Weighing US efforts for Mid-East peace

by Jonathan Beale

It has been easy to express scepticism - even cynicism - about the Bush administration's efforts to try to bring about peace in the Middle East.

After all, this is an administration that throughout its entire first term - and much of its second - has shown little sense of urgency.

There is suspicion too as to why the Bush administration has chosen to focus on the issue now.

Is America's recent engagement little more than PR - trying to appease growing Arab anger, trying to win support for its actions in Iraq?

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is aware of those doubts and this week in Ramallah gave them short shrift.

"We have better things to do than invite people to Annapolis for a photo op," she said, and then described President George W Bush's peace initiative as "the most serious effort to end the conflict in many, many years".

Furiously spinning

Easy to say perhaps - but there is also proof that words are being matched by deeds. This is Ms Rice's seventh visit to the region this year.

She has already pushed successfully for Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas to hold regular bilateral meetings to discuss what she calls the "political horizon" of a future Palestinian state.

US officials are quick to remind the sceptics that Mr Bush is the first US president to commit himself to the creation of a Palestinian state.

Israeli and Palestinian officials - at least those who are members of the more moderate Fatah movement - have also started meeting in working groups.

Both sides are also furiously spinning ahead of the forthcoming conference - likely to take place in Annapolis, in the US state of Maryland, and tentatively scheduled for the end of November.

Hard choices

The Palestinians have made clear that they will only attend if the discussions are to address the detail of the most intractable problems - the expansion of Jewish settlements, the final status of Jerusalem and the return of refugees.

Mr Olmert, too, has been making clear that he has little room for political manoeuvre. Does either Mr Olmert or Mr Abbas have the political backing to make the hard choices?

For now Ms Rice is playing her cards close to her chest. It is not yet clear whether she will put forward her own ideas on which the Annapolis discussions will focus.

She clearly does not want this to be seen as America imposing its own plan - rather, it is facilitating an agreement.

Hence she is billing the Annapolis talks as an "international" conference.

But Syria has already warned that it might not bother turning up - and Ms Rice has made no effort to woo Damascus. This administration also continues to isolate the Palestinian movement Hamas, which seized power in the Gaza Strip in June, ousting Fatah forces loyal to Mr Abbas.

Lacking time

There is a sense in Washington that the Bush administration is still not doing enough. A letter to Mr Bush signed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter, Brent Scowcroft, former National Security Advisor to Presidents Gerald Ford and George HW Bush, and by Lee Hamilton, co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, calls for the talks to be opened up to those Arab states that "currently do not enjoy diplomatic relations with Israel" and an end to Hamas's isolation.

The letter warns that "if Syria or Hamas are ostracised, prospects that they will play a spoiler role increase dramatically".

Yet despite those concerns, few strongly criticise the Bush administration's latest efforts, coming as they do after a seven-year hiatus.

Not many think the Annapolis conference on its own can achieve a breakthrough. The conditions for peace are not at their best - and time is not on the Bush administration's side.

But, although this might yet end up as a glorified "photo op", it could still be the beginning of a new peace process.

BBC News, Washington

Britain to claim more than 1m sq km of Antarctica

The United Kingdom is planning to claim sovereign rights over a vast area of the remote seabed off Antarctica, the Guardian has learned. The submission to the United Nations covers more than 1m sq km (386,000 sq miles) of seabed, and is likely to signal a quickening of the race for territory around the south pole in the world's least explored continent.

The claim would be in defiance of the spirit of the 1959 Antarctic treaty, to which the UK is a signatory. It specifically states that no new claims shall be asserted on the continent. The treaty was drawn up to prevent territorial disputes.

The Foreign Office, however, has told the Guardian that data is being gathered and processed for a submission to the UN which could extend British oil, gas and mineral exploitation rights up to 350 miles offshore into the Southern Ocean.

Much of the seabed there is at such a depth that extraction of gas, oil or minerals is not yet technically feasible, but the claim may still anger neighbouring South American countries who believe they have more entitlement to the potentially valuable territory. The Antarctic submission reflects the UK's efforts to secure resources for the future as oil and natural gas reserves dwindle over the coming decades.

Last month the Guardian revealed the UK is working on three other sub-sea claims in the Atlantic: around South Georgia and the Falkland Islands, surrounding Ascension Island and in the Hatton/Rockall basin, west of Scotland. Britain has already lodged a joint claim at the UN - with France, Ireland and Spain - for a large area of seabed in the Bay of Biscay.

