China on The Huffington Post

Myles Brand: Give Optimism a Chance

2008-11-20T18:38:55Z

I returned recently from a trip to China, where I was a guest of the Ministry of Education. The Chinese had a successful Olympics, and they want to expand their approach to sports from one that focuses on preparing elite athletes for international competition to one that also includes coupling sports and education in their universities. In addition to meeting with the leadership of their equivalent to the NCAA, I met with university presidents, administrators and officials in several cities.

It was my first trip to China. Like others who visited China recently, I was impressed by the urban building boom and the evidence of economic advancement. One city I visited was Shenzhen, an hour north of Hong Kong. Twenty-five years ago, it was a small village. Today, it is a modern city of over eight million, complete with, what seemed to be, hundreds of new skyscrapers.

As I talked with those both inside and outside the universities, there was one thing that caught my attention and that distinguished the current social milieu in America from that of China. It was not the enormous investments made in infrastructure or technology, but the attitude of the population.

There was almost a complete lack of cynicism.

I know that I met with a select and selected population. I spent the time in major cities, not rural areas. It was limited exposure, to be sure.

But there was a common attitude that I found remarkably refreshing. There was some willingness to disagree among themselves and with those in authority; but it always occurred matter of factly, not with the kind of cynicism that takes any situation, even a very good one, and focuses on the negative.

I spend my time these days, as president of the NCAA, in the college athletics community. College sports, I strongly believe, is one of the great subcultures in America. The athletes are enthusiastic and capable young men and women and the fans are avid supporters of the university teams for which they play. There are not many events that are as enjoyable as watching a hard fought football game on a sunny fall Saturday afternoon, or a basketball game between two teams proud of their university affiliations.

But, as good as college sports is, it is also embedded in and surrounded by cynicism. You read it every day in the press, hear it from media commentators and know that it is never far below the surface of fan exuberance.

Of course, college sports are not perfect. More than a few participants are moved by externalities -- by future prospects for money and fame, rather than the joy of the game. The competitive urge sometimes overpowers the sense of fair play, for coaches and fans alike. But the cynicism in the air detracts from the overwhelming good of the activity.

Actually, I do not blame the cynics in college sports. They caught the virus from the rest of American culture. Americans these days permit and, indeed, encourage cynicism to pervade their lives. Well, maybe, the Chinese do too, and I just met an unrepresentative sample. But the refreshing example of the sample -- whether it is representative or not -- made me realize that it certainly would be more pleasant if we managed to keep our cynicism in check.

Being exposed to those who seem to have done so, makes obvious the benefits of not letting cynicism dominate.

I am a pathological optimist. It may be that, with the leadership of President-elect Obama, our culture will move away from its cynical attitude. Maybe, the good will not always be overwhelmed by the marginal or just imagined negatives. As we repair our broken economy, and as we relearn to lend a helping hand when needed, we can change the dominance of cynicism in our culture.

Such change, if it comes, is not likely to begin with sports. Cynicism is deeply rooted in the contemporary college sports culture. But, as we change as a nation, it should eventually reach the sports culture.

As I said, I am an optimist.

World's First Plug-In Electric Car Goes On Sale Next Month - In China

2008-11-20T16:42:21Z

As the ghost of GM's assassinated electric car haunts a fearful Detroit, another boogeyman is waiting in the wings: the world's first mass-produced plug-in hybrid electric car, being readied for its December release -- in China.

BYD, a company that first made its reputation as the world's largest maker of cell phone batteries, has announced it will release the F3DM hybrid sedan on December 15. And BYD says it plans to release a version of the car in the US and Europe in 2010 or 2011, just when GM plans to begin selling its own plug-in hybrid, the Chevy Volt.

As Mike has reported previously, the F3DM -- which can be charged using a standard electrical outlet -- can switch between a fully electric mode and a hybrid one that uses both electricity and gasoline. BYD says the car can travel as far as 60 miles (100 km) after one charge in full-electric mode, or longer when also using its small gas tank. The all-electric range of the Chevrolet Volt is only 40 miles.

Related:
Will China Design The First Plug-In Hybrid?
Solar Powered Cars On Sale...In China

Paige Donner: Governors' Global Climate Summit: Thinking As One Planet

2008-11-20T16:38:53Z

Truly remarkable is the fact that this summit was an international meeting on climate change between regional leaders from around the globe. This truly remarkable element of the Governors' Global Climate Summit held in Beverly Hills Nov. 18th and 19th is what marks us on a path toward "thinking as one planet." What was heard at the Summit was a chorus of international voices.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Deputy Executive Secretary Richard Kinley, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle

California's Gov. Schwarzenegger assembled a "Dream Team" of U.S. and international Governors and delegates, according to Carter Roberts, CEO of World Wildlife Fund. It was the Governors' (not the Governor's) Global Climate Summit so each voice was given time, significance and merit.

"This is like a mini United Nations," commented Mary Nichols, Chairperson of California Air Resources Board when she described the intent of the Global Climate Summit Declaration signed by participating countries' delegates. Representatives were from Brazil, Mexico, China, Indonesia, Canada, UK, European Union and India.
Left to right: Federative Republic of Brazil State of Amazonas Governor Eduardo Braga, Federative Republic of Brazil State of Para Governor Ana Julia de Vasconcelos Carepa, Federative Republic of Brazil State of Mato Grosso Governor Blairo Maggi, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, CBS Correspondent Scott Pelley, Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle, Republic of Indonesia Province of Jakarta Governor Fauzi Bowo, Republic of Indonesia Province of Aceh Governor Yusuf Irwandi, Republic of Indonesia Ministry of the Environment Secretary General Arief Yuwono and European Commission Deputy Head of Delegation Ambassador Angelos Pangratis

"I have a global mentality," said Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, "because I understand and relate to the fact that these countries have different challenges, struggles, histories and economies. We can find that sweet spot in Copenhagen [December 2009] but we must carefully listen to every single voice that has spoken. America, as the biggest polluter, has the biggest responsibility," said Gov. Schwarzenegger, and added, "We have no chance of leadership if we're the biggest polluter."

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on Monday, November 17th, signed Executive Order S-14-08 to increase the state's Renewable Energy Standard to 20% renewables by 2010, 33% renewable power by 2020. It also calls to streamline California's renewable energy project approval process. Pres.-Elect Obama, in his video address to the Summit, also embraced the targets to reduce emissions to their 1990 levels by 2020 and to reduce them an additional 80% by 2050. L.A. Mayor Villaraigosa has set the same targets adjusting for 35% renewable energy sources by 2020 for Los Angeles. Executive Order

"Not every state is in sync in Canada," the Governor cited as an example, "just as not every state here in the U.S. was in sync with Bush." Video

The U.S.'s Dream Team

Co-hosts of the Summit were bi-partisan Governors Charlie Crist, Florida, Rod Blagojevich, Illinois, Kathleen Sebelius, Kansas and Jim Doyle, Wisconsin. "It will dramatically accelerate our efforts to have a partner in Washington," said Sebelius referencing Pres.-Elect Obama's video address to the Summit promising Washington's global cooperation on climate change.

Jim Doyle, Gov. of Wisconsin referenced Obama's promise of a Federal Cap and Trade system, "What gets credited, this will be a big fight. Wisconsin is a major forestry state. All our forests are certified sustainable. The states that signed the forestry agreement [Memorandum of Understanding] last night have common interests," he pointed out referring to Tuesday night's REDD signing ceremony, the agreement to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation.
Left to right: Federative Republic of Brazil State of Para Governor Ana Julia de Vasconcelos Carepa, Federative Republic of Brazil State of Mato Grosso Governor Blairo Maggi, Federative Republic of Brazil State of Amazonas Governor Eduardo Braga, Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

States from the Federative Republic of Brazil and Indonesia, representing the largest tropically forested states in the world signed the MOU with the American States of Wisconsin, Illinois and California to work cooperatively to promote and develop joint REDD programs. A second signing ceremony took place Wednesday, the Declaration of The Summit, whereby 26 global leaders signed the agreement to partner on climate action.

The burning and clearing of tropical forests causes about 20 percent of total CO2 emissions - more than all the world's cars, trucks and airplanes combined.

The four largest nations that contribute the most CO2 emissions are: 1. China (first-time ever surpassed U.S.'s #1 ranking) 2. U.S. 3. Brazil 4. Indonesia.

In the case of Indonesia and Brazil, 90% and 70% of their C02 emissions respectively are directly from deforestation. In the panel discussion, "Climate Leaders Dialogue," Yusuf Irwandi, Governor, Province of Aceh, Indonesia, said, "We'll do our part. We'll reforest. We are the keepers of the forests. But I'd like to ask the developed nations to cut their emissions. But, really. Not just in the conference room. I personally have planted 3,000 trees to offset my Jeep Wrangler."

