China 'concerned', Australia backs Kosovo split
AFP, Feb. 17, 2008
PARIS (AFP) - Australia on Monday became the lastest nation to welcome Kosovo's declaration of independence, joining the United States and several European powers, despite fierce objections from Serbia and Russia.
But China was among countries unhappy with Kosovo's breakaway from Serbia, declaring it was "deeply concerned" about the future of peace in the region.
"The unilateral approach by Kosovo may cause a series of consequences and lead to severe negative influences on the peace and stability of the Balkan region," foreign ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said in a statement.
"China expresses deep concern about this."
Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said diplomatic recognition of the new state would be offered soon.
"We've already indicated to our diplomatic representatives around the world that this (independence) would be an appropriate course of action," Rudd told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
Russia angrily condemned Kosovo's announcement, and called an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council late Sunday to discuss the issue.
But it failed to get backing for its call to declare "null and void" the decision by Kosovo's Albanian majority on Sunday to break away.
Russia has been Serbia's strongest backer in opposing Kosovo's independence, which President Vladimir Putin said last week would be "idiotic and illegal."
The United States, Britain, France, Germany and Italy have all indicated that their formal recognition will come on Monday.
Those countries around the world with separatist problems however -- from Spain to Sri Lanka -- have expressed concern at Kosovo's split.
The United States and most European nations gave a cautious initial reaction to the independence declaration ahead of a crucial EU foreign ministers' meeting in Brussels on Monday.
But even as the international community called for calm, rioting broke out on the streets of Belgrade, and grenades were thrown at EU and UN buildings in the northern Kosovo town of Mitrovica late Sunday.
US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the United States "calls on all parties to exert utmost restraint and to refrain from any provocative act."
A significant minority in the 27-nation EU -- Cyprus, Greece, Romania, Slovakia and Spain -- oppose recognising Kosovo. Others like Malta and Portugal would prefer Kosovo's future be decided at the UN Security Council.
Czech President Vaclav Klaus warned that Kosovo's independence could unleash a domino affect in Europe.
"Some parties in other states could realise that they do not feel completely at ease within a big state in which they are now," he said in a television interview.
As if on cue, the breakaway Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia immediately seized on Kosovo's break, saying they would ask Russia and the UN to recognise their independence, Russia's Interfax news agency reported.
"In the near future Abkhazia will appeal to the Russian parliament and the UN Security Council with a request to recognise its independence," self-declared Abkhaz President Sergei Bagapsh was quoted as saying by Interfax.
South Ossetian President Eduard Kokoity made a similar appeal.
Some states see Kosovo as setting a dangerous precedent for other separatist movements. Cyprus is already split, with a Turkey-recognised statelet in the north. Spain has long struggled with radical Basque nationalists.
And the Sri Lankan government, which is battling separatist Tamil Tiger rebels, warned Kosovo's declaration could set an "unmanageable precedent" and was a violation of the United Nations charter.
The foreign ministry said it "could set an unmanageable precedent in the conduct of international relations, the established global order of sovereign states and could thus pose a grave threat to international peace and security."
Others are reluctant to recognise Kosovo because of their close ties to Serbia.
Slovakia said Sunday it would not recognise independence for the time being. Romania, which is traditionally close to Serbia, said its opposition was unchanged.
There is also anxiety on Kosovo's borders. Macedonia, which has a significant ethnic Albanian minority, said it was closely watching events.
Government spokesman Ivica Bocevski told AFP: "Whatever decision we are going to take, we will take care of the interests of our citizens, as well as the state and national interests of Macedonia."
Ethnic Albanians account for around 25 percent of Macedonia's two-million population. In 2001, the government and ethnic Albanian rebels waged a brief fight mostly in the northern and western parts of the country.
burs/jj/tha
Showing posts with label Australia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Australia. Show all posts
Bush Ally Defeated in Australia
By TIM JOHNSTON, New York Times, Nov. 25, 2007
SYDNEY, Australia, Nov. 24 — Australia’s prime minister, John Howard, one of President Bush’s staunchest allies in Asia, suffered a comprehensive defeat at the hands of the electorate on Saturday, as his Liberal Party-led coalition lost its majority in Parliament.
He will be replaced by Kevin Rudd, the Labor Party leader and a former diplomat. “Today Australia looks to the future,” Mr. Rudd told a cheering crowd in his home state of Queensland. “Today the Australian people have decided that we as a nation will move forward.”
Mr. Howard’s defeat, after 11 years in power, follows that of José María Aznar of Spain, who also backed the United States-led invasion of Iraq, and political setbacks for Tony Blair of Britain.
Mr. Howard conceded nearly two hours after the last polling booths closed in the west of the country.
“A few moments ago I telephoned Mr. Kevin Rudd and I congratulated him and the Australian Labor Party on a very emphatic victory,” Mr. Howard told a roomful of emotional supporters.
“I leave the office of prime minister with our country prouder, stronger and more prosperous than ever,” he said.
Returns for a small number of seats are yet to be compiled, but analysts estimate that over all the Labor Party gained 28 seats to win a comfortable 22-seat majority in the 150-seat lower house of Parliament, where governments are formed. Official results are expected within the next day or two.
