Friday, 31 July 2009

The effects of Alcohol

Mbunge wa Kyela , Dr Harrison Mwakyembe akiw aBungeni jana baada ya kurejea kutokana na masahibu ya ajali ambayo ilimpata na kuletea jeshi la polisi sifa ya kutoa ripoti ya uchunguzi kwa siku moja!!!Sasa aimeingia akitaka uchuinguzi wa vurugu zilizosababisha uharibifu wa mali na vifo kwa wapigakura wake wiki iliyopita. Pamoja na polisi kuunda kikosi kazi kuchunguza, Mwakyembe anataka tume huru. Upo hapo?

Thursday, 30 July 2009

Kamanda wa Polisi Kanda Maalum ya Dar es
Salaam,Afande Suleiman Kova
--------Tahadhari kutoka kwa afande

Tafadhali wajulishe wote wanaohusika kwamba kuna kundi kubwa la majambazi wenye silaha kali, ambao wameingia Jijini Dar es salaam hivi karibuni. Wahalifu hao ni pamoja na Wakenya ambao wana tabia ya kupora fedha katika taasisi kubwa kama,mabenk,kampuni za mafuta na sehemu zenye biashara kubwa n.k .
Aidha watu hawa wana mbinu ya kula njama na watumishi wasiokuwa waaminifu.Ni muhimu mkafuatilia mienendo mbalimbali katika benk zenu na sehemu zilizotajwa hapo juu pamoja na kuimarisha usalama julisheni kwa message kupitia namba hii
0783034224 .au kwa simu ya mdomo
0754-034224 .0787034224 .
zote ni namba za Kamanda wa Polisi Kanda
Maalum ya
Polisi Dar es salaam.Namba zingine za simu ni
0754- 2762170776880000
namba hizi ni za mkuu wa Upelelezi Kanda maalum.Lengo la maelezo si vitisho kwenu bali ni tahadhari muhimu ,
inayofaa kuzingatiwa,
S. H. Kova - SACP

The deepening of the global financial crisis and economic slowdown has given rise to new challenges for Tanzania. Despite the government’s efforts to ensure that the so-far reliable stream of donor aid is sustained, we anticipate real GDP growth slowing to 7.6% in 2009 as tourism, export volumes and FDI all fall on the back of a weaker global economy

Photos: Ayoub mzee

A Week in the Horn
17th July 2009

§ Eritrea at loggerheads with the Security Council
§ On Somalia
§ Ato Seyoum’s visit to the Middle East
§ The Austrian Foreign Minister’s visit to Ethiopia
§ NAM Summit at Sharm El Sheik

Eritrea at loggerheads with the Security Council
Eritrea is on a head-on collision course with the United Nations Security Council. Unlike in the past, the international community’s patience towards Eritrea ’s belligerent moves has been all but depleted. The lead-up to the Presidential Statement by the Security Council is illustrative of the growing consensus that Eritrea must be penalized. The tone for this debate was set by B. Lynn Pascoe, the UN Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs who exposed the brutality of Al Shabab and underscored the importance of heeding the call made by the African Union Summit to support the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia (TFG) as the legitimate authority in Somalia . Somalia ’s representative also took the opportunity to expose Eritrea ’s key support to extremists and foreign fighters to escalate their attacks against the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia ever more relentlessly. He reminded the Security Council that the African Union Summit had called for the imposing of a no-fly zone and a blockade of seaports to prevent the entry of foreign fighters into Somalia and sanctions against all foreign actors supporting the insurgents within and outside the region, especially Eritrea .

The UK also expressed agreement on the need to heed the request of the African Union for the Security Council to be ready to take action against any individual, entities or Governments shown to be arming or supporting those carrying out such attacks. The United States on its part said that it was particularly concerned about the support that Eritrea was giving Al Shabab. The representative of the Russian Federation on his part remarked that the recent attack by Islamists and other armed groups is another alarming wake-up call, not only for Somalia , but for the region in general and urged the international community to provide support to Somalia . China called on the United Nations to play a more active role and scale up support to the Transitional Government and AMISOM. France expressed concern about the reports that insurgents were being supported by foreign fighters and supplied from Eritrea and that it is prepared to consider sanctions against those undermining the Djibouti process.

It is striking to note that other representatives on the Council did not just leave this critical issue to be dealt only by influential states only. There was a really animated discussion in which literally all members of the Council participated. The representative of Libya, for example, was critical of the international community for its failure to use the golden opportunity to resolve the problem when the new TFG was formed, underscoring that hesitation had encouraged the opposition. He urged the members that the time has come for the Council to take necessary measures to prevent access by the Somali opposition forces to weapons, funds and foreign fighters. Mexico ’s leadership role was exceedingly admirable for its decisiveness. Its representative stressed the need for the Council to discuss the African Union request for the imposition of no-fly zone and a blockade of Somalia seaports to halt the entry of mercenaries and for sanctions against Eritrea for its support for the insurgents. Turkey was another member that spoke unequivocally on the matter. Its representative duly underlined that extremist armed groups and foreign elements are targeting both the Transitional Government and AMISOM with a view to undermining the reconciliation process and bringing about the collapse of the Government. Turkey thus emphasised that these forces should not be allowed to succeed in their destructive designs.

Costa Rica and Austria on their part expressed agreement that the international community must support the Transitional Government and strengthen its capacities, while expressing serious concern about the fighting in and around Mogadishu , especially the influx of foreign fighters and others attempting to overthrow the Government. Japan and Croatia were among the other members to express their strong condemnation of the attacks against the Transitional Government and called for urgent action to be taken to strengthen Somali security institutions, as well as AMISOM. While expressing alarm at outside interference, particularly Eritrea ’s support for insurgents, Croatia also pointed out that the Council already had at its disposal the necessary tools to deal with spoilers of the peace process. Similarly, Burkina Faso, Vietnam and Uganda reiterated their concern about the growing presence of foreign elements in Mogadishu and urged the Security Council to take action against individuals and States opposing the Djibouti Accord, while also calling on the international community at large to extend immediate and vigorous international support to the Transitional Government’s endeavours to repel the onslaught by the extremist forces intent on destroying the Djibouti peace process and spoiling the efforts to bring peace and stability in Somalia through political reconciliation. Uganda further hailed the Djibouti peace process as the best opportunity to achieve lasting peace in Somalia and called on the Council to respond to a call made by the African Union Summit to take urgent measures.

All the speakers also applauded the efforts of Burundi and Uganda in contributing to AMISOM. All speakers underlined the dire humanitarian situation and extreme situation for the civilian population, in particular women and children. What these speeches appear to show is how the Security Council is firmly united in its position regarding what is needed to bring peace to Somalia . The Presidential Statement read at the conclusion of the debate duly expressed this deep concern and promised that it will consider expeditiously what action to take against any party undermining the Djibouti peace process. This seems to demonstrate what direction the Security Council might be headed for in dealing with spoilers like Eritrea.

Eritrea has not disappointed these critics, either. In what has become its diplomatic stock-in-trade, it has come out lashing at the Security Council, even questioning its legitimacy. Apart from the usual invectives, Eritrea had the temerity to speak of international law and charged the Security Council with an attempt to supplant the United Nations Charter. Not only did it claim that the Council had no mandate to support or to recognize the legitimate Government in Somalia , but it also bluntly said that it does not recognize this Government. Apparently, Eritrea’s version of international law has nothing to do with the time-honoured principles that govern normal state-to-state relations. The recent rejection and an outright onslaught against the Security Council should make for a perfect setting for the punitive measures the Security Council is considering to impose on the likes of Eritrea . It also shows that Eritrea is fighting a losing battle since the international community has rejected its acts of destabilization and support to international terrorist elements. There is now a glimmer of hope that this region might very soon start to see the beginning of the end of the international community's appeasement policy towards Eritrea which had allowed Asmara literally to get away with murder. No one should have the illusion that the current regime in Asmara would abandon its strategy of destabilization of the Horn of Africa and drop its attempt to topple the legitimate government of Somalia . It is hoped the Security Council would not allow itself to be mislead by the current Eritrean attempt to be humble and decent, a tactic designed to stop the mounting pressure without changing its policy in earnest.

