which supports accusations that “Eritrea has played a key role in financing, funding and arming the terror and insurgency activities which are taking place in Somalia, and is the primary source of support for that insurgency and terror activities”. Inclusion on the list of state sponsors, she noted, would bring with it severe economic sanctions. The U.S. also closed the Eritrean consulate in Oakland, California.
These warnings and actions come after considerable provocation. Eritrea had expelled the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and demanded the right to inspect U.S. diplomatic bags; Frazer had been refused permission to visit the disputed border. Nevertheless, Eritrea reacted with surprise and defiance. Acting Information Minister Ali Abdu called the terrorism allegations “ridiculous. We have fought terrorists long before September 11” and added, “we don’t live on their (the U.S.) handouts; it makes no difference, we don’t care”.
In reality Eritrea cares deeply. It may not need handouts but the idea of linking its name with terrorism is offensive to its leaders. Eritrea has cooperated closely with the Bush administration against al-Qaeda and has faced its own Islamic insurgency. Since coming to power, it has supported Sudanese opposition groups opposed to the Islamist government in Khartoum, primarily out of an ideological conviction that the fundamentalist regime threatened its interests. None of this, however, has prevented it from forging ties with groups that have close connections to Islamist extremists, in order to pursue their struggle against Ethiopia.
U.S. relations with Addis Ababa are on a much firmer footing, though there are occasional differences of opinion. Despite much speculation to the contrary, Washington maintains that it did its best to discourage the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia in late 2006. Once the invasion took place, however, there is little doubt that American intelligence, military targeting and logistical support was provided to Ethiopia, and U.S. forces conducted at least two direct strikes of their own against Somali insurgents – the first in January, the second in June 2007.
The U.S. is now directly involved in assisting Ethiopian anti-insurgency campaigns in Somalia. This has reduced (if not entirely removed) the possibility of playing the mediation role it has assumed between Ethiopia and Eritrea at least since the outbreak of the 1998-2000 war. Mediation is not what is needed at this point, however; it is an immediate private but unmistakable message to Addis Ababa that Washington would have no sympathy for a stage-managed coup against the Eritrean regime or any military action to resolve the border stalemate unilaterally and would take strong diplomatic and economic counter-measures such as would put the entire bilateral relationship at stake should such actions be attempted.
2. The UN Security Council
The UN role in resolving the conflict has been gradually eroded, both by the actions of the parties and by the Security Council’s own lack of action. The peacekeeping force patrolling the border, UNMEE, has been reduced to a fraction of its former size. A force that was 4,150 strong in August 2001 today has just 1,688 troops on the ground, who are severely restricted in what they can do by Eritrea and indeed have been systematically humiliated. Ethiopia, though more careful in its relations with UNMEE, has also done little to enhance its standing.
The then-Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, told the Security Council in December 2006 that the status quo for UNMEE was unacceptable and confronted it with four options:
reduce the size of the force from 2,300 to 1,700 and reduce its monitoring patrols;
again reduce force size to 1,700 and reduce patrols but also move the headquarters from Asmara to the Ethiopian side of the border, with only a liaison office in Eritrea;
transform UNMEE into an observer mission with a smaller military protection force of around 800;
reduce the force to a small military liaison mission of 30 to 40.
The Council selected the first option, leaving UNMEE with full responsibilities but too few troops and other staff to work effectively. Time and again, when confronted with insults to its peacekeepers or the flouting of its resolutions – by Ethiopia with regard to the Boundary Commission ruling, by Eritrea with regard to UNMEE – the Council has failed to act. The pattern goes back to the beginning of the UNMEE mandate. The Cessation of Hostilities Agreement of 18 June 2000 (incorporated into the Algiers agreement) specified that the TSZ was to be inviolable. Ethiopia was required to remove its troops to positions held prior to the outbreak of hostilities on 6 May 1998. Eritrea was required to move 25km north of those positions, to allow establishment of the zone. Paragraph 14 stated that:
The OAU [Organisation of African Unity] and the United Nations commit themselves to guarantee the respect for this commitment of the two Parties until the determination of the common border on the basis of pertinent treaties and applicable international law, through delimitation/demarcation and in the case of controversy, through the appropriate mechanism of arbitration. This guarantee shall comprise of:
a) measures to be taken by the international community should one or both of the Parties violate this commitment, including appropriate measures to be taken under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter by the UN Security Council.
This guarantee has never been invoked. Chapter VII, which is designed to deal with threats to peace, breaches of peace and acts of aggression, includes measures up to and including the use of force. It is unclear quite how, or indeed whether, the UN ever thought this might need to be used in the case of Ethiopia and Eritrea. By giving the guarantee and then allowing it to be flouted by both countries, however, the prestige and credibility of the Security Council has been diminished in a manner that hampers it in this and other crises.
The mistakes of the past cannot be corrected in a single stroke but the Council needs to begin by supporting publicly the confidential U.S. initiative proposed above through adoption of a resolution that contains at least three elements designed to give the parties, and in the first instance particularly Ethiopia, pause: support for the Boundary Commission decision; a request to the Commission that it continue to hold itself available to complete its task by demarcating the border; and a statement that even without such demarcation the border as found by the Commission is acknowledged as the legal boundary between the two countries and will be so regarded by the Council in its consideration of an appropriate response in the event that it is not respected by either party.
B. DE-ESCALATING THE CONFLICT
The combined effect of the above efforts should be to prevent the worst from happening in the next weeks and to gain time but it will neither resolve the immediate crisis of the border nor bring a lasting peace. To make progress on the former, it will be essential for the international community to devote new energy and determination to reviving the Algiers peace agreement. Results are unlikely to come quickly or easily but the process will require that the Security Council restate its unequivocal support for the agreement and all the measures that follow from it, including the work of the Boundary Commission and its less contentious sibling, the Claims Commissions, and call on the parties to fulfil all their undertakings to the letter and without delay.
This involves, of course, all the points on which they have been so obstinate, not only full acceptance of the Boundary Commission’s ruling but also an end to the hostile statements they regularly issue, withdrawal of troops from the TSZ, a halt to provocative and dangerous manoeuvres and troop build-ups close to the zone and unhindered UNMEE operation. Another Security Council resolution covering this all too familiar ground will have little effect, however, until the international community is clear in its collective mind what it is prepared to do to encourage the desired behaviour and make continued defiance or negative behaviour costly.
The challenge is to develop a new sense of urgency and a higher level of political will with respect to a consensus on both incentives and disincentives, through multiple and expedited consultations in the Security Council but also within the AU and the EU. The U.S. could make a vital unilateral contribution with respect to Eritrea by withdrawing its counterproductive threat to put that country on its list of state sponsors of terrorism; it could make an even more important unilateral contribution by persuading Ethiopia that it is serious about implementation of the Boundary Commission ruling and, if necessary, will both support multilateral sanctions and draw appropriate conclusions about bilateral relations if Addis Ababa remains intransigent.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon could make his own significant contribution by appointing a new Special Representative and head of UNMEE. A vigorous senior diplomat in that post, which has been vacant since April 2006 could advance some of the necessary consultations with states in the region, in the AU and further afield, as well as work with the parties to improve the conditions for peacekeeping on the ground.
C. BUILDING PEACE
Even once there is progress on the immediate border issues, peace will be fragile without a series of further steps designed to address each side’s negative preoccupations with and perceptions of the other, and to construct first normal, then genuinely positive relationships. Some of these steps are self-evident. For example, the parties will have to cease using proxy forces to damage the other, including the provision of military and financial support for rebels operating on each other’s soil, as well as stop violating the Security Council’s arms embargo on Somalia. They will need to reopen bilateral channels of communication, including embassies, so they can begin to resolve their differences through traditional diplomacy. Their regional friends and those in the wider international community will need to help, including possibly by developing political initiatives aimed at addressing some security concerns in a regional context and economic initiatives that could provide mechanisms for mutually beneficial cooperation over, for example, the port of Assab.
