Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Disclaimer: The Parliamentary Library does not warrant the accuracy of closed captions. These are derived automatically from the broadcaster's signal.
Newsline With Jim Middleton -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) Live. Hello and welcome Newsline. I'm Jim Middleton. Coming up - Countries again struggling to Coming up - post-Copenhagen.

find common ground on find common

greenhouse gas emissions. I

is if negotiators could have think what would've been nice

reached some preliminary decisions in China that decisions in China that could then be sealed and finalised in Cancun, but this going to Cancun, but this is clearly not on climate change policy, later

in the program. The war in Afghanistan is

Afghanistan is clearly entering

a crucial phase, with signs Taliban as well as the

Americans are increasingly

interested in a settlement. But across the interested in a negotiated

border in Pakistan, hostility between Islamabad and Washington, its long-time ally and benefactor, have been going

from bad to worse. Islamabad

reacted with fury to an

killed American helicopter raid which

closing its border with

Afghanistan to NATO supply convoys. This report from Thom Cookes on the Cookes on the deteriorating

and the United States. relationship between Pakistan

These frontier course soldiers their the tribal

agency just inside Pakistan's

border with

They're carrying three dead and

three wounded colleagues. They

were killed not by militants but by an air strike over the helicopters that had crossed

over the border from Afghanistan. According to NATO

it was an honest mistake. This

morning, I had a meeting with the Pakistani Foreign Minister.

We had a good and open

discussion. I expressed my

regret for the incident last

week in which Pakistan soldiers

expressed my condolences to lost their lives and I

families. Obviously expressed my condolences to the

incident families. Obviously this Obviously we have to make sure

we improve coordination between our militaries and our Pakistani Pakistan's politicians are Pakistani partners. I but furious over the repeated

cross-border raids by NATO and

US troops. It's an issue that

severely damaged the

relationship with NATO's most strategic ally in the conflict

with Afghanistan. Our strategy

should be no more inventions in Pakistan. If there's any more never gonna help NATO at all.

In Pakistan, there's a growing

realisation as missile realisation as missile strikes from unmanned drones drastically and cross-border raids continue the country has become a new undeclared

battlefield for the US and its

allies and Pakistan's Prime battlefield for the US and its

Minister forcefully reminded

the world it wasn't to be taken

for granted. NATO forces have violated the sovereignty of

Pakistan. We are a Pakistan. We are a sovereign

country, and a nuclear power.

we will act irresponsibly. If we will act irresponsibly. If you do not explain your action

or if you do not compensate or if you do not compensate or apologise for it, we may consider other options too. We

do have other options. One of

those options is to choke off

supplies to NATO forces in

Afghanistan. Both the overland supply routes to Afghanistan. Both the major

Afghanistan go through

Pakistan. This is the a gate in

the Khyber tribal agency. and other supplies are trucked through here to US through here to US and NATO troops in Afghanistan. But last

week, Pakistan closed the crossing. We load these containers and carry them to

Afghanistan to Kabul. Now the

government of Pakistan

announces this ban, and we are

left waiting here in danger for

and night here and nobody is many days. We are spending day

here to help us. Huge lines here to help us. Huge lines of

trucks are backed up, waiting to cross into Afghanistan. And

as they wait, with almost no

security, they're sitting ducks The NATO truck convoys have for attacks from insurgents.

been a favourite target in the

past. While the gate has been

closed at least three separate attacks have occurred. Around

eight or eight or nine people came here and attacked the plot where the tankers were tankers were parked. According to our initial information

there are six injured and three

dead. The land supply routes through Pakistan are vitally important. We're not surprised that insurgents have in past

and have done so again in the

past few hours had attacked

those routes.Ened but they are

important and we will work with

Pakistan to make sure that we have the best security

possible. Behind the possible. Behind the scenes,

furious negotiations are under

way between NATO the US and Pakistan. We've seen closures

before, and the gate was before, and the gate was always

reopened in three or four days.

It's been a bit longer now and

we understand very much political sensitivities here. we understand very much the

interests to address But we feel it's in Pakistan's

interests to address this, first because we want to stop militantss from crossing the border. Second because these

backed-up convoys are a security problem for Pakistan backed-up convoys are becoming

as militants torch them and

threaten the drivers or kill

the drivers. And the drivers

themselves depend on the money

they get from transporting

these supplies. So it's doing anybody any good. But these supplies. So it's not

there are other problems

plaguing the relationship

between the US an Pakistan A court between the US an Pakistan A US

for 86 years over terrorism

offences. The decision prompted mass demonstrations across Pakistan where many believe she

is the victim

review is needed here and

intervention by President Obama

and the US administration. They must immediately withdraw must immediately withdraw the cases against this woman. They must declare this sentence null