On Somalia
This week on 14th July two French anti-terrorism experts were kidnapped in Mogadishu from Sahafi Hotel. There are conflicting stories coming from Mogadishu as to who kidnapped the two French nationals. What is certain is that they were kidnapped by a group of gunmen numbering 10-15 who were said to have been attired in Somali government police uniforms. The hotel from which they were snatched is between the presidential palace and the Sea/Air ports in a specific place called Kilometer 4 which is under the control of government militia. AMISOM has also a base and presence in Kilometer 4 close to Hotel Sahafi.
The place where the two French nationals are said to be kept is in or around Peace Hotel, just on the outskirts of the Bakara market which is under Al-Shabab control. This has given rise to the assumption that some groups not really part of Al-Shabab but probably its allies did the kidnapping for ransom or other purposes while pretending to be within the government.
There are also indications that the kidnappers could be members of Hizbul Islam looking for money in exchange. There are rumours of tensions between Al-Shabab and Hizbul Islam over the fate of the French nationals. According to information from Mogadishu , Al-Shabab is demanding that the French nationals be handed over to it. That, of course, would be the worst case scenario since Al Shabab’s track record in this regard is far from reassuring. It would be foolhardy to assume that only a ransom could be of that much interest to Al-Shabab, connected as it is to Al-Qaeda.
If, on the other hand, the French nationals are in the hands of Hizbul Islam, one would wonder what role the Eritrean government could have since, after all, there is a strong cooperation between president Issayas Aferworki and Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys on what they call jihad in Somalia. It is to be recalled that Aweys told Reuters on 22nd May 2009 that Eritrea fully supports the fight against the Government in what he called a holy war.
Meanwhile, Al-Shabab announced this week on 14th July that it did form an Islamic administration in Welweyen and its environs in line with its extremist interpretation of Islam. The area which is 90-100 kms from Mogadishu is indeed strategic as it links Lower and Middle Shaballe as well as Bay region. However, one thing continues to be clear, and, in fact far clearer by the day - Al-Shabab has no popular base and can count on no wide support within Somalia. The barbaric chopping off of the limbs of Somali youngsters is not going to make them popular in the country. But they still can count on outside support. This is what the people of Somalia want to see stopped.

Ato Seyoum’s visit to the Middle East
A high level Government Delegation led by Ato Seyoum Mesfin, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, made an official visit to the State of Palestine and the State of Israel from 11th to 13th July. On the first leg of the visit, Ato Seyoum met with senior officials of the Palestinian National Authority including president Mahamoud Abbas, Prime Minister Dr. Salaam Fayed, and with his counterpart, Dr. Riyad Almaliki. Minister Seyoum Mesfin held discussions with the senior officials on bilateral and regional issues of common concern. During his visit, Ato Seyoum Mesfin signed a cooperation agreement on political and economic matters as well as in the areas of trade, culture, youth and sports, and parliamentary consultations. He also laid a wreath of flowers on the grave of the late Yasser Arafat. The visit was concluded to the satisfaction of both parties.

On the second leg of his official visit to the State of Israel Ato Seyoum Mesfin met with His Excellency Mr. Shimon Peres, President of the State of Israel, and Mr. Avigdor Lieberman, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs. During his meeting with his Israeli counterpart, he held discussions on issues of bilateral concern particularly on trade and investment and on how to promote the partnership between the private sectors of the two countries. He also met with Mr. Silvan Shalom, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Development for Negev region. Before concluding his visit, Ato Seyoum had the opportunity to lay a wreath of flowers on the Holocaust Memorial Center. The meetings with both sides were both successful and conducted in a cordial atmosphere.

The Austrian Foreign Minister’s visit to Ethiopia
The Austrian Foreign Minister, H.E. Dr. Michael Spindelegger, was in Addis Ababa from 14th to 16th July. He had the opportunity to meet Ethiopian as well as African Union officials. His presence in Addis was for both bilateral and multilateral reasons.

His counterpart, Foreign Minister Seyoum Mesfin, was not in Addis, having left earlier for visits to Israel and the Palestine Authority to be followed by a trip to Sharm El Shiek to take part in the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) meeting of Foreign Ministers. On the bilateral side, in the absence of his counterpart, the Austrian Foreign Minister had a meeting with Ato Sufian Ahmed, Minister of Finance and Economic Development, and had a working breakfast with Dr. Tekeda Alemu, State Minister of Foreign Affairs. The Minister also visited projects supported by Austria in the Amhara Regional State .

During the meeting with the Ethiopian Finance Minister, the two Ministers exchanged views on the impact of the current global economic crisis, particularly on developing countries like Ethiopia . They also discussed the existing partnership between their two countries and they were satisfied that it is moving in the right direction.

During the working breakfast with Dr. Tekeda Alemu, the discussion focused on political and regional matters of common interest. As his country is a non permanent member of the UNSC, the Austrian minister was particularly keen on listening to Ethiopia 's views on regional issues in the Horn of Africa. Accordingly, the State Minister gave him a detailed briefing on the current situation in the region. He briefed him also on current political developments in Ethiopia, particularly about the national effort in building democratic institutions including the prospect for the 2010 elections.

While this was what transpired during the visit, a fictitious news report appeared on various websites quoting from a certain Austrian Times, with a headline " Austria rejects Ethiopia 's calls for more assistance." This strange story was brought to the attention of the visiting Minister during the working breakfast. The Austrian Minister was genuinely surprised for it was clear to both sides that there was no request and no rejection on the issue of development assistance. In this regard, any serious observer would note that development partnership requests do not just pop up at a ministerial meeting as reported in this bogus story. Development partnership is indeed a serious business which requires detailed negotiations at various levels before it is tabled for Ministers for political decision making.

NAM Summit at Sharm El Sheik
The 15th Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) was held in Sharm El Sheik, Egypt from 11th to 16th July. The Ethiopian delegation to the Summit was represented by Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ato Seyoum Mesfin, who also led the Ethiopian delegation to the Ministerial meeting of the movement, which was held before the summit. In a speech distributed to the participants of the Summit, Minister Mesfin expressed his gratitude to the government of the United Arab Republic and his hope that NAM will thrive under the leadership of Egypt, which will chair the Movement for the coming three years.

While pointing out the vital role that NAM has continued to play in promoting global peace, security and stability as well as in realizing its members’ common goals for development and growth, he also took the opportunity to express his deep appreciation to the people and Government of Cuba for raising high the banner of the Movement of the Non-Aligned countries and for enhancing its credibility throughout their leadership of the Movement during the last three years. He also emphasized that a lot more needs to be done, and that the coming years and decades are going to be critical in this regard.

Reflecting on the relevance of the themes of the Summit , Ato Seyoum underscored that the ongoing global economic crisis, apart from the major negative impact it has already had on members’ economies, is bound to continue for some time to come. He also reminded the participants that it would be difficult to say whether the future has great opportunities in store for the prospect of economic development of the developing world.

Speaking of the impact the crisis had on the economies of African countries, Ato Seyoum mentioned the accelerating rise in food prices and the sky-rocketing oil prices as the major hindrance to economic growth and a major burden to the well-being of the peoples of Africa in 2008. He raised the issue of the global economic downturn of 2009 that followed the financial crisis to show how much African economies are indeed fragile. As he put it, Africa is vulnerable, and devastatingly so, to both too high commodity price rises and to the opposite phenomenon, too low commodity prices. While indicating how these economic events have made too obviously manifest the weaknesses and the deficiencies of the neo-liberal paradigm, and the fact that this orthodoxy does not offer a solution to our economic future, he expressed his conviction about the need for a new consensus; not dogma but one that lays the basis for the transformation of countries’ economies. He blamed the vulnerability of Africans on the fact that the continent’s economies have not yet begun to rely on value addition, thus becoming fatally dependent on commodities which cannot offer the bases for sustained economic growth and development, and economic transformation.

While acknowledging the difficulty of reaching a new consensus as a guide for economic development and co-operation, he however pointed out that agreement can be reached on the objectives and goals for international co-operation that allow policy space for each country to devise its own economic means of achieving those goals. He mentioned the MDGs by way of example.

He pointed out the absence, so far, of the necessary policy space in international economic co-operation that would enable developing countries to pursue effectively, and with real international support, economic policies that are independently formulated. He further argued that conditionalities that have so far permeated international economic cooperation have to give way to new approaches consistent with the exigencies of the day. He called upon the Non-Aligned countries to raise their collective voice in this regard and work for the attainment of conditions in international co-operation which are friendly for the transformation of developing countries’ economies without which, he added, the future will indeed be bleak.

This, Ato Seyoum said, should be done along with a collective effort on the issues of climate change and global warming for which the developed and the developing worlds have common, but differentiated responsibilities. While pointing out how little developing countries have in the way of responsibility for the growing danger and for the increase in global warming, he nonetheless emphasized the common responsibility that all countries—developed or developing alike—have for managing this increase. Ato Seyoum also expressed hope that the Movement must play a pro-active role in this and take part in the upcoming Copenhagen meeting on climate change, actively. He further expressed his pleasure with Africa’s decision to participate in that occasion through one delegation which is authorized to articulate the common African position on this vital matter.

Remarking that the Movement has always been associated with advocacy for peace and for friendship and solidarity among peoples and nations, he reminded members of the Movement of their solemn obligation to the scrupulous observance of principles of international law governing inter-state relations. He rightly stated that it would be an illusion to hope for sustainable peace in an environment of economic malaise, hopelessness as well as in the midst of injustice, and underlined the crucial task of finding just solutions to all conflict situations as well as all situations where injustice prevails. Foreign Minister Seyoum went on to emphasize how critical it is that states and governments abide by rules and principles governing civilized behaviour among nations and be ready, in good faith, to take a firm position, as a matter of principle, when states, including some among us, not only fail to comply with, but also violate in a flagrant manner, these rules and principles.

