My understanding of diplomacy today

My initial thought of a diplomat was that of a person who would sit and manage his countries interests and engage in “power politics.” I was always under the impression that diplomats are there to stop wars between countries. Through the course of the module, I understood the different aspects and players of diplomacy.

I understood the meaning of power politics and I also understood how diplomacy has evolved through the ages. I understood that earlier, diplomats were engaged heavily in secret diplomacy and the public and the media were excluded during theses talks. Diplomats are now days more concerned with ‘low politics’ and they concentrate more on trade and public diplomacy.

During the visit to the Dutch Embassy, I understood that diplomats are not only in charge of maintaining politically good relations with countries, but they are also responsible to promote their own culture among others. I also understood, that today Public Diplomacy plays a huge role and that diplomatic talks are now held freely and are open to public and media discussion and scrutiny. Cultural diplomacy has also gained prominence in the diplomatic arena. Embassies are actively in touch with cultural organisations so as to promote their culture and also to understand the culture of others. in order to foster their relationship with other countries, embassies promote education and trade in different countries.

This shows that there has been a change in diplomacy. Gone are the days when diplomats would only engage with other diplomats regarding key issues that could affect their countries. Today’s diplomats are actively involved with diplomats, non-state actors, and most importantly, the public. We can thus see that diplomacy has become more open and inclusive over the year. Today, non-state actors play a huge role in framing countries policies regarding trade and environment issues. NGOs play a great role to influence government policies. They have the means and the resources to take up key issues, thus providing a voice to those who’s voices can’t be heard otherwise. For example, we can always look at AMNESTY International as an NGO that keeps bringing up key issues such as human rights abuses. NGOs provide a great sense of relief to the people facing such atrocities, as they become the people’s voice by bringing up the conditions under which they are living. Another example of an NGO is Oxfam. Oxfam constantly tries to change countries’ policies in favour of the climate. Oxfam is instrumental to create awareness about climate change among the masses. Thus, even if embassies do not wish to address issues such a human rights abuses and climate change, NGOs like AMNESTY International and Oxfam force them to speak up.

Despite the evolution of diplomacy, I believe that it is imperative that diplomats carry out secret talks with others and not make every single detail known to the public. I feel that a certain level of secrecy is essential even today so that relationships between countries do not turn sour. We have to remember, that the world today works solely on the basis of interdependence and that we cannot afford to sever ties with any country. This just shows us how complex diplomacy is.

This module has definitely opened my eyes to the different avenues of diplomacy and has also broadened my outlook towards diplomacy. I personally feel that the field of diplomacy is one of the most challenging fields in International Relations. It is not easy for anyone to grasp the complexity of this field.

The Highs and Lows of Diplomacy

My initial thoughts on diplomacy were based around the old school vision of the diplomat; leather backed chair in a mahogany paneled room, somewhere out in the vast reaches of a fading empire, helping British interests with a light touch here, a word in the right ear at cocktail parties. I was well aware of the vast array of multi-lateral conferences and institutions, aware of the role of NGOs throughout the globe but had somehow not related them to the institution of diplomacy.

The image I had was, of course that of the old diplomacy. Having studied the new diplomacy, my overwhelming impression is that of voices and many of them. Voices bring power. The louder the voice the more power the speaker has. Whereas, once upon a time, the great powers had tremendous voices that drowned out everything around, now there are a multitude of voices. You can still hear the great powers, but those other millions increasingly swamp them.

Multilateral diplomacy has allowed poorer countries to pool their power, as we saw by the walkouts in Cancun and Copenhagen, resisting the dominance of the powerful. NGOs allow small groups with a vision to engage the injustices they encounter in the world, even if that might be counter to their nations immediate interest. The internet has enabled like-minded people to congregate in cyber-space, coming together to fight on a political platform, to tremendous effect, for virtually no financial outlay what so ever.

There are darker sides, however. This dispersal of power has left the nation state incapable, in many instances, of reining in the larger multi-national corporations, who have in turn, gained from the power dispersal, increasing their influence through the media of public diplomacy, advertising and the lobby system. Perhaps it will fall to the NGOs to set the moral agenda using the currency of public opinion.

