[News] from [guardian.co.uk]
[Environment > Copenhagen climate change summit 2009]
Gordon Brown urges world leaders to attend Copenhagen climate change talks
> Extra effort needed to end climate talks deadlock
> Negotiations are so slow 'deal is in grave danger'
Patrick Wintour, political editor
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 20 September 2009 22.31 BST Article history
Gordon Brown is to urge his fellow world leaders to agree to go personally to the vital UN climate change talks in Copenhagen in December in an attempt to break what is rapidly becoming a dangerous deadlock.
Brown will make his proposals when he joins world leaders in New York and Pittsburgh next week to discuss climate change talks and the world economy.
The UN Copenhagen talks are due to be attended only by environment ministers, but Brown believes the issues are so momentous, so complex and so likely to determine the shape of national economies that the meeting will require the attendance of world leaders in the final set of negotiations in mid-December.
Green groups and his own climate change secretary, Ed Miliband, have been pressing Brown to take the lead and say he is willing to attend the talks.
Writing in Newsweek tomorrow, Brown warns: "The negotiations are proceeding so slowly that a deal is in grave danger." He ups the ante by becoming the first head of government to say he will go to Copenhagen to try to agree a framework on climate change for the post-2012 era when the Kyoto protocol expires.
He writes: "Securing an agreement in Copenhagen will require world leaders to bridge our remaining differences and seize these opportunities. But I believe it can be done. And if it is necessary to clinch the deal, I will personally go to Copenhagen to achieve it."
It is understood he has already been in touch with some world leaders to urge them to make similar pledges.
Brown argues the negotiations are not simply about environmental regulations, saying that "the UN talks are not just about safeguarding the environment, but also about stimulating economic demand and investment".
A No 10 source said tonight: "The talks are not yet deadlocked, but they are not going fast enough. These talks cannot be just left to the official negotiators, and given the consequences of what will be decided for energy prices and economies, they cannot be left only to environment ministers.
"In some countries they simply do not have the authority to make a deal. It is going to need big figures with the authority to direct the talks. None of this can be settled at three in the morning barter."
Rolling negotiations are already underway in the run-up to Copenhagen, including a special session at the UN tomorrow. The developing countries are still demanding the developed countries commit themselves to a large interim carbon emission cuts of 40% by 2020 on 1990 levels, something neither the EU or the Americans have been willing to agree. The new Japanese government has pledged to cut emissions by 25% by 2020.
The developed countries are in turn seeking commitments that countries such as China and India will say what they will do in the medium term to cut their emissions. By 2020, two-thirds of emissions will come from countries now considered developing nations, such as China and India. China counters that it is not a big emitter in per capita terms.
No 10 is hoping that President Hu Jintao of China will make an important statement at the UN on Tuesday in New York at a meeting convened by the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon.
Developing countries are also demanding more green technology cash than the $100bn (£62bn) a year by 2020 from public and private sources that has so far been proposed by the EU on Brown's initiative. Few industrialised countries have said how much they are willing to contribute to this fund. The developed countries are also demanding to know how the money will be spent. There are also issues of how the post-2012 framework is going to be governed.
Ruth Davis, the RSPB's head of climate change, said: "The prime minister's personal attendance at the Copenhagen summit is extremely welcome news, and shows the necessary commitment world leaders need to display if we are to tackle the greatest threat faced by mankind and the environment."
[News > World news > Afghanistan]
Nato commander in Afghanistan warns of 'mission failure'
General Stanley McChrystal says more troops and new tactics needed if defeating insurgency is to remain possible
Peter Walker
guardian.co.uk, Monday 21 September 2009 11.42 BST Article history
The new Nato commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, has warned of possible "mission failure" unless more international forces, coupled with new tactics to win local support, are deployed immediately.
In a blunt assessment of the situation to the US defence secretary, Robert Gates – a copy of which has been obtained by US newspapers – McChrystal was scathing about corruption within the Afghan government and the tactics used by International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) troops, of which he took command in June.
"Failure to provide adequate resources ... risks a longer conflict, greater casualties, higher overall costs and, ultimately, a critical loss of political support," he wrote in a 66-page document, details of which were reported by the Washington Post and the New York Times.
"Any of these risks, in turn, are likely to result in mission failure."
McChrystal wrote that "Isaf requires more forces", mentioning "previously validated, yet unsourced, requirements" – seemingly a reference to a request for 10,000 extra troops made by his predecessor, General David McKiernan.
"Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near term (next 12 months) – while Afghan security capacity matures – risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible," he warned.
Coupled with this was a requirement for new tactics, like training more Nato troops in local languages so they would be "seen as guests of the Afghan people and their government, not an occupying army".
"Preoccupied with protection of our own forces, we have operated in a manner that distances us – physically and psychologically – from the people we seek to protect ... the insurgents cannot defeat us militarily, but we can defeat ourselves."
McChrystal said Nato forces should spend "as little time as possible in armoured vehicles or behind the walls of forward operating bases", warning that in the short term this meant it was "realistic to expect that Afghan and coalition casualties will increase".
In a series of television interviews broadcast yesterday, the US president, Barack Obama, said he was still considering whether more troops should be sent to Afghanistan.
"I just want to make sure that everybody understands that you don't make decisions about resources before you have the strategy ready," he said on ABC's This Week programme.
Obama told NBC's Meet the Press it was a difficult decision to send more US forces into a conflict zone.
"I'm the one who's answerable to their parents if they don't come home," he said. "So I have to ask some very hard questions any time I send our troops in."
Nato sources told the Guardian last week that any extra troops for Afghanistan would have to come from the UK or other European nations because the US military remained heavily committed in Iraq.
"The Germans have more capacity, as do the French, the Italians and the United Kingdom," one Nato source said.
In his report, McChrystal warned that a combination of muddled Nato tactics and corruption within Afghanistan's government and officialdom had left Afghans "reluctant to align with us against the insurgents".
"The weakness of state institutions, malign actions of powerbrokers, widespread corruption and abuse of power by various officials, and ISAF's own errors have given Afghans little reason to support their government.
"Afghan social, political, economic, and cultural affairs are complex and poorly understood.
"Isaf does not sufficiently appreciate the dynamics in local communities, nor how the insurgency, corruption, incompetent officials, powerbrokers and criminality all combine to affect the Afghan population."
In a separate section, he warned that the Afghan prison system had been turned into "a sanctuary and base" for insurgents to plan and to recruit among criminals.
He identified three main insurgent groups, saying they were "clearly supported from Pakistan".
"The insurgents control or contest a significant portion of the country, although it is difficult to assess precisely how much due to a lack of Isaf presence."
[Environment > Copenhagen climate change summit 2009]
Gordon Brown urges world leaders to attend Copenhagen climate change talks
> Extra effort needed to end climate talks deadlock
> Negotiations are so slow 'deal is in grave danger'
Patrick Wintour, political editor
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 20 September 2009 22.31 BST Article history
Gordon Brown is to urge his fellow world leaders to agree to go personally to the vital UN climate change talks in Copenhagen in December in an attempt to break what is rapidly becoming a dangerous deadlock.
Brown will make his proposals when he joins world leaders in New York and Pittsburgh next week to discuss climate change talks and the world economy.
The UN Copenhagen talks are due to be attended only by environment ministers, but Brown believes the issues are so momentous, so complex and so likely to determine the shape of national economies that the meeting will require the attendance of world leaders in the final set of negotiations in mid-December.
Green groups and his own climate change secretary, Ed Miliband, have been pressing Brown to take the lead and say he is willing to attend the talks.
Writing in Newsweek tomorrow, Brown warns: "The negotiations are proceeding so slowly that a deal is in grave danger." He ups the ante by becoming the first head of government to say he will go to Copenhagen to try to agree a framework on climate change for the post-2012 era when the Kyoto protocol expires.
He writes: "Securing an agreement in Copenhagen will require world leaders to bridge our remaining differences and seize these opportunities. But I believe it can be done. And if it is necessary to clinch the deal, I will personally go to Copenhagen to achieve it."
It is understood he has already been in touch with some world leaders to urge them to make similar pledges.
Brown argues the negotiations are not simply about environmental regulations, saying that "the UN talks are not just about safeguarding the environment, but also about stimulating economic demand and investment".
A No 10 source said tonight: "The talks are not yet deadlocked, but they are not going fast enough. These talks cannot be just left to the official negotiators, and given the consequences of what will be decided for energy prices and economies, they cannot be left only to environment ministers.
"In some countries they simply do not have the authority to make a deal. It is going to need big figures with the authority to direct the talks. None of this can be settled at three in the morning barter."
Rolling negotiations are already underway in the run-up to Copenhagen, including a special session at the UN tomorrow. The developing countries are still demanding the developed countries commit themselves to a large interim carbon emission cuts of 40% by 2020 on 1990 levels, something neither the EU or the Americans have been willing to agree. The new Japanese government has pledged to cut emissions by 25% by 2020.