Governor Ana Julia de Vasconcelos Carepa of Brazil's State of Para said, "We want to achieve this reforestation in 5 years, using 1 billion trees. We need Copenhagen to include REDD," she added, significantly, "We need to combine this activity with the fight against poverty. The countries who have rainforests have responsibilities but the countries who emit the most carbon have responsibilities, too."

The Earth's ability to breathe comes directly from the world's tropical forests, according to Kevin Bryan, Environmental Resources Management an environmental consulting firm to large corporations.

Governor Blairo Maggi, Brazil's State of Mato Grosso, said, "We need world help for a reforestation program so that people who live in the Amazon can have other forms of income."

"A Cap and Trade system is how we can help Brazil and the reforestation of their rain forests, with the carbon offsets. We have to listen to them," said Gov. Schwarzenegger. In Obama's video address, he said, "We will start with a Federal Cap and Trade system."

From Indonesia's Province of Jakarta, Governor Fauzi Bowo said, "We in developing nations need to be involved in Research and Development done in developed countries because we are the ones who are required to implement it."

Thinking As One Planet

Carter Roberts, CEO of WWF, promotes the notion of, "think as one planet." He said, "You Governors are moving us toward this carbon-free economy faster, in many cases, than the nations in which you exist. The ultimate prize is a global deal for Cap and Trade and Climate Emissions Reductions. We are witnessing now an increased sense of momentum. We are moving, even evolving, at an extraordinary rate. Even Darwin would be proud." He also noted that this is as much about saving ourselves as saving the planet.

Scott Pelley of CBS News who moderated several panels, stated, "Never in the course of the history of the world has it come together on a global level to solve a global crisis. We are separated by language but united by this issue of global climate change."

Governor Crist of Florida said, "I wasn't elected to mark time. I was elected to make a difference," and spoke about Florida's actions towards cultivating algae-based biofuels.

Governor Sebelius described her state of Kansas as "the Saudi Arabia of wind," and noted that many of their citizens are out ahead of their legislators on being informed about clean energy sources and technology.

Governor Eduardo Bours Castelo of the State of Sonora, Mexico, said, "Our new law: Whoever pollutes, pays." He stated they, too, have a project to produce ethanol by sea algae.

Barry Penner, Minister of Environment for British Columbia, Canada noted that for the first-time ever mountain lions were seen in the Arctic. "That's unheard of!" he noted. He shared that they have a program, "Tax less of what you earn, more of what you burn." He said their lowest income tax rates in Canada is what's attracting investment.

Arvind Kumar, Commissioner for the Government of Sikkim said, "The Himalayas as well as the oceans are the first to take the brunt of climate change. Glaciers provide drinking water for millions of people."

Governor Jose Guadalupe Osuna Millan, State of Baja California, said to Governor Schwarzenegger, "We have firefighters ready to go whenever you need them." He added that they have two power plants in Mexicali that export power to California.

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich said that they look to the West, to California as leaders on climate change initiatives and clean fuel technology. He mentioned they give tax credits to their citizens who drive flex-fuel vehicles.

Dr. Yufu Cheng, from China's Innovation Center for Energy and Transportation said that while different fuels can replace fossil fuels, not all are environmentally friendly. "Not all fuels are created equally. We want to give the government tools to measure cleaner fuels. We want to do the true green, not the so-called green."

Environmental Defense Fund's Annie Petsonk noted that three basic requirements must be met for collaboration on Greenhouse Gas Reporting: 1) Clearly stated mandatory caps on total emissions because that's what's important to the environment, 2) Transparent reporting systems, and 3) Verification and accountability: What are the consequences of surpassing your limit?

Governor Schwarzenegger concluded his two-day Governors' Summit by saying that "fairness and equity," are the key words. "We want to see that no one is held back. I see opportunities in crises," he said. He added that, "Technology is what needs to power change. Guilt trips don't work. We should still be able to drive the car we want but it should be powered by solar or electric." He also thanked his longtime adviser, Terry Tamminen, for "inspiring" him to become even more passionate about the environment after taking office as Governor of California, a state he said, whose "reach is like that of a continent's."

President-Elect Obama's Video Address to Summit

Andy Worthington: How Guantanamo Can Be Closed: More Advice for Barack Obama

2008-11-20T12:44:09Z

In a previous article, Andy Worthington, author of The Guantánamo Files, examined the reasons why Barack Obama must stick to his election promise to close the "War on Terror" prison at Guantánamo Bay, focusing on the Bush administration's callous disregard for domestic and international laws, its pursuit of unfettered executive power, the disturbing effects of its policy of offering bounty payments for al-Qaeda and Taliban suspects, the equally disturbing ramifications of its refusal to screen prisoners according to the Geneva Conventions, and the corrupt tribunals established at Guantánamo to rubber-stamp the prisoners' designation as "enemy combatants." This second article examines how Barack Obama's promise to close the prison can be fulfilled.

The 50 prisoners cleared for release

Of the 255 prisoners currently held at Guantánamo, around 50 have been "approved for transfer" -- many for at least three years -- but they remain in Guantánamo, mostly imprisoned in conditions that would task the resilience of the most hardened convicted criminals on the US mainland, for two particular reasons. The first is because they are from countries with notoriously poor human rights records (including China, Libya, Syria, Tunisia and Uzbekistan) or unstable regimes like Iraq, and cannot be returned because of international treaties preventing the return of foreign nationals to countries where they face the risk of torture. The second reason is that the administration's insistence that they are still "enemy combatants" (or are "no longer enemy combatants") has deterred other countries from accepting them. Even though State Department representatives have been touring the world for the last three years in an attempt to relocate some of these men, the only third country that has been prevailed upon to accept any of them is Albania, which took eight former prisoners in 2006.

I am reliably informed that there are certain career officials in the State Department who have been anxiously awaiting a new administration, in the expectation that it will facilitate greater cooperation between the United States and its allies in Europe, and that some of these countries might now agree to help the United States out of the hole dug by the Bush administration, which regularly made matters worse by criticizing other countries for not helping out. In August 2007, for example, President Bush stated, "I did say it should be a goal of the nation to shut down Guantánamo," but added, "I also made it clear that part of the delay was the reluctance of some nations to take back some of the people being held there."

To this end, several prominent human rights and legal organizations -- including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Center for Constitutional Rights -- launched a campaign in Berlin on November 10 aimed at persuading European countries to accept cleared prisoners from Guantánamo. This is laudable, as it is clearly intolerable that these men remain imprisoned at Guantánamo (and, as it stands, makes Barack Obama's mission to close the prison impossible), but if the President-Elect really wants to do the right thing, which will also send out a positive message to the United States' allies abroad, then he should make the first move by allowing the 17 remaining Uighurs at Guantánamo (Muslims from China's Xinjiang province, who had fled to Afghanistan to escape Chinese persecution) to settle in the United States.

The Uighurs scored a major victory this summer, after the Supreme Court ruled that the Guantánamo prisoners had constitutional habeas corpus rights. This ruling unlocked hundreds of habeas cases that had stalled in the lower courts following the passage of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which purported to strip the prisoners of the habeas rights granted by the Supreme Court in 2004. When the first of these cases, that of a Uighur prisoner called Huzaifa Parhat, was finally reviewed by the Court of Appeals in Washington D.C., the judges ruled that Parhat's designation as an "enemy combatant" was invalid, and derided the government's "evidence" as being akin to a nonsense poem by Lewis Carroll, the author of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.

In the months that followed, the cases against all 17 Uighurs crumbled, as the government admitted that it would "serve no purpose" to continue trying to prove that Parhat was an "enemy combatant," and then did the same for his 16 compatriots. In October, when Judge Ricardo Urbina of the US District Court in Washington D.C. held a hearing to determine what should happen to the Uighurs, he declared, "Because the Constitution prohibits indefinite detentions without cause, the continued detention is unlawful." Furthermore, because no third country had been found that would accept the men, he ordered their release to the care of communities in the Washington D.C. area, and Tallahassee, Florida, who had put together detailed plans for their resettlement in the United States.

This was a proud moment for American justice, but the Uighurs never made it to Washington D.C. or Tallahassee. Instead, the government appealed, the Justice Department wheeled out its old and discredited allegations about the men being connected to terrorism (thereby stymieing attempts to find a third country to take them), and, in a brief filed for hearings next week, asserted that the executive branch "has authority to hold aliens in detention even if they are not considered enemies of the US," adding, for good measure, "even if the detention is indefinite, it is still lawful."

This is clearly an intolerable situation. As the only prisoners at Guantánamo who have ever persuaded the Bush administration to drop its claims that they are "enemy combatants," the Uighurs deserve the lifeline extended to them by Judge Urbina. If the appeal goes against them, the new administration should make their release into the United States a priority.

