Survey of Pakistan's youth a warning to us all
British Council report foresees a nightmare scenario

SOUTH ASIA
Sabrina Tavernise
Nov 23, 2009           
     
      

  



Pakistan will face a "demographic disaster" if it does not address the needs of its young generation, the largest in the country's history, whose views reflect a deep disillusionment with government and democracy, according to a report.

Commissioned by the British Council and conducted by the Nielsen research company, the report drew a picture of a deeply frustrated young generation that feels abandoned by its government and despondent about its future.

An overwhelming majority of young Pakistanis say their country is heading in the wrong direction, the report said, and only one in 10 has confidence in the government. Most see themselves as Muslim first and Pakistani second, and they are now entering a workforce in which the lion's share cannot find jobs, a potentially volatile situation if the government cannot address its concerns.

"This is a real wake-up call for the international community," said David Steven, a fellow at the Centre for International Co-operation at New York University, who was an adviser on the report. "You could get rapid social and economic change. But the other route will lead to a nightmare that would unfold over 20 to 30 years."

The report provides an unsettling portrait of a difficult time for Pakistan, a 62-year-old nuclear-armed country that is fighting an insurgency in its western mountains and struggling to provide for its rapidly expanding population. The population has risen by almost half in just 20 years, a pace that is double the world average, according to the report.

The despair among the young generation is rooted in the condition of their lives, the report found. Only a fifth of those interviewed had permanent full-time jobs. Half said they did not have sufficient skills to enter the workplace. And one in four could not read or write, a legacy of the country's abysmal public education system, in which less than 40 per cent of children are enrolled in school, far below the South Asian average of 58 per cent.

While most do not trust their government, they attach their loyalty to religion. Three-quarters identified themselves primarily as Muslim, with just one in seven identifying themselves as Pakistani.

The demographic power of this generation represents a turning point for Pakistan. Its energy, if properly harnessed, could power an economic rise, as was the case in many East Asian countries in the 1990s, Steven said.

But if the opportunity was squandered by insufficient investment in areas such as education and health care, the country would face a demographic disaster, the report said. To avoid that, the authors of the report calculated that Pakistan's economy would need to grow by 36 million jobs in the next decade - about a quarter the size of the US economy - an enormous challenge in an economy that is growing by about a million jobs a year.

Pakistan has a long way to go. The study interviewed 1,226 Pakistanis aged 18 to 29, from different backgrounds across the country, in March and April. More than 70 per cent said they were worse off financially than they were last year. This year's budget earmarks just 2 per cent of the economy for education, about half the percentage spent in India and Turkey.

Life in rural areas is rudimentary. The report cites data showing that 40 per cent of households have no electricity, and that animal dung and leftover waste from crops account for more than 80 per cent of the country's energy use.

Young people's biggest concern - far above terrorism - was inflation, which rose to 23 per cent this year, pushing 7 per cent of Pakistanis back into poverty, the report said. More than 90 per cent agreed better- quality education was a priority.

There were bright spots. The young people were civic-minded, with a third saying the purpose of education was to create good citizens. They were also more interested in collective action and volunteer activities than their parents.

Nevertheless, they were deeply disillusioned with politics, which they saw as corrupt and based on a system in which personal connections mattered more than merit.

That sentiment is borne out by the global competitiveness index of 133 countries produced by the World Economic Forum, which this year put Pakistan in slot 101, two notches below Nigeria.

"Here a student struggles day and night, but the son of a rich man, by giving money, gets higher marks than him," the report quoted a young man in Lahore as saying.

That led to one of the report's most surprising findings: Only a third of those polled thought democracy was the best system for Pakistan, equal to the number that preferred Islamic law, in what David Martin, director of the British Council in Pakistan, called "an indictment of the failures of democracy over many years".

Only one in 10 said they were "very interested" in political events in Pakistan, while more than a third said they were not interested at all.

The highest-ranking institution was Pakistan's military. Sixty per cent of those interviewed said that they trusted it. Second-highest was religious educational institutions, trusted by about 50 per cent of respondents. The national government came last at 10 per cent.

If the government has failed to channel the energy of Pakistan's youth, militant groups have succeeded, drawing educated and uneducated young people with slogans of jihad (holy war) and social justice.

The findings were sobering for Pakistani officials. Faisal Subzwari, minister of youth affairs for Sindh province, who attended the presentation of the report in Lahore, said: "These are the facts. They might be cruel, but we have to admit them."

