William Kamkwamba's windmill

William has a blog.

Bangkok climate talks: China notes lack of progress

At the Bangkok Climate Change Talks, the developing world, led by China, wants Kyoto provisions strengthened. The Kyoto treaty, of course, had put the onus for cuts on first world countries.

Continued here.

Dalai Lama, Obama will not meet

American liberals and conservatives often find common cause when it comes to humanitarian foreign policy questions.   Is Obama determined to unite the country in opposition to his administration over these kinds of issues?  

Last week I blogged Burmese dissidents' fears that the Obama Administration was preparing to cozy up with Burma's dictators.    This week begins with a White House announcement that is sure to anger Tibetan exiles, friends of Tibet, and other critics of the Chinese government's record on human rights.   WaPo reports:

In an attempt to gain favor with China, the United States pressured Tibetan representatives to postpone a meeting between the Dalai Lama and President Obama until after Obama's summit with his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao, scheduled for next month, according to diplomats, government officials and other sources familiar with the talks.

For the first time since 1991, the Tibetan spiritual leader will visit Washington this week and not meet with the president. Since 1991, he has been here 10 times. Most times the meetings have been "drop-in" visits at the White House. The last time he was here, in 2007, however, George W. Bush became the first sitting president to meet with him publicly, at a ceremony at the Capitol in which he awarded the Dalai Lama the Congressional Gold Medal, Congress's highest civilian award.

The U.S. decision to postpone the meeting appears to be part of a strategy to improve ties with China that also includes soft-pedaling criticism of China's human rights and financial policies as well as backing efforts to elevate China's position in international institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund. Obama administration officials have termed the new policy "strategic reassurance," which entails the U.S. government taking steps to convince China that it is not out to contain the emerging Asian power.

Same old story: sensible intentions, inept execution.   I agreed with the spirit behind the recent White House moves on Burma, but I thought the execution was extremely sloppy.  The Deputy Secretary of State came out in agreement with this assessment.   Similarly, I think it's good that Obama wants to improve relations with China, but I believe this must not be done in such a way as to give the appearance that the US has compromised its principles, or kow-towed.

This was another political miscalculation on the part of Obama. The president is bound to pay a political price for it.  A narrative is beginning to develop that Obama is unprincipled, and only interested in appeasing powerful people, be they bankers, insurance company executives, or the Chinese. 

US sanctions and Burma's environment

Do sanctions against Burma work?  Do they somehow benefits Burma over the long-term?

This question was discussed at a recent US Senate hearing on US-Burma relations.   For an overview of the hearing see, "Burma is not Vietnam." See also "Burmese slam Senate hearings" and "US Senate AWOL on Burma."

The overriding question, Sen. Webb said, is whether the current approach has brought the results we seek. Webb referred to sanctions as "tensions."

Dept. Sec. of State Kurt Campbell said that "Any easing of sanctions now would send the wrong signal to those working" to help Burma.  He said that sanctions will "only be lifted if Burmese take meaningful action."

Senator Webb read from a letter from Kent M. Wiedemann, US Chargé d'Affaires ad interim for Burma (Oct 1996-May 1999).     Wiedemann explained that he had frequently met with Aung San Suu Kyi, and that Suu Kyi had seen sanctions as "tactical tools."  On the other hand, US based groups saw sanctions as "weapons" to force regime change.   In his view, sanctions had proved harmful and counterproductive.

Sen. Webb characterizes the current approach as "unsuccessful." and cited a subsequent increase in investment into Burma by China and North Korea.  

There was heated exchange between Sen. Webb and Prof. Williams, a legal scholar who opposed lifting sanctions.  Williams had spoke at some length about atrocities that have been committed by the regime.

Webb asked Williams if he had favored lifting sanctions against Vietnam in 1991.

"Yes" replied Williams.

Webb said, "Vietnam in 1991 was in worse condition than Burma in 2009."

In a  statement entered into the records,  monk leader Ashin Candobhasacara  (right) quoted with approval Sec. of State Clinton's remark, that "We will maintain our existing sanctions until we see concrete progress towards reform.  But, we will be willing to discuss the easing of sanctions in response to significant actions on the part of Burma's generals that address the core human rights and democracy issues that are prohibiting Burma's progress."

