Migration - let's get to the source of the problem

http://www.rohingyablogger.com/2013/01/govt-moves-to-help-detained-rohingya.html

The humanitarian crisis in the Andaman Sea, with boatloads of migrants adrift, dying of hunger and starvation, illustrates the futility and inhumanity of addressing the migration problem symptomatically. We have to tackle the root causes of migration on a global basis. There are four causes of migration: war, human rights abuses, poverty, and environmental degradation. In this instance, human rights abuses are the most important.

The Rohinga are a complex problem. They are effectively stateless, denied  citizenship and persecuted in Burma, their home country.  They are rejected by Malaysia, their preferred destination as a Muslim country. In WW2 their behaviour to some of their non-muslim neighbours was not good. This is a massive problem: there are 1.3 million Rohingya in Burma, and 120,000 -10% of the total - have emigrated in the past 3 yrs.

The historical roots of their predicament are complex, and go back at least in part to the days of the British Empire, when we moved Rohingya from Bengal to Burma for workforce reasons.

This fact, as well as our colonial past in Burma, gives the UK a responsibility to help to resolve the crisis. But sadly we have no moral leverage. The Coalition Government cannot criticise Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia for refusing to help, because it has taken a similar position to with regard to the migrants crossing from Libya to Italy. In defiance of the laws of the sea, we (or rather, the UK Government) withdrew from the Italian operation to rescue drowning migrants, reasoning that eventually, if enough of them drowned, the word would get back to the source, and people would stop putting to sea. For this strategy to work efficiently, it would require the Government at very least to take photos of drowned bodies and publish them, with the back story,  in newspapers and on TV in Syria, Somalia, Eritrea and Mali. We may ask why they have not done so.

So the UK has no moral authority to advise Malaysia, Indonesia or Thailand to change their "pushback" policy.

What is needed therefore is for the international community to bring pressure, and donate support, for Malaysia and its neighbours, in the name of humanity, to take in the unfortunates who are at sea right now. Next, the UN needs to press Burma to give the Rohingya citizenship, and to stop the human rights abuses being perpetrated on them. The National Lead for Democracy, Aan San Suu Kyi's opposition party in Burma, has called for the Rohingya to be given citizenship.

Easier said than done: but it must be done, and, eventually, will be done. The problem is that this kind of action in the UN always comes about with glacial slowness, as the media gradually unfold the picture, so that ordinary people begin the press the politicians, who eventually instruct the diplomats to begin to work in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to bring pressure onto Burma. All it takes is for one member of the UNSC to decide that its bilateral trade or military relations with Burma to be more important than any humanitarian considerations for action in the UNSC to be set back for years.

This has got to change. The UN's way of working has to be updated.

First, the veto in the UNSC must be abolished, and the reason for its abolition must be given as Putin's abuse of his veto to prevent action being taken to stop Assad of Syria from destroying his own nation.

Second, The UN has to change its stance from being reactive to proactive. It must cease from coming to each crisis on a basis of "Oh my goodness, what is going on here, and what, if anything should we do about it?" Instead, the UN needs to lay down a set of rules that apply to how governments should work.

Rules are important, because rulers are in many ways like toddlers: they want to manipulate the rules to their own advantage in every situation. Only when they find that the rules cannot be bent  will they start to recognise that they have to behave as part of a larger society. Rules have to be applied with consistency, without fear or favour, if they are to work. These principles are based on sound and universally accepted psychology. There is every reason to apply them within the United Nations.

Only two rules are required:
Rule 1: The purpose of government is to protect the rights and well-being of all who live within its borders.
Rule 2: If Governments fail in their duty, there will be a tariff of consequences which become increasingly severe according to the degree in which the regime is failing.

A certain amount of complexity is involved in setting out the details of a tariff, but the basic principle is clear. If a ruler is setting off on the well-defined path towards dictatorship, a set of sanctions targeted on the president and the ruling clique will be applied consistently. Conversely, if the human rights performance of the regime improves,  the sanctions will be removed.

