Western nations 'used bullying tactics' at climate talks

[Ray]

I hope the BRICS development bank is an absolute and unqualified success. There really is a great need for alternatives to the U.S.-dominated/EU-dominated international lending institutions providing capital to the underdeveloped and developing worlds. It is good that the BRICS countries are stepping up to the plate and are willing to take this on.

It is still to show results.

The idea is good but then implementation will indicate its value.

Russia and China were always at the helm of organising various methods to break the economic hegemony of the US and thereby controlling the fate of the world and this was possibly their brainchild, if I am not mistaken.

Time will only tell.

 

[Redhawk]

@Ray: Indeed, Ray, like everything, time will tell. But it is certainly a good idea in theory and I hope it is successful in practice.

 

[santosh10]

BASIC countries

//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/G4_countries.png/1024px-G4_countries.png

BASIC countries (red) and other G20 developing nations (green)

The BASIC countries (also Basic countries or BASIC) are a bloc of four large newly industrialized countries – Brazil, South Africa, India and China – formed by an agreement on 28 November 2009. The four committed to act jointly at the Copenhagen climate summit, including a possible united walk-out if their common minimum position was not met by the developed nations.[1] :ranger:

This emerging geopolitical alliance, initiated and led by China, then brokered the final Copenhagen Accord with the United States. Subsequently, the grouping is working to define a common position on emission reductions and climate aid money, and to try to convince other countries to sign up to the Copenhagen Accord.[2] However, in January 2010, the grouping described the Accord as merely a political agreement and not legally binding, as is argued by the US and Europe.

The four countries also said they will announce their plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 31 January 2010 as agreed in Copenhagen. Furthermore the grouping discussed the possibility of providing financial and technical aid to the poorer nations of the G77, and promised details after their Cape Town meeting in April 2010. This move was apparently intended to shame richer nations into increasing their funding for climate mitigation in poorer nations.[3]

At the April 2010 meeting in Cape Town, environment ministers from the four countries called for a legally binding global agreement on long-term cooperative action under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its Kyoto Protocol, to be concluded at the next UN Climate Change Conference in Cancun, Mexico in November 2010, or at the latest in South Africa by 2011, saying that slow legislative progress in the United States should not be allowed to dictate the pace of global agreement. The group's post-meeting statement also demanded that developed countries allow developing countries "equitable space for development" as well as providing them with finance, technology and capacity-building support, based on their "historical responsibility for climate change".[4] :ranger:

Technical cooperation among the countries appears to be following, as in May 2010 South Africa, Brazil and India announced a joint programme to develop satellites.[5] :thumb:

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASIC_countries

 

[santosh10]

BASIC group refuses to budge on climate change stance

The four BASIC countries stick to their developing nation stand at a meeting to prepare for the next round of climate negotiations

Brazil, South Africa, India and China (BASIC) presented a united front and reiterated their stand on climate negotiations at the 18th ministerial level meeting held in New Delhi this week. Developed countries had been hoping that the four governments would at least drop a hint that they would be willing to take on legally binding greenhouse gas emission control commitments by 2020, but there was no sign of that. :ranger:

Instead, as the two-day meeting ended, host Prakash Javadekar, India's minister for environment, forests and climate change, stressed that "developed countries must walk the talk" and improve their emission reduction commitments.

In a joint statement released by the world's four biggest emerging economies, the ministers expressed their disappointment over the "continued lack of any clear roadmap for providing US$100 billion per year by developed countries by 2020." This was a commitment made by then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as far back as the 2009 Copenhagen climate summit.

The money is supposed to go to the Green Climate Fund (GCF) to provide long-term finance to developing countries to help them mitigate their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and adapt to climate change. The fund has been set up, but is still mostly empty, and there is still a big question mark over how this money will be raised.

Calling for an immediate and substantial capitalization of the GCF, Javadekar emphasised that "people must contribute." The statement said that the "developed countries should take the lead in addressing climate change in accordance with their historical responsibilities, the latest available scientific evidence on climate change trends and the IPCC AR5."

The fifth assessment report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recently reaffirmed that human activities are causing climate change, which is already affecting farm output worldwide, raising sea levels, and making droughts, floods and storms more frequent and more severe. The thousands of scientists from around the world who worked on these reports also reaffirmed that carbon dioxide continues to be the main GHG that was warming the atmosphere and causing climate change, and that the main sources of the extra carbon dioxide are thermal power plants, other industries and motor vehicles. :ranger:

The statement by the BASIC ministers also reaffirmed that the outcome of the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action must be in full accordance with the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) and respective capabilities.