The 80 prisoners scheduled to face trial by Military Commission

President-Elect Obama has already pledged to repeal the Military Commissions Act, which revived the Bush administration's deeply flawed "terror trials" after the Supreme Court ruled them illegal in June 2006. This should be a priority after January 20, 2009, and should be accompanied by a thorough and independent review of the cases against the 80 or so prisoners facing (or scheduled to face) a trial by Military Commission.

What's important to note is that the administration's figure can be whittled down without any difficulty. Of the 17 prisoners currently facing trial by Military Commission, for example, two -- Omar Khadr and Mohamed Jawad -- were juveniles when they were seized, and should have been rehabilitated rather then punished under the terms of the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (on the involvement of children in armed conflict). Moreover, significant doubts have been expressed about the quality of the evidence against them, with legitimate claims made by their military defense attorneys (and, in Jawad's case, by his former prosecutor, who resigned in September) that evidence vital to the defense was deliberately suppressed. In addition, another three of the 17 are, at best, minor Afghan insurgents who are not accused of killing US forces, and have no connection with al-Qaeda. All these prisoners should be released.

Others who have expressed doubts about the Pentagon's figures are senior officials who spoke to the New York Times in 2004, when a total of 749 prisoners had been held at Guantánamo. In interviews, the Times explained, "dozens of high-level military, intelligence and law-enforcement officials in the United States, Europe and the Middle East said that contrary to the repeated assertions of senior administration officials, none of the detainees at the United States Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay ranked as leaders or senior operatives of al-Qaeda. They said only a relative handful -- some put the number at about a dozen, others more than two dozen -- were sworn Qaeda members or other militants able to elucidate the organization's inner workings."

To these can be added some, or perhaps the majority of the ten prisoners transferred to Guantánamo from secret CIA prisons in September 2004, the 14 "high-value detainees" -- including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other alleged 9/11 conspirators -- who were transferred in September 2006, and two of the six prisoners who arrived at Guantánamo between March 2007 and March 2008. These prisoners -- somewhere between 35 and 50 in total -- are the only ones who should be moved to the US mainland to face trials in federal courtrooms.

There will inevitably be problems -- protecting confidential intelligence sources, for example, and, in particular, dealing with evidence obtained through torture -- but I can see no other alternative. The trials as they stand are an abomination, permeated with systemic pro-prosecution bias, and capable of handing down a life sentence only in a one-sided show trial (that of Ali Hamza al-Bahlul), which passed largely unnoticed in the week before the Presidential election.

Holding prisoners forever without charge or trial is clearly an untenable solution, as it simply perpetuates the Bush administration's crimes, and recent suggestions -- by both Democrats and Republicans -- that another new trial system should be instigated, or that a form of "preventive detention" should be introduced, are just as redolent of the arrogance of the Bush years, and indicate that those proposing them have learned nothing from the abuse of the Constitution over the last seven years.

In addition, one extra problem that President Obama may have to deal with as soon as he takes office concerns Salim Hamdan, the driver for Osama bin Laden who was convicted of material support for terrorism (but cleared of conspiracy) in a trial that took place over the summer. Hamdan was sentenced to five-and-a-half years' imprisonment, but his judge, Navy Capt. Keith Allred, allowed for time served since he was first charged, which means that he will have finished serving his sentence by the end of the year. Allred has refused to bow to pressure from the Defense Department, which attempted to claim that he had no right to allow time served to be taken into account, but the Pentagon may yet assert that it has the right to continue holding Hamdan as an "enemy combatant," even after his sentence is over.

Like the plight of the Uighurs, this is completely unjustifiable, as Hamdan was convicted by a military jury in a trial of the administration's own devising, but if the outgoing President insists on holding Hamdan after his sentence is served, President Obama will have to ensure that he is allowed to return to his family in Yemen.

The 125 prisoners who are "too dangerous" to be released

The notion that prisoners can be "too dangerous to release but not guilty enough to prosecute" is another hallmark of the Bush administration's disdain for the law, but this, too, has been embraced by enthusiasts for a new policy of "preventive detention." The rationale is, however, also unjustifiable. As I hope to have demonstrated in my previous article, in which I dissected the failures of the interrogators at Guantánamo to distinguish between genuine intelligence and false confessions produced through the use of torture, coercion or bribery, there is no reason to elevate these prisoners to even the lowest rungs of a terrorist hierarchy, and every reason to follow the conclusions reached by senior military and intelligence officials: that no more than 35 to 50 of the prisoners had any meaningful connection with al-Qaeda.

There is, at present, some hope that these prisoners' habeas reviews will demonstrate the weakness of the government's evidence against these 125 prisoners. In the case of six Algerian-born Bosnians accused of plotting to blow up the US embassy in Sarajevo, for example, their habeas review began with the government dropping the claim (which, it should be noted, was dismissed by the Bosnian government in January 2002, before the men were kidnapped and sent to Guantánamo), and today (November 20) Judge Richard Leon, a Bush appointee, ordered five of the six to be released "forthwith," as the government had "failed to show by burden of proof" that they were guilty of the only other charge that remained: an allegation that they had planned to go to Afghanistan to take up arms against US forces. It seems probable that other cases will also see the government dropping its "evidence," before the judges can conclude, as the appeal court judges did in the case of Huzaifa Parhat, that it is no more reliable than the nonsense poetry of Lewis Carroll, or, as Judge Leon stated as he ordered the Bosnian Algerians to be freed, "To rest on so thin a reed would be inconsistent with this court's obligation."

I can only hope that the habeas reviews continue to force the government to drop more of its redundant claims against the prisoners, as my research has illuminated, above all, how the protestations of innocent men -- and of Taliban foot soldiers recruited to fight an inter-Muslim civil war that began long before 9/11 and had nothing to do with al-Qaeda -- have been overshadowed with disturbing regularity by allegations made by unnamed "senior figures in al-Qaeda," interrogated in unknown circumstances, or by other prisoners who have made false confessions, often on a colossal scale, in the hope of securing more favorable treatment. Stark examples of both of these practices are available here and here, but many more are reported in The Guantánamo Files, and what they demonstrate, above all, is how the entire "War on Terror" detention program, as executed at Guantánamo, was designed to do away with the presumption of innocence, and was, instead, focused solely on confirming preordained guilt.

The 125 prisoners in question are from a variety of nations -- a few dozen of the remaining Afghans, several dozen more from the countries of North Africa and the Gulf -- but up to half are from the largest remaining group at Guantánamo: the Yemenis. Unlike the 130 Saudis, who were mostly released from Guantánamo in 2006 and 2007, after the Saudi government instigated a rehabilitation program (involving religious retraining and support in finding wives and employment), which met with the approval of the US authorities, only 13 of the 108 Yemenis in Guantánamo have been released, even though they, like the Saudis, were, for the most part, a mixture of Taliban foot soldiers and humanitarian aid workers and missionaries, caught up in an undiscriminating dragnet.

The problem, as has been repeatedly stated, is that the US authorities claim that they are not convinced that the Yemeni government will be able to guarantee that the men will not continue to pose a threat to the United States. For their part, as the Houston Chronicle reported on Saturday, "Yemeni officials say they're ready to try many of the men and imprison those who are convicted, but they complain that US officials refuse to share evidence with them." The Yemeni foreign minister, Abu Bakr al-Kirbi, explained, "Based on the information we have, some of the Guantánamo prisoners have nothing to do with terrorism. We cannot imprison them without a court sentence. We cannot do something that is against our laws. We are accountable to our own public."

Al-Kirbi is undoubtedly right that some of the men pose no threat to anybody, and cannot be detained without reason, but to break the deadlock both sides need to sit down and hammer out a deal -- perhaps one that involves judge Hamoud Al-Hitar, the head of Yemen's Dialogue Committee, which, as the Yemen Times reported last December, "aims at steering extremists away from violence through a number of dialogue sessions." Al-Hitar's program is widely credited as the inspiration for the Saudis' successful rehabilitation program, and it would surely, therefore, make sense for the US and Yemeni governments to work out how to come up with a suitable program for Yemen that will enable Barack Obama to close Guantánamo.

Then we can move on to what lies behind Guantánamo: the unaccountable prisons in Afghanistan and Iraq, which hold an estimated 39,000 prisoners, and the unknown number of prisoners still held in secret CIA custody, or rendered to torture in third countries, who constitute "America's Disappeared."

Jane Hamsher: Chinese Want To Buy the Big 3 Automakers

2008-11-19T13:02:42Z

It appears that the Chinese car makers SAIC and Dongfeng have plans to acquire the Big 3:

A take-over of a large overseas auto maker would fit perfectly into China's plans. As reported before, China has realized that its export chances are slim without unfettered access to foreign technology. The brand cachet of Chinese cars abroad is, shall we say, challenged. The Chinese could easily export Made-in-China VWs, Toyotas, Buicks. If their joint venture partner would let them. The solution: Buy the joint venture partner. Especially, when he's in deep trouble.