Mr. Howard may suffer the indignity of losing his own seat in the Sydney suburb of Bennelong, which he has held for 33 years, to a former television anchor and rookie politician. He would be the first sitting prime minister to lose his seat since 1929.
It was a bruising campaign, and the Liberal Party has said it will challenge some results on the grounds that the Labor candidates had broken electoral law by failing to resign from government jobs before running for office. The Labor Party said it had broken no laws.
Mr. Rudd, 50, campaigned on a platform of new leadership to address broad concerns about the environment, health and education. He has said his first acts as prime minister would include pushing for the ratification of the Kyoto agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and negotiating the withdrawal of Australia’s 500 troops from Iraq.
Analysts said the leadership change was unlikely to bring a radically new foreign policy, although they expected a shift in emphasis in the relationship with the United States, Australia’s closest ally. “Australia will remain a close ally of the United States, and Rudd remains committed to the alliance,” said Michael Fullilove, of the Lowy Institute for International Policy in Sydney. But he noted that “if there is a Democratic administration elected next year, to some extent they would become closer.”
Mr. Howard has a strong personal relationship with Mr. Bush that is based on a similar socially conservative philosophy and a shared outlook on terrorism.
Australian opinion polls have shown that although Australians remain strong supporters of the so-called Anzus alliance — the security pact among Australia, New Zealand and the United States — they do not approve of Mr. Bush or the Iraq war.
The attempts by Mr. Howard’s coalition to stress its economic record apparently failed to impress voters. The Australian economy has had 17 years of continuous growth, lately driven by Chinese demand for Australian iron ore and coal. Mr. Howard had warned voters that a Labor victory would endanger the country’s prosperity.
But despite the coalition campaign, there was little distance between the two parties on economic policy, and the defining characteristics came down to the personalities of the leaders. In addition, Mr. Howard was running for a historic fifth term in office, and many voters said they were ready for a change.
“Howard is out of touch,” said George Varvaressos, 52, who voted in eastern Sydney on Saturday morning. “It’s the arrogance of being in power for too long — he hasn’t been listening.”
If Australia’s strongest military and political alliance is with Washington, the fuel for its economy is coming from China. Mr. Fullilove says Mr. Rudd’s ability to manage the relationship between Canberra, Washington and Beijing would be crucial.
Mr. Rudd, 18 years younger than Mr. Howard, has a reputation as a cerebral student of policy, as opposed to the Liberal leader’s image of a hardened and aggressive political animal.
“He seems more personable, approachable. He doesn’t seem arrogant — yet — and I have respect for him,” said Marcelle Freiman, who voted for Mr. Rudd in eastern Sydney on Saturday.
Mr. Rudd’s dry image was altered by the news that he had visited a strip club during a trip to New York in 2003.
He served as a diplomat in Beijing and speaks Mandarin. He impressed many with a fluent address to Chinese President Hu Jintao when Mr. Hu visited Australia in September.
Mr. Fullilove said Mr. Rudd’s experience regarding China is unlikely to make a significant difference to Australia’s relationship with the United States. “I would counsel against people assuming that because Kevin Rudd speaks Mandarin there would be a big rebalancing of the relationship in favor of Beijing,” he said.
SYDNEY, Australia, Nov. 24 — Australia’s prime minister, John Howard, one of President Bush’s staunchest allies in Asia, suffered a comprehensive defeat at the hands of the electorate on Saturday, as his Liberal Party-led coalition lost its majority in Parliament.
He will be replaced by Kevin Rudd, the Labor Party leader and a former diplomat. “Today Australia looks to the future,” Mr. Rudd told a cheering crowd in his home state of Queensland. “Today the Australian people have decided that we as a nation will move forward.”
Mr. Howard’s defeat, after 11 years in power, follows that of José María Aznar of Spain, who also backed the United States-led invasion of Iraq, and political setbacks for Tony Blair of Britain.
Mr. Howard conceded nearly two hours after the last polling booths closed in the west of the country.
“A few moments ago I telephoned Mr. Kevin Rudd and I congratulated him and the Australian Labor Party on a very emphatic victory,” Mr. Howard told a roomful of emotional supporters.
“I leave the office of prime minister with our country prouder, stronger and more prosperous than ever,” he said.
Returns for a small number of seats are yet to be compiled, but analysts estimate that over all the Labor Party gained 28 seats to win a comfortable 22-seat majority in the 150-seat lower house of Parliament, where governments are formed. Official results are expected within the next day or two.
Mr. Howard may suffer the indignity of losing his own seat in the Sydney suburb of Bennelong, which he has held for 33 years, to a former television anchor and rookie politician. He would be the first sitting prime minister to lose his seat since 1929.
It was a bruising campaign, and the Liberal Party has said it will challenge some results on the grounds that the Labor candidates had broken electoral law by failing to resign from government jobs before running for office. The Labor Party said it had broken no laws.
Mr. Rudd, 50, campaigned on a platform of new leadership to address broad concerns about the environment, health and education. He has said his first acts as prime minister would include pushing for the ratification of the Kyoto agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and negotiating the withdrawal of Australia’s 500 troops from Iraq.