Under the Durban Platform, developed countries have been pressing for emerging economies to make legally binding mitigation commitments, a departure from the earlier Kyoto Protocol under which only industrialized nations were obliged to reduce their GHG emissions.

Led by the US, developed countries have also been pressing all governments to tell the secretariat of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change the extent to which they plan to control their GHG emissions – what is called their intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs) – as early as possible. Reacting to this, the four BASIC ministers said that given their social and development needs, INDCs of developing countries will also be based on "the extent of financial, technological and capacity-building support provided by the developed countries." :thumb:

When asked if India will stick to the deadline of submitting its climate contributions, Javadekar said, "India won't ask for more time." The deadline is March 2015.

Francisco Gaetani, Deputy Minister of Environment of Brazil, said, "We are proud of our efforts at emission reductions. But developed countries need to walk the talk. They haven't fulfilled their commitments yet. We don't feel obliged but the developed countries need to showcase their efforts first."

The four ministers unanimously stated that developing countries have done a lot more than developed countries to mitigate climate change and that the efforts can further increase if the developed nations – historically responsible for most of the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today – fulfil their commitments to provide funds, technology and capacity building support.

Asked about the bilateral agreement between China and the US on climate change, Xie Zhenhua, Vice Chairman of the National Development and Reform Commission of China, said that both China and the US – the top GHG emitters of the world – can enhance their domestic capacities to address climate change through cooperation.

Elaborating, Xie said, "There are two tiers of cooperation. There is exchange of information for the purpose of promoting the multilateral agreements forward and domestic measures to address climate change. Second, specific projects for promoting domestic actions to address climate change. These projects include energy savings, energy efficiency, renewable, smart-grids, CCUs (Carbon capture and utilization) and capacity-building programmes."

Xie did not think such bilateral talks would dilute the ongoing multilateral climate negotiations under UNFCCC. He said, "Multilateral agreement issues can't be solved by a small number of countries. Multilateral agreement rules need to be followed. China upholds CBDR, equity and individual capacity principles. Multilateral issues need to be resolved under multilateral framework."

India has also been holding bilateral talks with the US on the issue. Top American climate negotiator Todd Stern was in New Delhi recently as part of a delegation led by Secretary of State John Kerry. Stern and Javadekar held a long meeting, after which both chose to talk about bilateral cooperation under the India-US Joint Working Group on Climate Change – clean technology, smart grids, energy efficiency, adaptation strategies, sustainable forestry, water management, information-sharing on adaptation to extreme weather events and so on. :thumb:

On climate negotiations, the only official statement was for both countries to reaffirm their commitment to a successful outcome of the Paris summit.

Getting back to the BASIC ministers meeting, it was learnt that at a closed-door session, the four ministers and their officials discussed how to communicate the group's position to the rest of the world more effectively. China suggested that each of the four countries draft small flyers or short articles that can be distributed at the next climate summit – scheduled in Lima, Peru, this December – to tell the world what has been done by the BASIC group to mitigate emissions and the difficulties that they have overcome.

It was also suggested that representatives of other developing nation blocs, such as G77 and small-island developing states (SIDS) be included at the next BASIC meeting – to be held in South Africa this October – so that the group's position can be better understood. Developing countries officially carry out their climate negotiations under the G77 and China umbrella.

While climate negotiators from various governments are now preparing for the next summit in Lima, they all realize it is a prelude to the next summit – to be held in Paris in December 2015 – where a global agreement on mitigation is expected.

The French government is learnt to be working on a "Paris Declaration" already, a move roundly criticised by a NGO representative who has been following the summits for years. "They are making exactly the same mistake that the Danish government made before the Copenhagen summit, trying to draft a declaration without sufficient consultation with other governments. If they do not change their stance, the Paris summit will end up with same fiasco."

The French foreign minister – who was in New Delhi recently – was however insistent that his government would consult every country in an effort to reach consensus.

Shades of this issue fell on the BASIC ministers meet. The group urged that the elements for a draft negotiating text for the 2015 outcome should be finalized and available for discussion at the Lima summit. Javadekar said, "The text must be ready one year before so that we can discuss and finalize it and not leave it for the last moment."