At current market valuations (GM is worth less than Mattel) the Chinese government can afford to buy GM with petty cash. Even a hundred billion $ would barely dent China's more than $2t in currency reserves. For nobody in the world would buying GM and (while they are at it) Chrysler make more sense than for the Chinese. Overlap? What overlap? They would gain instant access to the world's markets with accepted brands, and proven technology.

All the Shock Doctrine fanatics cheering to drive the the Big 3 into bankruptcy "restructuring" (like Mitt Romney, who can kiss future hopes of electoral victory in Michigan goodbye) might want to think about the implications of this.

Of course the same legislators clamouring for bankruptcy could block the sale. (This assumes they have the fortitude to stare down the Chinese, who currently hold a whopping portion of US debt, and deny them something they really want). But in doing so, and at the same time refusing a bridge loan to the automakers, they are basically legislating the destruction of the Big 3. They will be forcing them to stiff all their creditors and stockholders and tear up their union contracts by refusing to let the "free market" they love to bang on about step in and assume the company's legitimate debts. Or were all those insufferable lectures about "personal responsibility" when the bankruptcy bill was going through just so much claptrap?

Because selling the company would be far preferable to the Big 3 and those who are dependent on them than Chapter 7. But long-term it would not be without peril for the US. As one FDL commener noted:

With no big three making cars what to stop Toyota and Honda from moving the plants to Mexico where costs are really low. Its only the threat of being shut out of the American market that keeps the Japanese building cars here. If we no longer have cars made in America by American companies we will have no choice but to buy their cars no matter where they are made.

I know long-term thinking isn't his forte. But as Richard Shelby is salivating at the prospect of yet another BMW SUV plant in his right-to-work state, it might be something for him to consider.

Jane Hamsher blogs at firedoglake.com

China Plans Fuel Tax Thanks To Low Oil Prices

2008-11-19T09:33:52Z
BEIJING (Reuters) - China's leaders are determined to seize the opportunity offered by falling global crude prices to push through reform of domestic oil pricing and introduce a fuel tax, a source said on Wednesday.

The country's energy officials are still discussing technical details of the reform plans however, the source, with knowledge of the situation, told Reuters.

"The cabinet leaders have sent a specific order that the reform should be pushed forward as soon as possible," the source said.

Officials from relevant government departments will have another round of discussions this week about the practical challenges for implementing both tax and pricing changes.
Read more: Oil Prices, Oil, China, China Fuel Tax, Fuel Tax, Business News

China's Auto Industry Now Seeking A Bailout

2008-11-18T20:30:52Z
Do Chinese automakers need a bailout?

China's car industry is quietly pressing Beijing for government help as it copes with a jarring slowdown, top Chinese auto executives said in interviews here on Tuesday.

This autumn, after six years of 20 percent or more annual growth, vehicle sales were flat or slightly negative, a shock to an industry that has borrowed heavily to build ever more factories for a market that had once seemed insatiable.
Read more: China Auto Industry, China, China Auto Bailout, China Auto, Business News

Mort Rosenblum: America Is Back, Now the Hard Part

2008-11-18T16:30:01Z
PARIS - A poker-faced French border cop actually cracked a faint smile as he hefted my U.S. passport. Euphoria must fade inevitably in hard light but, even here, America is back.
It was that simple. A convincing plurality showed a doubtful world that the United States they once respected -- however grudgingly, at times -- still has a heart and a soul.

The question, after an eight-year break from reality, is how much is left of its brain?
For most of the world, it wasn't so much that Barack Obama is half black and all not-Bush. People heard his message: Think one planet. Listen to others. Watch out with that big stick.
Now they are waiting for us to act beyond our borders.

Americans, mostly, want to do the right thing. But so many have tuned out, letting news coverage shrink while schools dumb down, that we no longer know what the right thing is.
Obama's message resonates so loudly because a world in trouble desperately misses the nation that once took on greater responsibilities than its own narrow interest.

Yet however good our intentions, we can't fix a globe we don't understand. Americans pay scant attention to vital details abroad. We simplify complexity to nonsense, forgetting that real human beings are involved, and they take things personally.

At best, this creates bad will. It can also mean a half million needless Iraqi deaths, whole regions in violent turmoil, squandered trillions, and a world in fear of looming depression.
Our folly has caused terrorist ranks to swell with people whose grandsons will hate us. The Taliban is not only taking back Afghanistan but also threatens a nuclear-tipped Pakistan.
Any nation, let alone a superpower, needs credible news outlets -- mainstream and marginal -- to define what really matters. Headlines mean nothing without details and context.

Yet editors are closing bureaus, replacing seasoned hands with untested stringers who don't challenge their misperceptions. And, increasingly, what is reported ends up on the spike.
A Project for Excellence in Journalism study shows foreign news filled only 10.7 percent of the U.S. media news hole from Jan. 1 to July 30; much of that was on China. Of that fraction, 7.6 percent was about Iraq and half of that about Afghanistan.

For the week of Nov. 9-15, only one foreign story surfaced, at 2 percent: violence flared again in Iraq. Newsroom floors awash in blood should scare us a lot more than phantom terrorists.
It is simple: if foreign correspondents are not there, we're not there. Instead, editors and commentators guess at reality from a distance. That is how Iraq happened. What's next?
I banged this alarm last year in a book, Escaping Plato's Cave. Since then, much is dramatically worse. Yet there is also fresh promise. For Obama to succeed, we need to rethink "media."
First, consider why this is so important.

Joe the plumber was a silly sidelight. In the real world, who counts are key players like Vladimir the Gasman. Russia is back, too. Putin's authoritarian state is not the old Evil Empire. Yet in the ways that affect daily Western lives, it is a greater threat. Jab a stick at any sort of bear (except maybe a polar bear; they've got enough problems). Its reaction will explain the Georgia smackdown -- and why Europe's response was so muted. Already humiliated by Bill Clinton, who led it around by the nose, Russia saw George Bush's ideologues arm its neighbors, threaten its borders, and cut petroleum deals in its backyard.

Russia pumps more oil than Saudi Arabia and is after vast Arctic reserves. By shutting off the gas, it can freeze Europe overnight. Germany and France, among others, are eager to trade. A hard-minded Kremlin is ready for serious poker and flush with chips. This is no game for inattentive amateurs.

On climate change, our greatest challenge, Beijing called Washington's bluff. China is now the planet's biggest polluter, but it blames crises today on past offenders. Unless the United States and Europe commit one percent of their wealth toward reversing atmospheric damage, the Chinese say, emerging industrial powers are off the hook. Then there is the Middle East, South Asia, Africa, and all the rest. The world is not really flat. If we don't understand its curvatures, every misstep comes around to bite us.

Some avaricious owners are to blame. But others who try hard are faced with a populace that, increasingly, wants its news for free. Guessing from a distance is cheap. But a trained reporter who gets close enough to see it and smell costs some employers upwards of $250,000 a year. Intrepid freelancers help. But they cannot replace newspapers, agencies, and broadcasters, which depend on proven credibility.

Excellent correspondents are out there, but you have to find them amid all the Internet babble. Commentators from Olbermann to O'Reilly rely on real reporters like the rest of us.
Some old models can be fixed; others are beyond repair. Most "media" are businesses that give what they think consumers want. If they detect a taste for real news, they will change.
So, what to do?

For starters, realize that real news has a value like a gallon of gas or a pound of flour. Reporters have to go get it, and editors need to make sure it is accurate. The New York Times still watches the world. But so many people read it free online that it must cut its newsgathering budget. Buy the real thing; it is cheaper than a cup of coffee. The cornerstone is America's news supermarket, a non-profit cooperative that is more vital to our wellbeing than the Defense Department: The Associated Press.

AP dates back to 1848 when newspapers pooled resources to cover news beyond their reach. These days, when so many papers are cutting back, this role is more crucial than ever.
But since 2002, AP has reinvented itself to focus on money-spinning sideshows and scoops at the expense of basic coverage from remote places where trouble brews. Today, disgruntled newspapers are dropping AP. Some are plotting a new cooperative to replace it. This is scary. AP has huge resources, and we badly need what it is meant to provide. (Truth in packaging: I left the AP at the end of 2004 after reporting on stories abroad for 35 years.)

