Negara-negara Eropa mendesak negara berkembang berjanji menurunkan emisi, sementara Indonesia menginginkan pendanaan dari luar ditambah.

Indonesia yang masih disebut sebagai pengemisi gas rumah kaca terbesar di dunia, setelah China dan Amerika Serikat, 80 persen emisinya adalah dari kerusakan hutan dan lahan.

Pemimpin Komisi Eropa Jose Manuel Barroso mendesak Indonesia memperkuat kampanye dua jalur untuk merangkul negara maju dan negara berkembang berbuat lebih untuk menyelamatkan kesepakatan.

Demikian ujar Barroso dalam konferensi pers bersama seusai bertemu Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono di Brussels, Belgia, Senin (14/12).

“Indonesia bisa memberi tahu negara berkembang lain, termasuk negara berkembang yang pesat ekonominya, bahwa mereka harus berbuat lebih,” ujar Barroso tanpa menyebut India dan China. “Kami juga akan mengatakan hal sama kepada negara-negara maju,” ujarnya. Dengan kekisruhan negosiasi saat ini, dia mengingatkan kemungkinan gagal ada kesepakatan berarti. Untuk menembus kebuntuan, solusinya adalah “bertanya kepada setiap orang sebagai upaya mencari kemungkinan lain”.

Presiden COP-15 Connie Hedegaard minta bantuan Rachmat Witoelar dan Menteri Jerman memfasilitasi pertemuan agar terus berjalan. Pasalnya, sidang pleno terancam buntu karena negara berkembang terus menekan negara maju berkomitmen dengan angka penurunan emisi.

Penundaan pleno

Pada Senin sore di Kopenhagen terjadi penundaan sidang pleno. Delegasi Afrika menolak melanjutkan persidangan bila Presiden Pertemuan Para Pihak Ke-15 tidak mendahulukan pembahasan berkelanjutan Protokol Kyoto – sudah krusial sejak awal.

Protokol itu merupakan satu-satunya kesepakatan berkekuatan hukum yang mewajibkan negara maju menurunkan emisi gas rumah kacam penyebab pemanasan global, dalam jumlah besar. “Kami datang dengan posisi jelas, yakni ada kesepakatan mengikat dan melanjutkan Protokol Kyoto seperti kesepakatan di Bali,” kata salah satu wakil kelompok Afrika, Victor, kepada wartawan. Periode pertama Protokol Kyoto berakhir pada 2012.

Ada upaya negara maju “membunuh” Protokol Kyoto karena sejumlah negara maju mendorong negosiasi ke satu hasil keputusan yang menggabungkan dua jalur pembahasan, berarti menggantikan Protokol Kyoto.

Dalam persidangan, menurut wakil delegasi RI, Presiden COP-15 mendahulukan pembahasan draf teks soal Aksi Kerja Sama Jangka Panjang (LCA), yang banyak membahas kepentingan negara-negara maju. Ada pun pembahasan Protokol Kyoto memberi peluang bagi negara berkembang menekan negara maju dengan komitmennya.

“Sikap Indonesia sama, kedua jalur harus berjalan bersamaan dengan dua hasil. Bukan penggabungan atau menggantikan Protokol Kyoto,” kata juru bicara delegasi RI, Tri Tharyat. Posisi Indonesia sama dengan Afrika dan kelompok G-77 plus China.

Dukungan kepada Afrika bermunculan. “Ini bukan soal menghalangi persidangan. Ini soal kesiapan negara maju menjamin akan berbuat sesuatu untuk membantu keberlanjutan Afrika dan seluruh dunia,” kata Direktur Eksekutif Oxfam International Jeremy Hobbs.