The most lasting impression for me is a possible vision of the future of diplomacy, given to us by Gordenker & Weiss, (sorry to quote this again). “In the process, NGOs might pioneer the formation of a new kind of transnational society in which individuals and their voluntary associations replace IGOs and governments as the immediate source of various social services now usually associated with the territorially based state.” I suppose the reason I embrace this quote is the potential I see in its enactment, coupled with the very real possibility of it coming to pass.

Gordenker & Weiss, Devolving Responsibilities: A Framework for Anylising NGOs and Services. (1997) pp. 453

The Highs and Lows of Diplomacy

My initial thoughts on diplomacy were based around the old school vision of the diplomat; leather backed chair in a mahogany paneled room, somewhere out in the vast reaches of a fading empire, helping British interests with a light touch here, a word in the right ear at cocktail parties. I was well aware of the vast array of multi-lateral conferences and institutions, aware of the role of NGOs throughout the globe but had somehow not related them to the institution of diplomacy.

The image I had was, of course that of the old diplomacy. Having studied the new diplomacy, my overwhelming impression is that of voices and many of them. Voices bring power. The louder the voice the more power the speaker has. Whereas, once upon a time, the great powers had tremendous voices that drowned out everything around, now there are a multitude of voices. You can still hear the great powers, but those other millions increasingly swamp them.

Multilateral diplomacy has allowed poorer countries to pool their power, as we saw by the walkouts in Cancun and Copenhagen, resisting the dominance of the powerful. NGOs allow small groups with a vision to engage the injustices they encounter in the world, even if that might be counter to their nations immediate interest. The internet has enabled like-minded people to congregate in cyber-space, coming together to fight on a political platform, to tremendous effect, for virtually no financial outlay what so ever.

There are darker sides, however. This dispersal of power has left the nation state incapable, in many instances, of reining in the larger multi-national corporations, who have in turn, gained from the power dispersal, increasing their influence through the media of public diplomacy, advertising and the lobby system. Perhaps it will fall to the NGOs to set the moral agenda using the currency of public opinion.

The most lasting impression for me is a possible vision of the future of diplomacy, given to us by Gordenker & Weiss, (sorry to quote this again). “In the process, NGOs might pioneer the formation of a new kind of transnational society in which individuals and their voluntary associations replace IGOs and governments as the immediate source of various social services now usually associated with the territorially based state.” I suppose the reason I embrace this quote is the potential I see in its enactment, coupled with the very real possibility of it coming to pass.

Gordenker & Weiss, Devolving Responsibilities: A Framework for Anylising NGOs and Services. (1997) pp. 453

The Highs and Lows of Diplomacy

My initial thoughts on diplomacy were based around the old school vision of the diplomat; leather backed chair in a mahogany paneled room, somewhere out in the vast reaches of a fading empire, helping British interests with a light touch here, a word in the right ear at cocktail parties. I was well aware of the vast array of multi-lateral conferences and institutions, aware of the role of NGOs throughout the globe but had somehow not related them to the institution of diplomacy.

The image I had was, of course that of the old diplomacy. Having studied the new diplomacy, my overwhelming impression is that of voices and many of them. Voices bring power. The louder the voice the more power the speaker has. Whereas, once upon a time, the great powers had tremendous voices that drowned out everything around, now there are a multitude of voices. You can still hear the great powers, but those other millions increasingly swamp them.

Multilateral diplomacy has allowed poorer countries to pool their power, as we saw by the walkouts in Cancun and Copenhagen, resisting the dominance of the powerful. NGOs allow small groups with a vision to engage the injustices they encounter in the world, even if that might be counter to their nations immediate interest. The internet has enabled like-minded people to congregate in cyber-space, coming together to fight on a political platform, to tremendous effect, for virtually no financial outlay what so ever.

There are darker sides, however. This dispersal of power has left the nation state incapable, in many instances, of reining in the larger multi-national corporations, who have in turn, gained from the power dispersal, increasing their influence through the media of public diplomacy, advertising and the lobby system. Perhaps it will fall to the NGOs to set the moral agenda using the currency of public opinion.