Young Pakistanis have demonstrated their appetite for collective action, with thousands of people taking to the streets last spring as part of a movement of lawyers, who were demanding the reinstatement of the chief justice, and Steven argued that the country's future would depend on how that energy was channelled.

"Can Pakistan harness this energy?" he asked. "Or will it continue to fight against it?"

The New York Times


http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/ ... sight&s=Opinion

Growing status
Following Barack Obama's visit, it is clear that the US sees China as much more of an equal than before

Shen Dingli
Nov 24, 2009           
     
      

  



With US President Barack Obama's visit to China just finished, there's much to contemplate with regard to the dynamics between the two nations that many, rightly or wrongly, are calling a G2. Obama came to China attempting to settle the direction of America's relationship with the People's Republic, and left with increasing China's international standing by mostly accepting the Chinese terms of the relationship.

Seen from a historical context, for the first time, China is much more equal to America, partly through its rise and partly due to America's stagnancy. Obama's visit reaffirmed the recognition that the two countries share far more common ground than differences, and they aspire to expand co-operation and handle differences respectfully rather than in a confrontational manner.

The two countries made encouraging headway on a number of issues. The US vowed not to contain China, and China welcomed America to make the Asia-Pacific region more peaceful, stable and prosperous.

On the most perennially thorny issue of Taiwan, Obama and President Hu Jintao agreed to respect national sovereignty and territorial integrity as the fundamental principle - a code for recognition of China's unchallenged rule of Tibet and Xinjiang .

There is delicate balancing on the Taiwan question. Obama mentioned the Three Communiques but not the Taiwan Relations Act (the congressional mandate requiring the US to come to Taiwan's defence in case of need), when answering a question in his town-hall meeting in Shanghai, but he balanced this at the press conference in Beijing.

However, in the joint statement, again the Taiwan Relations Act didn't surface, probably due to Beijing's opposition.

The US and China agreed to lift their military exchange next year to a higher level and with greater frequency, and to resume the dialogue on human rights. They also agreed to exchange intelligence on transnational crime. China and the US agreed to assure the success of the Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference next year, and will each push for the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Indeed, if they will ratify the treaty, Indonesia, India and Pakistan are likely to feel compelled to do so.

At a strategic level, China and the US agreed to continue to push for North Korea's nuclear disarmament. Beijing welcomes a pending high-level contact between the US and North Korea, in the hope that this could help resume the six-party talks.

But the outcome of successful co-operation could turn out to be slim, as Pyongyang is not likely to accept US terms that Obama made in Seoul after his Beijing visit. That is, America is ready to help the North integrate into the international community only as long as Pyongyang dismantles its nuclear weapons programme comprehensively, verifiably and irreversibly.

Surprisingly, some vital issues for the US, like currency exchange, which loomed large before the summit, were shelved for future negotiation. Obama didn't seem to be interested in pushing hard for China to appreciate its currency, which is viewed as undervalued. It is understood that China would not make a tangible commitment to appreciating its currency.

Instead, the two sides decided to take a "forward-looking" currency policy, linking domestic currency to the global economy.

Regarding economic development, China and the US made it clear that Beijing would adjust its economic structure and raise family income, increasing the contribution of domestic consumption to its economic output.

For America's part, Obama committed to increasing private saving to advance sustainable development. Despite the pledge of co-operation in the joint statement, the two countries remain apprehensive of each other's defence build-up.

Obama's "courtesy diplomacy" seemed to win favour among the general public in China. However, while his visit demonstrated the ever-strengthening bond between them, the US and China still differ on many crucial areas, such as human rights, Taiwan, Tibet, currency exchange and trade protectionism.

In the end, the general tone of Obama's visit was positive. When addressing some of their tough differences, both governments expressed a desire to deal with each other with respect, and to deepen strategic ties. When Obama announced that the US will promote a programme to send some 100,000 American students to China in the next four years, his administration appeared to pay respect to a rising power.

China is on the verge of becoming the world's second-biggest economy. A realistic US president has to form a partnership with this rising power with more equality and mutual respect. Not only has his visit helped enthrone China as a more equal power, but the recent concession on the US Federal Aviation Administration certification of Chinese commercial jets - so far denied - could allow China to compete with Boeing. The world is truly entering a new stage where the US and China collaborate for the common good, but compete when their national interests diverge.