Sumber :

Negara Afrika Desak Hasil Mengikat | Kompas, 15.12.2009

The European Commission President, José Manuel Barroso, had some frank words for his host, President Victor Yushchenko, in Kiev today at an EU-Ukraine Summit that was dominated by fears over possible new disruption to European gas supplies via Ukraine, the former Soviet Republic’s economic decline and its ongoing political turmoil. As Mr Barroso declared starkly, ‘it often seems to us that commitments to reform are only partly implemented and words are not always accompanied by action. Reforms are the only way to establish stability[and] closer ties to the EU.’ Mr Yushchenko is determined to pursue the eventual goals of Ukraine’s membership of both the European Union and NATO, to the concern of the largely ethnic Russian inhabitants of the Crimea, and it is by no means certain that he will win presidential elections next month against his bitter rival, the Prime Minister, Yulia Timoshenko, or his predecessor, Viktor Yanukovich (and nearly a dozen other, lesser contenders).

While the Summit was on in Kiev, I was attending a seminar on Social and Economic Developments in Ukraine at the ING (Bank) headquarters in the City of London, organised by International Financial Services London (IFSL). As Chatham House rules were in force, I shall not reveal who said what, but suffice it to say that the main presentation was almost brutally honest about the economic problems that Ukraine has been going through over the past 18 months, though there have been recent signs of a recovery. Manufacturing ouput, in particular, has slumped, though agriculture (including agricultural exports) has done well, and there are some sectors attracting inward investment, including telecoms. Apparently, there are more phone subscribers than inhabitants in Ukraine, which shows that it is not only in the Arabian Gulf that people like to have two or more mobile phones.

The Ukrainians present stressed the importance for them of the strategic partnership between Ukraine and the United Kingdom, while several of the Brits highlighted their goodwill towards Ukraine. But it seems clear that concrete cooperation is largely on hold until the political situation is clarified. The first round of the presidential election is scheduled for 17 January, with a run-off (if necessary) on 7 February.

On 1 December, The EU’s Lisbon Treaty comes into force, marking what Sweden’s prime minister Fredrik Reinfeldt describes as a “new era – more open and more democratic” for the 27-nation bloc.

Tuesday, in Lisbon, the Portuguese capital, the event was celebrated by a pageant with fireworks, music and leaders’ speeches. After, EU leaders were to attend a celebration dinner in Lisbon later Tuesday. In his speech, Mr. Fredrik Reinfeldt, Prime Minister of Sweden ( the country that holding the EU presidency) said that:  “We open today a new page of success stories. In the future, when we make decisions concerning citizens’ freedom, security and justice, our main principle will be to make them together with the European Parliament”. The treaty makes the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding for EU institutions and, according to Mr. Reinfeldt, “we make clear equality between men and women and protection of children’s rights within all policy areas”. Herman van Rompuy, European Council President stated that: This is the most ambitious project of European history. Earlier today a new step in European construction. A project in which we want a Europe of all, more prosperous, more secure, peace and democracy “

Lisbon has come into force eight years after the EU started negotiations on the institutional reforms. Many analysts are calling it a historical day for the EU. However, questions like: What is the significance of the Lisbon Treaty once it takes effect? What role the Lisbon Treaty will play in the future development of the EU ? What impact will it bring to the EU’s foreign policy and its image on the world stage? The Lisbon Treaty will influence the growth pattern of other regional political and economic organizations ? generate the different views. Critics and skeptics accuse that the Treaty will cede too many national powers to Brussels. That is exactly what, in an interview for  EuroNews, Jose Manuel Barroso, president of European Commission,  consider to be the main asset of the Treaty. According to recent surveys, less than half the EU population (45 – 47%) trust the EU’s future.

We now have the distribution of portfolios in the new college of commissioners. Three new portfolios are created: Climate Action; Home Affairs; Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship.

Joaquín Almunia will be Vice-President of the Commission together with Siim Kallas, Neelie Kroes, Viviane Reding, Maroš Šefcovic and Catherine Ashton.

The Bulgarian commissioner Rumiana Jeleva will be responsible for International Cooperation, Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Response.

All Member States have now nominated Commissioners designate. President Barroso will now proceed with the allocation of portfolios. Hearings at the European Parliament will then take place in January before the College of Commissioners as a whole will be subject to a vote of approval by the European Parliament.

Last night I had the strangest dream. I dreamt that I had tea with José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, at Tea Hees on the High Street.