Candobhasacara noted, "Sanctions help preserve the natural resources of Burma for future generations.  At present, the Burmese regime is simply looting the coutnry and attempting to sell the resources to the highest bidder.  The Burmese regime is not simply corrupt and skimming profits off the top of international business deals -- it is literally looting the country and keeping all the profits for itself. By placing sanctions on Burma, our country's natural resources are more likely to remain in the hands of the people so that a true representative government and market-based economy can put them to good use."

I think  the environmental argument is very compelling.

However, it may be difficult to show that the pillaging of Burma's resources -- were US sanctions to be lifted -- will be appreciably worse than in other least developed countries (Laos, Cambodia, etc.).     Furthermore, such "pillaging" seems bound to happen regardless in Burma.  That's because Chinese investments in the country continue to expand.   At least in theory, US-owned businesses can be forced to apply US environmental standards to their operations.  This could impact the overall national  standards.  Likewise, in the labor market, in order to retain top Burmese talent, Chinese and local businesses owners may be forced to raise their standards, lest they lose them to US competitors.

Sumatra earthquake recovery efforts

"It is interesting to note that in all three of the large earthquakes upon which I have worked ... the media has tended to initially focus their coverage upon urban areas, whilst the real story has actually been in the rural hinterland.... Thus, the disaster in these areas goes unreported for some time,... As I tell my students, in this case no news is definitely bad news...."

-David Petley, Durham University

"An experienced campaigner ... described what he saw today in the remote hills and valleys of the greater Padang area as like seeing the effects of an Atomic bomb being dropped on a huge region. He reported houses, mosques, clinics and schools flattened, and on hilly spurs, villages wiped out by landslides.

- Bob McKerrow, Red Cross and Red Crescent Society

I'm posted links to accounts of those caught up in the Padang quake, and those involved with the recover efforts -- as I get them -- here.

China calls for release of Aung San Suu Kyi

As recently as August, China called on the West to "respect" the new detention of the Burmese opposition leader.

But today in Geneva, "China and other allies of the military government in Burma joined an international call for the release of jailed opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi."  This development came in response to a Burma court verdict Friday that "rejected Suu Kyi's latest appeal for freedom." (Star h/t KMK). It coincides with moves by the US to improve its relations with Burma.

Shockingly, at this critical juncture, US senators charged with tracking developments in Burma are AWOL -- as my investigation here shows.

Delusions Exposed

If any US city deserved to host the 2016 Olympics, it was Chicago.

But a third Summer Games (LA, Atlanta...) in three decades?  After US leaders snubbed world opinion for the better part of eight years?  Because a popular new president spent a couple hours lobbying IOC delegates in Copenhagen?  Up against an emerging world power (Brazil), on a continent (South America) that has never before hosted the Olympics?  

Congratulations Rio!
___
Photo, by Jotman, shows awe-struck journalists at Obama's press conference at the London G20 summit.

Myanmar's influence over Thai security forces

Another crackdown on Burmese dissidents in Thailand appears to be underway.  The intimidation of Thailand-based Burmese groups renews old concerns about ties between Thai security forces and the wealthy junta of Myanmar. These reports pose a new challenge for Thai Prime Minsister Abhisit and Washington.

US Senate AWOL on Burma

At a recent Senate hearing, monks vastly outnumbered  senators.   

News that a major shift is underway with regards to US policy towards Burma has coincided with reports from Amnesty International that Nyi Nyi Aung (also known as Kyaw Zaw Lwin), an American citizen, was taken prisoner by Myanmar in early September and tortured (More about that here).

Given that the Obama Administration is overturning longstanding US policy towards Burma -- and the questionable timing  -- you would think that most senators on the Asian and Pacific Affairs Sub-committee of the United States Senate would have shown up at Wednesday's hearing to ask challenging  questions of Assistant Sec. of State Campbell.

How many senators showed up?    

Only one.  (Above photo, click to enlarge.)  Sen. Jim Webb, the sub-committee chairman.

Sen. Webb, a Democrat, strongly advocates engagement with Burma. 