The most lasting impression for me is a possible vision of the future of diplomacy, given to us by Gordenker & Weiss, (sorry to quote this again). “In the process, NGOs might pioneer the formation of a new kind of transnational society in which individuals and their voluntary associations replace IGOs and governments as the immediate source of various social services now usually associated with the territorially based state.” I suppose the reason I embrace this quote is the potential I see in its enactment, coupled with the very real possibility of it coming to pass.

Gordenker & Weiss, Devolving Responsibilities: A Framework for Anylising NGOs and Services. (1997) pp. 453

ROYSTER

I'VE REMOVED THE VIDEO ABOUT NGOS IN HAITI BECAUSE IT KEPT PLAYING EVERY TIME YOU LOGGED ON WHICH WAS BEGINNING TO ANNOY ME. I SUSPECT YOU'VE ALL SEEN IT BY NOW.

Diplomacy in Theory and Praxis

My understanding of diplomacy today: How have your opinions about the role of diplomacy in world politics changed since the start of the module? Looking back on the ‘first impressions’ you wrote in the first lecture, how has your knowledge of this subject developed?

When I wrote my “first impressions” of the module The New Diplomacy in early October of 2010, it was with certain modesty as my knowledge of the subject was rather limited. However, I expressed a desire to obtain an understanding and appreciation of the work which diplomats and embassies perform. Furthermore, I recognised that diplomacy has changed throughout the years, even though I did not realise to which extent.
Three months have gone by and as the module is coming to its end, I have obtained a broad knowledge of a whole variety of different aspects which diplomacy holds.
With the lectures and seminars, I recognised the differences between “old”, being secret, exclusive and revolving around high politics, and “new” diplomacy, being open, inclusive and embracing low politics. Furthermore, I was surprised, yet happy, to learn that the term “diplomat” arguably now can be applied to non-state actors, including non-governmental organisations, religious actors and individuals. I do indeed believe that these actors may be instrumental to international negotiations as they arguably have the capability of reaching audiences which states and state leaders are not.
The module opened my mind and allowed me to watch the news on television and read beyond the mere words and actions displayed. In this way, it was striking to witness the extent to which public diplomacy, branding one’s nation through presenting a certain image, is prominent and indeed practiced without the audience necessarily realising, as was arguably the case with the Chilean miners. In this way, I have also been made aware of the thin line which separates public diplomacy and propaganda.
Beside the theory, we had the opportunity to experience diplomacy implemented in praxis, as we visited two embassies in the course of the semester, effectively highlighting the differences and commonalities between “old” and “new” diplomacy. I found the visits to be very interesting and informative as the ambassadors explained their personal experiences with both bilateralism and multilateralism, setting forth the issues which come with the new diplomacy in terms of it being difficult to reach agreements when a large number of states are gathered.
At the end of the module, I have indeed obtained the understanding and great appreciation of diplomats, governmental as well as non-governmental, which I wished for.

My understanding of diplomacy today

The work of a diplomat in the international arena is broader than I thought when I first started this module. The more I have learned and read about the history and diplomatic activities in International Relations the more I enjoyed it. I like the idea of the diplomatic society and I think it is very important, especially in contemporary time. Diplomats represent their own country in several ways, thus, US Information Agency (USIA), for instance, spends millions of Dollars to promote their own country through e.g. exchange program overseas, media etc.
Representation of one country is regarded as very important.

I support the idea of NGO's involvement in different areas (e.g. Human Rights, Environment, Child labour etc.). NGO’s are involved in talks and negotiations which ‘can’ shape decisions and contribute or propose new ideas in regards to agreements (e.g. tackling environmental issues).

Another interesting topic was public diplomacy whereas different students had different conclusions in regards to the term. For instance, one half supported the idea that public diplomacy is a synonym for propaganda. The other half supported Joseph Nye’s (soft power) idea

“Soft power works by convincing others to follow, or getting them to agree to, norms and institutions that produce the desired behaviour. Soft power can rest on the appeal of ones’ ideas or the ability to set the agenda in ways that shape the preferences of others “(Riordan, p.120)


My knowledge and ideas developed very fast as the more seminars I attended the more I understood the role in specific aspects and events. Furthermore, I think that the different blog entries with different topics we had to submit online, as one of the modules assessments helped me to develop my understanding of diplomacy. The comments of students were very helpful, too.