I had a pot of tea, and he had a cappuccino with a caramel slice.

Mister Barroso was utterly charming and the time passed quickly in his company. I know all good things must come to an end but I shan’t forgive my teasmaid in a hurry, for spiriting José away with its infernal beeping.

I have just come from a meeting of the European Parliament Socialists and Democrats (S & D) Group – the one which used to be called the Party of European Socialists – and I am incandescent with rage.  The rage is again on behalf of Tony Blair and Britain, one of the minority of countries in the European Union to have a government from the same political family as the S & D Group.

 It is, inevitably at present, about the soon to be established post of President of the European Council of Ministers.  The S & D Group as a whole have, it must be said, shown no support for the Blair bid, and more of that later.  My ire is more against the two S & D MEPs who tabled an anti-Blair Written Declaration (similar to an Early Day Motion) in the Parliament.

They know who they are, but for the record I am talking about Robert Goebbels from Luxembourg and German Jo Leinen.  (A Written Declaration needs five signatures – the other three were from other political groups).

 The Written Declaration is particularly damning, asking that the new President be a figure with whom all the people of Europe can identify and whether he/she has displayed the ability to move the EU forward.  It also states the “figure” must come from a country in the Euro and the Schengen Agreement and be from a country which does not refuse to apply the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

It doesn’t take much to work out that the “figure” is our very own TB.  The attack on Tony continued in the S & D Group meeting when one of the proposers of the Written Declaration made it clear he didn’t think Socialists could support Blair due to Tony’s lack of solidarity with other socialists over the Iraq war as well as his attending the French UMP conference just before the Presidential election in France and Blair’s closeness to Berlusconi.

 Tony Blair was the most successful Labour Prime Minister Britain has ever had, winning three election victories, bringing peace to Northern Ireland and improving health and education beyond all expectations.  It is high time European socialist “colleagues” buried their petty jealousies and did what is best for the S & D Group and best for Europe by not continually carping about one of Europe’s most influential leaders, who also happens to be one of us.

Back to the Blair bid itself as opposed to personal animosity.  The S & D Group together with the heads of government in those countries with socialist governments, wrongly in my view, decided to go for the Socialists holding the new position of High Representative for Foreign Affairs, a post which straddles both Council and Commission with the post holder also being Vice-President of the Commission.  The thinking was that the EPP centre-right, who already have the President of the Commission in the form of Jose-Manuel Barroso, will probably get the Council President as well. Given this, the Socialists should have the next bite of the cherry, namely the High Representative.

 This is how David Miliband came to be approached to be High Representative, rather late in the day. Sadly he declined, all but ending British hopes.  EU horse trading has won the day again, showing the worst side of what happens here.  I am tempted to ask, when will they ever learn?  Deals done behind closed doors do not inspire confidence and cause a lot of harm.  Europe will never get closer to its people as long as EU leaders behave like some out of touch clique considering only their own narrow interests.

Illustration by Manos Symeonakis

Tony Blair must be getting used to rejection by now. He left office in 2007 unloved and unwanted after 10 years as British prime minister. His attempt to win back some respectability as an international statesman by becoming a Middle East envoy has been a damp squib. And now his voyage to become the Europe’s first president appears to have foundered on the EU’s perennial rock of uncertainty.

In hushed tones and behind closed doors, European leaders last week seemed to reject the idea of Blair being appointed president of the European Council, a position created by the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty by all 27 EU member states.

Blair has some characteristics that would make him a suitable candidate for the role (charisma, valuable political experience, good communication skills, the ability to lead and diplomatic presence) but for many these are outweighed by the baggage he would bring with him (the Iraq War, his close ties to George W. Bush, his unpopularity in his own country, a pending investigation into whether he lied to his people and parliament and a fraught relationship with the EU in the past).

The fallout from the Iraq War is the biggest elephant in the room blocking Blair’s path to the presidency. The decision to hitch his wagon to George W. Bush’s lone star is something Europeans cannot overlook easily. But given the chance, Blair would probably explain that as the British prime minister, he had to make a decision – a very wrong one as it turned out – about whether to take part in a war. Had he been the prime minister of Belgium or Luxembourg, for example, perhaps his toughest foreign policy choice would have been what color bunting to get out when dignitaries visit from abroad.

