ISRAEL MUST OPEN GAZA, FREEZE SETTLEMENTS, SAYS BAN

ISRAEL MUST OPEN GAZA, FREEZE SETTLEMENTS, SAYS BAN
New York, Jun 8 2009 1:00PM
Underscoring the need for a two-State solution and a durable peace in the region, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today called on Israel to allow fuel and building materials into Gaza, freeze settlements in the West Bank and make fundamental changes in its security practices and policies.

In a <"http://www.un.org/apps/sg/sgstats.asp?nid=3907">message to the two-day meeting of the United Nations Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, Mr. Ban expressed his serious concern over the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip.

"Nearly five months after the end of the hostilities, nothing beyond basic needs such as food and medicine is allowed in," he said, noting that current conditions preclude the success of recovery efforts and long-term development initiatives.

"I call on Israel to allow in the fuel, funds and materials that are urgently required to repair destroyed and damaged schools, clinics, sanitation networks and shelters and to restore a functioning market," the Secretary-General said in the message to the gathering in Jakarta delivered by Noeleen Heyzer, Executive Secretary of the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP).

In the West Bank, he said, progress is blocked by the Israel Defence Forces' routine incursions.

"Palestinians continue to endure unacceptable unilateral actions, such as house demolitions, intensified settlement activity, settler violence, and ever increasing movement restrictions due to permits, checkpoints and the wall and fence barrier," Mr. Ban stressed. "The time has come for Israel to fundamentally change its policies in this regard, as it has repeatedly promised to do."

A "full settlement freeze" in both the West Bank and East Jerusalem is necessary, he added.

The Secretary-General said that there had been almost no progress on the Security Council resolutions calling for a durable and fully respected ceasefire, prevention of the illicit supply of weapons to Gaza, the reopening of the crossings and Palestinian reconciliation under the legitimate Palestinian Authority.

"We have a clear objective," he said, which is "an independent, democratic and viable Palestinian State living side-by-side in peace and security with Israel, and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the region."

He said he is encouraged by United States President Barack Obama's commitment to the objectives and said he is looking forward to a meeting, in the near future, of the Middle East Quartet – made up of the UN, European Union, Russia and US – to discuss peace in the region.
________________

US: Reversal on Torture Photos a Blow to Openness, Accountability

May 13, 2009

(Washington, DC) - President Barack Obama's decision to block the release of photos depicting the abuse of detainees in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan strikes a blow to transparency and accountability, Human Rights Watch said today.

"We understand President Obama's concern about protecting US military personnel serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the real danger comes not from the knowledge that abuse happened but the sense that those responsible for planning and authorizing it haven't been held accountable," said Stacy Sullivan, counterterrorism adviser at Human Rights Watch.

The photos, believed to number as many as 2,000, are part of detainee abuse cases the military investigated between 2001 and 2005. They reportedly depict US military personnel humiliating and otherwise mistreating detainees. A federal judge ordered them released by May 28 as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request by the American Civil Liberties Union.

The Obama administration initially supported the release of the photos, but reversed course on Tuesday, May 12, after top US military commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan told Obama they feared the release of the photos could endanger US troops. The administration now plans to appeal the judge's ruling to release the photos.

President Obama stated today that the soldiers depicted in these pictures engaging in conduct not authorized by the US Army Field Manual had been investigated and sanctioned, suggesting that the underlying problem had therefore been addressed. However, the administration appears to have ruled out taking any action against the senior military and civilian officials who authorized such conduct.

"In the Bush era, abuse was a policy dictated from the top down, but just about the only people who were punished were the privates and sergeants who had the misfortune of appearing in photographs," said Sullivan. "It would be tragic if the Obama administration accepted that outcome."

Human Rights Watch has called for prosecution of those responsible for authorizing and ordering detainee mistreatment, as well as a commission of inquiry into the full extent of post-9/11 abuses.