This will not be easy to achieve. Resistance will come from many quarters, from established dictators, from wannabe dictators like Putin, and also from decent, established UN diplomats who believe that the world in which they operate is the best of all possible worlds.

This is a formidable opposition. On the other hand, we face a more than formidable problem in migration, not only in the Andaman and Mediterranean seas, but worldwide. We only need to remind ourselves of the human misery, the tragedies being played out on the seas, to realise that we cannot go on as we are. We have to progress beyond dictatorships and the self interest of blinkered regimes towards a world in which behaviour is governed by universal rules, and governments know that their duty is to protect the people who live within their borders. We have to address the root causes, not just the symptoms of migration.

What can the UN do about the likes of Assad?

Picture: Reuters, via Telegraph.co.uk

For a full year, Bashar al-Assad has waged war on his own people, killing around 10,000 democracy activists and civilians.  With agonising slowness, the international community has responded, but the effectiveness of the UN's current peace initiative is still in doubt. Eventually, the world will blunder through to some partial resolution that involves Assad stepping down, but it will be messy and slow, and even then we will be faced with the same situation in Bahrain and many other dictatorships throughout the world.

This is not good enough. 

But what can be done?

Military intervention would be even more problematical and complex than it was in Libya.  

We need a more efficient and effective pathway to dealing with this kind of dictator crisis.

The basic problem is that each crisis brought on by a dictatorship is treated as a novel, one-off event, and brings out a slow, ad hoc political response from the international community, treating each case as if it were the only time in history that it has happened. The response is affected by the regime's trade with other nations, especially with members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

The regime will try to manipulate its allies, and the response of the international community is modified by economic considerations, especially whether the country affected has oil resources.

This unstructured political situation encourages political maneuvering and time-wasting.

Instead of this situation we need a clear, consistent framework which applies to every nation equally,  where disincentives are applied to unwanted behaviour and incentives reward better behaviour.

This approach is based on sound psychology. It is a well established of behaviour management that everyone needs to know that they stand in a framework of fair, reasonable and consistently-applied rules, which cannot be manipulated and circumvented.

To improve the response, there are three reforms that the United Nations needs to bring in.



1 Set up a Global Index of Human Rights

The Global Index of Human Rights, initiated by the Green Party of England and Wales and adopted (among others) by the Global Greens, sets up a framework that provides an incentive for all governments to improve their performance in the field of human rights.

The UN simply publishes annually a league table of countries ranked according to a measure of their human rights performance.

The Index will produce a continuous upward pressure on human rights throughout the world.
It is a good start, but it needs specific measures directed towards problem regimes.



2  Discourage the move towards dictatorship


Using the Global Index of Human Rights and other feed-backs, the UN will be able to identify regimes that are headed down the slippery slope that leads towards dictatorship.

Paul Kagame of Rwanda is a current example of someone who is on this path, and Vladimir Putin is another.

There are a number of clear markers on the pathway to dictatorship:

• Banning opposition political parties, or putting blocks in the way of their registration
• Closing down opposition newspapers and broadcast stations 
• Intimidation at the polling booths
• Ignoring the results of a democratic election
• Imprisonment, torture and "disappearances" of political opposition 
• Lavish expenditure on palaces for the dictator
• Disproportionate spending on arms and the military
  

Each of these steps should be met with a specific response. For instance:

• Banning opposition parties could lead to financial support to opposition parties who support democracy and human rights.
• Intimidation at the polling booths could result in the regime being denied eligibility to serve on certain UN bodies, for example, the Human Rights Council.
• Ignoring the result of a democratic election  could result in a ban in foreign travel for members of the regime.
• Lavish expenditure on palaces for the dictator could result in a ban on imports of luxury goods.

These are given as suggested examples only.

The overall aim is to create a tariff  of measures that become active as the regime takes unwanted measures, and equally, are removed immediately when the regime steps away from its progress towards dictatorship. The measures will not be fully automatic; a designated UN appointed authority, answerable to the UNSC, will oversee the responses to ensure that they are appropriate to the situation.