The Foreign Office confirmed yesterday that the UK was working to extend sovereign territory into new areas. "There are five claims in total that the UK is hoping to put forward," a statement said. "They are in the Bay of Biscay, around Ascension, off the British Antarctic Territory, around the Falkland Islands and South Georgia and in the Hatton/Rockall basin.

"We believe these five meet the geological conditions required. The claims are based on article 76 of the UN convention of the law of the sea."

Karen Sack, head of oceans for Greenpeace International, said little was known about the environmental impact on marine life of drilling and exploration at great depths.

"What we don't know is what kind of impact these [prospecting] activities are having right now. We have more maps of the moon than we do of the deep sea. Whenever there's deep-sea fishing there's always new species identified. We would hope [states] would leave the [Antarctic] wilderness as it is."

The British Antarctic Territory, first claimed in 1908, forms a triangular wedge, with its apex at the south pole. It covers 666,000 sq miles and has two permanently-manned scientific stations. It is due to celebrate its centenary next year by issuing its first ever legal tender coin.

A British submersible recently dived to depths of more than two miles in the waters around the edge of the continental shelf. The seas are swarming with krill, shrimp-like crustaceans, brittle stars - which are similar to starfish - and sea cucumbers.

International interest in exploiting the new frontier on the oceans' floors comes as global warming is opening up previously frozen seas at the icecaps and the world's major economies are competing for fresh energy sources.

During the summer Russia was subject to criticism for making claims beneath the Arctic Ocean, while France registered a claim to thousands of square miles around New Caledonia, in the Pacific.

The UK claim on Antarctica will be its most controversial because it depends on proximity to the British Antarctic Territory which overlaps rival land claims by Chile and Argentina. The environmental protocol to the Antarctic treaty, agreed in 1991, currently prohibits all mineral related activity, other than for scientific research.

Ministers will have to decide under what terms the application to the UN would be made.

One possibility might be for the UK government to lodge a legal claim with the UN's commission on the limits of the continental shelf and effectively park it for consideration at a future date. The UN process allows states to extend their territorial rights over the ocean floor on an adjacent continental shelf up to 350 miles from shore.

These applications may be limited by rival claims from neighbouring states. Submitting countries must demonstrate, with detailed geological and depth soundings, precisely the outer limits of the shelf.

Guardian, UK

'Migrants in Britain are more reliable'

Migrants are more reliable and harder working than British-born workers and are boosting economic output by œ6 billion a year, according to a government study published on Tuesday.

Immigrants have a better work ethic than the British and are willing to work longer hours with less time off sick. Weekly mean earnings of migrants are also œ60 higher than their UK counterparts.

But while large numbers of migrants bring overall economic benefits, their arrival may be hitting the wage levels of the unskilled, the study found.

However, a separate Home Office report issued last night found concerns in the regions over the impact of record levels of immigration on crime, education, housing and health.

Half the areas consulted said migrants were putting pressure on private accommodation, leading to higher rents. Other areas said that migrants were increasing the caseloads of GPs and increasing low-level crime and antisocial behaviour.

Liam Byrne, the Immigration Minister, welcomed the economic contribution of migrants but admitted that the scale of change had unsettled parts of the country. He said: "In the long run, our country and Exchequer is better off with immigration rather than without it . . . But alongside this there is evidence that the pace of change has been unsettling and has created challenges."

Tuesday's report on the economic impact of immigration found that the mean average wage for foreign-born workers was œ424 compared with œ395 for the UK-born. The study said that business leaders backed the contribution made by migrants. They said that native workers were sometimes unreliable in certain sectors, especially agriculture, hotels and catering.

The Times, UK

Putin warns US against military action in Iran

Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, gave Iran's leaders a public morale boost in their nuclear dispute with the west yesterday by issuing a veiled warning to the US not to resort to military strikes over the issue.

Mr Putin used a historic visit to Tehran - the first by a Kremlin leader since Stalin in 1943 - to amplify his opposition to an American attack against Iran. "We should not even think of making use of force in this region," he told a five-nation summit meeting of Caspian Sea nations.

In a coup for Tehran's leadership, he invited the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to Moscow for talks. Mr Putin called on the five countries - Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Russia and Iran - not to allow an outside power to use their territories to launch an attack on another member of the group.