US: Health care news worth sharing

Good afternoon, You are receiving this email because you signed up at WhiteHouse.gov. My staff and I plan to use these messages as a way to directly communicate about important issues and opportunities, and today I have some encouraging updates about health care reform. The Vice President and I just met with leaders from the House of Representatives and received their commitment to pass a comprehensive health care reform bill by July 31. We also have an unprecedented commitment from health care industry leaders, many of whom opposed health reform in the past. Monday, I met with some of these health care stakeholders, and they pledged to do their part to reduce the health care spending growth rate, saving more than two trillion dollars over the next ten years -- around $2,500 for each American family. Then on Tuesday, leaders from some of America's top companies came to the White House to showcase innovative ways to reduce health care costs by improving the health of their workers. Now the House and Senate are beginning a critical debate that will determine the health of our nation's economy and its families. This process should be transparent and inclusive and its product must drive down costs, assure quality and affordable health care for everyone, and guarantee all of us a choice of doctors and plans. Reforming health care should also involve you. Think of other people who may want to stay up to date on health care reform and other national issues and tell them to join us here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/EmailUpdates Health care reform can't come soon enough. We spend more on health care than any country, but families continue to struggle with skyrocketing premiums and nearly 46 million are without insurance entirely. It is a priority for the American people and a pillar of the new foundation we are seeking to build for our economy. We'll continue to keep you posted about this and other important issues. Thank you, Barack Obama P.S. If you'd like to get more in-depth information about health reform and how you can participate, be sure to visit http://www.HealthReform.gov.

US: Don't Revive Guantanamo Military Commissions

Detainee Cases Should Be Transferred to US Federal Courts

May 12, 2009

(Washington, DC) - Reviving the discredited US military commissions to try Guantanamo detainees would result in needless litigation, delays, and flawed trials, Human Rights Watch said today. To ensure that terrorism suspects are tried promptly and fairly, the Guantanamo cases should be transferred to US federal courts.

Unnamed officials were quoted in the Washington Post saying that the Obama administration is preparing to restart the military commissions under new rules that would offer terrorism suspects greater legal protections. The new rules would reportedly prohibit the introduction of evidence obtained through coercion, tighten the use of hearsay evidence, and allow detainees greater choice in selecting defense lawyers than under existing military commission rules.

"The Obama administration shouldn't tinker with a fundamentally flawed system," said Stacy Sullivan, counterterrorism adviser at Human Rights Watch. "Reviving the military commissions would strip much of the meaning from closing Guantanamo."

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama rightly called the Guantanamo military commissions "an enormous failure," Human Rights Watch said. In one of his first acts after taking office, President Obama suspended the military commissions for 120 days to give his administration time to study the detainees' cases and determine whether and how they should be prosecuted.

Although the proposed changes to the military commissions would be improvements, they do not address the fundamental concerns about the unfair nature of such tribunals, Human Rights Watch said. The very purpose of the commissions was to permit trials that would not be bound by the due process protections available to defendants in federal courts or courts martial.

Further, the previous set of military commissions was beset with problems, many of which resulted from starting a system from scratch. Defendants and their legal counsel could never be confident about the rules of procedure, which were ad hoc and untested, making the preparation of a defense difficult. For instance, the system in place to provide discovery to defendants left defense counsel without access to critical - and in some cases possibly exculpatory - evidence. Many issues became subject to myriad legal challenges, resulting in long and unnecessary delays.

The US federal courts, by contrast, have procedures that have withstood the test of time and litigation. Although critics assert that trials in US courts would jeopardize national security by exposing sensitive intelligence information, there are carefully crafted rules in place to protect identities and other sensitive information from becoming public. Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, implicated in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and Zacarias Moussaoui, implicated in the 9/11 attacks, were tried and convicted in US federal courts.

"The US federal court system has a long history of providing fair trials in difficult cases, whereas the military commissions have a short history of botched cases," said Sullivan. "There is no good reason why the Guantanamo cases shouldn't be tried in federal courts."

In the seven years since the military commissions were announced, only three suspects have been prosecuted. The federal courts, by contrast, have tried more than 145 terrorism cases during this period.

Finally, even if the rules and procedures were radically reformed, the military commissions would not be able to overcome the taint of their past.

"After a turbulent history in which the commissions were once struck down by the Supreme Court and no fewer than six prosecutors resigned, it goes without saying that the attention on any trial by military commission would be on the fairness of the process rather than the gravity of the crime," said Sullivan "The victims of 9/11 deserve better."