and void. She must be released

and sent back

unconditionally. An attempt unconditionally. An attempt at

a political comeback by Pervez

Musharraf has created even more uncertainty in Pakistan's domestic politics. But at least publicly, US dip malts insicht

the relationship with Pakistan is on track. Our cooperation

with Pakistan is very

significant. We have opened up

a strategic dialogue on a wide

range of issues, but security being a very significant

element of our partnership. We look

look forward later this month

to another strategic dialogue

here in Washington DC. So we are partners in the struggle. We've seen Pakistan's mind-set

change over the past few

months. This doesn't add up

with a report just prepared by the US national Security

Council that criticises Council that criticises what it calls Pakistan's half hearted attempt to insurgency on its western

border. The report notes from

March until June, the Pakistani

military continued to avoid

military engagements that would

put it in direct conflict with Afghan Taliban or al-Qaeda

forces in North Waziristan.

This is as much a political choice as it is a reflection of

an underresourced military,

prioritising its targets. As

both Pakistan and the US try to paper over the cracks in relationship, their broader interests in the region continue to drift further

apart. Pakistan is engaged in a

complex and complicated

diplomatic dance. The war in

Afghanistan guarantees a measure of protection from the

United States. But too United States. But too much American military presence

alienates the Pakistani people.

An end to the conflict across

the border would not only

embolden the Pakistani Taliban,

but make Islamabad feel even

more vulnerable to its giant eastern neighbour India. Imran

Aslam is the President Television based in Karachi.

Imran Aslam, welcome to the

program. Thank you. Relations between Islamabad and

Washington are in pretty bad

shape. But are they as bad as

they've ever been, as is being

suggested by some

analysts? Well, I suppose this

has been one of those weeks

where we've had potentially

situation arising which could

become pretty nasty, because

the Pakistan government seems

to have taken to have taken a step whereby

they've stopped the convoys that go through Pakistan to Afghanistan from Afghanistan from reaching their

destinations. I think this is a as you know on

as you know on Pakistani forward bases, and after that,

it seems as if the Pakistan government has indicated that there are certain red lines that will not be crossed. is

this a result then of these

particular events, the

increasing American into Pakistan, or is it simply a continuing deterioration,

tension over strategy in

Pakistan and

think it's a combination of

these factors. There have been

an increase in the drone

attacks, as there seems to be a

lot of chatter on the Internet

and so on about impending attacks in Europe and America

and so on. Which might and so on. Which might be traced back to sanctuaries in

Waziristan. There've been some

targeted attacks in

And as usual there has been a public outcry about sovereignty

and so on. But when the American helicopters sort American helicopters sort of

engaged Pakistani troops in

what they say was hot pursuit

but now they have apologised

for what they've done for what they've done and after

the inquiry, I think matters

right now quietly be soothed a

little bit. So what you're

saying is that while there may

be public opposition to be public opposition to the

drone attacks, it's a different matter when it involves American soldiers and

helicopters on the ground Pakistan. That's what official

Pakistan will not tolerate? I

think the drone attacks, there

seems to be some sort of complicity. The Pakistan government makes all sorts of noises noises about the drone attacks.

But it seems pretty evident that there is a sharing of intelligence when the intelligence when the targeting

takes place. Although what the

international consequences of

this might be in terms of international law is something

for the future. But the fact

remains that the drone attacks

have continued. They have

increased and they've been fairly successful, it seems, in

taking out some of the

terrorists. So there's a lot of terrorists. So there's a lot of

noise in Parliament and also in

the press about the drone attacks. But attacks. But I think everybody

seems to recognise that this is

part of the strategy, and that

the Pakistani army, the Pakistani government, is on

board. But when it came to the helicopters encroaching into

Pakistani territory or boots on

the ground, this is something

that I think was probably an

attempt by the Americans to

test the waters and to see what sort of from Pakistan. The reaction was

swift. And the trainers and the

various transport that were going into immediately stopped. Is it fair

to say that Pakistan's

government and the military are

prepared to tolerate the prepared to tolerate the drone

attacks as long as the United

States does not officially have boots on the ground boots on the ground in Pakistan, that is, maintaining

the clandestine nature of their incursions? That is

think that is now fairly passe as far as we are as far as we are concerned because everybody seems to recognise that the drone attacks is something they share

intelligence about and that

they know about in advance

times, and the Pakistan

government is willing to look

the other way. I'd like to ask

you about a new White House report to Congress. Some details of which have details of which have emerged. Accusing Pakistan's military of

dodging conflict with the

insurgent s. Is that a reasonable analysis? This reasonable analysis? This has been going on been going on for a while.