All developed countries are now looking anxiously at India, which has for decades been the champion of the equity principle under which industrialized nations need to do much more in view of their historical responsibility, while developing nations must have the right to bring all their citizens out of poverty. :thumb:

With the US, Russia, Japan, Canada, Australia and some European countries insisting that they will not make any legally binding commitments unless developing countries – especially emerging economies – do the same, this issue continues to be a potential deal breaker.

As foreign ministers, environment ministers and climate negotiators from around the globe keep jetting to New Delhi, Javadekar has been reiterating that India will not be a spoiler, but that developing countries must be helped through finance, green technology transfer and capacity building.

Earlier this week, inaugurating a meeting held to highlight the findings of the IPCC, Javadekar said, "We shall need a longer window before we're in a position to make a (legally binding mitigation) commitment, maybe 2040 or beyond."

The prospective Paris agreement envisages all countries – developed and developing – to make commitments for the post-2020 period. Still, Javadekar's position was a change from the earlier position of Indian negotiators who had shut the door from the country making any commitment at all. Right now, the door is slightly ajar. :ranger:

thethirdpole.net/basic-group-refuses-to-budge-on-climate-change-stance/

 

[santosh10]

@Ray: Indeed, Ray, like everything, time will tell. But it is certainly a good idea in theory and I hope it is successful in practice.

@Ray

We First Need to Legally Bind High Population Countries on Population Control

here, as in he above article, its clear that High Population Density countries cant be allowed to emit greenhouse emission in match with the developed countries until they are agreed to reduce population to an acceptable level. and about India, i would say it to reduce its population to 700millon by 2050, and 341mil by 2100, same as its population at the time of freedom, in 1947.....

and yes, the same we may demand from our neighbors like Pakistan, Bangladesh too, to reduce population to 34mil and 36mil respectively by 2100, a target, same as in 1947.... and the similar target we may demand from rest of the world too......

you cant maintain living standard in match with the developed nations until you deserved for that, culturally/socially/politically etc. too, and before demanding similarity with the OECD nations, we demand some commitments from the developing countries in regard of population control

this topic is also discussed in the thread as below :thumb:

//defenceforumindia.com/forum/economy-infrastructure/64029-sustainable-world-population-based-resource-sufficiency-evaluation-2.html

 

[santosh10]

double post

 

[santosh10]

Countries that have financial clout, economic clout and military might will always force their will on those who are not equal to them. That is the way of life and the world. Nothing can actually be done, but through discussion try to make them see the difficulties faced by the weaker nations.

@Redhawk


true, and the outcome of this world's power balance is well stated in just one line of the main article of this thread, as below :ranger:

It's so clear: we only need your signature here, we have figured out everything, we have designed the role of your country, there is no more time, please sign here now.

"Developed countries sit down and delay, and just repeat inanities, and then they go out and tell the media that the developing countries are blocking the negotiations, and all the world believes it, even developing countries!" :ranger:

theguardian.com/environment/2011/nov/26/climate-change-talks-durban]Western nations 'used bullying tactics' at climate talks | Environment | The Guardian[/url]

=>

World Development Movement report accuses developed countries of threatening behaviour at climate change summits

Leading figures in western governments have been accused of using bullying tactics with developing countries during climate change summits.

Officials of developing countries complain of divide-and-rule tactics and threats to withhold vital funds unless agreements are signed.

It is a standard tactic at UN climate meetings for rich countries to try to divide and rule developing countries' negotiating groups. Developing countries admit they are bamboozled by the tactics and are often unable to keep up with the negotiations.

One diplomat told the report's authors: "At one point in Copenhagen there were 26 meetings taking place simultaneously. How can a developing country delegation of two people possibly hope to cope? These numbers are life and death. There is no intention to agree a fair scenario, whether voluntary or by obligation. It's so clear: we only need your signature here, we have figured out everything, we have designed the role of your country, there is no more time, please sign here now.

"Developed countries sit down and delay, and just repeat inanities, and then they go out and tell the media that the developing countries are blocking the negotiations, and all the world believes it, even developing countries!" :ranger:

theguardian.com/environment/2011/nov/26/climate-change-talks-durban]Western nations 'used bullying tactics' at climate talks | Environment | The Guardian[/url]

 

[santosh10]

self deleted

 

[santosh10]

BASIC nations to discuss climate change talks' tactics

Ministers of China, Brazil and South Africa to hold closed-door talks with Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar and team

The ministers of China, Brazil and South Africa, along with their respective climate change negotiators, will hold closed-door talks with Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar and his team on August 7-8.