Sen. Webb did his best to chair the meeting, but one of the main purposes for holding such hearings is for the legislature to have an opportunity to hold the executive branch accountable.  This is not a task for one senator alone, particularly a like-minded senator from the same party as the administration.  

So I decide to investigate what other senators on the sub-committee had been doing Wednesday afternoon after 2:30pm.  What was more important to the other eight senators than cross-examining Kurt Campbell (right), the American who -- "just 16 hours" previously -- had wrapped up the first high-level meeting between the US and Myanmar in many years.

Here's what I learned: . . .

ATTENDED
Democrats: Jim Webb (Virginia)
Republicans:  None.

ABSENT
Democrats: Russ Feingold (Wisconsin), Barbara Boxer (California), Bob Casey (Pennsylvania), Barbara Boxer (California), Christopher Dodd (Connecticut), Kirsten Gillibrand (New York).
Republicans:  James Inhofe (Oklahoma),  Roger Wicker (Mississippi),  John Barrasso (Wyoming)

As chairman of the committee, Sen. Webb (photo left) was responsible for notifying other Democrats on the committee of the meeting.  A spokesman for Webb told me these senators had been informed of the meeting.  Non-attendees included Wisconsin, California, Connecticut, and New York senators. They represent states where constituents are known to have a particularly keen interest in Burma's democracy movement and Aug San Suu Kyi.  Where were these senators?  What was happening at 2:30pm yesterday afternoon that was so much more important than Burma?  Apart for Boxer and Dodd, I called all these Democrats' offices, and I am still waiting to hear back from them.. 

As ranking minority member of the sub-committee, Sen. James Inhofe is the second most important member of the committee after Webb.   Inhofe is responsible for notifying Republican members of the committee of the   meetings.   When I called Inhofe's office I was assured that Inhofe had notified the other members.  When I asked why Inhofe had not attended the meeting  I was told that he had to attend "an EPW press conference."  I was told, "Sen. Inhofe is ranking member of the EPW."

EPW stands for Environment and Public Works.  Senator Boxer (also AWOL on Burma) heads that committee, which is charged with writing the Senate climate bill. Sen. Inhofe scheduled a press conference something called a Republican "Press Availability" session for the same time time-slot as the important hearing on Burma.  Fellow Republican, Sen. John Barrasso, also choose to attend the EPW press conference instead of the hearing on Burma.

I am still waiting to hear back from Republican Sen. Roger Wicker's office.

The main point here is that:  Two Republican members -- including Inhofe, the highest ranking Republican on the Burma committee -- decided that trashing Boxer's climate change bill took precedence over questioning a senior State Department official about a major policy shift in US-Burma relations.

Incidentally, at the "Republican Press Availability" session, when Inhofe was asked about whether he believed human activity may have contributed to global warming, Inhofe replied that he had run that question by the Oklahoma Farm Bureau:

. . . . we've asked that question of the Oklahoma Farm Bureau, and the answer is no. They -- you know, their feeling is that God is still up there. We go through cycles and there's not that strong relationship between anthropogenic gases and climate change."

Attending senate hearings on foreign policy is not only about keeping the executive branch accountable, it's about being a well-informed senator.  Judging by Inhofe's remarks, America desperately needs more of those.*
___
* More senators like Chuck Lugar, the soon-to-retire senator from Indiana who -- although not a member of the sub-committee --  submitted  an interesting statement for the hearing record.

Burma is not Vietnam

Live-blogging Senator Jim Webb's hearing on US-Burma relations

"Burma is not Vietnam" read the neon yellow t-shirts worn by dozens of  activists.   

What was the slogan supposed to mean?

"It refers to the lifting of sanctions against Burma," he said, explaining that he didn't think the arguments for lifting sanctions against Vietnam in the early '90s applied to Burma today.  It was a dig at Senator Jim Webb, chairman of today's meeting.   I recalled what Sen.Webb wrote in a NYT op-ed back in August:

As someone who has worked hard to build a bridge between Hanoi and America’s strongly anticommunist Vietnamese community, I believe the greatest factor in creating a more open society inside Vietnam was the removal of America’s trade embargo in 1994. 

"A lot of people you see wearing yellow shirts helped get Webb elected" the activist continued.