Shen Dingli is a professor and director of the Centre for American Studies and executive dean of the Institute of International Studies at Fudan University in Shanghai. Reprinted with permission from YaleGlobal Online. (http://yaleglobal.yale.edu)


http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/ ... ss=China&s=News

Health care debate is really about values


David Brooks
Nov 25, 2009           
     
      

  



It's easy to get lost in the weeds when talking about health care reform. But, like all great public issues, the US health care debate is fundamentally a debate about values. It's a debate about what kind of country we want America to be.

During the early decades of America's existence, it was a wide-open, dynamic country with a rapidly expanding economy. It was also a country that tolerated a large amount of cruelty and pain - poor people living in misery and workers suffering from exploitation.

Over the years, Americans decided they wanted a little more safety and security. This is what happens as nations grow wealthier; they use money to buy civilisation.

Occasionally, our ancestors found themselves in a sweet spot. They could pass legislation that brought security but without a cost to vitality. But adults know that this situation is rare. In the real world, there's usually a trade-off. The unregulated market wants to direct capital to the productive and the young. Welfare policies usually direct resources to the vulnerable and the elderly. Most social welfare legislation, even successful legislation, siphons money from the former to the latter.

Early in this health care reform process, many of us thought we were in that magical sweet spot. We could extend coverage to the uninsured but also improve the system overall to lower costs. That is, we thought it would be possible to reduce the suffering of the vulnerable while simultaneously squeezing money out of the wasteful system and freeing it up for more productive uses.

That's what the management gurus call a win-win.

It hasn't worked out that way. The bills before Congress would almost certainly ease the anxiety of the uninsured, those who watch with terror as their child or spouse grows ill, who face bankruptcy and ruin.

And the bills would probably do it without damaging the care the rest of us receive. In every place where reforms have been tried, people come to cherish their new benefits. The new plans become politically untouchable.

But, alas, there would be trade-offs. Instead of reducing costs, the bills in Congress would probably raise them. They would mean that more of the nation's wealth would be siphoned off from productive uses and shifted into a still-wasteful health care system.

The bottom line is that we face a brutal choice.

Reform would make us a more decent society, but also a less vibrant one. It would ease the anxiety of millions at the cost of future growth. It would heal a wound in the social fabric while piling another expensive and untouchable promise on top of many such promises we've already made. America would be a less youthful, ragged and unforgiving nation, and a more middle-aged, civilised and sedate one.

We all have to decide what we want at this moment in history, vitality or security. We can debate this or that provision, but where we come down will depend on that moral preference. Don't get stupefied by technical details. This debate is about values.

David Brooks is a New York Times columnist


http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/ ... sight&s=Opinion

Dollar's rise a precedent for the unstoppable yuan


Barry Eichengreen
Nov 26, 2009           
     
      

  



China is making a big push to encourage greater international use of the yuan. It has an agreement with Brazil to facilitate use of the two countries' currencies in bilateral trade transactions. It has signed yuan-swap agreements with Argentina, Belarus, Hong Kong, Indonesia, South Korea and Malaysia. Last summer, it expanded yuan settlement agreements between Hong Kong and five mainland cities, and authorised HSBC Holdings (SEHK: 0005, announcements, news) to sell yuan bonds in Hong Kong. Then, in September, Beijing issued in Hong Kong about US$1 billion worth of yuan-denominated bonds.

Such initiatives aim to reduce dependence on the US dollar by encouraging importers, exporters and investors to make more use of the yuan. The ultimate goal is to ensure that China eventually gains the flexibility and financial prerogatives that come with being a reserve-currency country.

No one questions that the yuan is on the rise. And no one questions that, one day, the yuan will be an important international currency.

The question is when. Cautious observers warn that making the yuan a true international currency will take time. Making it attractive for international use will require China to build deep and liquid financial markets. This will mean the development of more reliable and transparent clearing and settlement systems. This takes time.

Those markets will have to be open to the rest of the world: China will have to fully open its capital account. This will require putting banks and state-owned enterprises on a fully commercial footing, and moving to a more flexible exchange rate. Such fundamental changes in the Chinese growth model will not be completed overnight.

But America's own history suggests that the process can be completed more quickly than is sometimes supposed. As late as 1914, the dollar played no international role. No central bank held its foreign reserves in dollars. No one issued foreign bonds in dollars. Instead, they all went to London.

This changed in 1914, with the creation of the Federal Reserve System. One of the Fed's first actions was to encourage the development of a market in trade acceptances, the instrument used to finance imports and exports. As a result of this official support, private investors gained confidence in the new instrument, and the market in trade acceptances became more liquid.