He described the Movement as one based not on the exercise of power, but one that is based on the power of moral persuasion and the credibility it has as a Movement that stands for what is in the interest of humanity in general. He further pointed out that no other entity in the world is comparable to NAM in global reach as a custodian of multilateralism and principles of international law governing friendly relations among nations. Our Movement, Ato Seyoum said, has its plate full in this regard in the following years, and concluded his speech by expressing his confidence in Egypt being at the helm for the next three years.

Wednesday, 29 July 2009

Morogoro Road -Dar Es salaam in the evening

Photos: Ayoub mzee

Wednesday, July 29, 2009
WHEN: Starting at 9:00 a.m.WHAT:
The United Nations Development Programme Discussion on "The U.S. Launch of the Arab Human Development Report 2009 (AHDR)":
9 a.m.: Amat Alsoswa, Assistant Secretary-General at the United Nations and Assistant Administrator at the United Nations Development Programme's Regional Bureau for Arab States, delivers remarks on "Summary of AHDR 2009: Challenges to Human Security in the Arab Countries"
9:45 a.m.: David Yang, Senior Adviser at the United Nations Development Programme's Washington Liaison Office; Bahgat Korany, Professor of International Relations and Political Economy at the American University of Cairo; and Marina Ottaway, Director of the Middle East Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, participate in a panel discussion on "The Arab State and Human Security"
11 a.m.: Riz Khan, host of the Riz Khan Show on Aljazeera Network; Thomas Friedman of the New York Times; and Bahgat Korany of the American University in Cairo, participate in a panel discussion on "Why Have Obstacles to Arab Human Development Prove to Be So Stubborn?" WHERE: The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Washington, DC.CONTACT: 202-331-8670,; web site: NOTE: RSVP to by July 27. WHEN: 9:00 a.m.WHAT: The Center for Global Development Discussion on "The Pentagon and Development: Programs and Structures." Speakers: David Jea, Visiting Associate at the Center for Global Development; and Todd Moss, Senior Fellow at the Center for Global Development.WHERE: Center for Global Development, 1800 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Third Floor, Washington, DC. CONTACT: 202-416-4000 ; web site: WHEN: 9:30 a.m.WHAT: McKinsey and Company News conference on "Unlocking Energy Efficiency in the U.S. Economy."WHERE: National Press Club, 14th and F Sts., NW, First Amendment Lounge, Washington, DC.CONTACT: Monica Runggatscher, 212-415-5158, ; web site:
WHEN: 10:00 a.m.WHAT: Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing on "Responding to Pakistan's IDP (Internally Displaced Persons) Crisis." Witnesses: Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration Eric Schwartz; and Jon Brause, Deputy Assistant Administrator of the Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance at the U.S. Agency for International Development.WHERE: Room 419 Dirksen Senate Office Building. CONTACT: 202-224-4651; web site: 10:00 a.m.WHAT: House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing on "New Challenges for International Peacekeeping Operations." Witnesses: U.S. Representative to the United Nations Susan Rice; Edward Luck, Senior Vice President/Director of Studies at the International Peace Institute, and Special Adviser to the UN Secretary-General; retired Army Col. William Flavin, Directing Professor in the U.S. Army Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute's Doctrine, Concepts, Training, and Education Division, U.S. Army War College; Erin Weir, peacekeeping advocate for Refugees International; Richard Williamson, partner at Winston & Strawn, LLP, former Special Envoy to Sudan and Ambassador to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights; and Brett Schaefer, Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs at the Heritage Foundation.WHERE: Room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building. CONTACT: 202-225-5021; web site:
WHEN: 10:00 a.m.WHAT: The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) Event on "MCC and Global Health Initiatives: Paving the Road to Healthy Lives." WHERE: MCC, 875 15th St., NW, Washington, DC.CONTACT: 202-521-3850; web site: NOTE: RSVP online: by July 28.
WHEN: 10:00 a.m.WHAT: Center for American Progress (CAP) Discussion on “Ukraine in Crisis.” Address by the Speaker of the Urkainian Verkhovna Rada (Parliament) Volodymyr Lytvyn. Other speakers: Rudy deLeon, Senior Vice President of National Security and International Policy at CAP; and Samuel Charap, Associate Director of Russia and Eurasia at CAP.WHERE: CAP, 1333 H St., NW, 10th Floor, Washington, DC.CONTACT: 202-741-6246; web site:
NOTE: RSVP at: WHEN: 12:00 p.m.WHAT: The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) Discussion on "Toward a Low-Cost, Clean Energy Policy." Speakers: Keynote remarks by Senate Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn; other speakers: Daniel Botkin of the University of California, Santa Barbara; and Kenneth Green of AEI.WHERE: AEI, 1150 17th St., NW, Wohlstetter Conference Center, 12th Floor, Washington, DC.CONTACT: Veronique Rodman, 202-862-4871,; web site: NOTE: RSVP:
WHEN: 12:00 p.m.WHAT: The Middle East Institute (MEI) Discussion on "The Iranian Elections and the Struggle for Democratic Change." Speakers: Mariam Memarsadeghi, Adviser on Human Rights to international democracy organizations; and Akbar Atri, Iranian human rights and democracy activist.WHERE: MEI, 1761 N St., NW, Boardman Room, Washington, DC.CONTACT: 202-785-1141; web site: NOTE: To register, go to: WHEN: 1:00 p.m.WHAT: The National Press Club Newsmaker Luncheon Program Address by Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass. on “America and China on the Road to Copenhagen: Toward a Climate Partnership.”WHERE: National Press Club, 14th and F Sts., NW, Ballroom, Washington, DC.CONTACT: Melinda Cooke, 202-662-7516; web site:

WHEN: 1:00 p.m.WHAT: The Woodrow Wilson Center (WWC) Discussion on "The Cyprus Negotiations: One Year Later." Speakers: U.S. Ambassador to Cyprus Frank Urbancic. The negotiations refer to the conflict between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Crypriots and the attempts to develop an institutional arrangement acceptable to both communities.WHERE: WWC, One Woodrow Wilson Plaza, Ronald Reagan Building, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC.CONTACT: 202-691-4000; web site:
WHEN: 2:00 p.m.WHAT: House Foreign Affairs Committee Asia, the Pacific and the Global Environment Subcommittee hearing on "Ushering in Change: A New Era for U.S. Regional Policy in the Pacific." Witnesses: Marlene Moses, Chairman of the Pacific Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and Permanent Representative of the Republic of Nauru to the United Nations; and Alcy Frelick, Director of the Office of Australia, New Zealand and Pacific Island Affairs in the State Department's Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs.WHERE: Room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building. CONTACT: 202-225-5021; web site: WHEN: 2:00 p.m.WHERE: The Heritage Foundation Discussion on "Voting Rights-And Wrongs: The Elusive Quest for Racially Fair Elections." Speakers: Abigail Thernstrom, Adjunct Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and Vice Chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; and Hans von Spakovsky, Legal Scholar at the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage FoundationWHERE: Heritage Foundation, 214 Massachusetts Ave., NE, Van Andel Center, Washington, DC.CONTACT: 202-675-1752,; web site: RSVP:
WHEN: 3:30 p.m.WHAT: House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing on "Sudan: U.S. Policy and Implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement." Witnesses: Earl Gast, Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Bureau for Africa at the U.S. Agency for International Development.WHERE: Room 2200 Rayburn House Office Building. CONTACT: 202-225-5021; web site: 3:00 p.m.
WHAT: Woodrow Wilson Center Discussion on “Enough! – Emerging US and African Leadership on Food Security.” Speakers: Roger Thurow and Scott Kilman, Wall Street Senior reporters and authors of Enough; Franklin Moore, Deputy Assistant Administrator, USAID Africa Bureau; H.E. Amadou Ba, Ambassador of Senegal to the U.S., Steve McDonald, Consulting Director, Africa Program, Wilson Center, co-moderator Marshall Bouton, President, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, co-moderator.
WHERE: 5th Floor Conference Room, One Woodrow Wilson Plaza, Ronald Reagan Building, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington DC
CONTACT: 202-691-4000; web site:

World Security Network reporting from London, July 23, 2009
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