The back of the room was packed with people sporting the neon yellow t-shirts.

At least Sen. Webb showed up for the meeting.   That is more than could be said for his colleagues on the Senate Foreign Relations Sub-Committee on Burma. In the photos you can see only one seat is occupied.  A veteran of senate hearings, a woman from Human Rights Watch, expressed her surprise to me about this.

How can the US senate be expected to make informed votes if members do not show up to meetings about places like Burma?

I have blogged about Burma since 2006, and if I have learned one thing, it's that its problems are not simple. They are overwhelming.

Prof. David Williams of Indiana University testified that the military commits mass atrocities against its people.  It has displaced half a million.

But it was not always this way, explained Prof. David Steinberg. "In the 1940s people in Bangkok stomped to Rangoon to go shopping."  He added, "Back then, anyone you shared a beer with in old Rangoon would have sworn that Burma, not Thailand or even South Korea, would be the success story."

"One man rule has meant there has been no dissent."  The government had not been making informed decisions.  "Arbitrary rule, based on ignorance, leads to disaster" added Steinberg.

Yet, despite its many horrors, Burma is not North Korea. Thant Myint-U pointed to religious tolerance and hundreds of NGOs as bright spots.  It was also noted that unlike Laos and China, Burma permits an opposition party.

Looking to the future, Prof. Thant Myint-U worried the new generation of leaders coming up through the ranks of the military -- not having had broad experiences -- will have a narrow outlook on affairs.   How to open their minds?

More to come.
___
 Top photo shows two of several dozen activists who turned out for the filled-to-capacity  meeting room.  Middle two photos shows many empty senator-seats. Note, also, the Buddhist monks.   Bottom photo shows the only senator who bothered to show up.   
*****Update:  I decided to investigate why so many senators didn't attend.  My findings are posted here.

American citizen tortured by Burma, and his government is speechless

Amnesty International reports "Trusted sources have reported to Amnesty international that male [American] activist Kyaw Zaw Lwin [also known as Nyi Nyi Aung] was tortured and suffered other ill-treatment whilst in detention in Insein Prison, Yangon, Myanmar’s main city. He was arrested in Yangon on 3 September. He has been denied medical treatment for the injuries he sustained from the torture he endured during interrogation. There are grave concerns about his health."

An American citizen is tortured, and his government is speechless. Has this ever happened before?  Johnathan Hulland, writing in the Huff Post, asks "why isn't there more outrage and action at this American's appalling treatment by a ruthless dictatorship? One answer is that America's recent flirtation with torture has inured it to the torture of Americans themselves, but I can't and don't want to believe this."

But it has been more than a mere "flirtation." It was US government policy.  And it remains US policy to protect those who have ordered torture.  And although Obama has issued a directive prohibiting torture, the new American president refuses to accord persons suspected of being terrorists with their rights under the law. 

It's conceivable that the US political establishment -- Republicans and Democrats -- don't want to think about the torture of an American citizen at this time.  According to Amnesty International:

The torture and ill-treatment that Kyaw Zaw Lwin suffered in detention included beating and kicking. He was deprived of food for seven days and moved between different interrogation centres. He was not allowed to sleep at night and was kept awake during interrogation by the authorities. Details of the charges against him are not known.

Sound familiar?    "Beating and kicking,"  "not allowed to sleep at night," "kept awake during interrogation."   These are all methods of torture, prohibited under international law.    But according to the way US Attorney General Eric Holder's prosecutions are supposed to proceed, nobody in a position of authority within the US government is likely to be held accountable for having ordered these very abuses against hundreds of Arab and Afghan prisoners of the US.  

Myanmar might claim that this American citizen is a "terrorist" and, following American precedent, take away any number of his rights under law.   Myanmar might  point to precedents set by the government of the United States -- including President Obama. 

The plight of Kyaw Zaw Lwin exposes the extent to which the United States has undermined the rights of   every American -- the safety of every American.   Might this be what the War on Terror has come to, that the American government finds itself speechless when a brutal regime imprisons and tortures an American?

If the American government has little to say at a time like this, maybe it simply does not want Americans to hear how badly it has let them down.

Burma tortures American citizen as US meetings with Myanmar begin

The titles of these Jotman blog posts give you a gist of the story.