New York surpassed London as a source of trade finance by the mid-1920s. At this point, the Fed could give the market over to private investors. Where private investors led, central banks followed. By the late 1920s, they held more of their reserves in dollars than sterling. The rise of the new international currency had taken barely a decade.

China has targeted 2020 as the date by which Beijing and Shanghai should become leading global financial centres. By implication, that is the date by which they want to see the yuan become a leading international currency.

Can that happen in as little as a decade? Only time will tell. But US history suggests that this schedule, while ambitious, is not impossible.

Barry Eichengreen is professor of economics and political science at the University of California, Berkeley


http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/ ... sight&s=Opinion

The politics of rage in a jobless society


David Ignatius
Nov 27, 2009           
     
      

  



For a political horror show, fast forward to the summer of 2010: the US jobless rate is stubbornly high, hovering in a range between 9.3 per cent and 9.7 per cent. Companies are wary about hiring more workers because the economy remains soft. Small businesses, which normally power a recovery, are caught in a credit squeeze.

In this scenario, the jobs outlook will remain bleak for another year. Unemployment will remain well above 8 per cent in 2011. And the US economy won't bounce back completely for another five years.

The Democrats, in our scary 2010 movie, will be heading towards the mid-term elections hoping to keep their 81-seat margin in the House. Vulnerable incumbents will be clamouring for more economic stimulus, but the administration will be constrained by the huge budget deficits needed to bail out the economy after the 2008 crisis.

I wish this economic forecast were just a bad dream after too much Thanksgiving turkey. But it's drawn from the minutes of the Federal Reserve's November 3-4 meeting, released last week. It's a genuinely troubling document, as much for its political implications as for its number-crunching. It draws a picture of a nation of unfair and unequal sacrifices, where Wall Street is recovering even as Main Street continues to pay the bills.

If the Fed's projections are right, the public is going to be very angry next year - at big business and at the elected officials who have spent trillions of dollars without putting the country fully back to work.

The Fed struggled to answer the basic question that is haunting policymakers: Why has unemployment remained so high, even as the economy has started to grow again and the stock market has been on a tear? The Fed's answer is that businesses, having been burned by the recession, are wary about adding more workers or making new investments. Like consumers who have just discovered the virtues of saving, their prudence - however sensible on an individual basis - is a collective drag on the economy.

"Business contacts reported that they would be cautious in their hiring," the Fed minutes note. "[They] expected that businesses would be able to meet any increases in demand in the near term by raising their employees' hours and boosting productivity, thus delaying the need to add to their payrolls."

If hiring hasn't bounced back, neither has lending. "Bank loans continued to contract sharply in all categories," the Fed reports.

Putting the figures together, the Fed predicts that, despite a growing economy, unemployment will be between 8.2 per cent and 8.6 per cent during 2011, down only about a percentage point from 2010. And here's the scariest line of all in the Fed minutes: "Most participants anticipated that five or six years would be needed for the economy to converge fully to a longer-run path" and a normal job market.

The politics of rage aren't pretty. But, in this case, it's hard to argue that the anger isn't justified. The Fed's analysis shows what we see in the daily stock-market summaries. People on the top are recovering their losses; people on the bottom are out of work and out of luck.

David Ignatius is a Washington Post columnist


http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/ ... sight&s=Opinion

Blurry line between brain and machine


Jens Clausen
Nov 30, 2009           
     
      

  



We are so surrounded by gadgetry today that it is sometimes hard to tell where devices end and people begin. From computers and scanners to mobile devices, an increasing number of humans spend much of their conscious lives interacting with the world through electronics, the only barrier between brain and machine being the senses - sight, sound and touch - through which humans and devices interact. But remove those senses from the equation and electronic devices can become our eyes, ears and even arms and legs, taking in the world around us and interacting with it through software and hardware.

This is no mere prediction. Brain-machine interfaces are clinically well established - for example, in restoring hearing through cochlear implants. And patients with end-stage Parkinson's disease can be treated with deep brain stimulation. Experiments on neural prosthetics point to the enormous potential of similar interventions, whether retinal or brain-stem implants for the blind or brain-recording devices for controlling prostheses.

Non-invasive brain-machine interfaces have restored the communication skills of paralysed patients. Animal research and some human studies suggest that full control of artificial limbs in real time could further offer the paralysed an opportunity to grasp or even to stand and walk on brain-controlled, artificial legs, albeit probably through invasive means, with electrodes implanted directly in the brain. Advances in neurosciences, and microelectronic miniaturisation, will enable more widespread application of brain-machine interfaces. This could be seen to challenge our notions of personhood and moral agency. And the question will arise that, if functions can be restored for those in need, is it right to use these technologies to enhance the abilities of healthy individuals?