While some of this can only come to fruition after the immediate border conflict has been resolved, policy planning and diplomatic discussion should begin at once since the perspectives might help the parties reach the conclusion that they have much more to gain by living up to the Algiers agreement than by maintaining the crisis. Crisis Group will explore some possible longer-term political and economic initiatives in subsequent reporting.
VII. CONCLUSION
Ethiopia and Eritrea are both are ruled by narrow elites, which take all major decisions in secrecy. It is impossible to be precise, therefore, about how close to a new war they are but the signs are highly worrying and strongly suggest that one could erupt at any time, without further warning, as happened in 1998. The UN and the wider international community are preoccupied with apparently more pressing issues, including the Middle East’s multiple crises and, most recently, Myanmar/Burma. Attention to Africa’s problems is limited and sporadic, much of it understandably directed to Darfur and its ramifications. Far too little is being given to Eritrea and Ethiopia, where deadlock has characterised the situation for so long. This is a misreading of the dynamics at play, especially in November 2007, when the Boundary Commission mandate is about to terminate and the two sides are as angry as ever with each other, armed to the teeth, and within slingshot range of each other on a frontline the UN cannot cover adequately.
International indifference or mistaken confidence could cost the people of the Horn of Africa dearly, as well as destabilise an area stretching from Central Africa to the Gulf. The primary responsibility for resolving the crisis remains, of course, with the governments in Addis Ababa and Asmara. Unless and until they decide to end their years of hostility, no progress will be made. They will have to display real leadership if the impasse is to be broken. But in the next weeks they need urgent assistance to ensure that the shooting does not resume.
Nairobi/New York/Brussels, 5 November 2007
Source: International Crisis Group
from the National Crisis Group, as published on Nazret.com
I. OVERVIEW
The risk that Ethiopia and Eritrea will resume their war in the next several weeks is very real. A military build-up along the common border over the past few months has reached alarming proportions. There will be no easy military solution if hostilities restart; more likely is a protracted conflict on Eritrean soil, progressive destabilisation of Ethiopia and a dramatic humanitarian crisis. To prevent this, the international community – in particular, the UN Security Council and the U.S., which is the single most influential outsider – must act immediately to give both sides the clearest possible message that no destabilising unilateral action will be tolerated. Once the immediate danger is past, efforts should be reinvigorated to ensure that the parties comply with their international law obligations, disengage on the ground and restore the Temporary Security Zone (TSZ) – in a longer time frame – to develop political and economic initiatives for resolving the fundamental problems between the old foes.
Citing Eritrean encroachment into the TSZ, Ethiopia announced on 25 September 2007 that it was considering terminating the Algiers agreement, which ended the war in 2000. In reply Eritrea accused it of repeated violations of that peace treaty and called again for the Security Council to enforce the decision of the Boundary Commission Algiers established. The U.S. now estimates that Eritrea has 4,000 troops, supported by artillery and armour, in the supposedly demilitarised TSZ and an additional 120,000 troops nearby. In August it estimated that Ethiopia maintains 100,000 troops along the border.
Both sides agreed in Algiers to submit the border dispute to the Boundary Commission, whose mandate was to “delimit and demarcate the colonial treaty border based on pertinent colonial treaties (1900, 1902 and 1908) and applicable international law”. They further agreed that its decision would be final and binding. In April 2002 the Commission gave its ruling, delimiting the border on the map and in so doing locating the village of Badme, the site of the original dispute that sparked off the war in 1998, in Eritrea.
Since then Ethiopia, though it won on other aspects of the ruling, has blocked demarcation of the border on the ground, while Eritrea has called for the international community to insist on this without further delay. Eritrea has right on its side on this point but has played its cards very badly. Frustrated by the lack of progress, it has alienated many of its supporters, including a number of Western states, aid agencies and the UN. It has seized their vehicles, restricted their monitoring teams, expelled their personnel and arrested Eritreans working for embassies. In addition, its repression of its own people and lack of democracy have left it shunned by all but a handful of states.
The stalemate came to a head at the Commission’s most recent unproductive meeting, in September 2007, during which the Ethiopian delegate insisted on prior satisfaction of a range of extraneous measures. On balance, however, Ethiopia has played its hand skilfully. It has used its position as the major power in the region to win U.S. toleration of its intransigence and to keep criticism of its own human rights record to a minimum. Its military intervention in Somalia has drawn little overt adverse response. It would not be surprising if Addis Ababa believes an effort in the near future to stage a coup in Asmara and use force against an Eritrean government that has few friends would also be tolerated in Washington.
The rapidly approaching danger point is the end of November, when the Boundary Commission indicates it will close down unless it is allowed to proceed to demarcation. Before then it is essential that the two sides be left in no doubt that use of force, directly or indirectly, is not acceptable and that a party that resorts to it will be held accountable. Specifically this means that:
the U.S. should convey a firm private message to both sides that direct or indirect use of force to resume the conflict and reach a unilateral solution would be unacceptable and, specifically to Ethiopia where its influence is at this time stronger, that it will take appropriate diplomatic and economic measures against it if it attacks or seeks to overthrow the Eritrean regime; and
the Security Council should pass a resolution reiterating its support for the Boundary Commission decision, requesting it to remain in being beyond the end of November so that it is available to demarcate the border, and stating that even without such demarcation the border as found by the Commission is acknowledged as the legal boundary between the two countries.
Once this line has been drawn, the international community should resume with new urgency its efforts to break the immediate stalemate. Consideration might be given to the following:
a Security Council resolution or statement reiterating the requirement on Ethiopia to accept the Boundary Commission ruling unconditionally and cooperate in its implementation, including by pulling back from its forward military positions south of the border, and on Eritrea to withdraw its army from the TSZ;
appointment by the Secretary-General of a new Special Representative and head of the UN mission (UNMEE), who should press both sides to allow the international peacekeepers to reoccupy the positions they have been forced to leave in the TSZ and proceed unhindered in their work; and
discussion among members of the Security Council and within other key international constituencies including the guarantors and witnesses of the Algiers agreement – the African Union (AU), the UN, the U.S. and the European Union (EU) – about incentives (primarily economic) and disincentives (credible sanctions) that would likely be required to obtain cooperation in de-escalating the situation on the ground and implementing the Commission decision.
In the somewhat longer run, Addis Ababa and Asmara will need to end their military and financial support for rebels operating on the other’s soil, respect the arms embargo on Somalia and restart a dialogue with the support of their regional and other international friends. None of the steps to break the current deadlock and begin to rebuild mutually beneficial relations will be easy or quick. But the immediate need is to prevent the war from restarting so that there is time to work on them.
II. THE PRESENT DANGER
The rumblings of war are growing louder along the Ethiopia-Eritrea border. The two sides have tens of thousands of troops dug in along their 1,000km disputed frontier. According to the peace agreement they signed in Algiers on 12 December 2000 to end their last war, a 25km-wide Temporary Security Zone (TSZ) was to be established all along the border to separate the contending forces. The aim was to keep the armies out of artillery range of each other. This has failed. According to Ethiopian Foreign Minister Seyoum Mesfin, troops are now separated in some places by no more than 70 to 80 metres or a dry riverbed. While he added that “Ethiopia does not want war”, he did not conceal the risk.
Eritrea played down the warnings of a fresh conflict: Acting Information Minister Ali Abdu told journalists in Asmara his country “will do every possible thing to avoid war”. However, the threat of a fresh war was underlined in the latest report of the UN Secretary-General, which described the situation in the TSZ as “tense and potentially unstable”; highlighted the severe restrictions imposed on UN peacekeepers; and concluded that “the Eritrean Defence Forces [have] effectively occupied large swathes of the Zone with military personnel numbering in the thousands”, while Ethiopian forces have been observed “carrying out large-scale training and preparing defences, including around the highly sensitive area of Badme (the village at the centre of the 1998-2000 war)”.