08.27 -  "Jim Webb calls for US to lift sanctions against Burma"

08.28 -  "Clinton, Webb move to improve US-Burma relations"

09.24 -  "Is an American citizen now a political prisoner in Burma?"

09.24 -  " Burma: How many political prisoners remain in prison?"

09.26 (2007 uprising anniversary) -  "Three heroes, one day in Rangoon."

09.27 (2007 uprising anniversary) - "2 years ago today in Rangoon"

09.29 - "US to meet with Burma"

09.29 - "US citizen tortured in Burma"

What was the Obama Administration thinking?  Why did the US remain headstrong in its determination to initiate meetings with Burma, given that it knew -- full well -- that Kyaw Zaw Lwin (also known as Nyi Nyi Aung), an American citizen, was being tortured in a jail cell in Rangoon?   Why start the talks? 

Timing doesn't get much worse than this.

Monday, U.S.Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell said, "Let's be clear, the president's decision to approach countries with an open hand and open up a dialogue with them is a powerful tool, at least in the initial state of opening up contacts...."  (my translation from the press conference video).  The remark struck me when I heard it, watching a CSPAN video of the press conference.   Immediately I went about transcribing the comment.  I then put the quote at the top of this blog post.    The Assistant Secretary seemed to be saying that the policy of engagement with Burma was happening at the initiative of the White House; and that this approach was integral to the president's approach to foreign policy (something we have known since the campaign).

The decision to open up talks with Burma had probably not been made mainly on the basis of the State Department's own analysis of the situation and its recommendations.  It looks to me like a case -- of course it happened all too frequently in the past -- where a "one size fits all" policy directive is forced on the State Department.   Yet another situation in which the opinions of regional experts are overlooked.  (Arguably, just about every major foreign policy disaster since the Second World War can  be traced back to an obstinate mindset.)

Unless Nyi Nyi Aung is released within a few days of the start of talks in New York between Assistant Secretary Campbell and U Thaung, Myanmar's minister of science,  this episode could prove a disgrace for the Obama Administration.  

We have every reason to suspect that Obama's overall philosophy of initiating engagement, not local contingencies seem to have driven US policy towards Burma. Realization that the Obama Administration opened negotiations with a rougue state while an American was still being tortured could compromise support for Obama's preferred approach to foreign policy.   This would be a tragedy in my opinion, because even a sound and principled approach is bound to fail if the timing is wrong.
 
My sense is that Campbell probably knows the timing is bad -- really bad.   But the State Department has been forced to engage.  Perhaps the Obama Administration finds it expedient to move quickly with regards to Burma on account of some other strategy objective, perhaps concerning North Korea, China, or Iran.

In any case, I thought Campbell made it quite clear that a presidential directive was behind the overture to Burma.  I thought it significant that Campbell did not credit his own boss, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with the decision to open up talks with Burma.   I would not want to be given credit for initiating these talks --  not at this time.

Whatever is going on here, Campbell will surely have some more explaining to do tomorrow.   I'll try to keep  you informed of developments as they happen.

UPDATE
Some further thoughts about this case: American citizen tortured by Burma, and his government is speechless

Samoa islands tsunami

UPDATE: Reports from Samoa here.

The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center NOAA, issued the following warning (at 2022Z 29 SEP 2009):

A TSUNAMI WARNING IS IN EFFECT FOR

AMERICAN SAMOA / SAMOA / NIUE / WALLIS-FUTUNA / TOKELAU / COOK ISLANDS / TONGA / TUVALU / KIRIBATI / KERMADEC IS / FIJI /HOWLAND-BAKER / JARVIS IS. / NEW ZEALAND / FR. POLYNESIA / PALMYRA IS. / VANUATU / NAURU / MARSHALL IS. / SOLOMON IS. / JOHNSTON IS. / NEW CALEDONIA / KOSRAE / PAPUA NEW GUINEA / POHNPEI / WAKE IS.

An earthquake of 7.9 struck Samoa. According to Radio New Zealand (live stream), at least 6 people have died in Samoa, and now New Zealand is clearing its beaches.