Ayatollah Hashemi-Rafsanjani-the two-time former president of Iran who heads both the top political arbitration body, the Expediency Council, and the clerical body, the Assembly of Experts -delivered a sermon July 17, 2009 at the Tehran University and talked about "restoring trust" and called for a dialog between opposition and the regime, while thousands of protesters were chanting "estefa" (=resign) outside. Even though Rafsanjani's sermon did not explicitly challenge Ahmadinejad's regime, his critique could be shaking the clerical pillars that the current regime is based on.Since Ahmadinejad's historic electoral fraud at the beginning of June, the Iranian nation has not calmed down. While protests were still sweeping the streets of Tehran last week, opposition supporters and their leader Moussavi were gathering outside the Friday prayer at Tehran University to attend Ayatollah Rafsanjani's long-awaited sermon. Speaking at a prayer service that is traditionally used as a showcase for the regime, a heavily protected Rafsanjani talked about "restoring trust" and called for a dialog between opposition and the regime, while thousands of protesters were chanting "estefa" (=resign) outside. Even though Rafsanjani's sermon did not explicitly challenge Ahmadinejad's regime, his critique could be shaking the clerical pillars that the current regime is based on.
With the pressure of national democratic movements and the international community increasing, Ahmadinejad's political legitimisation has been heavily relying on his religious leaders and the theocratic structure of the Iranian republic. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader and highest power in Iran, was one of the first national figures to confirm the results of the presidential election and one of the first clerics that threw his political and religious weight behind Ahmadinejad. With him and the Guardian Council, which soon ruled out an annulment of the election, Ahmadinejad had the most important clerical and political forces gathered behind him and strengthened his presidency within the republic, even though the civil movement against his regime gained power every day.
In the past week, a month after the election, two major clerical figures have directly or indirectly challenged the legitimacy of Ahmadinejad's presidency and his supporter Khamenei. Just a couple of days before Rafsanjani delivered his sermon, one of the most senior Shiite clerics, Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri, publicly questioned the legitimization of the current Iranian government in a Fatwa published on an Iranian website. In his Fatwa, an opinion concerning Islamic law that can be legally binding, Montazeri declares Ahmadinejad's presidency illegitimate and dismisses a regime "that is based on force, oppression, [and] changing people's votes [...]" as not religiously or legally valid. Referring to the "Stalinist regime and medieval torture", Montazeri's Fatwa declares the government's violent outbursts on protesters and Ahamdinejad's electoral fraud as religiously unjust and challenges the clerical superstructure of the Iranian government, while calling on the Iranian people to resist. This is not the first time that the 87-year-old Ayatollah, who was once supposed to replace Khomeini, has openly criticised the Iranian clerics. But other than in 1989, when he was jailed for opposing mass executions, his recent Fatwa could, similar to Ayatollah Rafsanjani's sermon, have a serious impact on the current political situation in Iran.
With multiple national and international Internet sources publishing Montazeri's Fatwa, regime opponents inside and outside Iran perceive his Fatwa as the momentum of the Iranian democratic movement. While various Internet blogs are used by exile Iranians to express their hope for a democratic and Islamic Iran, Monatzeri's Fatwa could inspire a political movement that is based on Islamic beliefs and democratic values.
His critique could also affect the religious establishment in the holy city of Qom, especially Khamenei, who has been notoriously supportive of Ahamdinejad's system and is responsible for delineation and supervision of general Iranian policies. Reformist Islamic scholars hope that Montazeri's critique will shift religious debates within the clerical circle towards a more open theological debate that can incorporate new approaches and is less hostile to democratic influences.
In addition, Montazeri's assessment could hold chances for the international community and their effort to start a dialog with Iran, not only in regards to its nuclear weapon program. Although the publication of Montazeri's Fatwa went considerably unnoticed among Western media, various politicians and public figures have emphasised its importance in the development of a modern and Islamically based Iranian nation. Angelika Beer, former member of the European Parliament, refers to the Fatwa in her latest newsletter, stating that it gives "a glimpse of hope" that the Iranian clerics will not approve Ahmadinejad's actions in the longer term and might open up for a dialogue with the Western world.
But is Montazeri's Fatwa another important piece in the puzzle that leads to a new reformed Iran, or is it only a minor setback for Ahmadinejad's regime? We spoke to Dr. Reza Molavi, executive director of the prestigious Centre of Iranian Studies in Durham, about the chances for a democratic Iran, the role of the Western world and the changing role of the clerics in a theocratic nation.

Ayatollah Montazeri publicly questioned the legitimization of the current Iranian government.WSN: "Various microbloggers talk about the impact of Montazeri's Fatwa on the Iranian clerics. In what way will the religious superstructure in Iran change in the future?
Dr. Reza Molavi: "Fatwas like the one issued by Montazeri and sermons like Ayatollah Rafsanjani's have, together with the civil movement, shaken the main pillar on which the Iranian republic stands. The cleric and Ahmadinejad both want to preserve the Islamic Republic and none of the hardliner clerics wants Ahmadinejad to leave, as they would lose all their political power. With his Fatwa, that states that the idea of a superior spiritual leader that has political power is not in conformity with Islam, Montazeri joins other clerics such as Ayatollah Ali Sistani and strengthens the reformist leg of the Iranian clerics. It shows that there is a movement within the clerical establishment that understands religion as going beyond and being independent from politics and that advocates for a secular state in which one clerical elite that bundles all political power would be unnecessary.
WSN: "Montazeri calls in his Fatwa for the resistance of the Iranian nation. Do you think the civil movement will facilitate change in Iran?
Dr. Reza Molavi: "The genie is out of the bottle now and Montazeri's Fatwa certainly gives hope for a change in Iran. to read more you have to register here

Tuesday, 28 July 2009

Office of the Spokesman
For Immediate Release July 27, 2009

Statement by IAN Kelly, Spokesman

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Travel to Africa

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will begin a seven-nation trip to Africa on August 5 at the 8th U.S. – Sub-Saharan Africa Trade and Economic Cooperation Forum (known as the AGOA Forum) in Nairobi, Kenya.

This trip will highlight the Obama administration’s commitment to making Africa a priority in U.S. foreign policy. This will be the earliest in any U.S. administration that both the President and the Secretary of State have visited Africa.

While in Kenya, Secretary Clinton will discuss new approaches to development, including an emphasis on investment and broad-based economic growth. The Secretary will be joined in Kenya by Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, and Assistant Secretary for African Affairs Johnnie Carson.

During the visit to Kenya, the Secretary will deliver a speech at the Ministerial Opening Ceremony for the AGOA Forum, participate in bilateral meetings with Kenya’s senior leaders, discuss global hunger and agricultural issues at a major research institute, and engage with Kenyan citizens. She will also meet with Sheikh Sharif Amed, the President of Somalia’s Transitional Federal Government.

The Secretary will continue her travel with stops in South Africa, Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria, Liberia, and Cape Verde. In each nation, she will emphasize Africa as a place of opportunity, built on an ethic of responsibility. She will underline America’s commitment to partner with governments, the private sector, non-governmental organizations, and private citizens to build societies where each individual can realize their potential.

In her bilateral meetings and other events, she will encourage new solutions to old challenges, harnessing the power of innovation and technology to provide a foundation for future stability, human development, and sustainable economic growth. She will stress the importance of facilitating social and economic entrepreneurship, encouraging a new generation of young African scientists, small business leaders, entrepreneurs and civic leaders who are solving real problems and establishing new models for economic success and social advances, with women as full partners in this progress. And she will discuss ways to foster good regional governance, partnering with regional leaders to band together to prevent conflict and violence, including gender-based violence, democratic erosions, and transnational threats.

Following her visit to Cape Verde, the Secretary will return to Washington, DC.

I met up with fellow Diasporians who are doing well for themselves In Dar
J.Pinto[Jambo leo] A.Mwambene[Foreign affairs],Kasongo [NSSF]

The diaspora is doing well back home.This is J.Pinto who is now running a daily called Jambo Leo