I can say that this module (including preparing for seminar, research and readings for Blog,) benefited me in regards to further my knowledge base and understand different ideas from different perspectives.

• Shau Riordan, 2004, The new diplomacy, Polity press Ltd. , USA

My view of diplomacy today

Some time last October we had our first lesson about diplomacy and we were asked to write down our first impressions about what “the new diplomacy” might mean. Today our answers were handed back. I can still remember how difficult that tiny task was and to be honest I sat at least half of the allocated time staring at an empty paper, but to my great surprise I had actually managed to write down something (I had completely forgotten this and thought I had handed in an empty paper) and here is what I thought back then;

“…the concept of diplomacy is changing or has changed from what it traditionally used to be. The new part being the emergence of new actors including international organisations and trans-national corporations, which have such a huge importance in the modern world that they cannot be ignored…”

It was far from a complete or perfect answer (!) and after twelve weeks of intensive lectures about the subject, plus the seminars and numerous chapters from various books accompanied by a pile of articles I would not be so sure about the changed nature of diplomacy. It seems that in both, in my first impression –note and also in my original ideas for the first blog post (about the most important change in the nature of diplomacy) I was hoping to find some massive and radical changes if not a complete revolution. However, today I am willing to conclude that even though diplomacy has evolved a lot (and as a result of this the term new diplomacy might be beneficiary in describing the point where it is today) it has also kept many traditional aspects. Thus I am not even sure that there is such a thing as the new diplomacy, instead we are at the phase of diplomacy that is suitable for today’s world order and as long as the world keeps changing, diplomacy keeps evolving in response. Even the “new” actors, namely non-state actors including international non-governmental organisations (not just any organisations!) are simply a part of this process and maybe one of the catalysts for the changes in the very nature of diplomacy. In the beginning of the course I was expecting the “old” and “new” diplomacy to be radically different but instead they seem to co-exist peacefully and means of both are used when needed.

During the twelve weeks I have managed to learn a great deal about diplomacy and broaden my perspectives about it. I must admit that conference and summit diplomacy had rarely passed my mind, with their advantages of openness and inclusiveness of most (if not all) of the states as equals in negotiations. But next to this openness still remains the need for back channels and a great deal of secrecy, a traditional parts of the “old diplomacy” that seems to be as necessary as before, especially in times of crisis. However, what I found most interesting topic of the course was the area of public diplomacy, which some argue is simply a fancy new name for propaganda. I do not completely agree with this view and believe that there is much more to it, from promoting once country to actually aiming to achieve long lasting friendly relationships. It is thus important to remember, that selling a bad product (as would be the case with propaganda) will not work in the long run!

Funnily enough, when I was about 7 I once told my aunt that when I grow up I wanted to become a diplomat and I would love to know what the 7 year old me thought was the concept of diplomacy! While diplomacy might no longer remain my dream career it has definitely been a fascinating area to study, not least because of its complexity and at times I still find it hard to define what is actually within the discipline and what is not. I cannot but wonder for example whether Bono is a diplomat (of some sort) when travelling around the world and meeting with some heads of states or simply a star on a fascinating journey. There obviously is no clear answer.

McVictory for NGO's

“By 2006, an estimated 17 percent of Brazil's original Amazon rainforest cover had been destroyed, an area larger than France” ⁶

Due to sudden increase in the practice of agriculture in Brazil, the Amazon rainforest has been decreasing drastically in the past 40 years. In the website of the Earth Observatory of NASA it is possible to examine the increase of deforestation in Amazon since 2000 and 2009¹. This issue has been highlighted for many years but since Brazil is a large-scale exporter of agricultural products it has been ignored. However, in the past decade the interest in climate change grew among Brazilian NGO’s and they established a plan to fight this environmental issue².

NGOs had to establish a strategy to end multinational corporations’ activities in Amazon which were negative for environment and raise awareness of the situation and consequently obtain a governmental response. In the beginning of the millennium many Brazilian NGOs established a network to influence climate change policies. The creation of the Climate Observatory alerted the national and international community for the dreadful future of Amazon. Consequently, the government increased its efforts in decreasing deforestation. In addition, the international community established a fund to aid the Amazon rainforest, more specifically in 2008 Norway pledged $1 billion to a Amazon’s protection fund³.