The developed countries are in turn seeking commitments that countries such as China and India will say what they will do in the medium term to cut their emissions. By 2020, two-thirds of emissions will come from countries now considered developing nations, such as China and India. China counters that it is not a big emitter in per capita terms.
No 10 is hoping that President Hu Jintao of China will make an important statement at the UN on Tuesday in New York at a meeting convened by the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon.
Developing countries are also demanding more green technology cash than the $100bn (£62bn) a year by 2020 from public and private sources that has so far been proposed by the EU on Brown's initiative. Few industrialised countries have said how much they are willing to contribute to this fund. The developed countries are also demanding to know how the money will be spent. There are also issues of how the post-2012 framework is going to be governed.
Ruth Davis, the RSPB's head of climate change, said: "The prime minister's personal attendance at the Copenhagen summit is extremely welcome news, and shows the necessary commitment world leaders need to display if we are to tackle the greatest threat faced by mankind and the environment."
[News > World news > Afghanistan]
Nato commander in Afghanistan warns of 'mission failure'
General Stanley McChrystal says more troops and new tactics needed if defeating insurgency is to remain possible
Peter Walker
guardian.co.uk, Monday 21 September 2009 11.42 BST Article history
The new Nato commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, has warned of possible "mission failure" unless more international forces, coupled with new tactics to win local support, are deployed immediately.
In a blunt assessment of the situation to the US defence secretary, Robert Gates – a copy of which has been obtained by US newspapers – McChrystal was scathing about corruption within the Afghan government and the tactics used by International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) troops, of which he took command in June.
"Failure to provide adequate resources ... risks a longer conflict, greater casualties, higher overall costs and, ultimately, a critical loss of political support," he wrote in a 66-page document, details of which were reported by the Washington Post and the New York Times.
"Any of these risks, in turn, are likely to result in mission failure."
McChrystal wrote that "Isaf requires more forces", mentioning "previously validated, yet unsourced, requirements" – seemingly a reference to a request for 10,000 extra troops made by his predecessor, General David McKiernan.
"Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near term (next 12 months) – while Afghan security capacity matures – risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible," he warned.
Coupled with this was a requirement for new tactics, like training more Nato troops in local languages so they would be "seen as guests of the Afghan people and their government, not an occupying army".
"Preoccupied with protection of our own forces, we have operated in a manner that distances us – physically and psychologically – from the people we seek to protect ... the insurgents cannot defeat us militarily, but we can defeat ourselves."
McChrystal said Nato forces should spend "as little time as possible in armoured vehicles or behind the walls of forward operating bases", warning that in the short term this meant it was "realistic to expect that Afghan and coalition casualties will increase".
In a series of television interviews broadcast yesterday, the US president, Barack Obama, said he was still considering whether more troops should be sent to Afghanistan.
"I just want to make sure that everybody understands that you don't make decisions about resources before you have the strategy ready," he said on ABC's This Week programme.
Obama told NBC's Meet the Press it was a difficult decision to send more US forces into a conflict zone.
"I'm the one who's answerable to their parents if they don't come home," he said. "So I have to ask some very hard questions any time I send our troops in."
Nato sources told the Guardian last week that any extra troops for Afghanistan would have to come from the UK or other European nations because the US military remained heavily committed in Iraq.
"The Germans have more capacity, as do the French, the Italians and the United Kingdom," one Nato source said.
In his report, McChrystal warned that a combination of muddled Nato tactics and corruption within Afghanistan's government and officialdom had left Afghans "reluctant to align with us against the insurgents".
"The weakness of state institutions, malign actions of powerbrokers, widespread corruption and abuse of power by various officials, and ISAF's own errors have given Afghans little reason to support their government.
"Afghan social, political, economic, and cultural affairs are complex and poorly understood.
"Isaf does not sufficiently appreciate the dynamics in local communities, nor how the insurgency, corruption, incompetent officials, powerbrokers and criminality all combine to affect the Afghan population."
In a separate section, he warned that the Afghan prison system had been turned into "a sanctuary and base" for insurgents to plan and to recruit among criminals.
He identified three main insurgent groups, saying they were "clearly supported from Pakistan".
"The insurgents control or contest a significant portion of the country, although it is difficult to assess precisely how much due to a lack of Isaf presence."
※コメント投稿者のブログIDはブログ作成者のみに通知されます