The Guardian, UK

"Nuclear power is simply not necessary"

by Marcus Dam

By awarding the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize jointly to Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Norwegian Nobel Committee has more than simply underscored the need to reduce the threat of climate change to the security of mankind.

In an interview,Gavin Edwards, Head of Climate and Energy Campaign, Greenpeace International, talks about what governments across the world can do to mitigate the problem and the radical paradigm shifts called for to tackle it.

Excerpts:

How well do you think the Greenpeace campaign has been addressing the problem of climate change, complex that it is and where collective action at any level might have its own difficulties?

We have been sounding the alarm bells for almost 20 years now, driving the message home that climate change and global warming is a serious issue that demands global action and is the single biggest threat to humankind.

We have to say, though, that it has been only in the last one year the world has started to take the issue much, much more seriously and what we see now is a shift towards the solutions to climate change in global discourse.

But I fear that it will take another 20 years of discussions on the issue and we simply do not have 20 years left to tackle climate change. So our message is clear: we have been saying let us not spend the next few years debating how to tackle the problems; the solutions are here, they are ready-made. It is time for our governments to get much, much serious about tackling climate change.

The responses from the governments must be varying, given that your campaign is spread over more than 40 countries ...

We have offices in 42 countries. Governments generally agree with us that climate change is a problem and demands action, but disagree what the solutions are, and how bold an action needs to be taken.

Most governments readily admit that something has to be done but what we think needs to be done is based on our assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which calls for an 80 reduction in emissions from industrialised countries by 2050, a 30 per cent reduction by 2020.

This is a very, very big change in life-styles, in the way we use and produce our energy. Some radical shifts have to be made and we do not think that governments yet realise or understand or are willing to make the shifts needed. But that can change under public pressure in the coming years.

Your biggest challenge must be coping with the distinctions between the various governments in their approach to the problem ...

There are distinctions. In the United States - the world's biggest per capita emitter - we have the White House right now that is sending some very mixed signals on climate change and refuses to ratify the Kyoto protocol.

Yet, there have been some really hopeful signs in what some of the northeast states and California are doing. I think we have to wait till after the 2008 elections before we see some real change in the U.S. I think it is heading in the right direction - a little bit slowly, a little bit late, but I think it is possible.

China is another example - perhaps the second biggest emitter in the world. They are also taking steps as well, putting specific programmes in place, to increase their renewable energy up to 15 per cent by 2020 - setting targets for energy efficiency to ensure economic efficiency as well. The government there has thus begun taking steps in moving in the right direction.

One of the greatest challenges is how governments, in negative moments, can play a little bit of a blame game. That is a recipe for disaster. What we are advocating to any government is you have to take up leadership.

As for India, there are people we speak to who have a very black-and-white view of the situation. 'Do we have development or do we have to take more action on climate change?' If you scratch below the surface you can have development and you can have action against climate change as well. So part of our frustration is when the debate happens on the simplistic level on whether you can have one or the other. This is where we need to break the deadlock.

We have had international conventions on environment that have been signed. But has any significant dent been made in global warming in the face of the compulsions of development and the thrust towards greater industrialisation?

A key phrase in the United Nations' framework on climate change agreed back in 1992 is common but differentiated responsibility. The degree to which the different countries have to act depends on the development of that country.

Non-governmental organisations have really focussed on industrialised countries that have to do the lion's share of tackling climate change - that is clear. But what is also clear is that developing countries like India, China constantly keep on developing with the business-as-usual old-style development approach.

They could be repeating the same mistakes the West has made in the past few decades. And if India, China and other countries continue to make those mistakes, then regardless of what the West is doing to tackle climate change it will be impossible.

Everyone will have to take some action on climate change. For India, for example, we estimate that emissions can grow; we fully recognise economic growth is absolutely essential and we estimate that a 20 per cent emission growth is possible but which needs to start dipping after that.

If India builds coal-powered power stations in the next 10 years, it makes it impossible to meet the commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If it makes a different choice, invests in energy efficiency through a range of measures then we can see economic prosperity but not at the expense of climate. So in a sense India is at a crossroads.

If it makes the right choices, India can do its share even though it is not a lion's share. But India can make a significant contribution, and without that contribution the world could be in serious trouble.