This meeting of BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) ministers will strategies for the upcoming rounds of climate negotiations that will lead to the global 2015 agreement.

BASIC grouping has become a prominent voice of emerging economies at the UN climate talks and is seen as one of the important country blocks that hold influence at the negotiations, besides the European Union and the United States.

Sources in the government said the talks would focus on how to push the developed countries to make the 2015 agreement a holistic one, covering not just mitigation but also adaptation, finance and technology.

The US and EU have been insisting that the key agreement be limited to mitigation, with other pillars of the talks being addressed in detail later.

By March 2015, all countries are required to also provide a new list of actions they would take under the 2015 climate agreement. These are called “intended nationally determined contributions”.

The four ministers will also discuss the shape and content of these actions. The four are likely to find common ground on negotiating the framework for these actions at the upcoming annual UN climate talks in Peru, where the first draft of the 2015 agreement will be fleshed out.

The BASIC meeting will also have a session discussing how they wish to see principles of common but differentiated responsibilities and equity operationlised in the new agreement. Besides, they are expected to take a joint position on what in climate jargon is referred to as the ex-ante review.

Some countries have demanded that the actions submitted by nations under the 2015 agreement be reviewed for their adequacy and equity-based burden-sharing; and if need be, reviewed to meet the requirements of keeping global temperatures under check.

The BASIC meeting is to be followed up with an important meeting of the Like-Minded Developing Countries, which includes the Philippines, Cuba, China, India, a grouping that has negotiated with more cohesion at the climate talks in recent years.

http://www.business-standard.com/ar...ate-change-talks-in-delhi-114080601541_1.html
.

 

[santosh10]

According to the notice dated April 26, the group receives foreign funding and participates in “political activities” through carrying out projects aimed at “overcoming totalitarian stereotypes by influencing public opinion with awareness-raising activities, facilitating the establishment of the rule of law by informing citizens about constitutional norms, ensuring the priority of individual rights in state practices and public life by remembrance of terror victims in the past and defending the rights of citizens in the present, as well as countering violent, unlawful, totalitarian ways of ruling the state by organizing public events (rallies, exhibitions, etc.).”

Russia: 'Foreign Agents' Law Hits Hundreds of NGOs: Updated February 19, 2014 | Human Rights Watch

INSAF, whose acronym means “justice” in Urdu, has seen its portion of foreign funding increase significantly during the past 15 years. Now it receives funds from many international groups, including the American Jewish World Service and Global Greengrants Fund in the United States, and groups in Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands.

Activists bristle as India cracks down on foreign funding of NGOs - The Washington Post

"That is the government's own fault. Now, this legislation which is supposed to improve standards of accounting is being used to clamp down on NGOs that are expressing dissent. And the government is trying to link that dissent with organisations that are receiving foreign funds. You are doing complete injustice to the poor with this of justification. To thwart dissent by saying it is being fuelled by another country is the wrong approach.

Indian law on foreign funds to NGOs worries UN body - Firstpost

@ray, @W.G.Ewald, @Peter, @jouni

with response to the above news, stating foreign funded NGOs seeking "JUSTICE" for the common Indian citizens. here, why don't they fight for 'justice' for the US's civilians as below too? or, do they want to do the same in India also?

While the United States represents about 5 percent of the world's population, it houses around 25 percent of the world's prisoners.[3][4] Imprisonment of America's 2.3 million prisoners, costing $24,000 per inmate per year, and $5.1 billion in new prison construction, consumes $60.3 billion in budget expenditures.

United States incarceration rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[/quote]

 

[santosh10]

The mind-boggling figures boil down to one NGO per every 600 people. Compare this to the latest government data on police. According to the latest figures from the Union home ministry, India has just one policeman for every 943 people.

India witnessing NGO boom, there is 1 for every 600 people - The Times of India

As ‘Foreign Agent’ Law Takes Effect in Russia, Human Rights Groups Vow to Defy It
By ELLEN BARRYNOV. 21, 2012

MOSCOW — Workers at the human rights organization Memorial arrived at work on Wednesday morning to see a phrase spray-painted across their office building: “FOREIGN AGENT.” Vandals scrawled the same words in giant, sloppy white letters across the door of For Human Rights, which represents citizens in disputes with the Russian police or prosecutors.

The phrase, which to Russians evokes treachery and cold war espionage, was repeated many times on Wednesday, when a new law came into force requiring nonprofit groups that receive financing from outside Russia to identify themselves as “foreign agents.”