But the ethical problems that these technologies pose are conceptually similar to those presented by existing therapies.

To make the distinction between enhancement and treatment requires defining normality and disease, which is notoriously difficult. For example, Christopher Boorse, a philosopher at the University of Delaware, defines disease as a statistical deviation from "species-typical functioning".

From this perspective, cochlear implants seem ethically unproblematic. Nevertheless, Anita Silvers, a philosopher at San Francisco State University and a disability scholar and activist, has described such treatments as "tyranny of the normal", aimed at adjusting the deaf to a world designed by the hearing, ultimately implying the inferiority of deafness.

We should take such concerns seriously, but they should not prevent further research on brain-machine interfaces. Brain technologies should be presented as one option, but not the only solution, for, say, paralysis or deafness. In this and other medical applications, we are well prepared to deal with ethical questions in parallel to, and in co-operation with, neuroscientific research.

Jens Clausen is research assistant at the Institute for Ethics and History of Medicine, Tubingen, Germany. Copyright: Project Syndicate



http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/ ... sight&s=Opinion

Good policies prove to be bad politics


J. Bradford DeLong
Dec 01, 2009           
     
      

  



From the day after the collapse of Lehman Brothers last year, the policies followed by the US Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and the Bush and Obama administrations, have been sound and helpful. The alternative - letting the markets handle things - would have brought America and the world even higher unemployment.
The fact that investment bankers did not go bankrupt last December and are now profiting immensely is a side issue. Every extra percentage point of unemployment lasting for two years costs US$400 billion. A recession twice as deep as the one we have had would have cost America US$2 trillion - and cost the world four times as much.



In comparison, the bonuses at Goldman Sachs are a rounding error, and any attempt to make investment bankers suffer more last autumn and winter would have put the entire support operation at risk.

The Obama administration's fiscal stimulus has also significantly helped the economy. Though the jury is still out on the effect of the tax cuts, aid to states has been a job-saving success.

And the cost of carrying the extra debt incurred is extraordinarily low: US$12 billion a year of extra taxes would be enough to finance the fiscal-stimulus programme at current interest rates. For that price, American taxpayers will get an extra US$1 trillion of goods and services, and employment will be higher by about 10 million job-years.

The valid complaints about fiscal policy over the past 14 months are not that it has run up the national debt and rewarded the princes of Wall Street but, rather, that it has been too limited. Yet these policies are political losers now: nobody is proposing more stimulus. This is strange because usually, when something works, the natural impulse is to do it again.

With respect to Obama's stimulus package, there has been extraordinary intellectual and political dishonesty on the American Right, which the press refuses to see.

Obama's Republican opponents, who claim that fiscal stimulus cannot work, rely on arguments that are incoherent at best, and usually simply wrong, if not mendacious.

A stronger argument, though not by much, is that the fiscal stimulus is boosting employment and production, but at too great a long-term cost because it has produced too large a boost in America's national debt. If interest rates on US Treasury securities were high and rising rapidly as the debt grew, I would agree. But interest rates on US Treasury securities are very low and are not rising.

Those who claim America has a debt problem, and that a debt problem cannot be cured with more debt, ignore (sometimes deliberately) that private debt and US Treasury debt have been very different animals since the start of the financial crisis.

What the market is saying is not that the economy has too much debt, but that it has too much private debt. The market is also saying the economy has too little public US government debt, which is why everyone wants to hold it.

J. Bradford DeLong is professor of economics at the University of California at Berkeley and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research


http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/ ... sight&s=Opinion

Too much too young


ALEX LO

Dec 03, 2009           
     
      

  



Hong Kong parents are sick, sick, sick. Many project their own profound ignorance, twisted values and phobias onto their children in the hope of turning them into geniuses or CEOs, giving them a head start on everyone else or at least making them into their clones.

Predictably, this translates into heavy school work coupled with an insane amount of extracurricular activities. What's a kid to do after school? Take extra language lessons, learn two or more musical instruments and start doing maths a grade or two ahead of the rest. Children in poor countries are often made to work long hours; we should count ourselves lucky we make our children study for those hours.

This kind of all-work-and-no-play lifestyle for children has gone on for years, but the children who are subject to this de facto abuse are getting younger and younger. Not content with a normal kindergarten session, many parents are now sending their children to a second school in the afternoon. So now we have three- to six-year-olds who work longer hours than you or me at the office each day. And they may well have more homework to do.