Television networks seldom mention the world without a U.S. angle. CNN trumpets its own personalities. Fox is no less tendentious than Al Jazeera with far less real news. NPR, though good, is hardly enough. In New York, I heard WINS all-news radio still promising, "Give us 22 minutes, we'll give you the world." I gave it two days and got traffic on the Tappan Zee with local stories on the order of boy-trapped-in-refrigerator-eats-foot. To fortify sporadic coverage, build a bedrock context via magazines that delve into foreign affairs. The weekly Guardian combines fresh news with essential background. Find the BBC World Service online, TV or radio, not the remedial version for the U.S. market. Lobby to get Al Jazeera in English on U.S. cable carriers.

Old hands who have left the mainstream are trying new things, convinced that appetites are ravenous for up-close reporting. Initial public reaction is encouraging. An ambitious news agency, GlobalPost, is coming online in January, edited by Charles Sennott, star correspondent at the Boston Globe before it turned its back on the world. Pro Publica is already breaking stories. Photographer Gary Knight and I started the quarterly, dispatches, to focus on issues that matter. We let seasoned writers and photographers tell it straight, at length. Make an effort. If a daily you like is worth reading, pay for it. If it only wastes trees, cancel your subscription and tell the editor why. Prowl the Web. Support consolidator sites like Truthout.com that sample a lot of sources.
Test your prejudices against facts and intelligent analysis. If you support a cause, say Israel or Palestine, look at the other side.

In the longer term, we need better schools with inspired teachers who spark intellectual curiosity so kids learn early how to shape their own world. Meantime, we can teach our own kids that Americans make up only 4 percent of humanity. No one else agrees we are somehow a chosen people. Skin crawled just about everywhere when Sarah Palin chanted "USA! USA!"
My optimism soared at 6 a.m. on November 4 among people who jammed a Brooklyn school to throw the bums out of office. I watched results with friends happy to pay tax on six-figure salaries if it would finally be put to good use.

Then I talked to J.K. Gupta, a St. Louis physician who spends half the year in his native India treating poor patients. "People are thinking differently in America, and they projected this through Obama," he told me. "He only reflects them. They want to see the world in another way." If Gupta is right, we might finally change that misguided mantra: you can't worry about what you can't change. In fact, you can't change what you don't worry about.

Read more: Russia, Media Foreign Affairs, Television, Afghanistan, France, The New York Times, President Obama, Associated Press, Iraq, China, Media News

China Now Largest Holder Of US Treasuries

2008-11-18T14:56:53Z
The next time Congress wants to raise a $700 billion bailout fund or put together a new package to help a firm like AIG (AIG), Washington is going to have to call Beijing.

As the budget deficit grows each year and is likely to expand at a more rapid rate during a recession as receipts fall and the need for a social safety net rises, the Treasury is going to have to get deeper and deeper into the money printing business.

According to Bloomberg, "China surpassed Japan in September to become the biggest foreign holder of U.S. Treasuries, as foreign investors sought the relative safety of government debt as stocks plunged 9.1 percent that month." China's ownership position is now about $600 billion.
Read more: Financial Crisis, Global Economy, China, Finance, Economy, US Treasuries, Business News

Tom Doctoroff: Chinese Consumers: On Rocky Shoals but Not Shipwrecked

2008-11-18T03:32:30Z
This is the first time in history in which a Chinese middle class of broad scale (125-150 million people) has confronted a global economic shock, begging the question of how spending behavior will - or will not - shift across a suddenly-altered economic landscape. Marketers hoping to counteract weakness in North American and European sales by relying on mainland consumers are bound to be disappointed. Newly-prosperous Zhangs and Lius will pull back spending and, in some cases, the impact will be dramatic. Overall, sales growth will halt and it may be some time before the PRC regains its position as an economic North Star. But the sky is not falling. The scale of wealth generated by economic reform has been colossal and the vast majority of Chinese still trust the central government to efficiently manage macroeconomic affairs. Once the mainland shopper reorients himself on the emerging landscape, he will re-open his wallet.

A bit of background....

A Tight-Fisted, Savings-Driven Middle Class. Any non-essential item has always been, and will always be, meticulously scrutinized for functional or emotional "value," limiting spending lunches in either positive or negative directions. China's middle class, approximately 125 million strong, has never been spendthrift. While penny pinched, savings rates are high, around 30%-35%. (The average resident of Tier I cities - Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou and Shenzhen - makes only 2,500 RMB per month, or $350. Although no official definition of the middle class exists, many companies start marketing non-essential goods such as small diamonds, premium ice cream and mid-tier restaurants to households earning around 5,000 RMB per month, or approximately $600, or $7,500 per year, versus nearly $50,000 per annum earned by the average American household.) According to home improvement retailer B&Q, the typical Shanghainese spends no more than $15,000 to fit out a completely "bare" 100-square meter apartment, covering everything from floorboards and appliances to paint and toilets.

Newly wealth individuals do not assume their money is safe. They have limited experience managing investments and they are not represented by the political establishment. Up to 90% of automobiles are purchased in cash, despite sticker prices that exceed an average buyer's yearly income. Mortgages do not exist without a 30% down payment. To boot, due to both infrastructural limitations and unease with "virtual transactions," credit card penetration - and, hence, credit card debt - is astoundingly low here.

The Protective Mass Market. Even more than the new middle class, the urban mass market has always consumed with great discretion. (China's consumer spending accounts for less than 35% of total economic activity.) They have always spent -- and will continue to spend -- only on essential or very cheap non-essential items. This is due to both the aforementioned protective instinct of all Chinese people as well as the lack of comprehensive welfare safety nets, modification of which will require structural - and, hence, long-term -- reform. Only 17% of rural residents have health insurance. Affordable housing is increasingly scarce. And, despite the central government's efforts to crack down on "miscellaneous" tuition and textbook fees, primary education remains a pay-as-you-go proposition for many residents outside primary cities.

Implications for 2009

So, what does this all mean? In a nutshell, the uncertainty unleashed by the global economic crisis will significantly impact Chinese already-conservative buying behavior over the medium-term but, long-term, the market will not collapse due to: a) the cushioning effect of high savings rates/low debt ratios and b) as discussed below, consumers' propensity to invest in "status goods" to gain face.

Big Ticket Purchases Suspended. The middle class is still not sure how the global recession will impact China in terms of middle class job stability, not to mention the prospect of lower prices at some point in the future. Until the medium-term outlook is less uncertain, the Chinese will revert to the naturally conservative buying behavior, deferring purchase of middle class "hallmark" items. Autos, for example, may have already driven off a cliff. Although consumers are still wending their ways through showrooms and dealerships, companies such as Ford and General Motors have relayed frightening anecdotal evidence of market retrenchment. Real estate purchases, too, have fallen dramatically for the simple reason that it is not the right time to buy. (A sagging property market will also hurt sales of related categories such bedding and furniture.) Foreign travel destinations will be hard hit as well.

On the bright side, transaction suspension will temporary, delayed until the coast is clear. We must remember that, to the Chinese, homes and Audis are not "luxuries," per se. They are prized markers of success. They qualify as entry into the ranks of the economically - and, therefore, socially -- empowered. Therefore, we expect to see an equally-dramatic spike in sales some time down the road - no one knows when -- as the country's economic stimulus package kicks in and the waves settle. (Unlike in the West, China has not experienced a housing bubble and auto penetration is only 3%, so the long-term picture is healthy.)

Limited Switching to Local Brands. There will be only modest switching between multinational, high-priced brands and cheaper local options. Premium priced items are rarely bought as indulgences but, rather, tools of advancement or "markers" on a journey to success. Therefore, consumers will be less apt to scale back within categories that allow status projection. In China, the golden rule of marketing is that buyers will pay a high price for goods that are used in public but save ruthlessly in privately-consumed categories. The leading mobile phones, boasting hefty premiums, are foreign. A Shanghai Yuppie, wouldn't be caught dead driving a local Chery, cheap price be damned.

Furthermore, in most categories, local companies price their products two or three times lower than multinational competitors, so switching options, unless one is willing to accept a major status hit, remain limited. The range of products (and price points) currently available is not broad enough to support a mad rush towards international goods, even in scary economic times. (And international luxury brands, cherished by youth not as shiny baubles but "status investments," have no local competitors.) Again, this will be particularly true for any products consumed out-of-home. Local brands in categories such as televisions, air conditioners and appliances may, in fact, benefit moderately at the expense of MNCs.