US: Obama Should Reconsider New Position on Guantanamo Detainees

The Obama administration's newly issued position on Guantanamo detainees is a disappointment, Human Rights Watch said today. Rather than rejecting the Bush administration's ill-conceived notion of a "war on terror," the Obama administration's position on detainees has merely tinkered with its form.

The administration's position was disclosed on March 13, 2009 in a court filing in response to a federal judge's order seeking a definition of the term "enemy combatant."

While the filing avoided using the phrase "enemy combatant," it did not jettison the idea that persons alleged to be involved in international terrorist activities were participating in a war. The filing instead relied on closely related phrases like "members of enemy forces" and "members of an opposing armed force."

"The Obama administration's take on detainees is essentially the Bush standard with a new name," said Joanne Mariner, director of the terrorism and counterterrorism program at Human Rights Watch. "At least for now, the Obama administration is claiming the power to pick up people anywhere in the world on the grounds of support for or association with al Qaeda or the Taliban, and to hold them in military detention for what might be the rest of their lives."

The only substantive difference from the position previously asserted by the Bush administration is that if the person's link to al Qaeda or the Taliban is support, that support must be "substantial." But membership is any of those organizations remains grounds for detention.

Human Rights Watch said that the only good news in the court filing is its emphasis that the administration's position is subject to change, as its comprehensive review of detention policy takes shape. It said that any detainees at Guantanamo who are implicated in terrorist acts should be prosecuted in federal court, which have proved capable of handling even the most sensitive and complicated such prosecutions.

"We urge the Obama administration to reconsider its views," Mariner said. "The administration should be prosecuting terror suspects in the federal courts, not looking for ways to circumvent the criminal justice system."

Obama's Prisoners Dilemma

On his second full day in office, President Barack Obama signed an executive order calling for the military detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to be closed within a year. The question is, how? Will the Obama administration insist that all detainees be either prosecuted or released, as Human Rights Watch and other groups have recommended? Or will it effectively move Guantánamo onshore by closing the facility in Cuba but continuing to detain certain individuals without trying or even charging them?

Obama's order of January 22, 2009, leaves this question unanswered. Although the directive calls for reviewing the cases of the roughly 240 individuals still at Guantánamo to determine who should continue to be detained, it defers any decision about the grounds on which those people would be kept in custody. It does not resolve whether detainees will be prosecuted in regular federal courts, or their detention will be extended without trial, either under a preventive-detention regime authorized by Congress or based on an argument similar to the Bush administration's claim that the United States can hold "enemy combatants" for the duration of the "global war on terror."

In an article [1] published in the May/June 2008 issue of Foreign Affairs, I outlined the reasons why the criminal justice system is the best venue for prosecuting terrorist suspects, far superior to resorting to detention without trial. Under current U.S. law, the amount of evidence required to prove a suspect guilty of conspiracy to commit terrorism or of providing "material support" for terrorism is surprisingly small: to obtain a conspiracy conviction, for example, prosecutors need show only a criminal agreement between two people and one step, no matter how innocuous, in furtherance of that agreement. If the U.S. government could not make even that minimal showing, it would have little reason to believe the suspect guilty in the first place.

In addition, the fact that some of the evidence presented may touch on sensitive intelligence is no reason to eschew regular federal courts. Since the Classified Information Procedures Act was passed in 1980, the U.S. court system has acquired a great deal of experience balancing a suspect's due process rights and the government's legitimate interest in safeguarding intelligence secrets.

In contrast, a regime of preventive detention would be perilous for the liberty of U.S. citizens and others. It would enable the U.S. government to detain individuals for an indeterminate period based on predictions about the danger they might pose in the future, rather than on provable crimes that they had actually committed. Such a policy would be a radical departure from American legal traditions and a major breach in basic rights against arbitrary detention.

So far, there is no evidence that the Obama administration is inclined to go to Congress to seek authorization for a preventive-detention regime. But it may be tempted to continue to hold some detainees as "enemy combatants." To distinguish itself from the Bush administration -- which made that term infamous -- the Obama administration might argue that it intends to apply the concept less expansively. It could also maintain that the dangers of preventive detention are mitigated by the 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that all Guantánamo detainees should have access to the federal courts through petitions of habeas corpus.