The 1,700 UN peacekeepers spread out along the border have done their best to maintain the fragile peace. Four Eritrean raids have been reported, as has the defusing of a potentially dangerous incident during which Ethiopian soldiers threatened to fire on Eritrean militia doing reconnaissance on a bridge. With Ethiopian tank movements just south of the TSZ and Eritreans digging in with artillery, the situation could hardly be more explosive.
Diplomatic and intelligence sources in the Horn tell Crisis Group a new war could be just weeks away. One scenario identified by Western civilian and military intelligence analysts begins with an Ethiopian-backed coup attempt against President Isaias Afwerki, followed by an Ethiopian military intervention, leading to a long conflict. The risks are perceived to be all the greater because there is much speculation the U.S. would accept, perhaps even endorse, such a move and protect Addis Ababa from international condemnation. The danger is further heightened by the failure of previous attempts at mediation to resolve a seemingly intractable dispute and the loss of prestige the Security Council has suffered as a result of its seeming impotence. There is intense frustration and some exhaustion in the international community
III. CONFLICTING PERSPECTIVES
At its heart, resolution of the issue appears deceptively straightforward. Ethiopia has no legal option but to accept in full and without further delay the Boundary Commission’s ruling on the border of April 2002 and to cooperate in its implementation. Eritrea has to withdraw from the TSZ and allow UNMEE full freedom of movement, as it agreed to do at the 6-7 September 2007 meeting of the Boundary Commission in The Hague. At the heart of the problem, however, is the nature of the regimes in both countries and their attitudes towards each other. Each came to power in 1991 through the barrel of the gun and remains locked in the secretive, militaristic perspective that guided it through the years of struggle against governments in Addis Ababa. Each seeks change of the other’s regime and to this end hosts and supports the other’s opposition.
While Ethiopia held democratic elections in 2005, the results were overturned and the opposition to the TPLF- dominated government brutally repressed. Power has been held by the same small cluster of former insurgents who took it sixteen years ago and have no intention to genuinely democratise. Eritrea cannot even make a claim to democracy. It is a one-party state with an unfree press, one of the most repressive regimes in Africa. Both countries are controlled by narrow elites, who use the border dispute to justify militarisation and to pursue regime-change agendas. Both believe that sovereignty over Badme is symbolically vital, even if of little intrinsic economic value. Whoever finally owns that village will be able to claim victory and justify the war’s enormous sacrifices.
A. THE ETHIOPIAN VIEW
Prime Minister Meles Zenawi gave his view of the Badme problem in an extensive interview in October 2003:
First of all we do not believe that the Boundary Commission decision is proper and legal. It is contrary to the mandate that they have been given. And the indications are that some in the Boundary Commission have become both plaintiffs and judges. And so the Boundary Commission is clearly part of the problem now. The boundary issue is to be settled peacefully, and the only way to settle the problem peacefully is through dialogue. As you know there is an Ethiopian army there [in Badme]. The only way it [taking possession] can be done is by removing the Ethiopian army and the Ethiopian administration. And if dialogue is ruled out, the only way of doing that is by force of arms, and if they do so they will have decided to initiate a conflict. It did not work last time around and it will not work this time.
Q: Can you foresee any eventuality according to which Ethiopia accepts that Badme is in Eritrea?
A: Had Badme legally been part of Eritrea, I would have accepted it without any hesitation. But I know the place inside out, and so I know the established practice of the parties because I have been around that place for many years. And there is no way in hell that the decision on Badme which says it is part of Eritrea can be anything other than illegal and unjust.
The prime minister added that Badme was no more than a “godforsaken village”.
Ethiopia’s position towards the border dispute has, on the surface, been moderated since then, with its “Five Point Proposal” of November 2004. However, in reality there has been no fundamental change, as can be seen from the stance it adopted at the most recent Boundary Commission meeting. Despite his dismissive remarks about Badme, the domestic pressures upon Meles make it difficult for him to consider concessions even if he wanted to. Indeed, he is under domestic pressure to take an even tougher line with Eritrea. Siye Abraha, a former defence minister who was recently released from a six-year jail term, has criticised the prime minister for halting the 1998-2000 war when he did, instead of pushing on to take the strategically important port of Assab. Another hardliner, the former regional president of Tigray, Gebru Asrat, is reported to be establishing his own party to challenge the TPLF in next year’s local elections. He too attacked the decision not to take Assab, describing ownership of the port as Ethiopia’s “historical and legal right”.
Meles’s political difficulties should not be exaggerated, however. The TPLF (like the Eritrean ruling party) is tightly run, and he is a past master at confronting his opponents within it. Reports of his vulnerability have been deployed by Ethiopia in its dealings with Western diplomats to suggest that he would be unlikely to survive politically if he yielded on Badme. The foreign ministry has played effectively on Western fears that anyone else would take an even tougher line and might be less willing to work with the international community also on other regional issues. This has led to Western hesitation in dealings with Addis Ababa and reduced pressure on the government to live up to its original Algiers commitment to implement the Boundary Commission’s ruling.
The U.S. has repeatedly indicated that it regards Ethiopia as one of its major African partners, much to the annoyance of Eritrea, which sees this as a sign of international bias. The UK suspended development aid to Ethiopia following the killings associated with the 2005 elections, while the U.S. took no similar action. This relationship with Washington is important to the Meles government. The uncertainty whether a future U.S. administration would be as supportive may make Ethiopia more inclined to push for an early solution by force of its Eritrean problem.
B. THE ERITREAN VIEW
The position adopted by Eritrea on the Boundary Commission ruling has been simple: implement it in full, without further discussion. Attempts to open talks with President Isaias Afwerki on the subject have been repeatedly rebuffed, since his government considers any discussion could begin to unravel the ruling. This was clearly stated in a recent official editorial:
The Eritrean-Ethiopian border issue has once and for all been legally resolved through a final and binding ruling. However, conspiracies have been devised to derail the case from its legal course in the name of seemingly plausible “talks”. The push for fresh “talks” while the border issue has been given a final ruling after a long legal debate can have no other motive but to drag the case back to square one and keep it circling there. Naturally, questions like “what kind of talks?” and “for what purpose?” [have] been raised but remain yet to be answered….Hence, the only solution still remains to be the implementation of the final and binding EEBC ruling, on the ground.
There can be no alternative solution!
Behind the rhetoric are three interlinked points. First, Eritrea won its independence from Ethiopia through 30 years of war, with very limited outside help at a time when its enemy was armed first by the U.S., then by the Soviet Union. Secondly, Eritrea, despite being far smaller than Ethiopia in size and population, sees itself as the predominant power in the Horn. The ruling party regards its historic role in assisting Ethiopia’s TPLF rise to power as evidence that it is the “big brother” in the region – an attitude deeply resented in Addis Ababa.
Thirdly, Eritrea acts from a weak position that makes concessions difficult. Not only is its population one fifteenth Ethiopia’s (4.7 million vs. 80.1 million), but its economy is in decline, while Ethiopia’s is growing at an annual rate of some 9 per cent. There is a real fear among Eritreans of all persuasions that their larger neighbour has not really accepted the independence they won at such cost in 1993, particularly since that independence jeopardises the political strength and economic prosperity of Tigray within Ethiopia and undermines the prospects of Tigray’s own possible ambition of independence. Making concessions from this position is particularly difficult.
This weakness has been translated into stubborn determination. All outside pressure has been met with implacable hostility. As a result, relations with Western countries that wished Eritrea well in the first years of independence are in tatters. UNMEE has found Asmara intensely difficult. The Secretary-General’s reports demonstrate the gradual erosion of trust. Eritrea was incensed that the UN failed to force Ethiopia to remove its troops from one location within the TSZ in 2001, and relations deteriorated from that time. Similarly, Eritrea has accused the UN of bad faith in accepting Ethiopia’s refusal to allow UNMEE to fly the most direct route between Asmara and Addis Ababa, requiring it to proceed via Djibouti at a cost of tens of millions of dollars.