Analysts said the leadership change was unlikely to bring a radically new foreign policy, although they expected a shift in emphasis in the relationship with the United States, Australia’s closest ally. “Australia will remain a close ally of the United States, and Rudd remains committed to the alliance,” said Michael Fullilove, of the Lowy Institute for International Policy in Sydney. But he noted that “if there is a Democratic administration elected next year, to some extent they would become closer.”
Mr. Howard has a strong personal relationship with Mr. Bush that is based on a similar socially conservative philosophy and a shared outlook on terrorism.
Australian opinion polls have shown that although Australians remain strong supporters of the so-called Anzus alliance — the security pact among Australia, New Zealand and the United States — they do not approve of Mr. Bush or the Iraq war.
The attempts by Mr. Howard’s coalition to stress its economic record apparently failed to impress voters. The Australian economy has had 17 years of continuous growth, lately driven by Chinese demand for Australian iron ore and coal. Mr. Howard had warned voters that a Labor victory would endanger the country’s prosperity.
But despite the coalition campaign, there was little distance between the two parties on economic policy, and the defining characteristics came down to the personalities of the leaders. In addition, Mr. Howard was running for a historic fifth term in office, and many voters said they were ready for a change.
“Howard is out of touch,” said George Varvaressos, 52, who voted in eastern Sydney on Saturday morning. “It’s the arrogance of being in power for too long — he hasn’t been listening.”
If Australia’s strongest military and political alliance is with Washington, the fuel for its economy is coming from China. Mr. Fullilove says Mr. Rudd’s ability to manage the relationship between Canberra, Washington and Beijing would be crucial.
Mr. Rudd, 18 years younger than Mr. Howard, has a reputation as a cerebral student of policy, as opposed to the Liberal leader’s image of a hardened and aggressive political animal.
“He seems more personable, approachable. He doesn’t seem arrogant — yet — and I have respect for him,” said Marcelle Freiman, who voted for Mr. Rudd in eastern Sydney on Saturday.
Mr. Rudd’s dry image was altered by the news that he had visited a strip club during a trip to New York in 2003.
He served as a diplomat in Beijing and speaks Mandarin. He impressed many with a fluent address to Chinese President Hu Jintao when Mr. Hu visited Australia in September.
Mr. Fullilove said Mr. Rudd’s experience regarding China is unlikely to make a significant difference to Australia’s relationship with the United States. “I would counsel against people assuming that because Kevin Rudd speaks Mandarin there would be a big rebalancing of the relationship in favor of Beijing,” he said.
Jubilation as UN Adopts Historic Statement on Native Rights
Haider Rizvi, OneWorld US, Sept. 14, 2007
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 13 (OneWorld) - Despite strong objections from the United States and some of its allies, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution Thursday calling for the recognition of the world's 370 million indigenous peoples' right to self-determination and control over their lands and resources.
The adoption of the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples comes after 22 years of diplomatic negotiations at the United Nations involving its member states, international civil society groups, and representatives of the world's aboriginal communities.
An overwhelming majority of UN member countries endorsed the Declaration, with 143 voting in favor, 4 against, and 11 abstaining.
The United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand stood alone in voting against the resolution. The nations that neither supported nor objected were Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burundi, Colombia, Georgia, Kenya, Nigeria, Russia, Samoa, and Ukraine.
"It's a triumph for indigenous peoples around the world," said UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon after the General Assembly vote. "This marks a historic moment when member states and indigenous peoples have reconciled with their painful histories."
In her comments, General Assembly President Haya Al Khalifa described the outcome of the vote as a "major step forward towards the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all."
Pleased with the General Assembly's decision, indigenous leaders told OneWorld they wanted the declaration to be adopted by consensus, but since certain countries remained unwilling to recognize their rights until the end, a majority vote was the only possible option left.
"If a few states do not accept the declaration, then it would be a reflection on them rather than the document," said Les Malezer, an aboriginal leader from Australia, before the resolution was presented to the General Assembly.
Before the vote many indigenous leaders accused the United States and Canada of pressuring economically weak and vulnerable nations to reject calls for the Declaration's adoption. Initially, some African countries were also reluctant to vote in favor, but later changed their position after the indigenous leadership accepted their demand to introduce certain amendments in the text.
The Declaration emphasizes the rights of indigenous peoples to maintain and strengthen their institutions, cultures, and traditions and pursue their development in keeping with their own needs and aspirations.
It also calls for recognition of the indigenous peoples' right to self-determination, a principle fully recognized by the Geneva-based Human Rights Council, but deemed controversial by the United States and some of its allies who fear that it could undermine their rights to rule over all their current territory.
In return for their support, the African countries wanted the declaration to mention that it does not encourage any actions that would undermine the "territorial integrity" or "political unity" of sovereign states.
Though the African viewpoint was incorporated into the final version, the Declaration remains assertive of indigenous peoples' right to self-determination and control over their land and resources.
"It is subject to interpretation, but we can work with this," Malezer said last week.
Thursday, Malezer and his colleagues in the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues described the world body's decision as "a major victory."
"The 13th of September 2007 will be remembered as an international human rights day for the indigenous peoples of the world," said Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, chairperson of the Permanent Forum, in an emotional tone filled with joy.
International civil society groups working for the rights of indigenous peoples also expressed extreme pleasure with Thursday's vote.