The latest trend of enrolling children in two kindergartens stems from the free voucher scheme introduced by the government two years ago. It means: pay one, get one free, courtesy of the government. I do not blame the scheme for causing this new trend. It has many flaws, but one cannot argue against a programme that tries to extend free or subsidised schooling to kindergarten. It's the right thing for the government to do.

But, like everything else about the government's education reform, poor planning and implementation enable vested interests and parents to twist them into more child torture. The pre-primary voucher scheme entitles each child attending a non-profit kindergarten offering a Chinese-language curriculum - subject to a price ceiling - to receive a voucher worth HK$12,000.

So, parents send their children to a local school in the morning for free or the cost is partially subsidised, depending on the fees. And they use their own money to pay for an international or English-language kindergarten in the afternoon. Far from discouraging this practice, many kindergartens actively encourage it by ending some morning sessions early to enable pupils to change uniforms and prepare for afternoon classes at another school. And why not? Everyone gets a bigger slice of the pie.

An anonymous parent defended the practice on the parenthood website baby-kingdom.com: "After leaving half-day school, children raised by helpers and grannies usually just watch TV, play video games or take afternoon naps for the rest of the day. It is time wasting." Perhaps he should spend more quality time with his own children.

The practice also points to something deeply ugly about many Hong Kong people. When there is a free lunch, not taking it would be a crime. If you send your child to an international or English-language kindergarten, you forfeit your voucher. What fool would do that? Doubling kindergarten sessions can be seen as an easy way out of the dilemma, even if that means experimenting with your child's development.

Most parents mean well. They may well produce superior human beings this way. But I rather think they will create more stunted children who - when they reach teenage years - become profoundly incurious, self-centred, emotionally underdeveloped and lack independence. When they reach adulthood, their problems and inadequacies are transferred to the job market and the larger economy - a lack of entrepreneurship, curiosity, and communication and other interpersonal skills, as well as an inability to think independently and take risks. The life of the mind is not cultivated by mindless drilling. Nowhere else is Philip Larkin's infamous poem, This Be The Verse, truer than here:

"They f*** you up, your mum and dad.

They may not mean to, but they do.

They fill you with the faults they had

And add some extra, just for you."


Alex Lo is a senior writer at the Post. [email protected]


http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/ ... lumns&s=Opinion

Dubai's opulence part mirage, part miracle


Kenneth Rogoff
Dec 04, 2009           
     
      

  



Global investors are in a giant huff over Dubai's decision to allow its flagship private company, Dubai World, to seek a six-month standstill (implying at least partial default) on payments on some US$26 billion in debt. What exactly did investors expect when they purchased bonds in companies with names like "Limitless World", one of Dubai World's bankrupt property subsidiaries? Talk about a bubble mentality.

The idea, I guess, was that the emirate's government would stand behind every loan, no matter how risky. And if the oil-poor Dubai government didn't have the money then, somehow, its oil-rich sister state, Abu Dhabi, would cough up the cash.

An absurd expectation, one might think. But it is hardly more improbable than many of the other massive bailouts we have seen around the world in the wake of the recent financial crisis. What really upset investors, of course, was the realisation that, yes, some day, untenable debt guarantees will have to be withdrawn. Eventually, an overleveraged world is going to have to find a way to cut debt burdens down to size, and it won't be pretty.

There are those that revel in what they see as a comeuppance for brash Dubai's outsized ambitions. I, for one, do not share this view. Yes, Dubai, with its man-made islands and roof-top tennis courts, is a real-world castle in the sand. Yet Dubai has also shown the rest of the Middle East what entrepreneurial spirit can accomplish.

Yes, Dubai is certainly an autocratic state where finances are tightly and secretively controlled. But, in many ways, Dubai's rulers have been remarkably tolerant of free expression.

Of course, other countries in the Gulf also have some stunning accomplishments to their credit. Saudi Arabia's national oil company has achieved home-grown expertise in oil drilling that is widely admired in the West. Qatar has had success in the media with Al-Jazeera, while Abu Dhabi has helped sponsor remarkable advances in artificial intelligence though its support of computer chess. But Dubai, with very little black gold of its own, has done more with less than any other state in the region.

Unfortunately, Dubai ultimately proved subject to the laws of financial gravity. This time was not different. Massive speculation and borrowing led to excessive debt burdens and, ultimately, to default.