The TSZ, which is entirely within Eritrean territory, has been an imposition on its sovereignty. It is considerably wider than 25km in some areas in the west, since it includes areas Ethiopia occupied before the outbreak of hostilities. As long as the TSZ exists – and it appears to have become a semi-permanent feature – Eritrea has lost exclusive control over an area in excess of 25,000 sq. km. It accepted UNMEE deployment and the TSZ as temporary measures to allow expeditious fixing of the boundary. By moving troops back into the TSZ and returning villagers displaced during the fighting to border villages, it sees itself as protesting the delay.
IV. THE BOUNDARY COMMISSION MEETING
Before the Boundary Commission finally managed to get both parties to attend a meeting in The Hague on 6-7 September 2007, it had listed the many obstacles they put in the way of a resolution of the dispute and informed them of the following:
As the Commission evidently cannot remain in existence indefinitely, it proposes that the Parties should, over the next twelve months, terminating at the end of November 2007, consider their positions and seek to reach agreement on the emplacement of pillars. If, by the end of that period, the Parties have not by themselves reached the necessary agreement and proceeded significantly to implement it, or have not requested and enabled the Commission to resume its activity, the Commission hereby determines that the boundary will automatically stand as demarcated by the boundary points listed in the Annex hereto and that the mandate of the Commission can then be regarded as fulfilled.
At the session, each was given a list of concerns to address. Those conveyed to Eritrea were that it:
lift restrictions on UNMEE in so far as they impacted on the Commission;
withdraw from the TSZ in so far as it impacted on the Commission;
provide security assurances allowing demarcation; and
provide security assurances for pillar location.
For once Eritrea managed to take the diplomatic high ground and show the kind of flexibility urged on it since the Boundary Commission made its 2002 ruling. It said it agreed to each point but expected Ethiopia to cooperate with the Commission as well.
The concerns conveyed to Ethiopia were that it:
indicate unqualified acceptance of the Commission’s finding on the border without requiring broader negotiations between the parties;
lift restriction on the movement of Commission personnel;
provide security;
meet its payment arrears to the costs of the Commission; and
allow free access to pillar locations.
Its legal representative told the meeting that Ethiopia accepted the Commission’s delimitation decision and was ready to implement it. At the same time, however, he maintained that implementation was impossible, since Eritrea was occupying the TSZ, and attempting demarcation in those circumstances would put international staff in jeopardy. It demanded not only that Eritrea withdraw fully from the TSZ but also that it allow UNMEE to operate without restrictions and end its support for rebel groups attempting to overthrow the Ethiopian state.
Raising national security brought into play issues well beyond the Commission’s competence, leaving its president, Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, little option but to accept that no further progress could be made and to end the meeting. Unless Ethiopia gives way, the Commission will wait until the end of November, declare the border stands as demarcated even though no pillars are in place, and wash its hands of the affair.
While the Commission has done all that was asked of it legally, it has been less skilful politically. For example, when the border decision was made in 2002, it failed to make clear that Badme had been awarded to Eritrea. The result was days of confusion, during which the parties became entrenched in their current positions. It is also arguable that the drafters of the Algiers agreement put the Commission in a difficult position from the beginning by giving it the task of demarcating the border as well as delimiting it.
V. WAR BY PROXY – THE “GREAT GAME” IN THE HORN
The stalemate in the border dispute has resulted in an intensification of the “Great Game” in the region. Just as Britain and Russia confronted each other in Central Asia by manipulating local forces during the nineteenth century, Ethiopia and Eritrea have attempted to use proxies in their struggle. With the UN standing between their armies, however thinly, each has backed the other’s insurgents. While both have played this card, Eritrea has been more active and obvious.
A. SOMALIA AND THE OGADEN
Eritrea has a longstanding policy of support for groups in the Horn (and beyond) that further its political goals. It has had formal links with movements like the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) since the 1980s, when a combination of Eritrean and Ethiopian rebels fought to overthrow the Mengistu government. As relations between Asmara and Addis deteriorated, those links were reactivated, and the OLF and a number of other groups operating inside Ethiopia are recipients of Eritrean support, including, most significantly, the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF), which is now active in the Somali part of Ethiopia known as Region 5.
The extent of these links, and the arms supplied, has been known for some time but the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia in support of Somalia’s Transitional Federal Government (TFG) in mid-December 2006 raised the stakes considerably. One factor that helped convince Meles to engage in this action was the growing flow of weapons from Eritrea to the Islamic Court Union (ICU), especially the faction known as the Shabaab. Reports to the UN have catalogued the extent of these arms shipments, in contravention of the Security Council embargo. The latest report said the Monitoring Group had observed “a clear pattern of involvement by the Government of Eritrea in arms embargo violations.” It also accused Eritrea of using a variety of techniques to hide its activities, including front companies, false documents and false flight plans. The UN monitors directly implicated it in supplying the surface-to-air missiles used by the Shabaab to shoot down a Belarus plane at Mogadishu airport in March 2007.
In September 2007, Eritrea hosted a conference of Somali opposition figures, including ICU members. More than 300 delegates, including a leading member of the ICU, Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys, met in Asmara to launch the Alliance for the Re-Liberation of Somalia. Its declared aim is to remove the Ethiopian-backed government of Somalia, by negotiation or by force. A spokesman for the Alliance said with regard to Ethiopian forces supporting the TFG, “we warn Ethiopia to withdraw immediately. It is now or never, and in a few weeks they will not have a route to withdraw”.
Eritrean arms were also provided to other movements fighting inside Ethiopia, through their bases inside Somalia. This included the ONLF, which is reported to have received weapons on at least eight occasions. Eritrea gives a home to Ethiopian opposition movements as well as arming and training their military wings. This support – as well as the diversion of Ethiopian troops to Somalia – has allowed the ONLF to step up its activities in Ethiopia’s Region 5 considerably. In April 2007 it attacked a Chinese-run oilfield in Abole, killing 65 Ethiopians and nine Chinese workers.
In response, Ethiopia launched a major counter-insurgency operation, including a trade and, possibly, food blockade of five districts in the region, affecting 1.4 million people. Some villagers were also forcibly relocated. International organisations, including the Red Cross, were ordered out of the area. In response to allegations of human rights violations and great hardship, the UN sent a mission, which called for an independent investigation of the former and for the authorities to give aid agencies access. It said the food situation was deteriorating rapidly and could reach emergency levels soon and that there was an acute shortage of drugs and other medical supplies.
B. ETHIOPIA’S SUPPORT FOR THE ERITREAN OPPOSITION
Ethiopia’s backing for groups attempting to overthrow the Eritrean government has received little scrutiny, in part because no UN group monitors the activities. It has for many years given Eritrean groups safe haven, as well as training and arms. Its relations with and support for Eritrean opposition groups date from the early 1980s. Some, like the Eritrean Revolutionary Democratic Front, have had long-established ties. Berhane Yemane, the movement’s leader, openly collaborated with Ethiopia during the 1998-2000 war. His forces entered Eritrea behind the advancing Ethiopian army and established a presence in the occupied territory.
For the rest of the Eritrean opposition, relations with Ethiopia have not been as easy to accept while the two countries are in engaged in hostilities. Nevertheless, they have used Addis Ababa as a meeting place, and they accept training and military and financial support. The refugee camps in Shiraro and Shimbela, close to the Eritrean border, have been used as recruiting grounds At the same time, the divisions within the Eritrean opposition are so extensive that it poses little threat to the Isaias government. Some groups, like Islamic Jihad, have operated from Ethiopia and Sudan to plant mines or undertake the occasional hit-and-run raid against Eritrean army positions but these are small-scale activities.
Ethiopia’s present backing for the Eritrean opposition is more of a contingency policy. Should war with Eritrea resume, Ethiopian troops are unlikely to halt operations, as they did last time. They would almost certainly attempt to take Asmara, as well as the port of Assab, and to oust the Isaias government. The Eritrean opposition now operating from Addis Ababa would then form the backbone of an Eritrean puppet administration, an important resource that might shield Ethiopia from a charge in the UN and the AU of snuffing out a member state.