3  Deal with illegitimate regimes


The world needs a specific, effective set of responses to dictatorships that are actively committing atrocities against their own people, as Assad is at present.

The true purpose of any government is to protect and serve the people.


If a government begins to attack its own people, using lethal force against non-violent demonstrators, it immediately, by definition, loses its legitimacy.

This point has been established in the UN's doctrine of Responsibility to Protect,  introduced in 2005. In fact, the three points set out in this post can be viewed as a logical expansion of the idea of Responsibility to Protect.

Sovereignty is a responsibility, not a God-given privilege.

The point at which a regime starts to use live rounds on unarmed demonstrators should be the trigger for organised and pre-planned UN action.

Instead of waiting for a year, wringing its hands on the sideline and slowly getting the UNSC to agree as the evidence of inhumanity builds up to a level where even permanent members can no longer deny what is happening, there will be a set protocol for dealing with dictatorships that are no longer legitimate.

As soon as reports of lethal force against non-violent protests come in, the UN will set up an board of inquiry. The inquiry will be given a tight time limit - say one or two weeks - to produce its first report, and will continue to function until the situation is resolved. It will be given information from UN rapporteurs, and will be open to representations from citizens and NGOs.

If the facts of the case warrant it, the inquiry will present a case to the International Criminal Court. The regime will be invited to attend the ICC, and if they refuse to attend, the case will be heard in absentia.


The ICC will be able to issue a legal sentence on the president and responsible members of the regime, if the evidence is sufficient. However, this legal sentence will also be balanced by the offer of an amnesty that will come into force if the named parties step down from office.

When the existing regime steps down, they will hand over power to  a caretaker government that will have the task of organising a fair, democratic election within a stated time - say, within six months.  This is to avoid the situation in Egypt, where Mubarak left, but power effectively fell into the hands of other members of his regime.

This dual-track approach, offering a choice between legal consequences if the regime tries to remain in office with a comfortable exile if they choose to leave office, is unusual in law but absolutely vital from the standpoint of psychology. It reflects what often does happen when dictators are persuaded to leave office. In the absence of the soft option of exile, the legal process may make the situation worse by making the regime more determined than ever to cling to power.

The approach reflects a trade off between justice and pragmatism. Although it is distasteful to allow criminals to escape, we are dealing with global politics. The pragmatic result - saving thousands of lives, saving the economy and the society, is the desired end result.

In addition to, and in parallel with the legal action, other specific measures will need to be put in place.

The opposition parties, provided that they support democratic governance, can be recognised and supported.

All arms sales to the regime should be terminated as soon as the regime begins to use lethal force.
(Here is an Avaaz petition to stop arms sales from the US and India via a Russian company - a petition, incidentally, that may have influenced the turning back of a consignment of helicopters bound for Syria.)

Targeted sanctions will be applied to the regime in a progressive way. The number of officials under sanction and investigation should be raised every week. First the ruler, then his inner circle, then a widening circle of the regime's supporters will be indicted. This means that a growing number of the regime's officials and supporters will begin to realise that the game is up. It will be made clear to them at every point that defection will automatically wipe the legal slate clean for the defector.

Freezing the financial assets of the regime should be used at an early stage.

State broadcasting is an important means of control for any regime. If there is any practical means of blocking, commandeering or terminating the signal used by the regime to broadcast radio and TV, this should be used. Physical destruction of broadcasting masts and stations may be used.

Finally and regrettably, it has to be recognised that military force may become necessary as a last resort. This will be   focused on creating safe havens and escape routes for refugees.






Discussion

This outline of the measures needed to prevent the Syrian situation from being a recurrent nightmare is simple and clear, but will take many years to be installed. We are habituated to reading about this kind of mess, and regard it as a normal part of political reality. But it does not have to be like this. The trauma, murder and bereavement that we see on YouTube and sometimes on our TV screens is simply unacceptable. It is a result of a form of disordered behaviour on the part of absolutist regimes, and all behaviour can be managed.