The NOAA website has posted the times when the tsunami is expected to arrive at various locations.   Times posted there are in GMT (about 12 hours behind local time in those locations where the tsunami first struck)

The tsunami has already struck American Samoa, Samoa, the Cook Island, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Kiribati, and parts of New Zealand (though apparently the wave was small when it arrived on the North Island and the warning may have since been downgraded for New Zealand).

This map came from the NOAA website (legend at top right):

UPDATE 1
According to USGS the original earthquake in Samoa has apparently been upgraded to 8.0 at a depth of 18 km.   USGS has a great earthquake map here that is constantly updated.

Paranoia about Iran's nuclear program

Try as I might, over the past week, I simply could not make myself feel frightened of Iran.

When the Obama Administration decided to turn the Pittsburgh G20 summit into a forum for stirring up fear of Iran's nuclear program, I tuned out. 

I wondered:  why are so many of the very same experts who were wrong about Iraq's WMD program given precious airtime to rant about Iran? As far as American journalists are concerned, I think simply reporting one government's claims -- without asking hard questions -- is not journalism.  It's "disseminating information on behalf of a government."  Was no American journalist  working today alive back in 2002-3?

At least two American observers seem to have good memories. They have had the audacity to question recent allegations concerning Iran:

• Fmr. UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter Warns Against “Politically Motivated Hype” on Iran Nuke Program. (video)
  
• Glenn Greenwald questions whether the allegations about the"illegality" of the Iranian program are true: Has the regime violated international law? (video)

Just because one government or another wants the public to get excited over this or that issue, must the news media follow along like a herd of sheep?  Can American reporters not question the statements which they are being fed? 

How generous was the United States in 2008?

What controversial US industry funnels more money out of the developing world than Washington provides in development aid?

Conventional wisdom, stateside, says the US is a relatively generous country.  As countries meet in Bangkok this week to hash out a global agreement for tackling climate change, America's generosity to the developing world needs to be put in perspective.

According to the OECD:

In 2008, net ODA (Overseas Development Assistance) by the United States was USD 26 billion, representing an increase of 16.8% in real terms. 

NYT (h/t GG) reported on Sept. 9 that in 2008:

Despite a recession that knocked down global arms sales last year, the United States expanded its role as the world’s leading weapons supplier.  The United States signed weapons agreements valued at $37.8 billion in 2008, or 68.4 percent of all business in the global arms bazaar, up significantly from American sales of $25.4 billion the year before.

Italy was a distant second, with $3.7 billion in worldwide weapons sales in 2008, while Russia was third with $3.5 billion in arms sales last year . . . The United States was the leader not only in arms sales worldwide, but also in sales to nations in the developing world, signing $29.6 billion in weapons agreements with these nations, or 70.1 percent of all such deals.

American arms dealers pull more money out of the developing world ($30 billion) than the US gives back in aid ($26 billion).  These figures really put US generosity in perspective.
___
Also consider the fact that EU countries  -- the EU economy being of a size similar to that of the US -- gave three times more ODA ($70 billion) in 2008 than the US.   Both US and EU agriculture subsidies  put the developing world at an economic disadvantage.  It is estimated that farm subsidies cost poor countries about USD$50 billion a year in lost agricultural exports.   The above photo, by Jotman, shows a Laotian girl at work in a rice field.   Thirty-seven percent of Laos is covered in unexploded ordinance.  

Will Obama lead on climate change?

To get beyond yesterday's problems, the United States must take the lead by solving tomorrow's.

The Pittsburgh G20 ended last week, and the Bangkok Climate conference has just begun. The make-or-break Copenhagen summit is only two months away. A climate policy expert looks at how much progress has been made, and finds American leadership falling short of what's necessary at this critical juncture (Media Release, Sept. 28):

Oxfam International Senior Climate Policy Adviser Antonio Hill said recent announcements by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the EU on climate financing, and Japan and China’s stronger language last week on emissions reductions and finance, would put extra pressure on the US to step up and signal its intentions on its role in a global deal.

“Despite good intentions and warm words over the past six months, the US didn’t deliver real leadership last week at the UN Climate Summit and G20.  Either the US lifts its game, or the next two weeks in Bangkok could go down as just a holding pattern before a fatal nosedive in Copenhagen,” he said.