The “Great Game” in the Horn is fuelled by a prevailing belief in both Addis Ababa and Asmara that the other side is on its last legs. Eritrea has long publicly claimed that Ethiopia’s policy of “ethnic federalism” is doomed to fail, since it fosters ethnic resentment, and that the Meles government is about to collapse. Ethiopia sees its neighbour as isolated and weak and the Isaias government as but a small elite that resorts to repression to remain in power. Both governments say that with time the other will fall.
VI. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE
A. THE IMMEDIATE PRIORITY: STOPPING A WAR
Crisis Group has previously analysed the steps ultimately necessary to break the long stalemate, end the conflict and bring real peace. They begin with the application of international pressure particularly on Ethiopia to persuade it to accept and implement the Boundary Commission decision; extend through cooperation with UNMEE and mutual withdrawal of forces from dangerous positions in and near the TSZ; and go on to international initiatives to encourage the sides to cease support of the other’s enemies, normalise relations and enter into dialogue on mutually beneficial economic cooperation such as sharing the benefits of ports like Assab. These actions all remain relevant but neither the parties themselves nor the international community are likely to assemble the political will to take them quickly.
The immediate need is to prevent a return to war so as to gain the time that will be necessary to move toward peaceful and sustainable conflict resolution. The danger point is the end of November when the Boundary Commission anticipates declaring its work finished: in the prevailing venomous atmosphere a single spark, accidental or wilful, can easily convert into a conflagration. The outside forces that can and must act in these weeks to build a firewall are the U.S. and the Security Council, though their messages should be reinforced by as many other actors as possible, in particular from the other witnesses and guarantors of the Algiers agreement: the African Union (as the successor to the Organisation of African Unity) and its member states, and the European Union and its member states.
1. The U.S.
The U.S. is the pre-eminent external influence on the Horn of Africa. With strong military forces based in Djibouti and the financial resources to support the ever-present aid requirements, it has played the role of the unquestioned dominant outside power since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Both Ethiopia and Eritrea take their relations with Washington seriously, though neither would welcome unpalatable American advice or ever sacrifice vital security interests under U.S. pressure. U.S. relations with Ethiopia are cordial, if sometimes difficult, but those with Eritrea are close to the breaking point.
The State Department recently warned Eritrea that it may declare it a state sponsor of terrorism. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer said the U.S. has intelligence which supports accusations that “Eritrea has played a key role in financing, funding and arming the terror and insurgency activities which are taking place in Somalia, and is the primary source of support for that insurgency and terror activities”. Inclusion on the list of state sponsors, she noted, would bring with it severe economic sanctions. The U.S. also closed the Eritrean consulate in Oakland, California.
These warnings and actions come after considerable provocation. Eritrea had expelled the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and demanded the right to inspect U.S. diplomatic bags; Frazer had been refused permission to visit the disputed border. Nevertheless, Eritrea reacted with surprise and defiance. Acting Information Minister Ali Abdu called the terrorism allegations “ridiculous. We have fought terrorists long before September 11” and added, “we don’t live on their (the U.S.) handouts; it makes no difference, we don’t care”.
In reality Eritrea cares deeply. It may not need handouts but the idea of linking its name with terrorism is offensive to its leaders. Eritrea has cooperated closely with the Bush administration against al-Qaeda and has faced its own Islamic insurgency. Since coming to power, it has supported Sudanese opposition groups opposed to the Islamist government in Khartoum, primarily out of an ideological conviction that the fundamentalist regime threatened its interests. None of this, however, has prevented it from forging ties with groups that have close connections to Islamist extremists, in order to pursue their struggle against Ethiopia.
U.S. relations with Addis Ababa are on a much firmer footing, though there are occasional differences of opinion. Despite much speculation to the contrary, Washington maintains that it did its best to discourage the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia in late 2006. Once the invasion took place, however, there is little doubt that American intelligence, military targeting and logistical support was provided to Ethiopia, and U.S. forces conducted at least two direct strikes of their own against Somali insurgents – the first in January, the second in June 2007.
The U.S. is now directly involved in assisting Ethiopian anti-insurgency campaigns in Somalia. This has reduced (if not entirely removed) the possibility of playing the mediation role it has assumed between Ethiopia and Eritrea at least since the outbreak of the 1998-2000 war. Mediation is not what is needed at this point, however; it is an immediate private but unmistakable message to Addis Ababa that Washington would have no sympathy for a stage-managed coup against the Eritrean regime or any military action to resolve the border stalemate unilaterally and would take strong diplomatic and economic counter-measures such as would put the entire bilateral relationship at stake should such actions be attempted.
2. The UN Security Council
The UN role in resolving the conflict has been gradually eroded, both by the actions of the parties and by the Security Council’s own lack of action. The peacekeeping force patrolling the border, UNMEE, has been reduced to a fraction of its former size. A force that was 4,150 strong in August 2001 today has just 1,688 troops on the ground, who are severely restricted in what they can do by Eritrea and indeed have been systematically humiliated. Ethiopia, though more careful in its relations with UNMEE, has also done little to enhance its standing.
The then-Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, told the Security Council in December 2006 that the status quo for UNMEE was unacceptable and confronted it with four options:
reduce the size of the force from 2,300 to 1,700 and reduce its monitoring patrols;
again reduce force size to 1,700 and reduce patrols but also move the headquarters from Asmara to the Ethiopian side of the border, with only a liaison office in Eritrea;
transform UNMEE into an observer mission with a smaller military protection force of around 800;
reduce the force to a small military liaison mission of 30 to 40.
The Council selected the first option, leaving UNMEE with full responsibilities but too few troops and other staff to work effectively. Time and again, when confronted with insults to its peacekeepers or the flouting of its resolutions – by Ethiopia with regard to the Boundary Commission ruling, by Eritrea with regard to UNMEE – the Council has failed to act. The pattern goes back to the beginning of the UNMEE mandate. The Cessation of Hostilities Agreement of 18 June 2000 (incorporated into the Algiers agreement) specified that the TSZ was to be inviolable. Ethiopia was required to remove its troops to positions held prior to the outbreak of hostilities on 6 May 1998. Eritrea was required to move 25km north of those positions, to allow establishment of the zone. Paragraph 14 stated that:
The OAU [Organisation of African Unity] and the United Nations commit themselves to guarantee the respect for this commitment of the two Parties until the determination of the common border on the basis of pertinent treaties and applicable international law, through delimitation/demarcation and in the case of controversy, through the appropriate mechanism of arbitration. This guarantee shall comprise of:
a) measures to be taken by the international community should one or both of the Parties violate this commitment, including appropriate measures to be taken under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter by the UN Security Council.
This guarantee has never been invoked. Chapter VII, which is designed to deal with threats to peace, breaches of peace and acts of aggression, includes measures up to and including the use of force. It is unclear quite how, or indeed whether, the UN ever thought this might need to be used in the case of Ethiopia and Eritrea. By giving the guarantee and then allowing it to be flouted by both countries, however, the prestige and credibility of the Security Council has been diminished in a manner that hampers it in this and other crises.
The mistakes of the past cannot be corrected in a single stroke but the Council needs to begin by supporting publicly the confidential U.S. initiative proposed above through adoption of a resolution that contains at least three elements designed to give the parties, and in the first instance particularly Ethiopia, pause: support for the Boundary Commission decision; a request to the Commission that it continue to hold itself available to complete its task by demarcating the border; and a statement that even without such demarcation the border as found by the Commission is acknowledged as the legal boundary between the two countries and will be so regarded by the Council in its consideration of an appropriate response in the event that it is not respected by either party.