The principles of behaviour management are clear: what is needed is a framework of rules, consistently and evenly applied. This is precisely what is lacking in the chaotic political world that responds to each situation as if it is the first and only time it has occurred, and where responses are variable according to the economic relations that exist between the illegitimate regime and its significant allies.

The measures set out here are designed to create the necessary framework of rules. They are clear and simple measures, but implementing them will be anything but clear and simple. One of the key problems is to maintain coherence of the United Nations. The UN is under attack from many quarters: from psychopathic regimes themselves, from neo-conservative ideologues who see the UN as a communist plot, and from laissez-faire political activists in the West who see any interference in another nations affairs as neo-colonialism.

Despite this unholy alliance of opposition, this three point plan is the best possibility that we have for avoiding the kind of agony that we are witnessing in Syria, Bahrain and many other places.

It's not going to be easy to get it accepted.

On the other hand, it is not easy to sit and watch mass murder take place every day.  By studying, thinking, and discussing these proposals, by getting them adopted as policies in the many institutions and NGOs that have an interest in human rights, conflict and development, we can help to bring about the adoption of these measures in the UN.

Greens should think globally and also act globally

"Think Global, Act Local" is the time-honoured Green slogan. It is a good slogan, but it has tended to blind us to the necessity of acting globally at the same time as acting locally.

Global action is necessary given that the world is ultimately a single system - an infinitely complex inter-relation of physical, biological, social and economic interacting parts. Each of the parts is local, but the localities summate into the single global system.

"Globalisation" is an ugly, cumbersome word to describe the ugly, cumbersome way the human economy on the planet has evolved into one single powerful marketplace. We Greens have rightly been critical of the way this single market has overridden the need for environmental and social protection, but our opposition has perhaps tended to put us off from grasping the opportunity to act at the global level. Which is a pity, because Greens have an annual Congress every three years. the next is to be in Dakar, Senegal this year, 29 March to 1 April.

I attended the last Congress in Sao Paolo Brazil in 2008. The resolutions we passed are here, and at the same time we set up a small international secretariat.

It is remarkable that with huge diversity of Green Parties from all over the world, (there were 75 parties in 2008) we should have been able to agree on so much. This year the need for us to have a global voice is even greater, not just on climate change, but also on human rights, dictatorships and the global economy.

In Sao Paolo the Global Greens adopted the Global Human Rights Index, which has  a real bearing on the Arab Spring and similar movements against dictatorship and for democracy. The paragraph in the 2008 resolution reads: In order to lead the UN from a reactive to a pro-active stance on human rights, we will press for all countries’ human rights records to be expressed quantitatively, so that they can be published annually by the UN in ranked order, revealing the relative standing of each country, which will exert a continual persuasive force on all governments to improve their performance in the field of human rights. (source)

This year we need to build policy on a global tax framework to match the de facto economic globalisation that exists. Tax havens and tax loopholes create a race to the bottom, where countries compete to have the lowest tax rates in order to attract multinational corporations to their shores. This leads to a haemorrhage of wealth from the national economy into offshore bank accounts, as any skuleboy kno.

The Green Party in England and Wales is a latecomer to the Global Greens - I was the first delegate we sent -  and this year we are sending Ricky Knight and Gina Dowding. We must hope that from the deliberations we get a clear message to save the ailing world economy from the debilitating effect of domination by self-interested multinational corporations.

Global Greens statement on Libya:

The Global Greens Coordination is the secretariat of all Green Parties in the world, who number 75 and rising.

Here is a Global Greens statement on Libya:

23 February, 2011

Global Greens call for Gadhafi’s resignation and an immediate end to the bloody repression in Libya


The Global Greens call in the strongest possible terms for an immediate halt to the bloody crackdown launched by the regime of Colonel Gadhafi and his clan against Libyan protesters. The bombing of unarmed people whose only ’crime’ is going to the streets to protest, if confirmed, constitutes a crime against humanity. Similarly, the use of mercenary forces to attack unarmed civilians is a flagrant human rights violation. Colonel Gadhafi should resign.