Being recognised in a growing economy like India is a greater demand for energy. The need for nuclear energy is being talked about. How does such an energy resource contribute to climate change?

They may contribute to a much smaller degree than coal-powered plants - that is for sure. But there are numerous other problems associated with nuclear power that are still yet to be solved.

We still don't have a solution for nuclear waste. Greenpeace is firmly against nuclear weapons and nuclear proliferation as well. The economics of nuclear power never adds up.

Nuclear industries time and time again require subsidies from government in order to operate. They also require subsidies from future generations in terms of the nuclear waste that will be created as well.

But our main argument against nuclear power is that it is simply not necessary. Renewable energy and energy efficiency can deliver the power around the world that we need.

We are at a cross-roads right now when we can shift to a radically different economic development model - one without coal-fire power, one without nuclear power.

Could you give us some sort of an idea of how bad the problem of climate change is in terms of global warming?

We are looking at less than one degree Celsius rise in temperature so far. Even if we change course today and put ourselves on a different energy pathway, we are looking at a warming of about 1.7 to 1.9 degrees Celsius average globally by the late century.

Now this might not sound like a lot. The IPCC has set 2 degree Celsius as the absolute maximum after which we go from a serious impact on climate change to some catastrophic impact on climate change.

Even with a two degree Celsius, we are looking at 20 to 30 per cent of all species globally being pushed to high risks of extinction. Once we move over a two degrees Celsius rise, we are looking at refugees - people heavily impacted by climate change shifting from one location to the next.

Christian Aid, an NGO, has estimated that one billion people could be affected and would have to shift one way or another. If we look at the economics of climate change, between 5 and 20 per cent of GDP could be affected by the late century.

It has only been in the last one year when a series of events have happened to shake the world. The seminal moment was when Sir Nicholas Stern launched his report last year.

The IPCC has launched three critical reports - a fairly conservative look taking a range of sides and coming up with a consensus - that have been more unequivocal than ever that climate change is a problem that has had a big impact on world governments.

And then the third phenomenon we can attribute is the work Al Gore has done for more than a decade, advocating the problems of global warming though it has been only in the past year that it has reached a popular audience and that has really raised alarm bells and woken people up to the issues.

As global campaigners you must have realised that some of the problems are often interrelated. Like poverty leading to environmental degradation, which in turns contributes to poverty. What are the differences and similarities in the strategies you adopt while addressing the problems in different countries where you have offices?

We are looking at the commonalities, but different agencies work often with differences in approach. In India, we see a much lower awareness when it comes to climate change right now. If we look at a recent poll by BBC World on awareness around the world, India was at the bottom of the list.

Only 47 per cent believed that climate change was a human-induced problem, whereas if you look at the U.S., even China, there is a higher rating of awareness.

Critical, later this year, will be a U.N. meeting at Bali in Indonesia where world governments will get together and hope to inject some new life into a global agreement on climate change and look at renewing and extending the Kyoto protocol in the second commitment period.

Greenpeace offices and campaigners around the world will be lobbying their national governments before the meeting on a common set of values and a mandate we are looking for.

If we can get an outcome in Bali that says by 2009, world governments will have to agree on a second commitment on the Kyoto protocol, there have to be stronger and deeper cuts in emission, that industrialised nations have to take greater action but developing countries can also set their own targets, then we can judge that to be a success.

The Hindu India

'Depressing Irish saga' wins the Booker Prize

A desperately bleak Irish family saga featuring a suicide and sexual abuse that has sold barely 3000 copies in the UK in five months emerged as the surprise winner of the œ50,000 Man Booker Prize.

The Gathering, by the 45-year-old Dublin writer Anne Enright, was a rank outsider in what was expected to be a fight between Ian McEwan, bidding for his second win, and the New Zealand author Lloyd Jones, shortlisted for his novel Mister Pip. Enright's victory is a major upset that is likely to fuel increasing criticism that the prize, routinely hailed as the world's most prestigious award for literary fiction, is out of touch with ordinary readers.

In a vicious swipe at the Man Booker, Robert Harris, the bestselling author of novels such as Fatherland and Enigma, said in an interview that authors were being forced by agents to write 'Booker-winning' novels that were "grim and unreadable and utterly off-putting for many readers".

He went on: "They are elegant, elegiac but dull and dry. They do not connect with their readers. They bare just deadening to read."

The Gathering is the fourth novel by Enright, a former Irish TV producer.