Blair might even argue that having been through such a maelstrom and suffered the political consequences of his choices, he has the ideal experience to now be a unifying rather than a divisive figure. But even this does not dispel the dark cloud of mendacity that hangs over him. The Chilcot inquiry into Britain’s participation in the Iraq War will hopefully establish beyond doubt what Blair knew and what he told MPs and the public before committing troops to that conflict. The fact he’s due to face such an investigation appears to undermine his bid to become EU president. To risk having the first person in such a high-profile role publicly exposed as a liar would damage the Union. Of course, there would be more than a hint of hypocrisy in the air if he is rejected on this basis alone: Few of the 27 leaders who decide who fills the role are paragons of virtue themselves – any group that has Silvio Berlusconi as one of its most prominent decision-makers can hardly claim the moral high ground.

Perhaps that’s why some of them decided to suddenly create new criteria for any presidential candidate: his country would have to be a member of the eurozone and part of the Schengen Agreement – Britain is neither. If the EU’s aim is to appoint the best person for the job, then this shifting of the goalposts is preposterous. Theoretically, the EU president should be someone that’s transnational, not national, federal, not feudal. If he or she subscribes to the European project, then their homeland’s policy should be irrelevant.

Of course, Blair’s critics would argue that he’s always been at loggerheads with the Union, typified by his stance in 2003 in the buildup to the Iraq War, which was widely interpreted as an effort to split the bloc. However, Blair has engaged with the EU in more constructive ways as well. One of his first acts after being voted into power in 1997 was to abolish Britain’s opt-out of the Maastricht Treaty’s Social Protocol. He was also one of the proponents in 1998 of giving the EU a role in defense policy and was a champion of the bloc’s enlargement. He was the first British prime minister to put the UK’s budget rebate up for discussion in 2005, when he urged member states to reform the Common Agricultural Policy and cut the extensive waste and laziness that it leads to, as we are well aware of in Greece.

In June of that year, Blair stood before the members of the European Parliament and set out a vision for a less bureaucratic, more liberal and modern Europe. “The people of Europe are speaking to us,” he said of citizens’ waning interest in the EU. “They are posing the questions. They want our leadership. It is time we gave it to them.” More than four years on, that leadership is still absent and, as the turnout in June’s European Parliament elections indicated, interest in the EU is flimsy. These are issues that, theoretically, a European president could address.

The role has been created so that someone can preside over the European Council – the regular summits between the 27 heads of government – and coordinate its work. According to the Lisbon Treaty, the president should also “ensure the external representation of the Union on issues concerning its common foreign and security policy.”

Yet, what we have seen over the last couple of weeks is a climb down from this position. The message from Brussels last week was that it would be preferable for the president to come from one of the smaller member states, that he or she should be able to strengthen Europe from within, not necessarily give it a presence on the world stage, and be willing to play second fiddle to European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso and the 27 leaders.

“There is an argument that a political star as a president of the EU would lead to trouble with the president of the Commission and other leaders,” Robert Goebbels, the Luxembourg MEP who has launched a petition to stop Blair from being considered for the job, told Athens Plus.

It would be one of the EU’s more quixotic moments should it create an opening for a figurehead who could use diplomatic and communication skills to promote the Union to an increasingly apathetic public and give it a greater presence on the global stage only to then shackle him or her for fear of upsetting internal balances.

As the Dutch daily De Volkskrant put it in a recent headline: “Europe chooses: chief or messenger boy.” Given some of the names that have been mentioned as alternatives to Blair – Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker, Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, former Finnish Prime Minister Paavo Tapio Lipponen, former Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schussel, former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt and former Latvian President Vaira Vike-Freiberga – it seems the EU has decided there are too many indians to have a chief.