Plus, in orders to fight the problem is necessary to find its root. Therefore, it was necessary to indicate the people responsible for the deforestation and also the multinational corporations that are financing them. For instance, in 2006 Greenpeace linked McDonalds to illegal deforestation⁴. Thus, the bad marketing caused by these allegations raised many protests by activists who dressed as chickens. Consequently, McDonalds stopped selling chicken fed on soy grown in newly deforested areas of the Amazon rainforest, and the big food retailer started to cooperate with Greenpeace to protect Amazon⁵.

Despite of the struggle to alert people for the environmental problem occurring in the Amazon, now NGOs are finally noticing the improvements made in the last decade. It was revealed “6,450 sq km of (2,490 sq miles) of rainforest were cleared between August 2009 and July 2010, a drop of 14% compared with the previous 12 months”⁷.Consequently, Brazilian NGOs recently announced prospects of completely abolishing deforestation of the Amazon.

Concluding, NGOs have a significant role in environmental diplomacy. Their influence is of greater importance to alert government which are usually lobbied by corporations. In this way, they are the main agents who can initiate action by the governments.

Sources:

1

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/deforestation.php

2

http://www.cicero.uio.no/fulltext/index_e.aspx?id=1953

3 http://www.norway.org/ARCHIVE/policy/environment/regnskogen_i_brasil_en/

4

http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0406-greenpeace.html

5

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/news/mcvictory/

6

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/007413.html

7

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11888875

Three Different Responses to Public Diplomacy

Hugo Chavez, President of Venezeula, gained a public diplomacy coup in reaction to the recent flooding in Venezuela. He moved himself and his entourage out of their home in the Miraflorres Palace to make room for homeless flood victims, while he moved into a tent given him by the Libyan leader Gaddafi. He ordered that the military make room for more homeless in the military nerve centre of Tiuna Fort and forcibly leased many tourist hotels to cope with the problem. (1)

"Nicolas's Yellow House is pretty big," said Chavez referring to the building where Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro has his offices. "A lot of people can live in there." (2)

Compare this reaction with that of Pakistan’s President Zardari, who left Pakistan to visit the West while his country was inundated with similar floods.

“Osama Sadoon Memon, from Lahore, told the BBC: "This visit should have taken place weeks ago. He needed to be here rather then enjoying cocktails in luxury hotels abroad at the government’s expense.”

Again, President G. W. Bush managed to engage in negative public diplomacy in his reaction to the flooding in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina:

“Mr Bush disclosed in extracts of his new book, due for release next week, that it was "the worst moment of my presidency" when the rapper said "George Bush doesn't care about black people", during a televised concert to raise money for victims of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.” (4)

It is astonishing that Bush, in particular, with all the sophisticated public relations apparatus surrounding him, could make such a basic diplomatic error.

(1) - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/02/venezuela-flood-victims-hugo-chavez 2/12/10

(2) - http://www.france24.com/en/20101211-chavez-trades-office-tent-aid-flood-victims 11/12/10

(3) - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10960094 13/8/10

(4) - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8112149/Kanye-West-regrets-George-W-Bush-Hurricane-Katrina-outburst.html 5/11/10

NGO`s and Environment.....

The interest about environment and its issues as climate change and global warming is significantly growing not just between scientists, however, environment is becoming one of the central issues of politics between states,

nevertheless, there is a significant dominance of specific interest about presentation of environment, that environment

needs and has to be taken seriously.

According to the view of climate scientists, world has to stop the growth in greenhouse gas emissions and start to make them fall from aroun

d 2015 to 2020, nevertheless, states tend to refuse or go around the facts about future of environment. The Chinese officials’ claim that China has moral right to develop, what also means that the carbon emissions will increase. Also China, India and developing countries very often and mainly for economic reasons claim that industrialised and wealthy states (Europe and USA) are responsible to set up ‘a clear example’ to cut carbon emissions.

When take place environmental negotiations, the nation-states are not the only components, however, the a

ctivist and NGO`s,as important component of civil society, which represents people from around the world, are involved as well. Mainly are apolitical, nevertheless, their impact on diplomatic issues increased significantly in last decades, but their possibilities are more – less limited. During the environmental negotiations are not component of crucial decision making process, because the major player are still s states, but they are present as source of independent analysis, advisers and conscience of politicians.