B. DE-ESCALATING THE CONFLICT
The combined effect of the above efforts should be to prevent the worst from happening in the next weeks and to gain time but it will neither resolve the immediate crisis of the border nor bring a lasting peace. To make progress on the former, it will be essential for the international community to devote new energy and determination to reviving the Algiers peace agreement. Results are unlikely to come quickly or easily but the process will require that the Security Council restate its unequivocal support for the agreement and all the measures that follow from it, including the work of the Boundary Commission and its less contentious sibling, the Claims Commissions, and call on the parties to fulfil all their undertakings to the letter and without delay.
This involves, of course, all the points on which they have been so obstinate, not only full acceptance of the Boundary Commission’s ruling but also an end to the hostile statements they regularly issue, withdrawal of troops from the TSZ, a halt to provocative and dangerous manoeuvres and troop build-ups close to the zone and unhindered UNMEE operation. Another Security Council resolution covering this all too familiar ground will have little effect, however, until the international community is clear in its collective mind what it is prepared to do to encourage the desired behaviour and make continued defiance or negative behaviour costly.
The challenge is to develop a new sense of urgency and a higher level of political will with respect to a consensus on both incentives and disincentives, through multiple and expedited consultations in the Security Council but also within the AU and the EU. The U.S. could make a vital unilateral contribution with respect to Eritrea by withdrawing its counterproductive threat to put that country on its list of state sponsors of terrorism; it could make an even more important unilateral contribution by persuading Ethiopia that it is serious about implementation of the Boundary Commission ruling and, if necessary, will both support multilateral sanctions and draw appropriate conclusions about bilateral relations if Addis Ababa remains intransigent.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon could make his own significant contribution by appointing a new Special Representative and head of UNMEE. A vigorous senior diplomat in that post, which has been vacant since April 2006 could advance some of the necessary consultations with states in the region, in the AU and further afield, as well as work with the parties to improve the conditions for peacekeeping on the ground.
C. BUILDING PEACE
Even once there is progress on the immediate border issues, peace will be fragile without a series of further steps designed to address each side’s negative preoccupations with and perceptions of the other, and to construct first normal, then genuinely positive relationships. Some of these steps are self-evident. For example, the parties will have to cease using proxy forces to damage the other, including the provision of military and financial support for rebels operating on each other’s soil, as well as stop violating the Security Council’s arms embargo on Somalia. They will need to reopen bilateral channels of communication, including embassies, so they can begin to resolve their differences through traditional diplomacy. Their regional friends and those in the wider international community will need to help, including possibly by developing political initiatives aimed at addressing some security concerns in a regional context and economic initiatives that could provide mechanisms for mutually beneficial cooperation over, for example, the port of Assab.
While some of this can only come to fruition after the immediate border conflict has been resolved, policy planning and diplomatic discussion should begin at once since the perspectives might help the parties reach the conclusion that they have much more to gain by living up to the Algiers agreement than by maintaining the crisis. Crisis Group will explore some possible longer-term political and economic initiatives in subsequent reporting.
VII. CONCLUSION
Ethiopia and Eritrea are both are ruled by narrow elites, which take all major decisions in secrecy. It is impossible to be precise, therefore, about how close to a new war they are but the signs are highly worrying and strongly suggest that one could erupt at any time, without further warning, as happened in 1998. The UN and the wider international community are preoccupied with apparently more pressing issues, including the Middle East’s multiple crises and, most recently, Myanmar/Burma. Attention to Africa’s problems is limited and sporadic, much of it understandably directed to Darfur and its ramifications. Far too little is being given to Eritrea and Ethiopia, where deadlock has characterised the situation for so long. This is a misreading of the dynamics at play, especially in November 2007, when the Boundary Commission mandate is about to terminate and the two sides are as angry as ever with each other, armed to the teeth, and within slingshot range of each other on a frontline the UN cannot cover adequately.
International indifference or mistaken confidence could cost the people of the Horn of Africa dearly, as well as destabilise an area stretching from Central Africa to the Gulf. The primary responsibility for resolving the crisis remains, of course, with the governments in Addis Ababa and Asmara. Unless and until they decide to end their years of hostility, no progress will be made. They will have to display real leadership if the impasse is to be broken. But in the next weeks they need urgent assistance to ensure that the shooting does not resume.
Nairobi/New York/Brussels, 5 November 2007
Source: International Crisis Group
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Gaza movie studio proposed for Palestine
article from: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/921285.html
Hamas plans to build US$200 million film production house in Gaza
By The Associated Press
GAZA CITY - It's a tale worthy of its own movie script: The Gaza Strip's isolated and cash-strapped Hamas rulers plan to build a $200 million media city and movie production house that will be part tourist attraction and part effort to cement control of the territory it seized by force in June.
So far, though, the Islamic militants have raised only a tiny fraction of the money it needs for its own Hollywood, at a time when the Gaza economy has ground to a standstill and its people are struggling to feed themselves because of Israeli and international sanctions against the Islamic group listed as a terror organization.
Even so, Hamas envisions a glittering facility with production and graphics studios, satellite technology, gardens, water ponds, a children's entertainment area and an array of cafes and restaurants, said the Felasteen daily, a Hamas paper.
It will even feature mock towns and villages similar to those that
Palestinians fled or were forced out after Israel's creation in 1948, the
newspaper reported, quoting Fathi Hamad, a Hamas lawmaker and head of the
project.
Hamad said the project's directors have raised $1 million - a small fraction of the $200 million price tag. He said he was confident the group could raise the rest from local donations and from Palestinians living abroad.
Hamas launched a satellite channel last year, offering bearded young men
reading the news, and Islamic music layered over footage of masked militants firing rockets into Israel. Hamas loyalists also run at least five news Web sites, two newspapers and a radio station.
Some previous Hamas productions have generated unflattering headlines. In one show last year, a high-pitched Mickey Mouse lookalike called Farfour preached Islamic domination to children. After an international outcry, Hamas had the character killed off - by an actor playing an Israel security officer.
The mouse's replacement, a bee called Nahoul, was condemned by animal rights activists after the character swung cats by their tails to demonstrate how not to treat animals.
Hamas officials did not return phone calls to shoot will be based on a novel by one of its hard-line leaders in Gaza, Mahmoud Zahar, the report said. Zahar has written seven novels, including a 1980 romance called Beautiful Woman.
A movie is also planned about Izzedine al-Qassam, an admired preacher who led a Palestinian revolt in the 1930s against the British and Jews in Palestine. Hamas' military wing is named for the charismatic leader
Hamas plans to build US$200 million film production house in Gaza
By The Associated Press
GAZA CITY - It's a tale worthy of its own movie script: The Gaza Strip's isolated and cash-strapped Hamas rulers plan to build a $200 million media city and movie production house that will be part tourist attraction and part effort to cement control of the territory it seized by force in June.
So far, though, the Islamic militants have raised only a tiny fraction of the money it needs for its own Hollywood, at a time when the Gaza economy has ground to a standstill and its people are struggling to feed themselves because of Israeli and international sanctions against the Islamic group listed as a terror organization.
Even so, Hamas envisions a glittering facility with production and graphics studios, satellite technology, gardens, water ponds, a children's entertainment area and an array of cafes and restaurants, said the Felasteen daily, a Hamas paper.
It will even feature mock towns and villages similar to those that
Palestinians fled or were forced out after Israel's creation in 1948, the
newspaper reported, quoting Fathi Hamad, a Hamas lawmaker and head of the
project.
Hamad said the project's directors have raised $1 million - a small fraction of the $200 million price tag. He said he was confident the group could raise the rest from local donations and from Palestinians living abroad.
Hamas launched a satellite channel last year, offering bearded young men
reading the news, and Islamic music layered over footage of masked militants firing rockets into Israel. Hamas loyalists also run at least five news Web sites, two newspapers and a radio station.
Some previous Hamas productions have generated unflattering headlines. In one show last year, a high-pitched Mickey Mouse lookalike called Farfour preached Islamic domination to children. After an international outcry, Hamas had the character killed off - by an actor playing an Israel security officer.