Presumably some of these politicians, if not all, are who The Economist had in mind when it referred to “the usual Europygmies.” Maybe, it’s a harsh assessment of men and women who are capable politicians in their domains, although hardly singular figures, but it underlines the challenge the EU now faces in trying to select someone to fulfill a role whose purpose remains unclear and undefined.

At least something is much clearer now: rejecting Blair was the easy part, too easy perhaps.

This commentary was written by Nick Malkoutzis and first appeared in Athens Plus on November 6, 2009.

L’Union européenne  a suspendu son aide au développement au Niger et donné un mois aux autorités de Niamey pour ouvrir des pourparlers avec comme objectif  le  retour à l’ordre constitutionnel. Dans l’attente des pourparlers, l’Union européenne  a suspendu son aide d’un montant de 458 millions d’euros pour la période 2008-2013, mais l’aide humanitaire n’est pas affectée par cette suspension.

Le président Mamadou Tandja

Dans une lettre conjointe adressée  au président de la république du Niger Mamadou Tandja, M.José Manuel Barroso, président de la commission européenne et le ministre suédois des affaires étrangères Carl Bildt, au nom de la présidence suédoise de l’Union européenne, ont exprimé leur profonde préoccupation face à la situation politique au Niger et demandé “un retour à l’ordre constitutionnel dans les meilleurs délais”. Concernant  le référendum du 4 août 2009, l’Union européene a décidé de recourir à l’article 96 des accords de Cotonou signé en 2000,et  qui traite du non respect des critères démocratiques et de défense des droits de l’homme. Pour mémoire l’Union européenne a déjà suspendu une aide finançière de 180 millions d’euros suite au référundum.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8341542.stm

President Barack Obama has said it is “imperative” the US and EU redouble efforts to achieve success at next month’s climate summit in Copenhagen.

Speaking after talks in Washington with EU officials, he said they agreed they should create a framework for progress.

The Copenhagen talks are aimed at negotiating a follow-on agreement to the Kyoto Protocol.

Meanwhile, former US Vice President Al Gore says he believes President Obama will attend the talks in Copenhagen.

He said the president would want to emphasise his administration’s commitment to safeguarding the environment.

But Mr Obama’s allies in Congress are struggling to push through legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and it is unlikely that any bill will be passed before the December talks.

‘Potential disaster’

Mr Obama said climate change had been discussed “extensively” with EU leaders on Tuesday.

“All of us agreed that it was imperative for us to redouble our efforts in the weeks between now and the Copenhagen meetings to ensure that we create a framework for progress in dealing with what is a potential ecologic disaster,” he said.

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said the talks with Mr Obama had made him more confident about progress.

Campaigners say the world’s poorest are most at risk from climate change

“With the strong leadership of the United States we can indeed make an agreement,” he said.

The Kyoto Protocol required 37 industrial nations to cut carbon emissions by an average 5% from 1990 levels by 2012, when it expires.

However, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has said world leaders are unlikely to agree on a comprehensive treaty in Copenhagen. He said it was more likely there would only be agreement on principles.

UN officials have also recently declared there is no chance of agreeing all elements of a new legally-binding UN treaty before the end of the year.

But Mr Gore, a leading environmental campaigner, said it wouldn’t be a disaster if the conference produced only a framework agreement, and not a binding deal.

You probably heard of José Barroso. No not the Mavericks’ back-up point guard, the president of the European Commission. The former Portuguese prime minister got re-elected a month ago despite a very strong opposition and yellow “Anyone but Barroso” banners flourishing on lots of European blogs.

Is this guy the best ambassador for Europe worldwide? What if it wasn’t hard to find a better one? Hence what if we could easily find a more suitable guy from the very same country with the exact same first name? Yep, the Special One, José Mourinho. I mean the guy speaks 37 languages and has been successful in Portugal, the UK and now Italy. He is known for overachieving with his teams and has outstanding management skills. Yeah he’s a bit outspoken but he’s got charisma (and Quaresma – clap, clap, clap to myself). No question he’d turn the younger generations into Euro-optimists.

What would happen if the European parliament got the same crazy idea, raised a motion of censure against the current President and voted Mourinho? What would be his first 10 commitments?