Trading Down within Premium Segments. Thus, middle class consumers will still buy publicly-consumed "show off" items. But they will limit risk exposure by "trading down" to lower-price tiers or switching to less expensive "display" categories, resulting in margin pressure for multinational corporations. In fashion, a man on his way up will buy Hugo Boss rather than Gucci. Or he might explore lower-priced sub-brands, shifting from Zegna to Zegna Sport and Armani to Emporio Armani. In spirits, the deal might be sealed with Johnny Walker Red, not Blue. On-the-rise drinkers may even trade down from cognac to premium beer but only in cases when the resulting "status sacrifice" isn't severe enough to preclude "landing the prize," whether it be a second date with a romantic target or a business contract. In mobile phones, the purchase cycle might increase from six to nine months but upwardly mobile professionals will still want to impress colleagues with stylish techno-savvy so they won't put off purchase of a new model for an extended period of time. Even some daily-consumed goods - high-quality shampoo, for example - are perceived to yield a public payoff. (For over twenty years, P&G's Rejoice shampoo has maintained category leadership with a "confidence from softness" position.) Unit sales, therefore, will be stable, although average price points will decline due to increased promotional sensitivity. Similarly, new generation types will still go to Starbucks to project cool but they will order a cheaper sandwich and switch from $3.50 vanilla latte to $1.75 cup of Americano.

Mass Marketing Stability. Finally, mass market spending, conservative in the best of times, will still not collapse. There will be no surge in unemployment in 2009 - low-wage, low-skill jobs here are relatively fungible, with workers laid off in one sector quickly absorbed in others - and no dramatic cutbacks in low-priced candy, milk, cheap beer, etc. The Communist Party's recent announcement of an intention to introduce a massive, $600 billion stimulus package will do little to alleviate a diffused anxiety of "losing everything" but it will prevent radical retrenchment and full-blown panic.

In Conclusion

In summary, Chinese have always been conservative spenders, but they pry open wallets for premium-price items that advance social and professional standing. The economic crisis will result in deferring, not eliminating, purchase of big-ticket items and squeezing value within premium segments without a rush to local, cheaper brands. Most marketers, therefore, can expect a protracted slowdown in sales growth and a hit in profit margins. That said, the bottom will not fall out of the market. Advertising and promotion spending should be sustained because the China market is not going to disappear. And, given the skittishness of most marketers, brands that continue to invest in strengthening equity - perhaps with messages rooted in "reassurance" -- will emerge from the crisis with a clear competitive advantage.

Read more: Chinese Economy, The Chinese Middle Class, Premium Brands in China, Chinese Consumers, Economic Crisis in China, China, Chinese Mass Market, Business News

Deanna Lee: Yes We Can: The Power of International Education

2008-11-17T17:24:23Z
When Barack Obama reached out in his Grant Park acceptance speech "to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores" -- proclaiming "our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared" -- he also reached a special group of American youth who couldn't be more excited about the world's and their future.

It's so easy to be cynical about the state of education in the U.S. (who wouldn't be, with new reports out seemingly each month on how far behind our students are compared to those in other countries, how they don't know about life outside America and how woefully unprepared they are for a global future) that to meet five smart, winsome teenagers who say things like "We are One" and "We're regaining hope in politics and finding our place in the world" -- is nothing short of Obama-worthy inspiration.

These kids are not only talking the talk; they're walking the walk in a big way. Having demonstrated an in-depth understanding of key issues in international affairs, they've gone on to propose solutions to some of the world's toughest challenges, from the effects of climate change, to the spread of tuberculosis -- solutions so innovative and creative that they've just been awarded $10,000 college scholarships from the Goldman Sachs Foundation.

Take 18-year-old Robert Ostrowski, who hails from Atlanta. Like so many of his peers, he's passionate about the environment and energy efficiency. "We're really excited about the next four years," he says, believing Obama will help "advance us into a new age of energy." But he's not waiting for solutions. In his winning essay, Robert discussed the stalemate between the U.S. and China, the world's largest greenhouse gas emitters.

His solution is a local model that "frees [parties] from the politics of who's going to act first" -- pointing to states and non-profits in the U.S. that are successfully working with Chinese provinces and universities. One notable example is Jiangsu Province, where a partnership with California led to shared best practices that allowed Jiangsu to avoid building 24 large coal-fired plants. Jiangsu, says Robert, is now being used as a model for the whole of China. His main point: there is "huge potential out there for international collaboration."

This kind of international awareness, to the point of knowing what is going on in one field in one province of China, is of course highly unusual for an American high school student. The problem, says Robert, "is a lack of exposure in the schools, not so much lack of interest on the students' part." His friends might not have known much about China, he explains, but they were curious and in fact became very interested once they read his essay.

Sarah Miller agrees. Upon her return from a trip to Nepal documenting human rights issues and covering the recent historic elections, most of her high school classmates did "not even know [Nepal] was a country." So, she made this award-winning video:

"I realized," says Sarah, that "you can put a screen in front of people and no matter where they're from they'll look at it. And my audience, which is largely the kids in America...you see photos and news about poor third world countries, but I think it really takes being there or seeing it from the perspective of someone who's really similar to you, to really understand."

Sarah compared her life and those of her middle-class peers in Westlake Village, California to the lives of people she met in Nepal. What she found surprised her... that she was "jealous" of the Nepalese and their huge extended families and close communities, and a "happiness" that comes not from material wealth, or prescription meds.

For Shaunak Kishore of Westchester, Pennsylvania, happiness means applying his mathematical abilities (he won a gold medal at the 49th International Mathematics Olympiad in Madrid) to "an extremely practical objective that's going to help people around the world." Growing up with almost all white schoolmates, he says, it "felt like we were missing out on the cultural -- it felt like there was another side of me that I didn't get out in my normal everyday life." He found an outlet for that other side, in India.

There, Shaunak researched and and built a mathematical model for maximizing treatments of tuberculosis while minimizing its spread. (I can't possibly discuss the science more accurately or eloquently than he, so please read his winning essay here.)

Shaunak points out that the findings have increasing relevance to all countries, as the cross-border spread of disease becomes harder to battle. "These issues," he says, "show how connected the world has become."

Thankfully for all of us, these youth feel their generation is up to the task of taking on the world. "We're growing to understand our place in the world," says Shaunak. "We understand we need help and support, and we need to help and support other countries around the world."

Don't miss the other winners of the 2008 Goldman Sachs Foundation/Asia Society Prizes for Excellence in International Education: check out this video, by 17-year-old Zane Scheuerlein showing parallels between environmental injustices in Little Village, Chicago and Mexicali, Mexico; and this essay by Imani Franklin on increasing understanding across racial and socioeconomic divides in Atlanta and Johannesburg.

Read more: Energy, India, Education, Nepal, Environment, Obama, Climate Change, China, Obama Transition, International Students, Asia Society, Politics News

Scott Malcomson: The Rise of China

2008-11-17T14:25:19Z
VIENNA -- Between the world wars, the theater director Max Reinhardt had, by his own account, a lovely time owning the Schloss Leopoldskron. He put in a mirrored Venetian Room and a Chinese Room --which in its strange excess might better be called Oriental -- and put on productions through the house that had his audiences travel from room to room and sometimes into the garden, overlooking a lake. The party ended with the war, and the Nazis decided the house was theirs owing to Reinhardt's Jewishness. The "Max" character in "The Sound of Music" is said to have been based partly on Reinhardt, who never saw the house again. (He died in 1943.) The lakeside terrace and the Venetian Room were featured in shooting the film. My children were upset that I was going to be in the "Sound of Music" Schloss and they weren't. They had a point. They've loyally watched the movie many times and know the songs. I wish I could remember at what age they overcame their fear of the film's Nazis. Even Disney Nazis are scary. I think it was around 5.

Max Reinhardt's son, Gottfried, once said that "the Salzburg Seminar combines the two worlds that made up the world of Max Reinhardt: Europe and America." At the seminar I attended at the Schloss last week, the combination was uneasy. In theory, the assembled scholars, government officials, bureaucrats and journalists were there to discuss both what the U.S. should do abroad in an Obama administration and what the rest of the world should do, but in practice the attendees were happiest thinking of tasks for the U.S. For a while I found this surprising. What country, after all, really wants advice from foreigners? Then over time I realized that, while laziness was indeed a factor, the main reason they were giving advice exclusively to America was because there were problems abroad that they, even the relatively empowered Europeans, did not believe they could solve. They needed the Americans.

There was in the proceedings a solid helping of European arrogance, ex-imperial bitterness and confusion, and all the other emotional currents that can still send former-great-power Europeans into a bewildering rage. But there was also this particular helplessness. It was, to me at least, touching, though as a political substance it appeared very volatile. On the seminar's last day a European official said to me, miserably, "I didn't know before how unimportant Europe really is." Neither did I, but it was clear by the end of the week. It informed everything we did. It must have hit this official particularly hard as the bearers of the news were Europeans themselves, or in any case non-Americans. (There were significant contingents of South Asians and of Chinese.)