"We are really very happy and thrilled to hear about the adoption of the Declaration," said Botswana Bushman Jumanda Gakelebone of First People of the Kalahari, who works with the independent advocacy group Survival International.
"It recognizes that governments can no longer treat us as second-class citizens, and it gives protection to tribal peoples so that they will not be thrown off their lands like we were," Gakelebone added in a statement.
Survival's director Stephen Corry said he hoped the declaration would raise international standards in the same way the Universal Declaration of Human Rights did nearly 60 years ago.
"It sets a benchmark by which the treatment of tribal and indigenous peoples can be judged, and we hope it will usher in an era in which abuse of their rights is no longer tolerated," he added.
Vivian Stromberg, executive director of the New York-based rights group MADRE, said Thursday that the Declaration's passage "will signal a major shift in the landscape of international human rights law, in which the collective rights of indigenous peoples will finally be recognized and defended."
At the UN, indigenous leaders, however, cautioned against a possible gap between rhetoric and effective implementation of the Declaration.
"It will be the test of commitment of states and the whole international community to protect, respect, and fulfill indigenous peoples' collective and individual human rights," Tauli-Corpuz said.
"I call on governments, the UN system, indigenous peoples, and civil society at large to rise to the historic task before us and make the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples a living document for the common future of humanity," she said in a statement.
Though pleased with the General Assembly's decision, some indigenous leaders seemed unhappy that the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand did not accept the Declaration.
"Canada has shown its true colors on our human rights," Arthur Manuel, a leader of Canada's indigenous peoples, told OneWorld.
Those in opposition have said the Declaration is "flawed," mainly because of its strong emphasis on the right to indigenous self-determination and full control over lands and resources. In their view, these clauses would hinder economic development efforts and undermine so-called "established democratic norms."
The United States has also refused to sign on to a UN treaty on biological diversity, which calls for a "fair and equitable" sharing of the benefits derived from indigenous lands by commercial enterprises.
Meanwhile, threats to indigenous lands and resources persist, say rights activists, in the form of mining, logging, toxic contamination, privatization, large-scale development projects, and the use of genetically modified seeds.
"The entire wealth of the United States, Canada, and other so-called modern states is built on the poverty and human rights violations of their indigenous peoples," said Manuel. "The international community needs to understand how hypocritical Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States are."
Recent scientific studies have repeatedly warned of devastating consequences for indigenous communities in particular as changing climates are expected to cause more floods, hurricanes, and other extreme weather events across the world.
The United States and Australia have taken particular criticism also for their refusal to join the majority of the world's nations in efforts to combat climate change.
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 13 (OneWorld) - Despite strong objections from the United States and some of its allies, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution Thursday calling for the recognition of the world's 370 million indigenous peoples' right to self-determination and control over their lands and resources.
The adoption of the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples comes after 22 years of diplomatic negotiations at the United Nations involving its member states, international civil society groups, and representatives of the world's aboriginal communities.
An overwhelming majority of UN member countries endorsed the Declaration, with 143 voting in favor, 4 against, and 11 abstaining.
The United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand stood alone in voting against the resolution. The nations that neither supported nor objected were Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burundi, Colombia, Georgia, Kenya, Nigeria, Russia, Samoa, and Ukraine.
"It's a triumph for indigenous peoples around the world," said UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon after the General Assembly vote. "This marks a historic moment when member states and indigenous peoples have reconciled with their painful histories."
In her comments, General Assembly President Haya Al Khalifa described the outcome of the vote as a "major step forward towards the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all."
Pleased with the General Assembly's decision, indigenous leaders told OneWorld they wanted the declaration to be adopted by consensus, but since certain countries remained unwilling to recognize their rights until the end, a majority vote was the only possible option left.
"If a few states do not accept the declaration, then it would be a reflection on them rather than the document," said Les Malezer, an aboriginal leader from Australia, before the resolution was presented to the General Assembly.
Before the vote many indigenous leaders accused the United States and Canada of pressuring economically weak and vulnerable nations to reject calls for the Declaration's adoption. Initially, some African countries were also reluctant to vote in favor, but later changed their position after the indigenous leadership accepted their demand to introduce certain amendments in the text.
The Declaration emphasizes the rights of indigenous peoples to maintain and strengthen their institutions, cultures, and traditions and pursue their development in keeping with their own needs and aspirations.
It also calls for recognition of the indigenous peoples' right to self-determination, a principle fully recognized by the Geneva-based Human Rights Council, but deemed controversial by the United States and some of its allies who fear that it could undermine their rights to rule over all their current territory.
In return for their support, the African countries wanted the declaration to mention that it does not encourage any actions that would undermine the "territorial integrity" or "political unity" of sovereign states.
Though the African viewpoint was incorporated into the final version, the Declaration remains assertive of indigenous peoples' right to self-determination and control over their land and resources.
"It is subject to interpretation, but we can work with this," Malezer said last week.
Thursday, Malezer and his colleagues in the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues described the world body's decision as "a major victory."
"The 13th of September 2007 will be remembered as an international human rights day for the indigenous peoples of the world," said Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, chairperson of the Permanent Forum, in an emotional tone filled with joy.
International civil society groups working for the rights of indigenous peoples also expressed extreme pleasure with Thursday's vote.