Here’s the list

1. Would celebrate tongue out in front of Barroso and run around the sandstone Gothic cathedral of Strasbourg.
2. Replace Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony by the Champions League anthem as the official hymn of Europe.
3. Launch the FIFA and UEFA-backed 6+5 rule which means every European team must have a minimum of 6 Portuguese players on the pitch.
4. Would have the guts to condemn Russia’s behaviour in Georgia because it’s a clear offside.
5. Reject Turkey’s accession to the European Union because their GDP would drop too much during Ramadan.
6. Would learn Finnish and understand the Irish accent in just three weeks
7. Would drop out of the EU all states that fail to qualify for Euro 2012.
8. Would tell Obama he’s not looking up to a country whose star of the future is named Freddy Adu.
9. Would name Claude Makelele as his Commissioner in charge of the Enlargement (wink wink).
10. Would diss European heads of states one by one for winning zeru tituli and pay tribute to the one and only Valéry Giscard d’Estaing.

(This video is a nugget. See maybe the former French president didn’t nail Lady Diana in the end but he did nail his penalty kicks)

Photo: J. M. Barroso, European Parliament, 2009

欧州議会は9月16日､欧州委員会のバローゾ委員長の再任を承認した｡欧州委員長の2期連続就任は､1985年から10年間に渡り委員長を務めたドロール氏以来で、第11代委員長として歴史に残る快挙だ。

投票総数718のうち､賛成382､反対219､棄権117と､絶対多数で再任が決まり、「権限強化を勝ち取った」と予想以上の結果を語った。EU加盟国首脳は6月18日の欧州理事会で続投支持をすでに決定しており、他に候補者がいないことから事実上、バローゾ氏の信任投票だった。

2期目の５年間では、国際社会におけるＥＵの影響力を強化する新基本条約「リスボン条約」の早期発効を目指し、経済・金融危機からの「出口戦略」を探る。しかし10月2日のアイルランド国民投票で可決され、リスボン条約が発効されれば、新設される欧州理事会常任議長（“ＥＵ大統領”）の陰に隠れた存在になる可能性もある。

再任された日と同日に、総理大臣に就任した鳩山首相へは、「グローバリズムへの批判は同感であり、人間の尊厳を尊重するという価値観を持ったグローバリゼーションを形づくろうという点で東京とブリュッセルは共通の視点を持てる」とエールを送り、鳩山政権が温室効果ガス削減の中期目標を25%（EUは30%）と掲げていることを評価。また、戦略的パートナーとして、「EUと日本の関係を拡大、深化させるために力を合わせたい」と一層の協力を呼びかけた。（マイケル尊王寺）

行雲流水（個人ブログ）http://blog.goo.ne.jp/ajimayukuo/e/2a44a3abc56395d40a89dae1908cc43b

毎日新聞「鳩山政権、海外でも高い期待」http://mainichi.jp/select/seiji/news/20090918ddm002010040000c.html

ScienceMatters has always highlighted the importance of science in the decision-making process and encouraged debate on how scientific evidence should be viewed within the EU institutions.

It comes as no surprise therefore that we warmly welcome the announcement during his inauguration speech by the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, to initiate a fundamental review of how scientific advice is used in the European institutions.

At the moment it is too early to say whether this represents a revolution in terms of science-based policymaking at the EU level.  Certainly the establishment of a Chief Scientific Adviser to work within the Commission seems to indicate that President Barroso – like US President Barack Obama – recognises the importance of science as part of the policy-making process and is increasing its profile accordingly.

On the other hand, as reported by EurActiv on Friday, there are still many unknowns regarding the mandate, size, and role of the position.  Will this mean that scientific consistency will be assured within the overall EU regulatory framework, and particularly between the risk assessment conclusions and EU legislation?  Will the Chief Scientific Adviser’s own advice be taken onboard by decision-makers?

Of course, ScienceMatters hopes the answers to all these questions are “yes”, but given the uncertainties surrounding the Lisbon Treaty, the exact modus operandi of this new position, and how he or she will work with the other institutions, nothing can be taken for granted.