The situation was, to a degree, summed up in the urging of America under Obama to exercise "leadership" and renewed "moral authority." On these, the Europeans and the non-Europeans (not counting us few Americans) split. The non-Europeans, while polite, were really not interested in the moral authority of the United States, which indeed they didn't seem even to perceive; and they were wary of its leadership. The Europeans took the opposite, and, to me, less comprehensible view. Again, it took me a while to realize that the Europeans were really talking about something like their own moral authority and leadership -- the principle of it and perhaps also the history of it -- transmuted into an American form yet retaining its European essence. How likely was it, after all, that they would urge "moral authority" and "leadership" on an America that conceived these in purely American terms? That was what George Bush had done. And boy did they hate and despise him for it.

But with Obama everything would change, wouldn't it? It will, I'd guess, but not in the way this liberal internationalist Europe is hoping. It will change in the direction of an ever closer U.S.-China relationship. This became obvious to me in the course of an excellent lecture by Alan Beattie, who is the world trade editor of the Financial Times, which cosponsored the Salzburg event. Beattie is himself British as well as (a source close to his thinking suggested some HuffPost readers might want to know) both handsome and single.

Beattie argued that the real global problem in the financial crisis was not a lack of global regulatory oversight, it was a political failure by the developed-economy governments to work with the "emerging" economies. Fixing that, he maintained, was really the precondition for global action, rather than some potential result, way down the road, of institutional or other reforms undertaken by the great powers themselves. "You can't just rearrange the architecture," he said. "You fundamentally have to change the way you address them."

Beattie told two fascinating stories about China. One was that, when the developed economies coordinated a rate cut a few weeks ago, they did not tell China; and China quickly then made a cut of its own. The second story had to with Pakistan's President Zardari desperately traveling the other day to China, cap in hand, in hopes of avoiding recourse to the International Monetary Fund for a bailout. The Chinese, frequently accused of a stony-faced nationalist mercantilism proudly ignorant of the needs of others, refused to help, despite long ties to Pakistan. China insisted that the bailout be done under IMF supervision. China would help; but it wouldn't undermine the system, even if that system was not, at present, treating China very well.

Beattie worried that Obama had been banging on about Chinese currency manipulation, as have other Democrats. It boded ill for the U.S.-China relationship. But I wondered. These two stories suggested a profound level of Chinese engagement with the international system -- all the more profound because they showed the Chinese leadership making internationalist decisions in the face of Western neglect, condescension and even insult. Those are the kind of decisions that matter most. And assuming there is enough contact between the U.S. and China, they are the kind of decisions that will cement the single most important relationship in global politics.

It is true that China manipulates its currency to keep export-led growth high. (Much of this growth is dependent on the money and know-how of non-Chinese investors, of course, who themselves benefit from Chinese currency policy. And some of those investors are Americans, although American investment in China tends to be oriented more toward Chinese consumers.) It is also true that China has parked a lot of its earnings in dollars, following in the steps of Asian and other countries who, taking a lesson from the Asian monetary crisis of 1997-8, have built up huge reserves in foreign currency (particularly dollars) to make it impossible for them to be abandoned again by the rich world as they were in 1998.

One cannot really know, but it does seem to me that China's policies, financial and otherwise, are aimed not at intimidation but at forcing the U.S. to bind itself to China. When the bad times come -- I suppose they're already here -- neither will be able to abandon the other. At which point the international institutions, financial and otherwise, will indeed be reformed, on Sino-American terms.

The last day in Salzburg was dominated by UN-related meetings. We heard a lot about the usual blockages and the usual solutions. Under Obama, small fixes and a big improvement in UN atmospherics seem likely. It wouldn't take much (or, within reason, involve much political risk domestically). But the route to a solution on a grander scale would seem to lie in much greater American use of the Security Council as a place to manage the relationship with China. Not to "manage China." The time for that is gone.

If the American choice -- put too starkly, but still -- is between revitalizing the Security Council (with China) or watching the SecCo (with Britain and France) slowly fade, I think I know which the U.S. under Obama is likely to pick. I can't see him sacrificing financial stability, and a shot at (slowly) revitalizing the international architecture, on the altar of Western solidarity or even Western (or universal) values.

I took a day to see Vienna after my little China/U.S. epiphany in Salzburg. Mel Brooks' "The Producers" was being staged - in a German version, yet! It had debuted in June. I wonder what the Viennese make of "Springtime for Hitler." The war is indeed over.
Read more: European Union, UN Security Council, Barack Obama, American Foreign Policy, China, United Nations, Politics News

Zachary Karabell: The New World Economy

2008-11-17T12:41:17Z
So the G20 met over the weekend, and if there was any doubt before, there should be none now: the financial balance of power is shifting. China, Brazil, even Japan can all claim more sound economies than the United States, and they collectively let it be known that they would no longer take marching orders from the Washington consensus. They expect a voice, and they are not asking permission.

Yet, the leaders of those countries are not blind to the interdependence of the world. However much they may secretly take some pleasure from seeing the United States humbled, they know that the global system demands a stable and strong America for the foreseeable future. They recognize that we are all in this together, that recriminations may provide some satisfaction but do nothing to solve problems.

Yes, it was startling to hear Henry Paulson admit on CNBC that "We have in many ways humiliated ourselves as a nation with some of the problems that have taken place here." One could take that as a positive step, in that acceptance is part of the road towards recovery, or so they say. It was also a symbol that the United States can no longer snap its fingers and expect that the rest of the world will jump and ask how high - not with China holding trillions in U.S. debt, not with Brazil holding reserves in excess of $200 bill, or Saudi Arabia with its billions and Russia to boot. For the first time since the end of World War II, the United States is confronting a world that it needs more than a world that it commands.

In truth, we have always needed the global system, but with overarching power came the temptations of that power, and hubris. We lost sight of the mutual dependence that was the source of so much of our strength, and instead succumbed to the comforting illusion that we could command the heights and lead alone. Now, the rest of the world arrived in Washington to sit next to a lame duck and lamed president and remind him and us with some dignity that the system has gone off the rails and only joint effort will put humpty dumpty back together again.

We will soon have a president who recognizes that leadership is not dictating; it is not being the decider. It is instead a recognition of who we are and what the world now is, a willingness to take responsibility, and to sit down and allow others the voice they have rather than fleeing into cultural narcissism where the only sound heard is the comforting delusions of one's own perspective. It's only a shame that we must wait until January.

Read more: U.S. Economy, Saudi Arabia, Stock Market, g20, Financial Crisis, Henry Paulson, China, Barack Obama, Bush, Business News

Vivian Norris de Montaigu: Crisis = Disaster + Opportunity: Yin And Yang, And What China Knows About The Economy

2008-11-17T08:26:35Z
I was speaking to a Chinese acquaintance the other day who has spent much of her adult life in San Francisco, is married to an American, yet finds herself these days missing the China that once was and is fast disappearing. They are becoming like us. And the solidarity that was there when she was younger is disappearing into capitalism. Perhaps the good news is that we Americans will become perhaps a little less "turbo-capitalistic" and find a little more solidarity.

She told me something very interesting which is that the written word or stele for the word "Crisis" in Mandarin is actually the combination of the words "disaster" and "opportunity". Because in China, it is about the yin and yang and the balancing of each. Crisis creates disasters and offers opportunities. So as we live through this horrible crisis, why don't we take time to focus on all of the opportunities we have.

We are at a historical moment in our economic history when things will be able to change as they never have before in our lifetimes. And we can start a more sustainable economy from scratch. We don't have to give into excess this time. Let's make it about balance.

If you read French (someone should translate this book asap!) I encourage you to find the book, Inventer Une economie Yin Et Yang: Temoignage D'une Femme De Terrain Pour Un Monde plus Juste by Marianne de Boisredon, it is about how male and female (the yin and yang) in our world's economy needs to be balanced in order to create a more just world. This includes ideas such as Muhammad Yunus' banks for the poor, microloans and social businesses. Marianne de Boisredon worked in Chile with the first microcredit bank there, helping mostly women, very poor women in the slums, to get access to credit to create small businesses.

This lack of balance is why we need more women involved in leading the world's economy. There is simply too much of a male-focused approach and it is not working! Microcredit, which is female-focused, is working! It takes into consideration the social and human aspects as well as simply profits. In fact, profits can be things which help humans, better nutrition or health care or clean water not just money!

I am no supporter of pure anything economically, not pure capitalism and definitely not pure communism, but one subject which we never discuss in the United States is how to truly balance our economy in the human sense. We let the President and his cronies overspend on a war which kills humans (sorry but that is a male-linked thing... most women are very anti-war) and somehow that is fine, but spending that amount of programs we actually need and which save human lives (health care for all) is considered so socialist people think we are becoming French!