"We are really very happy and thrilled to hear about the adoption of the Declaration," said Botswana Bushman Jumanda Gakelebone of First People of the Kalahari, who works with the independent advocacy group Survival International.
"It recognizes that governments can no longer treat us as second-class citizens, and it gives protection to tribal peoples so that they will not be thrown off their lands like we were," Gakelebone added in a statement.
Survival's director Stephen Corry said he hoped the declaration would raise international standards in the same way the Universal Declaration of Human Rights did nearly 60 years ago.
"It sets a benchmark by which the treatment of tribal and indigenous peoples can be judged, and we hope it will usher in an era in which abuse of their rights is no longer tolerated," he added.
Vivian Stromberg, executive director of the New York-based rights group MADRE, said Thursday that the Declaration's passage "will signal a major shift in the landscape of international human rights law, in which the collective rights of indigenous peoples will finally be recognized and defended."
At the UN, indigenous leaders, however, cautioned against a possible gap between rhetoric and effective implementation of the Declaration.
"It will be the test of commitment of states and the whole international community to protect, respect, and fulfill indigenous peoples' collective and individual human rights," Tauli-Corpuz said.
"I call on governments, the UN system, indigenous peoples, and civil society at large to rise to the historic task before us and make the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples a living document for the common future of humanity," she said in a statement.
Though pleased with the General Assembly's decision, some indigenous leaders seemed unhappy that the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand did not accept the Declaration.
"Canada has shown its true colors on our human rights," Arthur Manuel, a leader of Canada's indigenous peoples, told OneWorld.
Those in opposition have said the Declaration is "flawed," mainly because of its strong emphasis on the right to indigenous self-determination and full control over lands and resources. In their view, these clauses would hinder economic development efforts and undermine so-called "established democratic norms."
The United States has also refused to sign on to a UN treaty on biological diversity, which calls for a "fair and equitable" sharing of the benefits derived from indigenous lands by commercial enterprises.
Meanwhile, threats to indigenous lands and resources persist, say rights activists, in the form of mining, logging, toxic contamination, privatization, large-scale development projects, and the use of genetically modified seeds.
"The entire wealth of the United States, Canada, and other so-called modern states is built on the poverty and human rights violations of their indigenous peoples," said Manuel. "The international community needs to understand how hypocritical Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States are."
Recent scientific studies have repeatedly warned of devastating consequences for indigenous communities in particular as changing climates are expected to cause more floods, hurricanes, and other extreme weather events across the world.
The United States and Australia have taken particular criticism also for their refusal to join the majority of the world's nations in efforts to combat climate change.
More countries join US-led nuclear energy programme
by Michael Adler, AFP, Sept. 16, 2007
VIENNA (AFP) - Eleven countries joined Sunday a US-led initiative to spread atomic power but not technology which can be used to make nuclear weapons.
Australia, Bulgaria, Ghana, Hungary, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Ukraine signed in Vienna a statement of principles for the programme, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP).
It called for the "the expansion of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes worldwide in a safe and secure manner."
GNEP seeks to help states get nuclear fuel, such as uranium, so they do not produce it themselves.
It also aims to promote the use of nuclear reactors that do not present proliferation risks, such as producing plutonium, and to recycle spent nuclear fuel so that plutonium can not be separated out.
Enriched uranium and plutonium can be fuel for reactors but also can be used to make nuclear weapons.
The GNEP started as a US initiative in February 2006 and had its first meeting in May this year in Washington when the United States hosted fellow members China, France, Japan and Russia.
Nuclear power is seen by many as crucial in a world where energy demand is booming since it makes electricity without adding to the greenhouse gases which cause global warming.
The United States is seeking to promote nuclear power while guarding against the danger of the spread of nuclear weapons which arises when states like Iran develop strategic technologies such as uranium enrichment, which makes nuclear reactor fuel but also atom bomb material.
The United States wants GNEP to organize countries that have secure, advanced nuclear capabilities to provide fuel to other nations which agree to use nuclear energy just for power generation.
Their compliance would be monitored by the UN watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
US Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said Sunday that GNEP had no specific projects yet.
"Our task today is to formally commit to the principles espoused by GNEP and to begin discussions with like-minded countries that seek to develop civilian nuclear power in a safe and secure manner and who, not coincidentally, have been reaching out to us," Bodman said in a speech at the GNEP meeting, which also included 22 candidate partner and observer countries.
Bodman later told reporters that GNEP is "not committed to any (one particular technology)" but is "looking at everything that is available."
"What we are attempting to do is to start looking long-term . . . how we should go about developing nuclear power on a safe and affordable basis" while protecting "against proliferation," Bodman said.
"We have a lot to do here just to get ourselves organized," he added.
Asked if the GNEP initiative was coming too late, with Iran for instance already enriching uranium, Bodman said: "It may have been better to do this 10 years ago and not now."
But "we're trying to do the best we can given the set of circumstances that confront us," Bodman said.
Joining GNEP does not entail obligations, such as giving up the right to enrich uranium, the US energy secretary said.
Dennis Spurgeon, assistant secretary for nuclear energy, said "the idea behind GNEP is countries voluntarily coming together for a common good."