ECONOMICS & FINANCE- Does the U.S. Economy Need More Stimulus? By Alice Rivlin, Brookings Institution, July 10, 2009 – web link: - Fold the G-8 into the G-20 by James M. Roberts, Heritage Foundation, July 10, 2009 – web link: - Global Development Finance 2009: Charting a Global Recovery – World Bank – 2009 – web link:,,menuPK:5924239~pagePK:64168427~piPK:64168435~theSitePK:5924232,00.html - Inflation Scare: Crazy But Real by John H. Makin, American Enterprise Institute Outlook Series, July 2009 – web link: ENERGY- OPEC Oil Export Revenues – Energy Information Administration, July 2009 – web link:
- Unprecedented Increase in Magnitude of U.S. Natural Gas Resource Base – Potential Gas Agency, June 18, 2009 – web link: - Waxman-Markey: An Exercise in Unreality by Stephen F. Hayward and Kenneth P. Green, American Enterprise Institute Outlook Series, July 2009 – web link: ENVIRONMENT- Energy and Climate Change at the G-8 Summit by Sarah O. Ladislaw, Center for Strategic and International Studies, July 9, 2009 – web link: - Overcoming the Barriers to the Development and Wide Deployment of Low-Carbon Technology – Center for American Progress, July 10, 2009 – web link: FOREIGN POLICY- The Button and the Bear by Leon Aron, American Enterprise Institute Outlook Series, July 2009 – web link: - From Strategy to Implementation: Strengthening U.S. – Pakistan Relations – Testimony by Lisa Curtis to U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Heritage Foundation, July 8, 2009 – web link: - Iran at the Crossroads by Fariborz Ghadar, Center for Strategic and International Studies, July 10, 2009 – web link: - Iraq and the Kurds: Trouble Along the Trigger Line – Crisis Group, July 8, 2009 – web link: - Middle East Notes and Comments: The Whole World is Watching by Jon B. Alterman, Center for Strategic and International Studies, July 7, 2009 – web link: - Saddam Hussein Talks to the FBI: Twenty Interviews and Five Conversation with “High Value # 1” in 2004 - National Security Archive, George Washington University, July 1, 2009 – web link: Though Obama Viewed Positively, Still Much Criticism of U.S. Foreign Policy: Global Poll, World Public – July 7, 2009 – web link:
- Uighurs and China’s Zinjiang Region by Preeti Bhattacharji, Council on Foreign Relations, July 6, 2009 – web link:
HEALTH CARE REFORM- Fork in the Road: Alternative Paths to a Higher Performance U.S. Health System – The Commonwealth Fund, June 24, 2009 – web link: - The Health Care Disconnect by Darrell M. West, Brookings Institution, July 10, 2009 – web link: IMMIGRATION- Broken Immigration System Risks Serious Damage to U.S. National Interests, Warns Council on Foreign Relations Task Force, July 8, 2009 – web link: - ‘Significant Hurdles’ Remain on Immigration Reform – Interview with Jeb Bush, former Governor of Florida and Chairman of Council on Foreign Relations Task Force on Immigration Reform, July 8, 2009 – web link:

Source : FPC

Monday, 27 July 2009

New Tanzania - Pictures

IAEA Director-General ..
The International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei is in Tanzania for a two days official visit.El Baradei discussed with President Jakaya Kikwete about peaceful use of Uranium,which has been recently discovered in Tanzania.Tanzania plans to use its uranium deposits to generate alternative energy with technical backing from the IAEA.Tanzania wants to work with IAEA to enhance local capacities through science and technology transfer mechanisms.ElBaradei visited neighbouring Kenya on Thursday and also will travel to South Africa and Botswana.

DEFENSE & NATIONAL SECURITY- Do Targeted Killings Work? by Daniel L. Byman, Brookings Institution, July 14, 2009 – web link: - The Jihadists Strike Back by Bruce Riedel, Brookings Institution, July 17, 2009 – web link: A Shared Security Strategy for a Euro-Atlantic Partnership of Equals by Simon Serfaty and Sven Biscop, Center for Strategic and International Studies, July 20, 2009 - - Spending Spree and Cutting Defense Don’t Add Up by Edwin J. Feulner, Heritage Foundation, July 20, 2009 – web link: ECONOMICS & FINANCE- Geithner and the New Middle East Economic Agenda by Navtej Dhillon, Brookings Institution, July 14, 2009 – web link: - Unemployment Is Rising Across the Country by Nayla Kazzi and Heather Boushey, Center for American Progress, July 17, 2009 – web link: Women Breadwinners, Men Unemployed by Heather Boushey, Center for American Progress, July 17, 2009 – web link: ENVIRONMENT- Cap and Trade: A Comparison of Cost Estimates by Nicolas Loris, Heritage Foundation, July 20, 2009 – web link: - Carbon Offsets, Reversal Risk and U.S. Climate Policy by Bryan Mignone, Matthew Hurteau, Yihsu Chen and Bren Sohnger, Brookings Institution, July 2009 – web link: FOREIGN POLICY- Clinton’s Challenge in India by Evan Feigenbaun, Council on Foreign Relations, July 16, 2009 – web link: - Effective Development Assistance Through Competition by Clifford F. Zinnes, Brookings Institution, July 2009 – web link: The Iranian Conundrum by Peter Juul, Center for American Progress, July 17, 2009 – web link: Obama’s Summits: Gradual Steps with Russia, Climate Change – Interview with Charles A. Kupchan, Council on Foreign Relations, July 10, 2009 – web link: - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Visit to India by Teresita Schaffer, Center for Strategic and International Studies, July 15, 2009 – web link:’s-visit-india- The U.S. – China Strategic and Economic Dialogue by Charles Freeman, Center for Strategic and International Studies, July 17, 2009 – web link: - Where the Real Fight Is by Michael A. Cohen and Parag Khanna, Foreign Policy, July 16, 2009 – web link:
- Window of Opportunity for a Two-State Solution: Policy Recommendations to the Obama Administration on the Israeli-Palestinian Front by Brian Katulis, Marc Lynch, and Robert C. Adler, Center for American Progress, July 15, 2009 – web link: HEALTH CARE REFORM- Aligning Health IT and Health Reform: Achieving an Information Driven Health Care System – Center for American Progress, July 15, 2009 – web link: - Attitudes About Health Care Reform, American Enterprise Institute (AEI) Political Report, July/August 2009 – web link: The Careful U.S. Diplomacy on Honduras – Interview with Kevin Casas-Zamora, Council on Foreign Relations, July 9, 2009 – web link:
- Health Care Reform Critical to U.S. Economy by Alice Rivlin, Brookings Institution, July 16, 2009 – web link: Lessons in Universal Health Insurance Models by Toni Johnson, Council on Foreign Relations, July 16, 2009 - - The Two Trillion Dollar Solution Solution: Saving Money by Modernizing the Health Care System by Melinda Beeuwkes Buntin and David M. Butler, Center for American Politics, June 24, 2009 – web link: THE MEDIA- Think Again: The End of Local Reporting? By Eric Alterman, Center for American Progress, July 16, 2009 – web link: U.S. GOVERNMENT & POLITICS- Do Americans View Both Parties As Too Extreme? By Alan I. Abramowitz, Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball, University of Virginia Center for Politics, July 9, 2009 – web link:
Additional Resources:Foreign Press Center Web Site – Congressional Research Service Reports - U.S. Government Reports -

Sunday, 26 July 2009

I was honoured to meet Tanzania's reknown Author Mr.Adam Shafi

Je unataka kuwasiliana naye Shafi? Mwandikie barua pepe:
Ukitaka kitabu cha Haini kinauzwa duka la Longhorn karibu na Mfuko wa Utamaduni pale Kinondoni, Dar es Salaam, namba 1237. Simu zao mbili : 26-67334; Mobaili : 0748335702.

Tanzania war heroes Day celebrations in Kagera


Urefu wake Dili?
Na Abdallah Mrisho.
Kama ulifikiri Hashim Thabit ndiye mrefu peke yake Bongo, ulikosea....kuna kijana mwingine ambaye anadhaniwa ni mrefu kuliko hata Hashim..yuko maeneo ya Gongolamboto/Banana jijini Dar es salaam. Juzi kati alilleta kizaa zaa kikubwa pale alipoibuka mitaa ya Aggrey Kariakoo...alikuwa kivutio kwa kila aliyemuona,alifunga mtaa watu wakimshangaa na kumgombania kupiga nae picha..kila aliyetaka kupiga nae picha alitoa Buku..
jamaa aliondoka na kama fote hivi! Hapo unapomuona yumo ndani ya saluni moja na alikuwa anakaribia kugusa siling! mpaka sasa hajajulikana jina lake kamili na anafanya nini...tunaendelea kumfuatilia ili kuwaletea data zake kamili, kwani watu wanasema urefu wa jamaa ni Dili



SENIOR administration OFFICIAL: Guys, thanks for coming. On Saturday, we’re going to have more than 150 Chinese officials come in a delegation that’s going to be led by Vice Premier Wang Qishan and State Councilor Dai Bingguo. And this is going to be one of the largest and high-level official Chinese delegations ever to come to the U.S.

And my State Department colleagues are going to talk about the political and strategic part of the discussion. We’ll talk about the economic aspect to it. But I think the fact that the Chinese are sending such a high-level and such a large delegation signals the importance they put on engagement in the bilateral relationship right now.

When Secretary Geithner was in Beijing last month and he met with senior leadership, it was very clear that they believe that the economic downturn has made them realize that their economic destiny is tied to ours. There is no decoupling. And a big focus of the discussion going forward next week is going to be about what both sides can do to strengthen the recovery, and also change the fundamental direction of our economic development strategies going forward.

Perhaps the most important message that we’re going to have for the Chinese is that there’s been a fundamental change in the U.S. economy. The U.S. economy is going to recover, but the recovery is going to be a different type of recovery from what the Chinese have seen in the past. U.S. households are raising their savings rates, so this is going to be less of a consumption-led recovery than what they’re used to. And our message to the Chinese is going to be: If you want to achieve your growth objectives, you’re going to have to find a different way of doing it than through export-led growth.