Greens all over the world express their solidarity with the families of the hundreds of victims killed in the country and join them in their grief over the loss of their loved ones.

The Global Greens welcome the United Nations’ decision to establish a commission to conduct an independent investigation into the violence in Libya.

Colonel Gadhafi is risking if not promoting civil war. Urgent action is needed to end this bloody massacre and free the people of Libya. The funds of the main leaders of the Gadhafi clan should be frozen. Cynical agreements for economic help in return for refugee repatriation, made by Italy and under consideration by the European Union, should end.

We regret that the reaction so far of many world leaders, especially in western countries, has been overly cautious, more concerned with stability and trade than with the fate of Libyans protesting against one of the most brutal regimes in contemporary history.

The Global Greens call on international and regional organizations and governments, especially those that have previously tolerated and supported the Libyan dictatorship, to support instead the democratic forces in the country. 41 years of Gadhafi are enough! The era of geopolitics where countries are unashamedly complicit with criminals and inhuman dictatorships to protect their commercial interests has to end.

The Global Greens also call on the Libyan people who are demanding their political and human rights in the streets of Tripoli, Benghazi and other cities to follow democratic, secular and republican principles, respectful of the beliefs of everyone and capable of laying the foundations for a socially more just and politically more open country.

The Global Greens Coordination


James Tonson, secretary

I have emailed back to James, and also to Frank Habineza, African Greens coordinator


I have seen the GG release "LIBYA: Global Greens call for Gadhafi’s Resignation".  Well done for getting it out, and more of this please.

Just a small point: "We regret that the reaction so far of many world leaders, especially in western countries, has been overly cautious, more concerned with stability and trade than with the fate of Libyans protesting against one of the most brutal regimes in contemporary history."

I saw a Reuters report yesterday alleging that the West generally were in fact leading the move in the UN Human Rights Council to oust Gaddafi, and that Russia China and the majority of African and Asian nations were more cautious about requesting Gaddafi's removal. The link was here http://reut.rs/hOp8oc, but now leads nowhere.

We will see later today what the HRC comes out with.

It is pretty likely that this tragedy may be played out in many more countries. The seizing of foreign assets should occur as soon as a ruler uses lethal force on the population.

The problem is that the international community addresses each of these crises as a unique event, and this results in a lot of time-consuming, ad hoc politicking. As you know, the Golbal Greens in 2008 agreed, inter alia, on this measure:

"In order to lead the UN from a reactive to a pro-active stance on human rights, we will press for all countries’ human rights records to be expressed quantitatively, so that they can be published annually by the UN in ranked order, revealing the relative standing of each country, which will exert a continual persuasive force on all governments to improve their performance in the field of human rights".

This is a uniquely Green initiative. There is a full report on it here prepared for GPEW, and it contains a paragraph on preventing formation of dictatorships. (Dealing with Dictators).

I believe that the Arab Spring is intrinsically Green in the sense that it is a manifestation of people power. Please keep up the pressure from the GG, and let us continue to campaign for a global uplift in human rights.

Let us also not forget that revolution does not put food on the table. The problems in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya include unemployment and water and food shortages. The political revolution is the beginning, not the end. We need somehow, without seeming to lecture, to show that these economic problems represent a failure of free market economics, and that green economics, which puts food, water, housing, sustainable energy and intelligent waste management at the foundation of the economy, is the economic revolution that the world needs.

Best wishes


Richard Lawson

Green Parties of USA and Australia support the Egyptian uprising

Here are press releases received from Green Parties in the US and Australia:

GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES

WASHINGTON, DC -- Green Party leaders in the US announced the party's
support and encouragement for nonviolent protesters in Tunisia, Egypt,
Jordan, Algeria, and other nations in the region who have taken to the
streets in demand for an end to corrupt and oppressive regimes.