GNEP is "not supplanting the IAEA in terms of safeguards. We'll need them more than ever," Spurgeon said.
IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei told the GNEP meeting that the program is "a major initiative that is badly needed and is very timely."
"We need energy because again without development there is misery, there is conflict, there is war," ElBaradei said.
Some of the new countries, like Lithuania and Poland, a strong coal user, do not yet have nuclear power but want to develop it.
Polish Economy Minister Piotr Wozniak said his nation wanted to "change our energy mix."
VIENNA (AFP) - Eleven countries joined Sunday a US-led initiative to spread atomic power but not technology which can be used to make nuclear weapons.
Australia, Bulgaria, Ghana, Hungary, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Ukraine signed in Vienna a statement of principles for the programme, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP).
It called for the "the expansion of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes worldwide in a safe and secure manner."
GNEP seeks to help states get nuclear fuel, such as uranium, so they do not produce it themselves.
It also aims to promote the use of nuclear reactors that do not present proliferation risks, such as producing plutonium, and to recycle spent nuclear fuel so that plutonium can not be separated out.
Enriched uranium and plutonium can be fuel for reactors but also can be used to make nuclear weapons.
The GNEP started as a US initiative in February 2006 and had its first meeting in May this year in Washington when the United States hosted fellow members China, France, Japan and Russia.
Nuclear power is seen by many as crucial in a world where energy demand is booming since it makes electricity without adding to the greenhouse gases which cause global warming.
The United States is seeking to promote nuclear power while guarding against the danger of the spread of nuclear weapons which arises when states like Iran develop strategic technologies such as uranium enrichment, which makes nuclear reactor fuel but also atom bomb material.
The United States wants GNEP to organize countries that have secure, advanced nuclear capabilities to provide fuel to other nations which agree to use nuclear energy just for power generation.
Their compliance would be monitored by the UN watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
US Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said Sunday that GNEP had no specific projects yet.
"Our task today is to formally commit to the principles espoused by GNEP and to begin discussions with like-minded countries that seek to develop civilian nuclear power in a safe and secure manner and who, not coincidentally, have been reaching out to us," Bodman said in a speech at the GNEP meeting, which also included 22 candidate partner and observer countries.
Bodman later told reporters that GNEP is "not committed to any (one particular technology)" but is "looking at everything that is available."
"What we are attempting to do is to start looking long-term . . . how we should go about developing nuclear power on a safe and affordable basis" while protecting "against proliferation," Bodman said.
"We have a lot to do here just to get ourselves organized," he added.
Asked if the GNEP initiative was coming too late, with Iran for instance already enriching uranium, Bodman said: "It may have been better to do this 10 years ago and not now."
But "we're trying to do the best we can given the set of circumstances that confront us," Bodman said.
Joining GNEP does not entail obligations, such as giving up the right to enrich uranium, the US energy secretary said.
Dennis Spurgeon, assistant secretary for nuclear energy, said "the idea behind GNEP is countries voluntarily coming together for a common good."
GNEP is "not supplanting the IAEA in terms of safeguards. We'll need them more than ever," Spurgeon said.
IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei told the GNEP meeting that the program is "a major initiative that is badly needed and is very timely."
"We need energy because again without development there is misery, there is conflict, there is war," ElBaradei said.
Some of the new countries, like Lithuania and Poland, a strong coal user, do not yet have nuclear power but want to develop it.
Polish Economy Minister Piotr Wozniak said his nation wanted to "change our energy mix."
Bush insists nuclear power is the way ahead
Green but not nuclear
TRACY WATKINS in Sydney, The Dominion Post, Sept. 6, 2007
Prime Minister Helen Clark has drawn a line at endorsing nuclear power as a climate change fix, putting her at odds with the United States and Australia ahead of the APEC leaders summit.
With the summit under pressure to try to forge agreement over climate change, the US and Australia are pushing nuclear power to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But Trade Minister Phil Goff confirmed New Zealand was likely to raise safety and the disposal of nuclear waste as concerns.
Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters said New Zealand 's view on nuclear power was supported ``by a lot of people around the world''.
``We are not going to abrogate our sovereignty to decide what we should do as a country.'' Miss Clark, one of the architects of New Zealand 's nuclear free legislation, made it clear she saw no role for nuclear power in the climate change debate. ``It's not something that New Zealand is ever going to tout. It's understood that it meets definitions compatible with Kyoto , but that is not something we are going to endorse.''
It seems clear, however, that APEC leaders will be asked to include it in their final communiqué with US President George W Bush insisting yesterday that nuclear power was the way ahead. ``If you truly care about greenhouse gases, then you'll support nuclear power. If you believe that greenhouse gases are a priority, like a lot of us, if you take the issue seriously, like I do and John [Howard] does, then you should be supportive of nuclear power. After all, nuclear power enables you to generate electricity without any greenhouse gases.''
His comments may inflame an already sensitive debate over Australian Prime Minister John Howard's efforts to reach Apec consensus on a voluntary agreement to cut emissions. Environmentalists have accused him of trying to derail the binding targets set by the Kyoto protocol, which neither Australia nor the US has committed to, with a watered down, voluntary version. But Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer made it clear yesterday that Kyoto remained a bone of contention with Australia because of its failure to include binding targets for developing countries.