The Chinese have been making progress – not fast enough, not intense enough, but some progress in transforming their economic growth model away from dependence on exports, dependence on capital-intensive, heavy industry that’s resource-intensive, that’s carbon-intensive.

But our main message, again, to them is that you need to understand, China, that it’s not so simple as to put in place a very aggressive monetary and fiscal stimulus, which they’ve done, and has been a very important factor for the stabilization of the global economy and global financial markets. But it’s not as simple as putting in place a stimulus bridging over a couple years until you get back to the old days, where you can export into a consumption boom in the U.S. and other parts of the global economy.

So we’re going to talk a lot about what China needs to do to restructure its economy and produce, in particular, more consumption-led growth. We’re also going to spend quite a bit of time talking about lessons from the financial crisis. We want to make sure that China draws the right lessons and not the wrong lessons, and that China continues on the path of financial innovation, financial development, financial opening up.

Again, it’s a very important part of the rebalancing agenda too. If Chinese households and businesses can have access to a broader array of financial assets, that’ll be another reason why Chinese households will be able to reduce their savings and consume more. And again, all this ultimately gets back to jobs in the U.S. if the Chinese can increase their consumption, reduce their trade surplus. That’s going to mean more exports, U.S. exports, more U.S. jobs.

Two other issues that we’re going to talk about – one is reforming our international economic and financial institutions, first and foremost, working together with China to make sure that these institutions, like the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and other institutions have the resources to combat the current crisis, and as importantly, have the structure and resources to make sure that they’re able to put out financial fires in the future. But also it’s very important to both us and China that we reform the governance of these institutions to give China and other of the dynamic emerging market economies a weight, a role in the governance of these institutions that’s more commensurate with their weight and their position in the global economy.

It’s very important for the legitimacy of these institutions. It’s very important for the effectiveness of these institutions. It’s very important to bring China fully into the governance of the global financial and economic structure that the U.S. largely created in the post-war period. And the last issue that we’re going to talk about is making sure that both sides intensify their efforts to maintain open trade and investment policies.

I’ll just highlight two issues that are going to be on our agenda. One is government procurement, and both China and the U.S. had very aggressive fiscal stimulus programs. We understand that whenever you’re spending public funds, there’s understandably going to be force to keep that money at home. I think both China and the U.S. understand the importance of nondiscriminatory procurement policies. We’re all better off if U.S. companies can sell to the Chinese Government, and Chinese companies can sell to the U.S. Government.

But the problem we have is China is not yet a member of the WTO Government Procurement Code. This wasn’t an issue back in the early ‘80s, when the Government Procurement Code was signed. China was an insignificant part of the government procurement market. Now we fast-forward 25 years later and China is not only a major supplier; it’s a major consumer of goods and services in the global government procurement market. China can no longer sit outside this system, so it’s very important – and again, we’re going to talk about intensifying our efforts to make sure that China gets in so it makes commitments to U.S. companies and U.S. workers that when it buys its goods and services, it’ll do so on a nondiscriminatory basis.

The last issue is investment. Foreign investment has been a huge driver of growth in both the U.S. and Chinese economy. We are concerned that we’re seeing a hardening of attitudes towards foreign investment in some sectors in China, and we’re going to stress the importance that China continue to maintain an open investment policy to U.S. companies. And we’re also going to talk about some of the concerns that they have.

China has always been an important platform for U.S. investment. The big change that we’ve seen in the last couple years is what the Chinese call their going-out policy. And China’s outward investment by Chinese companies is growing at a very, very rapid rate. I wouldn’t be surprised if, in the next few years, outward direct investment from China exceeds inward direct investment into China. And we are always going to protect our national security, but we also face the challenge that a lot of the investment coming from China is – for the foreseeable future is going to be coming from companies where their corporate governance just looks different from corporate governance of U.S. companies and European companies. And this is going to be a challenge that we’re going to have to work with.

So one of the things we’re going to talk about next week is how both sides can maintain open investment policies, how the U.S. is going to protect national security – that’s nonnegotiable – but at the same time, create a basis where Chinese companies can also come to the U.S. and create jobs in the U.S.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Okay. Maybe what I’ll do is talk a little bit about some of the structure and how this is going to work, particularly for those of you who are familiar with the strategic economic dialogue that Secretary Paulson ran under the Bush Administration and are wondering, how is the strategic and economic dialogue different from that, just in terms of how it’s going to operate.

And I think some of those structural differences actually lead to some important areas of substance that we hope to begin discussing Monday and Tuesday of next week. First, I mean, there was obvious differences. This is co-chaired by Secretaries Clinton and Geithner with their Chinese counterparts. And what we’re trying to achieve here is to have a discussion with our – with China that is broader, that is more strategic in many ways, focused across a full spectrum of political and security and economic issues.

And so whereas we’re still maintaining the sort of track structure, so to speak, there will be an economic track that Secretary Geithner will chair and there will be a strategic track that Secretary Clinton will chair. There will also be a so-called joint track the first part of the first day. It will be co-chaired by all four of the principals on the American and Chinese side.

The President – as the White House announced, the President will open the event Monday morning, and then we will begin our work jointly in a session that Clinton and Geithner will chair on the American side. And in that session, the idea of it is for us to discuss issues that are cross-cutting, that aren’t neatly stove-piped within our bureaucracy or within China’s bureaucracy, but that are really important issues in which the U.S. and China have common interest in trying to solve, and – but yet they’re very, very difficult issues.

So this year, one of the issues we’ll focus on will be on climate and clean energy. I’ll let one of my other colleagues speak a little bit more to the substance. But that’s an example of the kind of thing we want to use – while we’re using this forum, that hopefully, this year and then in the next year and the next year, and this will – this session will be – or this dialogue will be conducted once a year. That will be another key difference from the previous administration where it was once every six months. Once a year, we will come together and set sort of broad strategic direction for the relationship that will help guide the many other interactions that our cabinet agencies and the rest of our partners throughout the U.S. Government are having with China throughout the year.

But what we want to try to do in this plenary or joint session is to discuss some of the crosscutting issues, and climate and clean energy will be a very important part of that. Then in – I’ll speak to the strategic track. What we’ll get to is some – many of the issues that won’t be surprising to those of you in the room. Certainly, we look forward to discussing a broad range of global security issues – things like nonproliferation, counterterrorism. We’ll also discuss regional issues. The Secretary of State Clinton is on her way back right now from Asia, from the ASEAN and ARF meetings. So she looks forward to continuing many of the discussions that were started there with Chinese counterparts Monday and Tuesday.

But also, we’ll be discussing a whole range of sort of urgent challenges that are in the headlines every day, things like the DPRK, Iran certainly, Afghanistan, Pakistan. And we’re structuring our conversation in a way where – on the strategic side, where we obviously have larger discussions in which we will be able to present to one another some sort of basic policy outlines, but then also maintaining space for a more private or closed-in, smaller interactions in which we’re really hoping to build a genuine dialogue. And it’s not just going to be set piece exchanges, but something in which both sides can really try to exchange views openly.

In terms of just how we see this strategic and economic dialogue working within the broader U.S.-China relationship, I mean, I think it’s significant that we – that our President has decided to do it this summer. Certainly, from just a staff perspective, that was quite a logistical challenge to try to pull this off in just a matter of months. As my colleague mentioned, we’ve got quite a bit of Chinese friends coming, and it’s an enormous organizational effort as well as substantive effort.

But we really wanted to do this quickly and in the first part of the year because we see this as a beginning. This is – hopefully, after a successful two days, we will get off on the right foot in terms of the dialogue and that, for the next few years, as we do this moving forward. It’s a way to kind of begin an interaction that we will see pay off over time.

We see this as a beginning of a conversation. Certainly, it’s going to plug into the many other dialogues that our government has with China, as well as, obviously, the interaction that our leaders have and that our respective secretaries will continue to have with their counterparts. But it will be an important moment, because it’s two days in which senior officials from – certainly, our two departments, but also throughout the U.S. Government, with their Chinese counterparts, will be in the same place at the same time and ready to discuss the many important issues that our two countries face together.

So with that as just sort of a general background, I’ll turn to my colleague who can talk a little bit in more detail about some of the climate and energy issues.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thanks very much. I thought I’d just be quite brief. I’m pleased that the U.S. and China have agreed to make clean energy and climate change a principal part of the upcoming S&ED and at that joint level that was just alluded to. This is actually the 30th anniversary this year of some form of U.S.-China cooperation on energy and the environment. And I think it’s, again, particularly notable and important that now that’s going to importantly include climate change.

Climate change is fundamentally the problem and clean energy is the solution. So these things –the two issues are inextricably linked, and that will be reflected in the upcoming meetings. Climate change represents, I think is apparent to all, a great challenge, also a great opportunity. There are huge risks, as scientists have made clear, and the U.S. and China, as the two biggest emitters of greenhouse gases in the world – the U.S. the largest historic emitter, and China now the largest emitter in the world and the largest going forward – are absolute critical to any solution to this issue. The problem can’t be solved without both of us.