The mouse's replacement, a bee called Nahoul, was condemned by animal rights activists after the character swung cats by their tails to demonstrate how not to treat animals.
Hamas officials did not return phone calls to shoot will be based on a novel by one of its hard-line leaders in Gaza, Mahmoud Zahar, the report said. Zahar has written seven novels, including a 1980 romance called Beautiful Woman.
A movie is also planned about Izzedine al-Qassam, an admired preacher who led a Palestinian revolt in the 1930s against the British and Jews in Palestine. Hamas' military wing is named for the charismatic leader
Friday, November 02, 2007
Solar Power 101 - Solar Energy Investing Basics
article from:
SustainableIndustries.com
Industry experts analyze the sea of solar investments
Solar tip sheetby Amy Westervelt - 11.2.07
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the first cleantech sector to mature, the solar industry is entering a new phase filled with public stock offerings, mergers and acquisitions, and profitable businesses. However, analysts and industry players warn that solar still has some growing to do in order to bring prices in line with traditional energy resources (or “reach grid parity” in industry-speak) without the help of subsidies.
The solar industry has successfully commercialized residential, commercial and even utility scale products, making it attractive to venture investors looking for a safe bet as they arrive on the scene of the cleantech investment race.
For those eager to invest in solar in 2008, Sustainable Industries spoke with industry experts and analysts about what to watch for as solar hits its zenith.
Market trends
According to Tim Woodward, managing director of San Francisco-based Nth Power — one of the first venture firms to invest in solar more than 10 years ago — the public market for solar is now close to saturated. Solar companies began going public in a big way in 2005, most notably with the storied initial public offering (IPO) of SunPower (Nasdaq: SPWR), during which the company’s stock jumped 41 percent on the first day, prompting comparisons to dot-com IPOs. Solar companies have continued to go public with far less fanfare in the years and months since.
Solar companies looking to go public now need to be offering a unique product or service in order to differentiate themselves enough to pique investor interest, says Woodward. That wisdom goes for American venture-backed startups, as well as the large number of Chinese solar manufacturers gaining traction in the market. Meanwhile, the consolidation of the solar market, which analysts have been predicting for the last two years, finally began with SunPower’s acquisition of PowerLight in January 2007. The trend is likely to continue, with more solar mergers and acquisitions rumored for late 2007 and beyond.
Many mergers in 2006 were driven by a silicon shortage, as larger companies bought up small or struggling companies in order to secure access to more silicon. Now, consolidation is characterized by larger energy companies buying into the solar market, or by companies that are strong in one area of the value chain buying into another, as manufacturer SunPower did when it acquired installation and service provider PowerLight. Which is not to say the silicon shortage or its effects are over, despite reports to the contrary. “The biggest short-term problem for the solar industry remains silicon supply and pricing,” Woodward says, adding that, as more supply comes online, it is being consumed by the increasing demand for solar, which has resulted in costs not coming down as quickly as people thought they might.
Continental drift
The $75 million, 11-megawatt solar system in Serpa, Portugal, designed by SunPower, tracks the sun's movement across the sky. Courtesy SunPower Corp.
To the surprise of some West Coast residents, the majority of solar demand continues to be driven by the European market, where subsidy programs are lucrative and straightforward. In the United States — even in California, which has what Woodward calls a “fantastic” incentive program — customers and solar providers have to deal with large amounts of paperwork and headaches to cash in on credits.
In Europe the process has been streamlined, making solar far easier and more popular. Tom McCalmont, CEO of REgrid Power and president of Solar Tech, a Silicon Valley-based consortium of solar companies, says customers in California fill out 40-odd pages of forms and wait several months to redeem their credits for installing solar power — a stark contrast to Germany, where the form is a single page that is processed almost immediately. The European market is also attractive to American manufacturers, which can sell panels and installation services for euros, and favorably exchange the currency for U.S. dollars.
In the not-so-distant past, the combination of a favorable exchange rate and a booming market made Europe so attractive to solar exporters that the U.S. market was suffering from a supply shortage, according to Woodward. “Panels can be shipped to Europe easily, so you’ll ship to Europe until you fulfill that demand because you get a premium over there,” he says, adding that more suppliers and favorable policies in states such as California and New Jersey have helped ease the supply problem.
Nerds of a feather
The incentive programs in California, Washington, New Jersey and other states have been at least partially helped along by a variety of industry associations that have sprouted up as the solar industry matures. In Washington, D.C., the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) lobbies for national policies that are favorable to the solar industry; the Solar Alliance was recently formed in Boulder, Colo.; and in 2006 Silicon Valley-based companies, including SunPower (Nasdaq: SPWR), REgrid, Pacific Gas & Electric (NYSE: PGE), Miasolé and SolFocus, joined together to form Solar Tech and work toward establishing the Silicon Valley as the center of the U.S. solar industry.
All three groups work essentially toward the same goals: straightforward incentive programs, national net metering (it’s currently only legal for customers to sell excess power back to the local utility in 38 states) and federal interconnection legislation (connecting a solar installation to the grid can currently take up to several weeks). Solar Tech is also working on setting up training programs and installation standards to drive down the costs associated with installation, which industry experts agree is one of the primary areas where solar costs can and should be reduced.
Solar Tech founder McCalmont says his group and others in the industry are also lobbying Congress to eliminate a $2,000 cap on tax incentives for residential solar projects and to provide federal incentives to companies that manufacture solar panels in the United States. “The manufacturing process for solar is automated, so you don’t have to go with a Chinese manufacturing plant to save on labor costs,” McCalmont points out. “Companies manufacture elsewhere because other companies offer them incentives that the U.S. government does not provide.”
As has been the case with several policies in the current administration, a number of state legislatures, predominantly in the West (with the exception of New Jersey) have taken incentive issues into their own hands.
While federal incentives that can be universally applied and easily accessed by both individuals and businesses are the ultimate goal, state programs are helping to fill the void until such policies are put in place. California’s SB1 established a 10-year, $3.3 billion incentive program that, combined with the state’s renewable portfolio standard (RPS), sends a clear signal to investors that the solar market in California is here to stay. The policy helped to increase both venture capital investments in California solar startups and corporate and individual investments in solar systems.
Utility scale solar projects are a key piece of the industry's growth, fueling investments in system and component manufacturers.
Oregon’s Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC) and recently passed RPS have spurred solarindustry growth in the state and helped it to attract what is slated to be America’s largest solarmanufacturing plant, Germany-based SolarWorld’s planned 500-megawatt facility, to Hillsboro. SolarWorld executives cited BETC and Oregon’s skilled labor pool as primary incentives for locating its plant in the state [see “SolarWorld plant brightens Oregon,” SI, April 2007].
The state of Washington passed two solar incentive laws in 2005. Senate Bills 5101 and 5111 provide, respectively, a base credit of 15 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated from photovoltaic (PV) systems to residences and business, and a 40 percent reduction of the state’s business and occupation tax for manufacturers and wholesale marketers of solar PV modules or silicon components of those systems [see “Washington: the new Sunshine State?”, SI, February 2006].
Unlike incentive programs in California, New Jersey and Oregon, which pay based on system size, Washington’s utilities pay solar-energy-producing individuals and companies for the actual output from their systems. If a system under-performs or breaks down, the owner doesn’t get paid. The hope is that the law will promote careful installation have worked to retain existing Washington-based manufacturers and even to encourage some expansion: Moses Lake-based Renewable Energy Corporation broke ground on a new polysilicon plant in 2006, and Vancouver, B.C.-based Xantrex Technologies is considering expanding its Arlington, Wash., inverter plant. But to date, they have yet to attract new manufacturers to the state. In addition to state incentive programs, the Western Governors Association officially made increasing renewable energy production a goal for western states in 2006.
In 2007, the governors of Arizona, California, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Washington set up a regional system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. Should state programs and Solar Tech’s efforts succeed in creating national incentives, there could be an increase in solar-manufacturing companies stateside.