There has always been the

American push to the Pakistan government and the military that they should go in

especially into North Waziristan and try to dislodge some of the some of the insurgents over there. Especially the Hakani

network. The Pakistan military

has been hedging on this. I

think it is possibly a reaction

to the new strategy that is

emerging in Afghanistan and the

believe that an end game

be approaching and that these

valuable proxies or asset it is

you like might be in contention

when people go down and start talking to the Taliban or to other elements to form other elements to form a government in Afghanistan government in Afghanistan in the future. At the same time to be fair to the Pakistan army it's completely wide spread at

the moment, very thinly spread. They have the border with India which is also there. We also have this huge flood situation in Pakistan. The in Pakistan. The Pakistan army has been out there mainly

because it has the resources, it has the men on the ground, it has the logistical

to go into those areas that are

still very badly devastated and I think the Americans are

feeling a little nervous about the fact that the the fact that the Pakistan army

might be neglecting what in

their view is a priority. I will get will get to those negotiations in a in a moment but first what's been the reaction in Pakistan

if any if any to the detailed revelations in Bob Woodward's latest book of the not so private hostility of private hostility of President

Obama and his advisers to the

situation in Pakistan and the belief of the White House that Pakistan is being duplicitous about the Pakistani Taliban? Most of us expected something like this something like this from Bob Woodward but it's not yet

become a Watergate out here. We

recognise that the American

contention has been that the

Pakistan army has always Pakistan army has always made a distinction between the Taliban who are fighting within Pakistan and those that fighting against the NATO forces forces in Afghanistan. There seems

seems to be a soft corner for those people those people who have continued

to have sanctuaries in the

Fatah region. So I don't think the revelations were any surprise to most people in

Pakistan. We did bit of a laugh about the

opinions that were expressed about various members of the Obama administration,

especially Mr Biden's

about Richard Holbrooke. Now,

there does appear to be growing

enthusiasm from the Taliban as

well as from the Americans well as from the Americans for a negotiated settlement in

Afghanistan. What would an end

to the war in Afghanistan mean

for Pakistan? Well, I mean, Pakistan

Pakistan in the past has been bitten by this, because whenever there's walking away of troops from

Afghanistan, we've had to deal with the spillover. We are

still continuing to deal with

it. The relationship between Pakistan and the sometimes described as sometimes described as a shotgun wedding. Because they've spawned this little child called the Taliban who's turned into a monster. turned into a Frankenstein monster. Both monster. Both parties don't

seem to have much trust but

they continue with the marriage

because I think they need because I think they need each

other. So would the worry in

Islamabad be that if the war in

Afghanistan were brought to end with the Taliban in Afghanistan Afghanistan legitimatised in some way, that that would mean

even more significant problems

for Pakistan's government and

military in dealing with military in dealing with the insurgents in the border

areas? I think so. I think, you

know, the sense is there that the Pakistani also have to get

serious about re-establishing

their writ in these particular

regions and tea have to clamp

down on terrorism and the

export of terrorism. This is

something that I think most Pakistanis understand. With the

revelations in the book also, where the Americans have

clearly stated that any attack

on the American mainland which

could be traced back to

Pakistan would have dire consequences, it's that I think a lot of people are taking very seriously. And

this recent incursion was an

indication of what the Americans could do, and you

know, targeting sites in - not only in the Fatah region but

also perhaps in the cities of

Pakistan that would end up being a full-blown being a full-blown war. So I think Pakistan has an interest in Afghanistan, Afghanistan

needs Pakistan as well at this

stage. I think there is a growing feeling amongst the Taliban that they need now to

talk, but they're also hedging

their bets because I think with

the time line that's been given by the Obama government about

leaving offing by # 011, it's

also made them sit back and way we can wait it out. Imran Aslam, thank you very much. Thank you so much.

The last round of The last round of climate

negotiations are under way in

China ahead of a key summit in

Mexico at the end of the Initial hopes nations might work differences with the developing

world and rebuild some of the

trust at these talks now look increasingly unlikely. Once

again, rifts have emerged over

how far countries should curb

their greenhouse emissions and

how to check up on each other. Kesha West

The world leapt into Copenhagen full of optimism. It

was to be the summit that was to be the summit that would finally seal a global deal finally seal a global deal on

tackling climate change. But

the hope soon turned to

disappointment as the

disappointment as the talks

became bogged down by squabbling between squabbling between rich and developing nations. It was devastating. The expectation

was that Copenhagen would be

the deal clincher. It community was coming together to deal with this huge problem that we are all that we are all facing. Afterwards everybody felt we

were let down by governments that didn't want to commit to tough measures. But many climate analysts argue climate analysts argue although the Copenhagen climate talks

didn't fulfil expectations they were not a complete

failure. One of the great

successes of Copenhagen and I know it's painted as being know it's painted as being a

complete failure but there are

quite a lot of successes out of

Copenhagen is that we got

agreements from a number of climate change. Significantly, there was also recognition from

both developed and developing

nations of the need to contain

global warming to 2 degrees.