Is this the end of the road for Dubai's epic growth? I doubt it. Countries throughout the world and throughout history have defaulted on their debts and lived to talk about it, even prosper. There is no way around the need for Dubai to restructure and prune its excesses before it can resume a more sustainable growth trajectory, though achieving this will take time.

Will there be contagion to vulnerable countries in Europe and elsewhere? Not just yet. While the Dubai case is not different, it is special, so the effect on investor confidence should be contained for now. But investors are learning the hard way that no country's possibilities and resources are limitless.

Kenneth Rogoff is professor of economics and public policy at Harvard University


http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/ ... sight&s=Opinion

Time and distance are the invisible enemies


Jim Hoagland
Dec 07, 2009           
     
      

  



US President Barack Obama's expansion of the war in Afghanistan meets the tests of strategic necessity abroad and political equilibrium at home. He can reasonably hope that his surge will buy time for things to improve, particularly in Pakistan, the war's vital theatre.

But even the dispatch of 30,000 new US troops to Afghanistan does not buy the president the power to change things there on his own. He is still the prisoner of context, an area he neglected in explaining his revised Afghan strategy last week.

Obama fights the invisible enemies of time and distance as well as the fanatics of al-Qaeda. US polls show falling support for the war, which can only reflect a lessening impact of the memory of the events of September 11, 2001.

Many of us experience this lessening, I suspect, even if we resist it. Albert Einstein suggested that the splitting of the atom changed everything except the way we think. Perhaps the same will be true of  9/11. In his speech, Obama recognised the challenge presented to his policies by the passage of time: "It's easy to forget that when this war began, we were united ... I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again."

But his speech did not immediately have that unifying effect. Most members of Congress quickly found points on which to disagree. He also received modest support from Nato, led by Italy's contribution of 1,000 new soldiers and new Polish and British deployments. But Germany stalled and France said it could not spare any more of its overstretched forces. Left unsaid was the fact that French President Nicolas Sarkozy is in no mood to do Obama favours after a series of ill-advised rebuffs by the US leader to the Frenchman.

More significantly, Sarkozy is increasingly concerned about the "Americanisation" of the war in Afghanistan. The influx of GIs will compound command-and-control problems for other foreign units and make them even more dependent on US tactics and strategy.

That is part of the context that Obama's new strategy does not directly address. An even more striking omission in his speech was any in-depth discussion of the civilian surge that is supposed to accompany the military build-up and provide improved living conditions and better governance.

The subject was minimised, I suspect, because there is not yet agreement among the president's advisers or Nato members on how to reorganise the present ineffective flow of financial aid and technical support for President Hamid Karzai's government.

Finally, Obama's new strategy fails to emphasise that the context of the events of September 11 endures, and constrains his actions, even as the force of that day's events fades.

It is a context of Islamic extremism nurtured not only in Afghanistan and neighbouring Pakistan, but also in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt and other countries that the US finds impossible to invade or strike. We are condemned to fight al-Qaeda on the ground in Afghanistan with greater and greater force because we cannot fight it directly on the battlefield elsewhere. Welcome to Obama's Catch-22.


Jim Hoagland is a Washington Post columnist



http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/ ... sight&s=Opinion

Advantage America


GREG TORODE

Dec 08, 2009           
     
      

  



About the best thing that can be said about US President Barack Obama's push into Afghanistan after eight years of war is that he has played the strongest cards from a bad hand of options. Outright positives are hard to spot. Even the word "victory" was conspicuous by its absence in Obama's appeal last week to his war-weary nation.

Yet, for regional strategists who fear that China's military build-up makes conflict with the US inevitable at some point, it may still produce an advantage for Washington - and a reason for Beijing to be cautious.

The prospect of a quagmire may play right into China's script that the US is a declining power, but such a view overlooks a key point. Washington's strength, reach and influence may indeed be on the wane but recent years of war on two fronts make it a battle-hardened foe and one able to make full use of its resources. The vast US military machine is now steeped in active warfare, far beyond anything experienced in more than a generation.

Military strategists of all shades know that this kind of experience is invaluable; it cannot be bought, or forged simply through the rigours of training and discipline. Hundreds of thousands of troops now have frontline experience, along with their officers - even America's "weekend soldiers", the volunteer National Guards, are battle-tested. Less visibly, nearly a decade of war also means the hard business of supply and logistics, and the computerised linking of command, control and communications with reconnaissance and intelligence assets, has been refined.

Significantly, those being promoted across the US armed services, including in the navy, tend to have experience in the Iraq or Afghanistan theatres, preferably both. That means the leadership for years to come will have experience of the demands of combat.