``Developed countries carry the burden. Our view is we need to move beyond that.'' He also backed Mr Bush's comments on the key role to be played by nuclear power. ``Nuclear power is part of the answer. It might not be in New Zealand , and of course there's a question about the economics of it in Australia , but having said that, think about China . China on average is building a new coal-fired power station every single week. We have to think of alternatives. ''
Miss Clark is due to arrive in Sydney tomorrow for the APEC leaders retreat, which brings together the leaders of 21 Asia-Pacific countries.
Climate change has been pushed to the fore of the agenda after barely rating a mention, and then only after a push by Miss Clark, at the last APEC summit.
TRACY WATKINS in Sydney, The Dominion Post, Sept. 6, 2007
Prime Minister Helen Clark has drawn a line at endorsing nuclear power as a climate change fix, putting her at odds with the United States and Australia ahead of the APEC leaders summit.
With the summit under pressure to try to forge agreement over climate change, the US and Australia are pushing nuclear power to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But Trade Minister Phil Goff confirmed New Zealand was likely to raise safety and the disposal of nuclear waste as concerns.
Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters said New Zealand 's view on nuclear power was supported ``by a lot of people around the world''.
``We are not going to abrogate our sovereignty to decide what we should do as a country.'' Miss Clark, one of the architects of New Zealand 's nuclear free legislation, made it clear she saw no role for nuclear power in the climate change debate. ``It's not something that New Zealand is ever going to tout. It's understood that it meets definitions compatible with Kyoto , but that is not something we are going to endorse.''
It seems clear, however, that APEC leaders will be asked to include it in their final communiqué with US President George W Bush insisting yesterday that nuclear power was the way ahead. ``If you truly care about greenhouse gases, then you'll support nuclear power. If you believe that greenhouse gases are a priority, like a lot of us, if you take the issue seriously, like I do and John [Howard] does, then you should be supportive of nuclear power. After all, nuclear power enables you to generate electricity without any greenhouse gases.''
His comments may inflame an already sensitive debate over Australian Prime Minister John Howard's efforts to reach Apec consensus on a voluntary agreement to cut emissions. Environmentalists have accused him of trying to derail the binding targets set by the Kyoto protocol, which neither Australia nor the US has committed to, with a watered down, voluntary version. But Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer made it clear yesterday that Kyoto remained a bone of contention with Australia because of its failure to include binding targets for developing countries.
``Developed countries carry the burden. Our view is we need to move beyond that.'' He also backed Mr Bush's comments on the key role to be played by nuclear power. ``Nuclear power is part of the answer. It might not be in New Zealand , and of course there's a question about the economics of it in Australia , but having said that, think about China . China on average is building a new coal-fired power station every single week. We have to think of alternatives. ''
Miss Clark is due to arrive in Sydney tomorrow for the APEC leaders retreat, which brings together the leaders of 21 Asia-Pacific countries.
Climate change has been pushed to the fore of the agenda after barely rating a mention, and then only after a push by Miss Clark, at the last APEC summit.
'War games a threat to the region'
Paul Benedek, Brisbane, Green Left, June 23 2007
Jim McIlroy, the Socialist Alliance candidate for the Brisbane seat of Griffith, called on Labor leader Kevin Rudd to condemn the Talisman Sabre war games being held at Shoalwater Bay.
“Why do we need this massive invasion, involving 32,000 military personnel from the US and Australia, in one of the most beautiful areas of our coastline? This area, part of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, will be blasted with live ammunition of all kinds.”
McIlroy said the war games are not only an “attack” on Queensland’s environment, but also “a threat to the peoples of the Asia-Pacific region”. “This massive misuse of taxpayers’ money is part of tying the Australian military even more closely to the US superpower”, he explained.
McIlroy said that one of the purposes of the military exercises is to signal to countries in the region not to try to become too independent or carry out policies that challenge Australian and US hegemony in the Asia-Pacific. “If they do, they face the prospect of direct military intervention.”
“This week’s convergence on Rockhampton of peace activists from around Australia sends a strong anti-war message to the Howard and Bush governments. It adds to the worldwide pressure for US and Australian troops to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan immediately”, McIlroy said.
He also called on the government to halt the games to protect seven peace activists, including a 67-year-old grandmother, who entered the Shoalwater Bay Military Training Area on June 19.
According to David Bradbury, an organiser of the Peace Convergence, the activists, who have supplies to last for seven days, are “determined to risk their lives if necessary”. Activists are urging people to send email messages calling for the war games to be cancelled to all MPs, and particularly defence minister Brendon Nelson at ministerfordefence@defence.gov.au.
************************************
For more on the peace protest see: http://www.peaceconvergence.com/
Jim McIlroy, the Socialist Alliance candidate for the Brisbane seat of Griffith, called on Labor leader Kevin Rudd to condemn the Talisman Sabre war games being held at Shoalwater Bay.
“Why do we need this massive invasion, involving 32,000 military personnel from the US and Australia, in one of the most beautiful areas of our coastline? This area, part of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, will be blasted with live ammunition of all kinds.”