"The Green Party of the United States supports democracy, here and
throughout the world. We hope that the protesters in Egypt succeed in
deposing President Mubarak, and we're thrilled to see so many young
people stand up against dictators. The best outcome would be for
Tunisia, Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia to improve economic
conditions for their populations and embrace democracy, equal rights
and protections for women and for ethnic, religious, and sexual
minorities, and freedom of the press. We condemn the brutal responses
to the protests, including police violence and the shutdown of the
Internet," said Dr. Anthony Gronowicz, 2010 Green candidate for
Congress in New York's 7th District and a member of the party's
International Committee .


Greens noted that the threatened regimes, especially Egyptian
President Mubarak's administration, were propped up by the US for the
purpose of serving US interests such as access to oil and other
resources, the maintenance of military bases on foreign soil, and
unequivocal support for Israel's brutal occupation and apartheid
system.

"While the Obama Administration has offered some restrained rhetorical
support for the demonstrations, the US continues to send the Egyptian
government billions of dollars in military aid, some of it now being
used by security forces to beat and teargas protesters," said David
Doonan, Mayor of Greenwich, New York, and a member of the Green Party.
"For true stability in the region, North African and Middle Eastern
governments must serve the interests of their own people instead of
the demands of the US State Department and western business."

Egypt is the second largest recipient of US military and economic aid
($1.55 billion in 2010), after Israel ($3.175 billion).

"The young people marching for democracy and freedom in these nations
are a model for people in the US. We need a mass opposition movement
in the US against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the gross
violations of our Constitution in the name of 'homeland security,' and
the reckless greed of Wall Street, the insurance industry, oil
companies, and other corporations. Let's learn something from the
Tunisian protesters: our outrage should not be directed at Wikileaks
but at our own government's secret policies and actions that were
exposed by the Wikileaks cables, such as the US bombing of Yemen and
the attempts to undermine the Copenhagen talks on global warming,"
said Farheen Hakeem, co-chair of the Green Party of the United States.

Australia should urge Mubarak to immediately set a date for a full and free election - Brown

30 January 2011

Australia should urge Mubarak to immediately set a date for a full and free election - Brown

The Australian Government should urge Hosni Mubarak to immediately set a date for a full and free election in Egypt in the coming weeks, Australian Greens Leader Bob Brown said in Hobart today.

"Egypt's election should be under international supervision," Senator Brown added.

"We urge governments of all democracies not to turn their backs as the death toll rises in Egypt."

"We commend news organisations who are working in dangerous conditions to ensure that the truth is told."

"Thousands of people are also working tirelessly to try to circumvent Mubarak's blocks on communications by harnessing the power of social media."

Rwanda Greens Vice president murder taken to UN

Our colleague Frank Habineza, founder and leader of the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda, and also President of the African Greens Federation and Co-Africa Representative to Global Greens Coordination (GGC), has circulated a letter to the UN Secretary General, requesting an Independent Investigation into the alleged assassination of the  Democratic Green Party of Rwanda's First Vice President, Andre Kagwa RWISEREKA, who was found be-headed on 14 July 2010.

The letter comes from his family. The Rwandan Opposition Consultative Council also demanded an independent inquiry in July 2010 and Human Rights Watch called for an Independent Autopsy.

The Democratic Green Party of Rwanda  seeks justice for its Vice President.

There is a lot of intimidation and threats directed at Green Party members in Kigali and a serious character assassination and dehumanization campaign against the Green Party Leader (Frank Habineza), accusing him of being a non-national. It is thought that there is a plan to overthrow him from the Party Leadership and replace him with a stooge and then register the Party. The Green Party was unable to compete in the recent rigged elections in Rwanda, because its attempts to register as a party were blocked by Kagame's goons.

It it the duty of all Green Parties and greens to continue to stand with Rwanda and the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda.