At the same time, climate change represents an enormous opportunity. Again, clean energy is the solution, the transformation to a low carbon economy in our country, and China, and ultimately, globally, is the only way to solve this problem. And that transformation can be, and I think will be, a driver of economic growth in this century.

During the Monday morning session, the two sides will discuss domestic actions to reduce emissions and how the U.S. and China can work together towards strong international agreements in both of those issues. In the afternoon session, we will discuss how the combined ingenuity and market power of the two – of these two largest players can catalyze a transition to a low carbon economy that I was just talking about, and how the countries can work together to promote environmentally sustainable economic growth.

I have frequently been heard to say that the only path to truly sustainable development as we move forward, at this point, is low-carbon development. Given what we know about climate change, that’s the only kind of sustainable development there is. Those who would seek to build high-carbon infrastructure at the time like this is, I think, reminds one of the people who built typewriter factories back five years before the PC revolution. It’s a bad investment to bet on high carbon right now.

We will be focusing our conversation on advancing renewable energy, building industrial efficiency electric vehicles, and other – and more. Both of our countries must move, and I think both recognize that we must move beyond the old paradigm of just fossil fuel energy.

So I think the S&ED provides a very good opportunity. We’re looking forward – to have a discussion on both of these issues, clean energy and climate change, and their interaction and interrelation. And we look forward to a good discussion on Monday and Tuesday.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Just very briefly to follow on from what [Senior Administration Official] said, during their meeting in London in April, Presidents Obama and Hu said we wanted to pursue a positive, cooperative and comprehensive relationship. Secretary Clinton, during her earlier visit to Beijing, said our priorities in the bilateral relationship with China are the global economic crisis, regional security issues, and climate change. And the S&ED is a way of taking that agenda and getting together with multiple cabinet-level agencies on the American side, getting together with our Chinese counterparts, and approaching the relationship in a comprehensive way. So that’s where the comprehensive comes from in the positive cooperative and comprehensive statement.

Briefly, on the strategic track of the S&ED, the history is that the strategic track is basically a descendant of the senior dialogue which we started some years ago. Given the importance of U.S.-China relations in this Administration, and with the Chinese Government as well, we decided to raise the level at which we interact with the Chinese to the cabinet level. And for us, that’s Secretary Clinton and State Councilor Dai Bingguo.

We’re going to talk about – in the strategic track, we’re going to talk about bilateral relations and the way forward. We’re going to focus on areas in which we think we can expand our cooperation, as [Senior Administration Official] said, in areas like counterterrorism and nonproliferation. We’re going to talk about global issues, global governance, health and infectious diseases, sustainable development. And we’re going to talk about regional security issues like North Korea, Afghanistan-Pakistan, Iran, so that we can explore area – concrete areas in which we not only share common interests, but in which we can cooperate together.

We’re just starting – with the exception of North Korea, we’re just starting in these areas. And we hope to lay a foundation in the strategic track for further productive exchanges with the Chinese on these issues. Human rights, of course, will be discussed. We’re going to talk about human rights. We’ll talk about Tibet. We’ll exchange views on the recent violence in Xinjiang as well.

So again, this is a first step. There’ll be a lot of agenda-setting. We hope the strategic track provides us with a framework within which we can carry forward and explore areas in which we have common interests with the Chinese and in which we can look for, as I say, concrete ways of cooperating in those areas.

MODERATOR: As we take questions, I ask you to wait for the microphone. We have them on each side, so give your name and the name of your media organization. We’ll take questions now. We’ll start here in front.

QUESTION: Thank you. Xiong Min from 21st Century Business Herald. It’s a paper in China. First of all, what kind of tone do you want to set from the first strategic and economic dialogue for the future relation of U.S. and China? And secondly, can you tell us who are the secretarial-level representatives from both sides that are going to be on the table from both U.S. and China? And especially curious about – on the climate change subjects, who are you going to deal with, what issues and what’s going to be your – you know, who are you going to talk with?

And the thing you mentioned about the investment, the bilateral investment and negotiation, can you elaborate more about what kind of national security concern that you are thinking of? Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yeah. I mean, I can start on the tone. There’s like, four questions there, but I’ll do the --

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I can jump in on the (inaudible).

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yeah, that’s fine. Yeah, I mean, on the tone, just to repeat what many of us said in the first go-around is – and I think this is – we have many interactions with our Chinese counterparts – the United States and China do – throughout – whether from the State Department or the Treasury Department or other cabinet agencies.

But what’s significant about this is that it is high level – and this maybe gets to the second question – in many different sort of outlets, right? And we’re plugging in on both sides over two days at a high level where we’re going to be able to talk about a broad range of issues. And again, that’s the reason why it’s strategic and economic, is that we want to come together and try to talk about the issues as much – as many issues as we can at a high level, and particularly those issues that are crosscutting, that aren’t sort of owned by one particular agency on either side.

So I mean, clearly, we aim to have a very positive and candid discussion with our Chinese counterparts. But many of the issues we face are difficult. I mean, these are tough problems. Whether it’s on climate and clean energy or some of these regional issues, they’re tough to work through. And that’s why we’re looking forward to having two full days of high-level interaction that can help set a framework and some agendas for the continuous interactions we will have throughout the rest of this year and into next year, until we have our next strategic and economic dialogue, which will then yet be another step forward.

So I think we’re all looking forward to this. A lot of work has gone – on our side, and I know on their side as well – has gone into preparing for this visit and making it as fruitful of an exchange as can be.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Let me just give you an answer in terms of participation. President Obama has assembled a quite extraordinary team on climate issues, and they will be on display in the – at the meeting. We expect Secretary Chu to be – to participate, science adviser John Holdren, Carol Browner, Lisa Jackson from the EPA, and others as well.

I can’t speak, and obviously for the – in any authoritative way for the Chinese side, but I do anticipate – my understanding that my good friend (inaudible) is going to be coming and participating for the Chinese side, along with a number of senior Chinese officials. So I think it’s going to be a very good group.

And I think – I entirely agree with what [Senior Administration Official] said on tone. These are difficult issues. But I do think, and I’ve said this on many occasions in my interactions with my Chinese colleagues, that climate and clean energy is difficult, but it has the potential to be a really positive anchor in the U.S.-China relationship for many, many years and decades to come, just because it’s something that we’re going to have to work together on, and I think we can.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Can I just answer the gentleman’s other question?


SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Just to be clear, in the U.S. we have what’s called the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., CIFIUS, and Treasury leads this process. And this is to ensure that from a very narrow basis, we protect national security, and that’s nonnegotiable. But we do this in the context of a much broader policy of welcoming foreign investment from around the world, including from China. And we do this because foreign investment creates jobs and growth in America’s towns and cities.

CIFIUS has not been a barrier to investment other than the very limited amount of investment that would threaten our national security. And it’s very important that the Chinese understand that – that we’re open to foreign investment, we’re open to Chinese investment because it’s good for the U.S., it’s good for China.

Frankly, we have some concerns about the development of China’s investment reviews, and they’ve started – they’re just in the initial stages of having their own national security review system. And what we want to talk with them about is how every day, we work to keep our national security reviews focused on a very, very small number of transactions that are related to national security, but as part of a broader policy that brings in a lot of foreign investment and job creation.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I’m sorry. It just occurred to me, mindful of the rules here of this little briefing, that I should also say that [Senior Administration Official] will also be participating (inaudible). (Laughter.)

MODERATOR: Right There.

QUESTION: Hi. Dan Neumann with Inside U.S. Trade. A question for [Senior Administrator Official] on the Government Procurement Agreement that you talked about earlier: Is the U.S. going to push for a specific timeline for China to make a revised offer? The GPA is meeting at the WTO in October. Is that the kind of timeline that you’re talking about when you’re talking about intensifying efforts? And then also, just in terms of the Chinese hardening their view in certain sectors of in-bound investment into China, could you give some examples of what those sectors are? Is the energy and environmental sector one where you’re seeing these problems?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Okay. On the first one, you know, when China acceded to the WTO, it made a commitment to join the Government Procurement Agreement. And we think, eight years later, that it’s long overdue. And I think what we want to talk about next week is the experience that we both went through in our respective stimulus programs, where I think in some ways, it showed the value of the WTO, because what came out of the U.S. was consistent with our WTO commitments.

But China is not part of the WTO Government Procurement Agreement, so China wasn’t protected. So that led to an outcry in China about the potential for discrimination, and led to China instituting its own “Buy China” policy, which is a big concern for us. And so we think what we’ve been through in the last 12 months highlights that it’s more important than ever that both sides intensify their efforts to bring China into the Government Procurement Code.

And you’re right, the most important date is this fall – I believe it’s in October – where we certainly hope that China is going to submit a revised offer.