McIlroy said the war games are not only an “attack” on Queensland’s environment, but also “a threat to the peoples of the Asia-Pacific region”. “This massive misuse of taxpayers’ money is part of tying the Australian military even more closely to the US superpower”, he explained.
McIlroy said that one of the purposes of the military exercises is to signal to countries in the region not to try to become too independent or carry out policies that challenge Australian and US hegemony in the Asia-Pacific. “If they do, they face the prospect of direct military intervention.”
“This week’s convergence on Rockhampton of peace activists from around Australia sends a strong anti-war message to the Howard and Bush governments. It adds to the worldwide pressure for US and Australian troops to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan immediately”, McIlroy said.
He also called on the government to halt the games to protect seven peace activists, including a 67-year-old grandmother, who entered the Shoalwater Bay Military Training Area on June 19.
According to David Bradbury, an organiser of the Peace Convergence, the activists, who have supplies to last for seven days, are “determined to risk their lives if necessary”. Activists are urging people to send email messages calling for the war games to be cancelled to all MPs, and particularly defence minister Brendon Nelson at ministerfordefence@defence.gov.au.
************************************
For more on the peace protest see: http://www.peaceconvergence.com/
Guns For Hire
Monday October 9, 2006 at 10pm ET/PT on CBC Newsworld
repeating Monday June 11, 2007 at 10pm ET/PT on CBC Newsworld
"Business has never been so good for the modern day gunslinger". Sam Kiley, war correspondent
Never before have Britain and the U.S. relied so heavily on the use of mercenaries in fighting foreign wars. At least 30,000 hired guns are now on the payrolls of the Western Powers, training and fighting in the Middle East, from Iraq to Afghanistan. In this eye-opening documentary, veteran war correspondent Sam Kiley travels to Kabul to investigate these modern dogs of war and the impact they're having on the conflict in Afghanistan.
The business of war has enjoyed a massive boom. Primarily former soldiers, these men work for companies such as the British firm Global where they can expect to earn in one day what they made in an entire week in the army. "Three years ago Global had 25 employees, today there are around 3500; they are at the sharp end of an industry worth two billion pounds a year," Kiley explains. But who's controlling these 'guns for hire', and what impact are they having on the 'rules of war'?
Known as private security contractors, they come from the UK, Australia, Zimbabwe, the US, and Canada. Back home they're doctors, paramedics, and laborers. Unable to settle into civilian life, these private soldiers seek money and adventure, and now find themselves risking suicide bomb attacks while guarding the American embassy.
Not until now has anyone been able to shine a light into this often murky world. Sam Kiley is on the trail of Jack Idema, a former US Green beret. Idema is in an Afghan jail, having been convicted of torture and running a private army. In a sequence that feels right out of a bizaare 'Heart of Darkenss' style movie, this world exclusive interview inside his 'prison', Idema tells Kiley he was a "fall guy" and had been working for the Americans. But his Afghan prison is unlike anything you'd expect. Is he a latter day Man Who Would Be King? A victim? Or the dangerous consequence of outsourcing war?
Guns for Hire is written, narrated and produced by Sam Kiley and directed by Claudio Von Planta, with Mike Smith, Sebastian Scott, and Jaquie Lawrence as the executive producers. Catherine Olsen is executive producer and senior programmer of documentaries for CBC Newsworld.
repeating Monday June 11, 2007 at 10pm ET/PT on CBC Newsworld
"Business has never been so good for the modern day gunslinger". Sam Kiley, war correspondent
Never before have Britain and the U.S. relied so heavily on the use of mercenaries in fighting foreign wars. At least 30,000 hired guns are now on the payrolls of the Western Powers, training and fighting in the Middle East, from Iraq to Afghanistan. In this eye-opening documentary, veteran war correspondent Sam Kiley travels to Kabul to investigate these modern dogs of war and the impact they're having on the conflict in Afghanistan.
The business of war has enjoyed a massive boom. Primarily former soldiers, these men work for companies such as the British firm Global where they can expect to earn in one day what they made in an entire week in the army. "Three years ago Global had 25 employees, today there are around 3500; they are at the sharp end of an industry worth two billion pounds a year," Kiley explains. But who's controlling these 'guns for hire', and what impact are they having on the 'rules of war'?
Known as private security contractors, they come from the UK, Australia, Zimbabwe, the US, and Canada. Back home they're doctors, paramedics, and laborers. Unable to settle into civilian life, these private soldiers seek money and adventure, and now find themselves risking suicide bomb attacks while guarding the American embassy.
Not until now has anyone been able to shine a light into this often murky world. Sam Kiley is on the trail of Jack Idema, a former US Green beret. Idema is in an Afghan jail, having been convicted of torture and running a private army. In a sequence that feels right out of a bizaare 'Heart of Darkenss' style movie, this world exclusive interview inside his 'prison', Idema tells Kiley he was a "fall guy" and had been working for the Americans. But his Afghan prison is unlike anything you'd expect. Is he a latter day Man Who Would Be King? A victim? Or the dangerous consequence of outsourcing war?
Guns for Hire is written, narrated and produced by Sam Kiley and directed by Claudio Von Planta, with Mike Smith, Sebastian Scott, and Jaquie Lawrence as the executive producers. Catherine Olsen is executive producer and senior programmer of documentaries for CBC Newsworld.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)