But that would not be enough. Under the international laws governing armed conflict, a warring party may detain enemy combatants seized on the battlefield until the end of the conflict for the purpose of preventing them from returning to combat. Because of the limited geography of most battlefields and the relative ease of identifying combatants by their uniforms or weapons, this power historically posed relatively little danger to ordinary civilians. Many of the most significant detainees held at Guantánamo, however, were seized outside of Afghanistan, the only traditional battlefield of "the global war on terror." By pairing the designation of "enemy combatant" with the concept of a "global war on terror," the Bush administration made a case for holding detainees captured almost anywhere in the world. But with terrorists rarely distinguishing themselves from ordinary civilians, allowing the U.S. government to label someone an enemy combatant in the global war on terror has effectively meant granting it the unilateral power to detain virtually anyone anywhere, without charge or trial, and then holding him for as long as the war lasts -- that is, probably for his lifetime.

Access to habeas corpus, or the right of detainees to challenge the legality of their detention, is an inadequate safeguard against abuse. Since habeas review is not a criminal trial, prosecutors need not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a detainee committed a specific criminal offense in order to justify his detention. If the Obama administration convinces U.S. courts to accept the concept of an "enemy combatant" in the "global war on terror" as justification for detention, the U.S. government would have to establish only the most tenuous connection between the detainees and terrorism, allowing it to shift suspects out of the criminal justice system and hold them without charge as "enemy combatants" based on weakly supported assertions. Moreover, this power would extend to the entire world, permitting the detention without charge of people in the United States and other countries with well-functioning judicial systems, such as European Union member states. Such a step would seriously undermine the rule of law. Even if the Obama administration could guard against overreach itself, a dangerous precedent would be set, allowing potential abuse by future administrations.

Some academics, such as David Cole, argue that preventive detention is not, in fact, a deviation from the U.S. legal tradition, because material witnesses in criminal cases or sexual predators who pose a public danger are sometimes held preventively. But that argument misconstrues the type of detention at issue in terrorism cases. For example, material witnesses may be held only until they have testified, not for years on end. Similarly, U.S. courts have authorized the civil commitment of sexual predators or people who are found to be dangerous to the public -- but, to avoid undermining criminal justice guarantees, the courts permit such detention only in the case of a mental illness that prevents a person from controlling his behavior. No one can pretend that this characterization applies to all the detainees at Guantánamo.

If the Obama administration continues to hold terrorism suspects without trial, it will be extending the Bush administration's policy of fighting terrorism without regard to basic rights. For much of the world, Guantánamo has become more than a detention center in Cuba. It is the symbol of the wholesale violation of the rights of those detained. The simple act of moving detainees from Cuba to federal detention centers in, say, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, or Florence, Colorado, will not convince anyone that Guantánamo has really been closed. Only the holding of regular trials in U.S. federal courts can do that.

A prosecute-or-release policy obviously carries some risk. Some detainees who cannot be prosecuted despite the modest proof required might still turn out to be dangerous. Indeed, the Pentagon claims that some ten percent of Guantánamo detainees already released have returned to terrorism, although, according to a paper published by Seton Hall University, that number includes those who have engaged in "propaganda warfare" by speaking about their experience at Guantánamo.

But keeping Guantánamo open, whether in its current state in Cuba or effectively moved to the United States, also entails risks. The world is full of angry youth who wish the United States harm, only a handful of whom are in Guantánamo. The safety of the United States and its citizens depends primarily on whether this vast pool of potential terrorists is tapped. For more than seven years, the mere existence of the detention center at Guantánamo has been a bonanza for terrorist recruiters. At the same time, it has discouraged the kind of international cooperation needed to protect the United States and its allies against terrorism. Eliminating this potent symbol of injustice would do far more to protect the United States than would the continued detention without charge of a small number of allegedly dangerous detainees. It is time to close Guantánamo for real -- not just the place, but the entire system of detention without trial.

US: Cluster Bomb Exports Banned

(Washington, DC) - Legislation signed into law on March 11, 2009 by President Obama will make permanent a ban on nearly all cluster bomb exports by the United States, Human Rights Watch said today. The United States should review its stance on joining the international treaty prohibiting cluster munitions in light of this action, Human Rights Watch said.