You want to take it?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yeah. On the second part of that question, a lot of China’s stimulus program is going into environmentally friendly areas – clean energy technology, high speed passenger rail, cleaning up water supply, for example. And in some of those sectors, the procurement’s pretty open to foreign investment. But in other sectors, China is choosing to close that to foreign goods and services.

And because it hasn’t signed up to this government procurement protocol, there’s no violation of any agreement there. Certainly, it’s within China’s trade rights to do that, but we think that it’s – country is missing an opportunity to get some of the best quality investment in energy areas and in environmental areas. So we think this is a good area for dialogue, talking about opening up the procurement on both sides.

MODERATOR: Okay. Back here in the black dress. That’s you, yeah.

QUESTION: Thanks. Rebecca Christie from Bloomberg. National Economic Council Director Larry Summers has talked about how experts will help lead the U.S. out of its recovery. I’m wondering how that will come across to the Chinese, or how you expect that as you encourage them to rely less on exports for their own recovery.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I think this meeting is going to take place in an interesting context, where we’re beginning to see some real adjustment in the trade situations on the two sides. Everyone knows there’s been a large trade deficit in the U.S., large trade surplus in China. Over the past year, the U.S. trade deficit has come down by about 50 percent. The adjustment in China was a little bit slower to start, but just between the first quarter and the second quarter, China’s trade surplus declined by 50 percent. And when you dig in to that, what you find is that exports are flat in China over the last few months, but imports have started to grow very rapidly.

Now, there’s obviously a cyclical dimension. China is one of the first economies to start the growth acceleration coming out of the global slowdown. In the United States, the economy has still been slowing, but at a diminished rate over the last couple of months. And so one of the important issues in the dialogue is: What are some of the structural policies that would ensure that this cyclical phenomenon really becomes a permanent change in the trade relationship?

And as we prepare for the dialogue, we think that the – both sides are open to discussing what kind of measures are going to lead to this adjustment. The Chinese have certainly put a very large fiscal stimulus in place, and that’s what’s got their economy growing again, and that’s what’s led to this big surge of imports. And so what – if you just look at what’s been done over the last few months, the Chinese have certainly shown a willingness to implement policies to start bringing about this adjustment. But we don’t want to get too excited about one quarter of data.

QUESTION: Is there an exchange rate policy side to this conversation?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The exchange rate is certainly one tool that we’ll talk about, but there are a lot of different tools that are going to influence this imbalance – some of the things [Senior Administration Official] mentioned – social policies, financial sector reform. There are a lot of structural measures on both sides that will affect this trade situation.

MODERATOR: Right here in the middle.

QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you. Donghui Yu with China Press. My question is for [Senior Administration Official]. In the previous SED, the U.S. side seems to be dominant on the topics of the dialogue. But (inaudible) U.S. – United States lower its criticism on the currency issue.

Do you think the priority has been changed under the backgrounds of the economic slowdown, and also, the topic would be changed to what China is – concerns about, like dollar’s value and super-sovereignty, reserve currency? And do you think the Obama Administration has a substantial plan to cut the financial deficit – not just the oral promise, but the (inaudible) of cutting the deficit? Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Okay. First, I disagree with one thing. I think the previous SED was a discussion between partners on – it was a very balanced discussion. We talked about issues of concern to the U.S., we talked about issues of concern to China. And I’m certain that that tradition of two countries sitting down on the basis of equals, having a very frank discussion about issues of concern to both sides, is going to continue.

The focus has changed because the world has changed. Eighteen months ago, 12 months ago, we didn’t have the focus on repair and recovery from the financial crisis that we’re going to have now, and we’re not going to – we didn’t have the focus on a reform of our financial regulatory system that we’re going to have now. And at least on the economic side, there’s going to be a much bigger focus on our rebalancing agenda.

Both as [Senior Administration Official] and I said, there is a fundamental change in the U.S. economy. Household savings is increasing. And we’re not going to go back to the way we were during 2004 to 2006 or -07, and we need to have a frank discussion with the Chinese, and they need to prepare for a new U.S. economy, a new global economy.

So that’s how things have changed a bit. Part of the rebalancing, as [Senior Administration Official] said, involves a whole array of issues. Certainly, the currency is an important part of a set of policies to move China away from dependence on trade, exports, heavy industry, and more towards domestic demand, consumption, and services.

MODERATOR: Okay. Right here, in front.

QUESTION: Hi. Daniel Ryntjes from Channel News Asia. Wanted to ask you about North Korea; you mentioned that that would be on table. To what extent is that? Obviously, the strategy now is to try to make sanctions right. To what extent are you going to be discussing strategic issues in order to achieve that? For example, you know, even going into military issues to do with maritime security and intercepting ships and that kind of thing.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The U.S. and China were part of a Security Council consensus a couple weeks ago in which we passed one of the strongest – most strongest-worded Security Council resolutions on North Korea. And we’ve worked together with the Chinese very closely on the implementation of those sanctions.

Secretary Clinton had intensive discussions in Thailand in connection with the ASEAN Regional Forum, with other members of the Six-Party Talks, our other four partners in the Six-Party Talks, not including North Korea. And basically, the approach is to implement the sanctions, and with the Chinese, we’ll be talking about ways of moving forward to reconvene the Six-Party Talks. I don’t want to get into too much detail here, but we’re going to continue the conversation in the context of the strategic track.


MODERATOR: Hold on for the microphone one second for a follow-up.

QUESTION: So it’s just a sense of how much discussion there’s going to be within the S&ED in regards to this issue? That was the kind of tone of what I was trying to get to.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We’re going to – we’re carving out time in the agenda which we’ll devote to North Korea. And I don’t know exactly how many minutes or hours it’s going to last right now, but we’re going to devote a fair amount of attention to that subject.

MODERATOR: Way back there, right there in the middle there in the blue shirt.

QUESTION: Hi. It’s a question regarding the energy and climate aspect of the talks. What do you expect to get out of next week’s talks? Do you expect there to be any new or concrete additional steps as you move towards Copenhagen? Or is this just more of an effort to talk through some of the issues again as you’ve been doing earlier this year at the G-8 and through the Major Economies Forum?


QUESTION: Oh, sorry. Mike Ball with Argus Media.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think that this is going to be a process of continuing to talk through those issues. I don’t think that – we aren’t looking at this as a – well, it’s not a negotiated forum, obviously, and we’re not looking at it as a place where there’s going to be some kind of major breakthrough.

I think that the nature of these conversations, and I’ve been having lots of them now for months at all different levels – bilateral, small groups, multilateral, et cetera – is a continual process of talking about the issues, refining the issues, and trying to see where the gaps are and figuring out whether there is some way to get to common ground on this, that, or the other issue. Obviously, issues of mitigation, finance and technology, these are all things that are critical.

And I think that the – obviously, the clean energy side of this conversation is going to be very important, and the links between that and clean climate are going to be important. But I don’t expect a breakthrough, but I do expect every time I sit down, and in this case now, where it’s not just one-on-one, but there is a full, very broad level of senior participation from both sides, I think it’s an opportunity to advance the ball, push it forward.

And again, a particular aspect of this engagement and the S&ED is that you’re going to have a wide range of senior cabinet people on both sides, hearing conversations that sometimes are only taking place in smaller, one-on-one kind of settings.

MODERATOR: Okay, right here, and this will have to be our last one.

QUESTION: Hi. Nick Juliano with Carbon Control News. Staying on climate for a minute, I was wondering if you have started to hear concerns from the Chinese about some of the border adjustments and other trade-related measures in the House climate bill that the Administration has already taken issue with. And specifically, what’s going to be the message to the Chinese on – you know, what sort of assurances can the U.S. offer in this forum that we’re not going to pursue protectionist climate policies?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The answer to whether I have heard concerns about provisions in the House bill of that kind, sure, I have from any number of countries. And President Obama has spoken to that issue already.

Look, I think that the – that I obviously can’t give assurances of any kind, since this is a legislation that’s working its way through Congress. The Administration will obviously continue to express its views. Again, the President has done it in a pretty (inaudible) way. But the more – this is certainly true – the more that we can find common ground in a strong approach that involves the major countries on both sides of – the traditional developed and developing country divide – the more that we can get the major countries to be making significant (inaudible) to reduce their emissions, reduction for developed countries is against basically where we are now. It’s based on (inaudible) absolutely (inaudible) reductions for developing countries, and understood to be up against what’s known as a business-as-usual curve, so reducing (inaudible) compared to what they would otherwise do on it – be doing.

As long as we can move forward on that kind of basis, (inaudible) much less (inaudible) – much less concern. They will have concern about those kinds of provisions because those kinds of provisions will be less likely. But again, I can’t make those (inaudible).

MODERATOR: Okay. Again, to remind you, this is Senior Administration Officials. Thank you for coming to the Foreign Press Center. Thank you all for leading. I appreciate it very much.