But they will continue to encounter stiff competition, particularly from China, where solar manufacturing companies have succeeded in penetrating the global solar market over the past two years. “No one is pointing to Chinese manufacturing companies as cutting-edge innovators, but they are providing low-cost manufacturing,” Woodward says.
Solar Power Investing Site
SustainableIndustries.com
Industry experts analyze the sea of solar investments
Solar tip sheetby Amy Westervelt - 11.2.07
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the first cleantech sector to mature, the solar industry is entering a new phase filled with public stock offerings, mergers and acquisitions, and profitable businesses. However, analysts and industry players warn that solar still has some growing to do in order to bring prices in line with traditional energy resources (or “reach grid parity” in industry-speak) without the help of subsidies.
The solar industry has successfully commercialized residential, commercial and even utility scale products, making it attractive to venture investors looking for a safe bet as they arrive on the scene of the cleantech investment race.
For those eager to invest in solar in 2008, Sustainable Industries spoke with industry experts and analysts about what to watch for as solar hits its zenith.
Market trends
According to Tim Woodward, managing director of San Francisco-based Nth Power — one of the first venture firms to invest in solar more than 10 years ago — the public market for solar is now close to saturated. Solar companies began going public in a big way in 2005, most notably with the storied initial public offering (IPO) of SunPower (Nasdaq: SPWR), during which the company’s stock jumped 41 percent on the first day, prompting comparisons to dot-com IPOs. Solar companies have continued to go public with far less fanfare in the years and months since.
Solar companies looking to go public now need to be offering a unique product or service in order to differentiate themselves enough to pique investor interest, says Woodward. That wisdom goes for American venture-backed startups, as well as the large number of Chinese solar manufacturers gaining traction in the market. Meanwhile, the consolidation of the solar market, which analysts have been predicting for the last two years, finally began with SunPower’s acquisition of PowerLight in January 2007. The trend is likely to continue, with more solar mergers and acquisitions rumored for late 2007 and beyond.
Many mergers in 2006 were driven by a silicon shortage, as larger companies bought up small or struggling companies in order to secure access to more silicon. Now, consolidation is characterized by larger energy companies buying into the solar market, or by companies that are strong in one area of the value chain buying into another, as manufacturer SunPower did when it acquired installation and service provider PowerLight. Which is not to say the silicon shortage or its effects are over, despite reports to the contrary. “The biggest short-term problem for the solar industry remains silicon supply and pricing,” Woodward says, adding that, as more supply comes online, it is being consumed by the increasing demand for solar, which has resulted in costs not coming down as quickly as people thought they might.
Continental drift
The $75 million, 11-megawatt solar system in Serpa, Portugal, designed by SunPower, tracks the sun's movement across the sky. Courtesy SunPower Corp.
To the surprise of some West Coast residents, the majority of solar demand continues to be driven by the European market, where subsidy programs are lucrative and straightforward. In the United States — even in California, which has what Woodward calls a “fantastic” incentive program — customers and solar providers have to deal with large amounts of paperwork and headaches to cash in on credits.
In Europe the process has been streamlined, making solar far easier and more popular. Tom McCalmont, CEO of REgrid Power and president of Solar Tech, a Silicon Valley-based consortium of solar companies, says customers in California fill out 40-odd pages of forms and wait several months to redeem their credits for installing solar power — a stark contrast to Germany, where the form is a single page that is processed almost immediately. The European market is also attractive to American manufacturers, which can sell panels and installation services for euros, and favorably exchange the currency for U.S. dollars.
In the not-so-distant past, the combination of a favorable exchange rate and a booming market made Europe so attractive to solar exporters that the U.S. market was suffering from a supply shortage, according to Woodward. “Panels can be shipped to Europe easily, so you’ll ship to Europe until you fulfill that demand because you get a premium over there,” he says, adding that more suppliers and favorable policies in states such as California and New Jersey have helped ease the supply problem.
Nerds of a feather
The incentive programs in California, Washington, New Jersey and other states have been at least partially helped along by a variety of industry associations that have sprouted up as the solar industry matures. In Washington, D.C., the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) lobbies for national policies that are favorable to the solar industry; the Solar Alliance was recently formed in Boulder, Colo.; and in 2006 Silicon Valley-based companies, including SunPower (Nasdaq: SPWR), REgrid, Pacific Gas & Electric (NYSE: PGE), Miasolé and SolFocus, joined together to form Solar Tech and work toward establishing the Silicon Valley as the center of the U.S. solar industry.
All three groups work essentially toward the same goals: straightforward incentive programs, national net metering (it’s currently only legal for customers to sell excess power back to the local utility in 38 states) and federal interconnection legislation (connecting a solar installation to the grid can currently take up to several weeks). Solar Tech is also working on setting up training programs and installation standards to drive down the costs associated with installation, which industry experts agree is one of the primary areas where solar costs can and should be reduced.
Solar Tech founder McCalmont says his group and others in the industry are also lobbying Congress to eliminate a $2,000 cap on tax incentives for residential solar projects and to provide federal incentives to companies that manufacture solar panels in the United States. “The manufacturing process for solar is automated, so you don’t have to go with a Chinese manufacturing plant to save on labor costs,” McCalmont points out. “Companies manufacture elsewhere because other companies offer them incentives that the U.S. government does not provide.”
As has been the case with several policies in the current administration, a number of state legislatures, predominantly in the West (with the exception of New Jersey) have taken incentive issues into their own hands.
While federal incentives that can be universally applied and easily accessed by both individuals and businesses are the ultimate goal, state programs are helping to fill the void until such policies are put in place. California’s SB1 established a 10-year, $3.3 billion incentive program that, combined with the state’s renewable portfolio standard (RPS), sends a clear signal to investors that the solar market in California is here to stay. The policy helped to increase both venture capital investments in California solar startups and corporate and individual investments in solar systems.
Utility scale solar projects are a key piece of the industry's growth, fueling investments in system and component manufacturers.
Oregon’s Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC) and recently passed RPS have spurred solarindustry growth in the state and helped it to attract what is slated to be America’s largest solarmanufacturing plant, Germany-based SolarWorld’s planned 500-megawatt facility, to Hillsboro. SolarWorld executives cited BETC and Oregon’s skilled labor pool as primary incentives for locating its plant in the state [see “SolarWorld plant brightens Oregon,” SI, April 2007].
The state of Washington passed two solar incentive laws in 2005. Senate Bills 5101 and 5111 provide, respectively, a base credit of 15 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated from photovoltaic (PV) systems to residences and business, and a 40 percent reduction of the state’s business and occupation tax for manufacturers and wholesale marketers of solar PV modules or silicon components of those systems [see “Washington: the new Sunshine State?”, SI, February 2006].
Unlike incentive programs in California, New Jersey and Oregon, which pay based on system size, Washington’s utilities pay solar-energy-producing individuals and companies for the actual output from their systems. If a system under-performs or breaks down, the owner doesn’t get paid. The hope is that the law will promote careful installation have worked to retain existing Washington-based manufacturers and even to encourage some expansion: Moses Lake-based Renewable Energy Corporation broke ground on a new polysilicon plant in 2006, and Vancouver, B.C.-based Xantrex Technologies is considering expanding its Arlington, Wash., inverter plant. But to date, they have yet to attract new manufacturers to the state. In addition to state incentive programs, the Western Governors Association officially made increasing renewable energy production a goal for western states in 2006.
In 2007, the governors of Arizona, California, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Washington set up a regional system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. Should state programs and Solar Tech’s efforts succeed in creating national incentives, there could be an increase in solar-manufacturing companies stateside.
But they will continue to encounter stiff competition, particularly from China, where solar manufacturing companies have succeeded in penetrating the global solar market over the past two years. “No one is pointing to Chinese manufacturing companies as cutting-edge innovators, but they are providing low-cost manufacturing,” Woodward says.
Solar Power Investing Site
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