In the first half of December 2009, Copenhagen (Denmark) became a place were representatives from 120 countries met for the United Nation climate conference to replace the Kyoto Protocol, aimed fighting global warming, expires in 2012. The official name of Copenhagen Summit was COP15 (15^th con

ference of parties) under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). NGO`s and activist got just bounded access to the Conference. For the COP15 was registered

around 45,000 of civilians, 7,000 were allowed to entrance but just 90 were allowed in conference during the final day of crucial decision making.....Result of Copenhagen Summit was failure and ended without significant agreement for cutting of carbon emissions.

Argument that NGO`s are crucially influential in environmental issues is highly polemic. Are source of information about climate change caused by carbon emissions and are important as advisers for environmental issues; unfortunately economy is likely to dominate. Cutting of carbon emissions has major influence on development and economy of all states around the world. Significant cut of numbers of emissions for all states means, that they have to find alternative sources of energy – green energy. Alternative energy is in process of development and is not effective enough to change `traditional` source of energy. And what is crucial, mainly for developing countries and weak economies alternative source of energy is not affordable.

RESOURCES

http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think4/post/ngo_activists_at_odds_in_copenhagen

http://envirothink.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/copenhagen-summit-severly-limits-ngo-participation/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/may/01/q-and-a-copenhagen-summit

The Dynamics of Diplomacy, Jean-Robert Leguey-Feilleux

Global Warming or Global Manipulation?

This blog started life as a response to Demdem’s posting, Adressing Global Warming, and his (her?) great praise for the diplomatic skills of Al Gore, a politician I have little trust in. There are, of course, arguments against climate change and Al Gore in particular. The following article apeared in the Daily Telegraph on 25^th October 2009, by Christopher Booker, from which I have extracted the following passages:

“The IPCC, through its series of weighty reports, was now to become the central player in the whole story. But rarely has the true nature of any international body been more widely misrepresented. It is commonly believed that the IPCC consists of “1,500 of the world’s top climate scientists”, charged with weighing all the scientific evidence for and against “human-induced climate change” in order to arrive at a “consensus”.

In fact, the IPCC was never intended to be anything of the kind. The vast majority of its contributors have never been climate scientists. Many are not scientists at all. And from the start, the purpose of the IPCC was not to test the theory, but to provide the most plausible case for promoting it.”

Later in the article Booker proclaims of the, now famous, hockey stick graph:

“One of the hockey stick’s biggest fans was Al Gore, who in 2006 made it the centrepiece of his Oscar-winning film, An Inconvenient Truth. But it then turned out that almost every single scientific claim in Gore’s film was either wildly exaggerated or wrong. The statistical methods used to create the hockey-stick graph were so devastatingly exposed by two Canadian statisticians, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (as was confirmed in 2006 by two expert panels commissioned by the US Congress) that the graph has become one of the most comprehensively discredited artefacts in the history of science.” (1)

The following quote, taken from a 1993 report by the influential Club of Rome, must inevitably lead one to question the agenda of the social engineers and propagandists:

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill ... All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself." (2)

It’s not that I completely reject the concept of global warming, its more that the influential governing bodies of this globalised world, (not necessarily to be confused with national governments) now employ public diplomacy, propaganda, public relations and media manipulation on such a collossal scale that it is no longer possible for the individual to easily determine truth from fiction. While governments are eagerly engaged in nation branding and public diplomacy, they forget that populations will instinctively understand that they are being sold a construct rather than a truth. This must eventually lead to an undermining of trust and authority. I don’t possess the technical knowledge to make an informed decision on the veracity of climate science, (I know, I have tried) I wish I could trust in my government, my leaders and an un-biased media to make the aguments clear to me, but you know, I don’t trust them an inch!

(1) - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6425269/The-real-climate-change- catastrophe.html

(2)— in The First Global Revolution, pp.104-105 by Alexander King, founder of the Club of Rome and Bertrand Schneider, secretary of the Club of Rome, Orient Longman Ltd., Hyderbad, (1993)