He said while many key countries, including China, India, Japan, African Union, the Least Developed Countries and the Alliance of Small Island States, had shown they were ready to enter the final, more detailed phase of negotiations, intransigence on the part of rich countries like the US, Canada and Australia was proving an obstacle to progress.

Key sticking points remain the emissions reductions developed countries are willing to deliver – current commitments are around 15 per cent instead of the science-based 40 per cent reductions on 1990 levels by 2020 - and the amount of financing they will put on the table for developing countries to both adapt to the impacts of climate change and develop on a low carbon pathway.

The two-week negotiations, held in South-East Asia, one of the world’s most vulnerable regions to climate change, is the penultimate negotiation session before Copenhagen in December, when a fair and safe global climate change treaty must be secured.

Mr Hill said that whilst last week’s summits in the US were forums for world leaders to signal their intentions, the UN negotiating process continuing in Bangkok was the only place where countries could forge an agreement to avoid catastrophic climate change.

“It’s crunch time,” Mr Hill said. “What is needed for a breakthrough is a clear commitment from developed countries – responsible for three-quarters of the carbon in the atmosphere - to commit to substantial finance, additional to existing aid levels, to developing countries.”

Hill echoes what I heard  Jorma Ollila, chairman of Royal Dutch Shell, acknowledge in Helsinki three months ago:  the developed world bears responsibility for having damaged the earth's atmosphere, and Washington must take the lead.

Health care, the war in Afghanistan, and climate change:  these three big issues confront the Obama presidency simultaneously.   Who does not believe that the success or failure of Obama's entire presidency rides with how competently the president handles one or another of these matters?

But which decision will be the most significant? Of the three issues, two are largely yesterday's fights, only one concerns the challenge of the future.   Moreover, on two issues -- the same two -- the cost of waiting for a second chance is manageable.  Other countries have solved the problem of providing universal health care, and the US will have other opportunities to solve it.   The rest of the world has "given up" on the cause of bringing freedom to Afghanistan, but supposing Obama hesitates to defy his generals and sends in more troops, Congress can still bring them home at any time.  For the rest of the world, Afghanistan is yesterday's war; universal health care, a social policy worked out generations ago.  There will be second chances.

But if the American economy -- and by extension, the world -- is not set on a path towards sustainable growth, then wars and health care costs are bound to spiral out of control.  Furthermore, the cost of setting the world on a sustainable path with respect to climate change increases with every lost decade.  And on this issue, alone, there is a "point of no return."   Therefore, hands down, if the Obama Administration must get just one issue dealt with properly in 2009, it's energy and the environment.  To get beyond yesterday's problems, the United States must take the lead by solving tomorrow's.
 ____
Photo by Jotman shows the US Congress.

Safe to put acoustic weapons in police hands?

A Jotman reader writes:

You asked in your recent blog entry on sonic "crowd control" devices: "Are they safe? Do they cause long term damage? I doubt anyone knows for sure..."

The former vice-president of the company that designed those devices, Mr. Carl Gruenler "...concedes that the device is powerful enough to cause permanent auditory damage, but that it is only meant to be used for a few seconds at a time." (quoted from Wiki). I especially like the phrase "meant to be used." 

Interesting that the military person standing next to a LRAD on a US Navy ship (photo in the Wiki article) is wearing earmuffs - so there is at least some sort of protection.

 If properly trained people who really understood the technology were going to be operating these machines, that would be one thing.  But police tend to lack such training.  NPR reported:

Boston police recently shot and killed a local college student with a "pepper pellet" gun. The weapon is meant to be a non-lethal means of stopping a suspect. A government probe found the lack of national standards and training for non-lethal weapons contributed to her death.

Training may not be the answer.  First, people need to ask themselves whether devices that could easily deter peaceful citizens from taking to the streets in protest have any place in a free society. 

Bangkok Climate Change Talks 2009

Update:  See this post for the latest update.  See this post for an update on the progress of the talks. 

A meeting that starts today  in Bangkok will be crucial in terms of setting the groundwork for Copenhagen -- a long-term follow-up agreement to the Kyoto Protocol.