The law was hurriedly passed two months after the inauguration of President Vladimir V. Putin, who has accused foreign governments of provoking the large anti-Kremlin demonstrations that began here last winter. The law has been accompanied by other measures discouraging interaction with foreigners, like expanding the legal definition of treason to include “providing financial, technical, advisory or other assistance to a foreign state or international organization.”

Many groups like Memorial and For Human Rights have decided to defy the new law, despite the threat of fines, a forced shutdown or, if prosecutors choose to pursue a criminal charge, a prison sentence of up to two years. Oleg P. Orlov, Memorial’s chairman, said that accepting the “foreign agent” label would so undermine public trust that rights advocates would no longer be able to carry out work like monitoring prison conditions or researching disappearances in the restive North Caucasus.

“A foreign agent equals a traitor, a betrayer of the homeland,” he said. Groups that comply, he added, “will be outcasts in this society. They will be branded. The public will look at them with suspicion, and officials will simply refuse to associate with them. They will be outcasts.”

It is unclear how the Russian authorities will enforce the vaguely worded law, which will be overseen by the Justice Ministry. The requirement applies only to organizations engaged in “political activities,” like trying to influence public opinion or advocating to change policy. Various groups say they are poised to contest any penalties through the court system, in part to test the constitutionality of the new law.

“We will risk a fine, and it’s possible that a question of a criminal charge will arise,” said Pavel Chikov, who heads a legal organization, Agora. “But if we are forced to choose between ceasing our work and risking a criminal investigation, I will choose the latter.”

Government officials spoke approvingly of the new law, saying foreign money must be excluded from politics in order to defend Russia’s sovereignty.

Western-financed programs proliferated during the 1990s, when Russia’s economy and political system were a shambles and foreign governments hoped to help guide the development of a post-Soviet state. Mr. Putin intends to uproot the vestiges of those projects, which he believes have undermined support for him in Russia.

A particular grievance is the United States-funded election monitoring group Golos, which documented and publicized voter fraud ahead of last year’s parliamentary elections, adding fuel to the burst of protest. In September, Russia announced the end of two decades of work by the United States Agency for International Development.

Veronika Krasheninnikova, the head of the Institute for Foreign Policy Research and Initiatives, in Moscow, said that she believed Washington had advised Russia’s nonprofit groups to defy the new law, forcing the Russian government to take harsh measures.

“Confrontation will be beneficial for these organizations,” she said, during a Wednesday round table on the new law. She added: “We will be told, ‘Look how much you lose in the eyes of the world.’ If we are afraid of the West, it would be better to give up right now, to surrender, put on white ribbons and white flags and announce capitulation.”

Referring to the pro-American president of Georgia, she added, “All normal people know that if Washington praises you and holds you up as an example, it means that you have turned into a Saakashvili and betrayed your country.”

Among those poised for a prolonged standoff with the authorities isLyudmila Alexeyeva, 85, a Soviet-era dissident who heads the Moscow Helsinki Group. Ms. Alexeyeva said she was ready to go to great lengths to avoid being affected by the law.

She said she will refuse any further foreign financing for the Helsinki Group and, if necessary, sell her collection of ceramic figurines to raise money and move the entire organization into her apartment.

“A law like this is just not going to work,” she said. “I am an old person. I was 25 years old when Stalin died, and I spent my childhood and youth in a totalitarian state.”

She added that Russia has changed greatly since then. “Stalin, in order to create a totalitarian state, brought down an iron curtain around the country. And we’ve just joined the World Trade Organization,” she said. “So why did we join the World Trade Organization? How are we going to be able to fence ourselves off in a globalized world? No, Putin was born too late.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/22/world/europe/rights-groups-in-russia-reject-foreign-agent-label.html?_r=2&

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/22/world/europe/rights-groups-in-russia-reject-foreign-agent-label.html?_r=2&

 

[santosh10]

@Ray
@jouni

sir, with reference to the article of NY Times of last post#31, if we say, "foreign money can not be excluded from politics in order to defend Russia’s sovereignty. "
how will you people respond it? :coffee:

However, there is no reliable estimate of the money flowing into the NGOs and what they do with it. According to an Indian Express report in 2010, India had about 3.3 million NGOs by the end of 2009, an NGO for every 400 people. The amount of money flowing into the NGO sector is anybody's guess. The Indian Express report said it was anywhere between Rs 40,000 and Rs 80,000 crore ($14.0billion+) a year.

Foreign funded NGOs: Who finances them and why - Firstpost