It tells the story of the large and dysfunctional Heggerty family in Dublin who gather for a wake after one of them, Liam, has walked into the sea at Brighton with stones in his pocket. In tough, unflinching language, three generations of the family's lies and sexual secrets, including abuse, start to emerge.

This week, Enright, who studied creative writing at the University of East Anglia, herself admitted that The Gathering was not the jolliest of reads.

She said: "When people pick up a book they want something that will cheer them up, in that case they shouldn't really pick up my book." She went on to call it "the intellectual equivalent of a Hollywood weepie". The latest sales figures published in The Bookseller show that The Gathering had sold just 2,901 copies in the UK since it was published in May.

The Man Booker judges took two-and-a-half hours to pick it as this year's winner. Sir Howard Davies, director of the London School of Economics and chairman of the judges, admitted that the book was "depressing" but he said that it was "very readable" and that he expected it to sell well. He said: "We found it a very powerful, uncomfortable and even, at times, an angry book."

He also admitted that some people would be shocked by graphic sexual imagery and language, though he said that "it is not pornographic". He went on: "It is a very intense of writing which does repay re-reading. You people will find this a very readable and satisfying novel." On a shortlist with just one well-known name - McEwan - the fight for the 2007 prize had been regarded as wide open.

Telegraph, UK

Congress debates Chavez reforms

The Venezuelan Congress, which is dominated by supporters of President Hugo Chavez, has started to debate his proposed changes to the constitution.

Mr Chavez says the 25 changes - added to 33 earlier proposals - are necessary to further his socialist revolution.

The changes would remove term limits for the presidency, allowing Mr Chavez to stand for re-election for seven-year terms instead of five years. If passed, the measures will be put to a popular referendum.

The New York based organisation, Human Rights Watch, warned the measures would permit the president to suspend certain rights untouchable under international law, if a state of emergency was in force. "Recent Latin American history shows that it is precisely during states of emergency that countries need strong judicial protections to prevent abuse," said HRW Americas director, Jose Miguel Vivanco.

The main changes to the constitution proposed by Mr Chavez are removing term limits for the presidency, and extending the term of office from six years to seven ,bringing in a maximum six-hour working day, Cutting the voting age to from 18 to 16 ,increasing presidential control over the central bank strengthening state economic powers and allowing the government to control assets of private companies before a court grants an expropriation order.

There are no politicians from the main opposition party in the Venezuelan Congress. However, several members have questioned the way the extra changes have been introduced, calling it constitutional fraud. says the BBC's James Ingham in Caracas. On Tuesday, a long-standing critic of the president - Roman Catholic Cardinal Rosalio Castillo Lara - died, aged 85.

He had consistently spoken out against Mr Chavez, saying the president was increasingly authoritarian and "fundamental democratic principles (were) ignored or violated".

BBC

Russia opposes Japan missile defense

Russia is concerned about the Japan-U.S. project to develop a missile defense system, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in a recent interview.

The project is "a subject of concern from our side," Lavrov said Friday in a written response to questions prior to his visit to Japan later this month. "We are opposed to the construction of a missile defense system aimed at securing military superiority," he said in Russian, arguing the system could be directed at Russian and Chinese strategic arms.

It is believed to be the first time Lavrov has publicly expressed strong concern over the U.S.-Japan defense system.

In addition to Russia's opposition to the U.S. project to build a missile defense system in Eastern Europe, it has become clear that the Kremlin is also uneasy about the introduction of a missile defense shield by Japan and the United States in the Asia-Pacific region.

Lavrov also cautioned against closer military ties among Japan, the United States and Australia, which is likewise studying cooperating in the Tokyo-Washington missile defense system.

Japan Times

India-US nuclear deal 'at risk'

Indian PM Manmohan Singh has told US President George W Bush he is having difficulty implementing a controversial nuclear deal with the United States.

Mr Singh had briefed Mr Bush by phone on Monday, a government statement said. Differences between the Congress-led government and its allies over the deal has led to talk of early elections.

It is the first clear sign India may shelve the deal, which could end its international isolation on the nuclear issue and provide a key energy source. The BBC's Sanjoy Majumder in Delhi says it appears the Indian government does not want to face a snap election.

The Congress party's communist allies say the deal, which would allow India access to civilian nuclear technology and fuel, gives the US leverage on India's foreign policy.

BBC