Perhaps some of those private banker and hedge fund billionaires in the U.S. who are now seen around with brilliant Chinese women on their arm are learning about balance. Let's hope so. We need much more Yin. Because all that Yang is killing us.
Read more: Chile, Yunus, Microcredit, French, Marianne De Boisredon, Yin, Opportunity, Grameen, Economy, Bank for the Poor, Social Business, Capitalism, China, Communism, Male, Yang, Hedge Funds, Disaster, Financial Crisis, Crisis, Socialist, Female, Private Banks, War on Terror, Banks for the Poor, Women and Business, Women in Business, War in Iraq, Global Recession, Bush Administration, Balanced Economy, Socialism, Business News

Kumi Naidoo: Lament for G20 Failure to Help People Worst Hit by Crisis

2008-11-15T19:43:19Z
The G20 has failed to consider the plight of the people who have been least responsible for this global financial crisis but who are suffering the most, men women and children in developing countries. While the leaders seemed to share common ground on issues related to financial growth, they failed to use this unique opportunity to offer specific relief to people struggling to survive the combined effects of the fuel, food and financial crises of the past year.

The absence of much greater specificity in the Summit Declaration is to be deeply lamented. Most of the stated actions lack any clear expression of where resources might be found to address the challenges or timelines that clarify how to move from the current reality to a better and more stable situation for everyone.

What today's meeting has done instead is keep the position of the G8 alive with typical grandiose announcements, some of which sound reasonable but most if which sound lacking in courage and vision. Sadly, as we have seen from previous G8 summits, hardly 5% of commitments in such communiqués ever become reality.

Many of us here in Washington today remember the aftermath of the Asian financial crisis in 1997 during which various leaders, including President Clinton and heads of the Bretton Woods Institutions, acknowledged that the world urgently needed a new financial architecture. It is fair to say than not a single act of substance appears to have been implemented during the annual meetings of the World Bank and IMF since '97. The message this sends to us as ordinary citizens around the world is that politicians have failed to address the causes of the situation undermining our faith in the process mapped out by the G20.

Finally, while we would welcome the intention around some of the proposals for the reform of the Bretton Woods institutions, they are not nearly far-reaching enough. While noting the G20 commitment that, "..emerging and developing economies should have greater voice and representation", it remains to be seen what shape this will take. What is needed right now is not incremental tinkering and only dealing with obvious flaws of the World Bank and IMF such as their undemocratic governance, but addressing the more systemic issues with substantial reforms. The lack of prioritisation of gender equality and failure to tackle climate change in a meaningful way are just two of the many issues that require more serious attention by the institutions if they are to make any real impact.

For the millions of people in poor and rich countries who have protesting against poverty worldwide over the last three years, most recently 117 million from October 17-19th, what is needed is a global system that is fair, just and equitable. The G20 leaders need to deliver this with greater courage and conviction than has been shown in Washington today."

Read more: Gordon Brown, France, Bretton Woods, Poverty, Sarkozy, Gcap, Economy, g20, Financial Crisis, Kumi Naidoo, China, Bush, Politics News

Johann Hari: Are There Just too Many People in the World?

2008-11-15T12:17:32Z
This is a post I don't want to write. Its subject is ugly; it makes me instinctively recoil. I have chastised people who bring it up at environmentalist meetings. The people who talk about it obsessively have often been callous about human life, and consistently proved wrong throughout history. And yet... there is a grain of insight in what they say.

The subject is overpopulation. Is our planet over-stuffed with human beings? Are we breeding to excess? These questions are increasingly poking into public debate, and from odd directions. Phillip Mountbatten -- husband of the British monarch Elizabeth Windsor -- said in a documentary screened this week: "The food prices are going up, and everyone thinks it's to do with not enough food, but it's really [that there are] too many people. It's a little embarrassing for everybody, nobody knows how to handle it." He is not alone. A strange range of people have voiced the same sentiments over the past few months, from the Dalai Lama to Hu Jintao, from Conservative mayor Boris Johnson to Democratic Governor Bill Richardson.

They start by listing the sums, which are indeed startling. Every year, world population grows by 75 million people -- equivalent to another Britain and Ireland whooshing fully-populated from the oceans. At the turn of the 18th century, there were 600 million people on earth. At the turn of this century, there were 6.6 billion. By the time I am in my sixties, there will be more than nine billion -- at which point there will be more people alive simultaneously than in the first 17 centuries after Christ combined.

The overpopulation lobby say this will inevitably leave more and more people chasing after a diminishing amount of resources on an ecologically-ravaged planet. At their most pessimistic, they say human beings will, in the long sweep of planetary history, look like a big-brained version of a locust cloud. They eat everything in sight and multiply fifty-fold -- until they have consumed everything, when they turn in desperation on each other, munch off their siblings' heads, and then fall out of the sky dead.

They say with a frown that this global swarming is driving global warming. How can you be prepared to cut back on your car emissions and your plane emissions but not on your baby emissions? Can you really celebrate the pitter-patter of tiny carbon-footprints?

Yet this subject seems to leech out all the dark toxins of environmentalism -- a movement I believe is the most urgent and important in the world. There has always been an element of green thinking that viewed humans as a parasitic infestation, wrecking the Eden of planet earth. The philosopher John Gray calls our species "homo rapiens." The founder of Earth First!, Dave Foreman, called us "Humanpox" and wrote: "The Aids epidemic, rather than being a scourge, is a welcome development in the inevitable reduction of human population... If [it] didn't exist, radical environmentalists would have to invent [it]."

If environmentalism sounds -- or is -- misanthropic, we will lose the argument. Most human beings will never think the world would be better off without us. Nobody thinks they are the surplus human being who should not have been born. These strident arguments hand a huge gift to the anti-greens, who always said we were anti-human beneath the surface.

It also looks like displacement. The places where population is growing fastest -- sub-Saharan Africa, rural China and Bangladesh -- have virtually no carbon emissions, and pitiful food consumption rates. The gap is so huge that to be responsible for as many gas emissions as one British person, a Cambodian woman would need to have 262 children. Can we really sit in our nice homes, with a fridge-full of food we will mostly chuck away and an SUV in the drive, and complain that she is the problem?

Once this gut-reaction has kicked in, I then think of the horrible history of overpopulation predictions. Most famously, the 18th century demographer Thomas Malthus said mass starvation was inevitable because population increases geometrically while food production grows arithmetically. He didn't anticipate the coming of the Industrial Revolution. His successors in the 1960s, like Paul Ehrich and the Club of Rome, similarly didn't see the Green Revolution that was galloping around the corner of history.

So it is tempting to say now that the overpopulation argument will smack into some new technological development. It's not quite true to say there is a diminishing amount of resources, because the genius of human beings is to find new ways to use what is there. Two centuries ago, nobody could have conceived that the sun's rays or the waves in the ocean were a resource to be used -- but solar and tidal power make it so.

And yet, and yet... why do my own arguments leave me echoing with doubt? A dark voice in my head says: you would accept that, to pluck an absurd number, 100 billion people would be too many. You don't think human genius is infinitely expansive; there is a limit to what it can solve. So isn't the question just where you draw the line? If 100 billion is too much, why not nine billion?

Hmm. You should always take on the best arguments of your opponents, not the worst. There are good people -- a world away from the British royals or the human-hating fringes -- who are sincerely concerned about population levels: people like Professors Chris Rapley and John Guillebaud. They argue that although the swelling billions are not now emitting large amounts of greenhouse gases, they will see that we are doing it and will (totally understandably) want to join in the carbon bonfire.

But if this is a problem, is there a solution that isn't abhorrent? Some people seem to reach instinctively for authoritarian answers. The government of China has bragged that its "greatest contribution" to the fight against global warming has been its policy of punishing, imprisoning or sterilising women who have more than one child. Some environmentalists -- a small minority -- eye this idea jealously.

There is a far better way -- and it is something we should be pursuing anyway. It is called feminism. Where women have control over their own bodies -- through contraception, abortion and general independence -- they choose not to be perpetually pregnant. The UN Fund For Population Activities has calculated that 350 million women in the poorest countries didn't want their last child, but didn't have the means to prevent it. We should be helping them by building a global anti-Vatican, distributing the pill and the words of Mary Wollstonecraft.

So after studying the evidence, I am left in a position I didn't expect. Yes, the argument about overpopulation is distasteful, often discussed inappropriately, and far from being a panacea -- solution -- but it can't be dismissed entirely. It will be easier for 6 billion people to cope on a heaving, boiling planet than for nine or 10 billion -- and we will only get there by freeing women to make their own reproductive choices. To achieve this green goal, it's necessary to mix some oestrogen into the environmentalist palette.

Johann Hari is a writer for the Independent newspaper. To read more of his articles, click here or here.
Read more: Environment, Abortion, Women's Rights, Abortion Rights, Green Living, Feminism, Carbon Footprint, The Pill, Overpopulation, Famine, Mass Starvation, China, Global Warming, Politics News