The Bangkok Post reports:

The two-week Bangkok climate change talks, which start today, are an opportunity for countries to plan for tomorrow, Mr Abhisit told the United Nations General Assembly in New York at the weekend (JotASEAN posted the full text of Abhisit's remarks)

"Thailand will spare no efforts in ensuring that the Bangkok climate change talks will make tangible progress towards a successful Copenhagen conference," he said. . .

At a UN summit on climate change last week, industrialised countries agreed to set clear goals and targets to combat climate change.

The Bangkok meeting brings together almost 3,000 delegates from over 190 countries to prepare the negotiating text for the new agreement.

The new climate deal will replace the Kyoto Protocol's carbon emissions reduction agreement that expires in 2012.

The main goal of the Bangkok talks is to shorten the 280-page text, which is the product of a series of negotiations held over the past 18 months, into a 20- to 30-page draft agreement for the Copenhagen summit.

Looking at the schedule of climate change meetings, in early November the group will reconvene for three days in Barcelona. Then it's off to Copenhagen (Dec. 7th-18th).

You can learn more about climate change issues at Jot the Planet Green.

Three heroes, one day in Rangoon.

To commemorate the second anniversary of the 2007 Burma monks' uprising, JOTMAN.COM presents three accounts of the events of September 26, 2007.  These short passages are from much longer interviews conducted by Jotman at the Thai-Burma border in October 2007.   

U Sandawara

For U Sandawara these days were a big blur. He is fuzzy on the dates. The monastery raid he describes here may have occurred as early as the night of September 25 (The night when many Rangoon monasteries where first raided).

U SANDAWARA:  We heard shots fired into the air by USDA troops. We knew a raid of our monastery was now underway.

"The aged, the old monks and very young novice couldn't run away. Actually those monks hadn't even joined the protest, but they suffered terribly. They were beaten up and taken away. There was not enough time for us to wake them up.

"The troops broke everything. They decapitated Buddha statues. Then they took all the monks' property: our alms bowls, even the monks' clothes, our robes. . .

You can read the whole story of the "4 escaped monks" here. 

U Pan Cher

U Pan Cher had given many speeches to onlookers during the protests, but the aftermath of a speech he gave on the afternoon of September 26th still moved him. I saw that tears were forming in U Pan Cher’s eyes as he described the scene that followed.

U PAN CHER: I'm very sad. I really respect those people over seventy or eighty who joined together with us. I feel very bad. These people were of the age that we look after. They should be able to rest in their homes. But they came out to be with us, giving their lives for the country. . .

"When we reached to Minigon Pagoda in Alon Township of Rangoon, I got worried about our security -- a lot of old people and also young students were with us by then. I asked some people if they could find some bicycles to go and check on the situation up in front, for our safety. A woman about 25 or 30 years of age who had been cooking food by the side of the street volunteered. Leaving her food stand, she took her own bicycle.

"As far as I know, she was the first person to get shot."  (His eyes filled with tears again) 

Ycan read U Pan Cher full account of how some protesters survived the crackdown in Burma.

Ashin Kovida

JOTMAN: What happened on the 26th? (Note: here is my summary of news reports out of Burma on 09/26, and for further context here is my September timeline ).

ASHIN KOVIDA: On the 26th the security was very tight. I was at She Shwedagon -- around a kind of bonze Buddha in front of Swadagon. At the times the main roads in Rangoon inside the city were blocked by the security.

JOTMAN: And the protest continued?

ASHIN KOVIDA: The people couldn't go close to the Shwedagon Pagoda. But fortunately about 300 monks and townsfolk reached it, taking sneaky routes to get there. And as soon as they arrived in the compound, the security immediately came out and pushed them away, telling them to "move, move, move," forcing them down the streets. . .

"So they were blocked, and they couldn't go anywhere . . . ."

Ashin Kovida's story continues here.   More stories about the 2007 Burma protests and aftermath listed here.    See also The Burma (Myanmar) Interviews.  All photos by Jotman.  

Secret Service Dog

JOTMAN.COM contributor Tawan captured this photo of a secret service dog (SSD). The dog was on duty at the G20 Summit in Pittsburgh .  Attached to her collar is the presidential seal.  More G20 photos.