Now almost one year on, Now almost one year on, world

leaders are getting ready leaders are getting ready to meet again for the next round

of negotiations in Cancun,

Mexico in late November. This

week, environment experts week, environment experts from more than 170 countries

assembled in China to try assembled in China to try to put aside national differences and of the crucial Cancun

summit. As governments you can

continue the standstill, or

can move forward. Now is the

time to make that choice. time to make that choice. The

fact that this last round of

climate talks before Mexico are

being held in China is a big

deal in itself. Not only is China now the world's China now the world's biggest

emitter of carbon dioxide, but

Beijing was also largely Beijing was also largely blamed for the near for the near collapse of the Copenhagen

Copenhagen negotiations. There are a few

are a few radical nations, a

few radical states taking to block action on climate change

internationally, seeking to

derail this process. It was put

in a very tight spot and China clearly was

clearly was one of the blocking nations but it wasn't the only one. The US was unwilling one. The US was unwilling to

sign up to a global deal. India was very outspoken in its opposition to binding emissions doctrines. We shouldn't blame

it simply on decision to host these climate

talks puts China right back in the spotlight and the world

will be waiting to see what

China is willing to commit to

expecting much from this time around. But no-one is

negotiations.

I think what would've been

nice is if negotiators could've reached reached some preliminary decisions in China that could

then be sealed and finalised in

Cancun, but this is clearly Cancun, but this is clearly not

going to happen. So I think all

we can hope for is that they regain momentum that the

negotiations will kick

higher gear again and perhaps some partial deals come out of the meeting. The holy grail here is of course a here is of course a global agreement on a new treaty to

replace the Kyoto Protocol that

will expire in 2012. The Kyoto

treaty which came into force in

2005 is an international and legally binding agreement legally binding agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

worldwide. But reaching a new

deal to replace the old one has

so far proved impossible. The fact of a

five years to negotiate and a

further eight years to come

into force leaves many very

sceptical that a new deal can

be put in place in just two

years. Climate researchers and

lobby groups say it's time for

a new approach. This idea that

it's either everything or

deal unless every part nothing, that we don't have a

deal unless every part is agreed and I think ots agreed and I

important that we move away

from that. We need to set some

and make achievements and steps goals so that we can deliver

along the way. We now to look at other ways of

building up that climate regime from the ground up. Perhaps through partial deals. Perhaps

through individual agreements

on forests, on finance,

institution building, that will

then work like building blocks,

that will hey Lou us to build

up climate governance from the ground.

Programs the real task of

these talks was to restore

trust between developed and

developing nations. At Copenhagen wealthy countries promised $30 years in climate funding to

poor nations. But little has materialised so far. TRANSLATION: We need to

confirm that developed nations

will meet their emissions

reduction targets and clearly give developing nations

and planning and financing, technological help

and planning and help developing nations to adapt to a new and low-emissions

looking for system. Without a doubt they're

looking for money to be put on

the table but at the same time, introducing new, more ambitious

the EU says they don't go far targets. The United States and

enough. And want both countries to accept firmer to accept firmer emissions goals. The US made a pledge in Copenhagen to reduce its carbon

emissions by 17% by 2012. But

it has struggled to get

domestic support, causing many

countries to question if it domestic support, causing many

will meet that target. I will meet that target. I think

that the world should not worry

about our commitments. I think

the world should worry about how to create a how to create a balanced package that moves us all forward to solve the climate

problem.

Australia has bit by bit scaled down its emissions

target and is now hoping to

achieve just a 5% reduction in

greenhouse gases by 2020. But

even that modest target might

not be met. The problem is the

government has been unable to

settle on a climate policy.

Earlier this year, Canberra

dumped plans for a carbon

emissions trading scheme. Now,

fresh off the plane from an Asia Europe meeting in

Brussels, Australia's new Prime Minister Julia Gillard has announced a further change announced a further change in policy, saying her plan for citizens' assembly will also be policy, saying her plan for a

scrapped. I think governments

will continue to promise a bit

more than they will deliver but will be very careful not to

sign up to anything that's

legally binding. I think this

game will continue for some

time.

That report from Kesha West. And that's all program information can you

visit our web site. I will be back on Monday with another

edition of Newsline. I'm Jim

Middleton. Thanks for watching. Bye for

A water fight set to erupt over the

plan. Farmers say they will be left high and This Program Is Captioned Live.

The dollar hits a record

high, surging towards parity on

expected job numbers. the back of better than

Electricity price shock. New research shows inflation. And testing the

limits of free speech. The

church group facing court over funeral pickets. Live across Australia, this is ABC News 24. I'm Jane Hutcheon. A water fight's

broken out over the crucial