"This permanent export ban is a major turnaround in US policy," said Steve Goose, arms division director at Human Rights Watch. "It brings Washington into closer alignment with international opinion on this terrible weapon."

Congress included the export ban in an omnibus budget bill (HR 1105) that passed the Senate on Tuesday. The legislation states that cluster munitions can only be exported if they leave behind less than 1 percent of their submunitions as duds. Cluster submunitions often fail to explode on initial impact, leaving duds that act like landmines and pose danger to civilians. The legislation also requires the receiving country to agree that cluster munitions "will not be used where civilians are known to be present." Only a very tiny fraction of the cluster munitions in the US arsenal meet the 1-percent standard.

This export ban was first enacted in a similar budget bill in December 2007, but that law mandated it for only one year.

"The passage of this measure is yet another indication that the president should initiate a thorough review of US policy with respect to cluster munitions," said Goose. "If it is unacceptable for foreign militaries to use these weapons, why would it be acceptable for the US military to use them?"

US policy on cluster munitions was last articulated in a three-page policy directive issued by Defense Secretary Robert Gates in July 2008. The directive described cluster munitions as "legitimate weapons with clear military utility." Under the policy, the US will continue to use cluster munitions and, after 2018, will use only munitions with a tested failure rate of less than 1 percent.

In December 2008, a spokeswoman for the Obama transition team said that the next president would "carefully review" the new treaty banning cluster munitions and "work closely [with] our friends and allies to ensure that the United States is doing everything feasible to promote protection of civilians."

On February 10, Human Rights Watch joined leaders from 66 other national nongovernmental organizations in signing a joint letter calling on President Obama to join the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Human Rights Watch co-chairs the Cluster Munition Coalition, which it helped found in November 2003. It is also a founding member of the United States Campaign to Ban Landmines and Cluster Bombs.

"The export ban moves the US one step closer to the position taken by nearly 100 nations - including its closest NATO allies - that have signed the treaty banning cluster munitions," said Goose. "A US decision to sign would certainly signal President Obama's commitment to multilateral diplomacy."

The 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions was opened for signature in December. It prohibits the use, production, stockpiling, and transfer of cluster munitions, and provides strict deadlines for clearance of affected areas and destruction of stockpiled cluster munitions. A total of 95 states have signed the convention, including most NATO members and other close US allies. The Bush administration chose not to participate in the development or negotiation of the convention, which was modeled on the 1997 treaty banning landmines.

While the historical record is incomplete, the United States has transferred hundreds of thousands of cluster munitions containing tens of millions of unreliable and inaccurate submunitions to at least 28 countries: Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Belgium, Canada, Egypt, Denmark, France, Greece, Honduras, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, South Korea, Morocco, the Netherlands, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Thailand, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom.

Several of these states have joined the Convention on Cluster Munitions and are in the process of destroying their stockpiled cluster munitions. Cluster munitions exported by the US have been used by other states in Lebanon, Iraq, the former Yugoslavia, and Western Sahara.

Cluster munitions can be fired by artillery and rocket systems or dropped by aircraft and typically explode in the air and send dozens, even hundreds, of tiny bomblets over an area the size of a football field.

LEADERS OF UN, US DECLARE 2009 THE YEAR OF CLIMATE CHANGE

LEADERS OF UN, US DECLARE 2009 THE YEAR OF CLIMATE CHANGE
New York, Mar 12 2009 6:00PM

With nations set to conclude negotiations on an ambitious new greenhouse gas emissions agreement this December, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and United States President Barack Obama have stressed the need for 2009 to be the year of climate change.

Mr. Ban, who met with the "visionary" American leader earlier this week at the White House in Washington, told journalists in his monthly press conference at UN Headquarters today that they both agree that climate change poses an "existential threat."

The two men share a commitment that "2009 must be the year of climate change," he said, stressing the importance a comprehensive successor pact to the Kyoto Protocol – the legally binding emissions reduction regime whose first commitment period ends in 2012 – at December's UN climate change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark.

"With US leadership, in partnership of the United Nations, we can and will reach a climate change deal that all nations can embrace," the Secretary-General noted.