It is to the shame of the Commonwealth that the Secretary General is not responding to letters on this matter. Sadly, it seems that the Commonwealth no longer cares about human rights, only about commerce.

Wangari Maathai on Today Programme

Wangari Maathai, the nobel Peace prize winning Green, interviewed on Today (go to 0847). She says that what Africa needs is not just Western aid, but good governance.

I will write to draw her attention to the Global Index of Human Rights, which aims to do exactly this thing. In particular, it includes information on the Ibrahim Index for African Governance , a model that applies to sub-Saharan Africa.

Wangari wants us to plant a billion trees by the end of 2009. This is a reasonable and achievable target. In Sao Paolo last year, I met Haidar el Ali, a Green from Senegal who planted 10,000 mangroves with the aid of his own two small children.

In healing the biosphere by planting trees in a way that is ecologically sensible, and in a way that empowers and benefits local people, we will be healing ourselves, because it will divert human energies from conflict and killing.

Real progress is possible. We just need to understand that human health is dependent on the health of the global environment.

Global Greens Congress completion

The Congress is over. In the morning session we voted through (at a pace that would have created overheating in a Green Party Conference in England) the following:

A 21 Point Plan for the 21st century: a 30 page document covering
Economics
CO2 reduction
Water management
Food crisis
Biodiversity
UN MillenniumDevelopment
Global partnership for development including Tobin tax
Fair Trade
Socially and ecologically inspired science and technology
Increasing price of raw materials
Women’s rights
Strengthening democracy
Developing a World Environment Organisation
Reinforce the UNHRC, International Court of Justice, ban death penalty and an Index of Human Rights in the UN
Recognition of environmental refugees
Cooperation between the great cities of the world to get best environmental practice
Promote sustainable cultural policies
Promote structured dialogue among world religions (to include atheists)
Reinforcing the rights of youth
Facilitating access to medicine for poorer countries
Promote peace (my submission to include a reference to the 2weeks arms spending/52 weeks basic needs spending was accepted)
Work to make the 21st century a green century

It was passed with I think 3 against and some abstentions. I voted for, despite a weakness in its CO2 targets, on the understanding that the wording would be cleared up in the final tidy up.
It is not a perfect document – perfection is not an option in any document – but all in all, it was an impressive achievement in a few days, with so many diverse nations there, and the language difficulty. It is rightly said that broken English is the lingua franca of the world community.

We also passed papers on
Support for the Tibetan people
Against nuclear power
Biodiversity
Sustainable cities
The next steps for the Global Greens (Europe gave way to world pressure, and the final document has global ambition tempered with European caution)
A declaration on sustainable cities (which will be useful for Darren Johnson and Jenny Jones in the London Assembly)
A Declaration on Climate Change.

This last I abstained on. I explained regretfully to the plenary that I could not support it despite the correct temperature rise target (2 degrees Celsius) its CO2 emissions target clashed with the policy of the GPEW, and that I would be in deep doodoo if I did anything but abstain. I hoped that I was the only one to abstain, and I was.

The thing is that C&C has not gone far beyond Dover, and we are going to have to take time to sell it, maybe with a motion to the next conference.

The final papers will be up on the Global Greens website soon.

Global Warming, C&C, Simpol, DEFRA and LDCs

I have just had a long phone conversation with a civil servant at the Global Atmosphere Division at DEFRA about C&C and Simultaneous Policy. She said that Contraction and Convergence is on the table (with the Brazilian proposal, Multistage, Tryptich &c) at the UN preparatory conference in Bonn, and will be there at the plenary UN Conference on Climate change in Nairobi in November. Negotiations are difficult not just because of USA and Australia, but also because developing countries are tending to sit back and say, "Well you caused the problem, you sort it out".

Which is understandable, but not helpful.

I suggested that the UK should concentrate on picking up a really poor country like Mozambique or Somalia, and going in big time with solar technologies, showing how green economic growth (everyone is worried about not being able to grow) can push an economy forward.