Reports of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize co-laureate – have shown unequivocally that the world is warming, almost certainly due to human activity, with potentially disastrous effects including worsening drought in some regions and heavier rainfall in others.

Mr. Ban said today that he and Mr. Obama were of the same opinion that 'green' investments are an essential part of any stimulus package targeting the current global economic turmoil.

"If we are going to spend such tremendous sums of money, let us be smart about it," he said.

He said that during his two-day visit to Washington, climate change also dominated his discussions with key American officials, including Senator John Kerry, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Congressman Howard Berman, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Last week, the top UN climate change official said that he sees "enthusiasm" in the current US Government to pass laws to reduce gas emissions and a willingness to work towards a new global climate change pact.

Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), said he was "very much encouraged" following his recent meetings with officials in Mr. Obama's administration and members of Congress.

"There is, I believe, a huge enthusiasm and energy in both the House and the Senate to put cap and trade climate change legislation in place in this country," he added.

Mr. de Boer also underscored the willingness in the current US administration "to work towards an agreement in Copenhagen, to come with an ambitious domestic policy [and] to engage with international partners" to come to an accord.
________________

$50 MILLION US CONTRIBUTION WILL BOOST WOMEN’S RIGHTS, SAYS UN

$50 MILLION US CONTRIBUTION WILL BOOST WOMEN'S RIGHTS, SAYS UN
New York, Mar 12 2009 12:00PM

United States President Barack Obama's release of $50 million to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) will help curb poverty and improve the health of women and children in over 150 nations, the agency said today, lauding an action it said will help it continue its "life-saving" work.

Mr. Obama signed legislation yesterday to restore US funding for UNFPA which has been suspended since 2002.

"This is a great day for women, girls and their families around the world," said Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, the agency's Executive Director. "We warmly applaud this action by President Obama, which underlines his support to the protection of the lives and human dignity of women and girls in the poorest countries."

The US contribution will allow UNFPA to "maintain its life-saving work, particularly improving maternal and reproductive health in the world's poorest communities, especially during this financial crisis," she said.

Yesterday's action fulfills a pledge Mr. Obama made during his first days as US leader to resume support for UNFPA and join 180 other donor nations in working towards slashing poverty, boosting the health of women and children, preventing HIV/AIDS and providing family planning assistance to women in 154 countries.

"We are delighted that the United States will once again take a leading role in championing women's reproductive health and rights, alongside all other countries and partners that have supported us over the years," Ms. Obaid noted.
________________

UN OFFICIAL ‘ENCOURAGED’ BY NEW US STANCE ON REACHING CLIMATE CHANGE PACT

UN OFFICIAL 'ENCOURAGED' BY NEW US STANCE ON REACHING CLIMATE CHANGE PACT
New York, Mar 6 2009 3:00PM

There is "enthusiasm" in the current United States Government to pass laws to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and a willingness to work towards a new global climate change pact, a top United Nations official said today.

Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), was speaking to journalists in New York after returning from his recent trip to Washington, D.C., where he met with leaders in US President Barack Obama's administration, as well as members of Congress.

"I must say I come back from those meetings very much encouraged," Mr. de Boer stated.

"There is, I believe, a huge enthusiasm and energy in both the House and the Senate to put cap and trade climate change legislation in place in this country," he added.

Mr. de Boer also underscored the willingness in the current US administration "to work towards an agreement in Copenhagen, to come with an ambitious domestic policy [and] to engage with international partners" to come to an accord.

At the UN climate change conference slated for December in Copenhagen countries are expected to reach agreement on a successor pact to the Kyoto Protocol, the legally binding regime for reducing greenhouse gas emissions whose first commitment period ends in 2012.

Mr. de Boer noted that the US administration realised that financial support for developing countries to help them adapt to becoming more environmentally friendly and mitigate their carbon emissions is going to be an essential part of the Copenhagen "puzzle."

"The new administration with the full backing of the House and the Senate is working towards and ambitious agreement in Copenhagen," said Mr. de Boer.

The climate change official also found encouragement in the US economic stimulus package, saying that "What I believe President Obama is trying to do is use the recovery money to create the clean economy of tomorrow instead of trying to prop up the economy of yesterday."
________________