During the long decades of the cold war, the Pentagon prepared to fight in two hemispheres at the same time - a doctrine that became as much theoretical as practical. Now it has nearly a decade of fighting on two fronts and has learned the hard way just how difficult that is. Obviously, that experience has come at great expense to Washington - a bill in terms of political will and public exhaustion that has yet to be paid. But, in strategic terms, the future military importance of that experience is difficult to underestimate.

That experience feeds into the two great military questions of our age. "Great Power" theorists tell us history dictates that conflict between a power on the rise and a power on the slide will happen. It is a question then of when and how, rather than if.

Then there are the imponderables about how the Chinese military would perform, from the question of how the People's Liberation Army can link up its increasingly impressive array of assets, to doubts about leadership.

Certainly, any Sino-US conflict over, say, Taiwan, North Korea or a naval dispute that gets out of control, would be a world away from the counter-insurgency action mounted by the US in recent years. Yet, for all that, the region remains a strategic priority for Washington. Its Hawaii-based Pacific Command is its biggest, and it is growing.

Intriguingly, Beijing has faced a battle-hardened foe in the recent past. In early 1979, PLA forces surged across China's border with Vietnam under orders of Deng Xiaoping to "teach Vietnam a lesson" for its invasion of Cambodia. The battle raged for just a month but proved exceptionally bloody. Despite having their best units tied down in Cambodia, Vietnamese soldiers and village militias killed tens of thousands of Chinese troops in a resolute defence honed during three decades of constant war.

The impoverished but highly motivated forces of Vietnam three decades ago are obviously a different proposition to today's US military, just as the PLA is a much more advanced creature.

But whether the lessons of its last military adventure have been relearned, however, is a question that a nervous region hopes will remain theoretical.

Greg Torode is the Post's chief Asia correspondent. [email protected]


http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/ ... lumns&s=Opinion

Reforming harsh system is better than nothing


LEADER

Dec 09, 2009           
     
      

  



When it comes to economic development, there is not one China but several. The rich coastal regions are the envy of those who live in the rural and much poorer interior. This has caused an unprecedented mass migration in the past two decades by people in search of jobs and a better life. But the pace of urbanisation, breathtaking though it is, cannot keep up with the population pressure. Draconian measures - based on the old permanent household registration system - or hukou - not only fail to stem the tide but make migrants more vulnerable to exploitation.

The hukou, introduced in the 1950s, forces people to stay in their designated areas, outside of which they are denied essential social services and even job opportunities. Some of its harsher measures are now being reversed, especially in Guangdong, which has more migrant workers than any other province. Rudimentary pension, unemployment and industrial injury insurance have been introduced since the start of the financial crisis. These are a step in the right direction, but need to be extended much further to truly benefit Guangdong's 26 million migrant workers. Other provinces should follow its example.

Now Guangdong plans to experiment with a points system by which qualified migrants can earn permanent residency. The scheme targets migrants with higher education, special skills and financial resources. It largely resembles the qualified migrant scheme used in Hong Kong to screen for applicants whose presence or skills are considered beneficial to the city. Under the Guangdong system, migrants who score high points will enjoy social services. The more points earned, the more benefits become available. For example, those who accumulate 70 points will qualify for health care not only for themselves but for their children. Eighty points will enable one's children to attend free public schools. But only those with a full 100 points will qualify for household residence. To the extent that the system, believed to be a first on the mainland, will extend social welfare to more people, it should be welcomed. But it aims to benefit only a small number of privileged migrants.

Most migrant workers simply lack the special skills and resources the system looks for. Such workers have laboured for years outside their hukou and find themselves, along with their spouses and children, treated like second-class citizens. Their sweat and blood have helped build the glittering cities along the mainland's southern coast. Yet without a social safety net, they are easily exploited by unscrupulous bosses who realise they are under pressure to keep their jobs to feed themselves and their families. In major cities such as Shenzhen, up to half the working population is made up of migrant workers.

Unfortunately, the hukou is likely to be retained in the near future. Like the mainland's one-child policy, it has, to an extent, helped maintain social stability and avoid widespread disruption. But its strict application is often seen by critics as a gross violation of human rights. Realistically, though, the mainland is not rich enough to enable people to move and work freely across the country. Still, this does not justify denying basic rights and services to long-time migrant workers. They deserve better for the back-breaking contributions they have made to the nation's economy. Mainland authorities need to extend the social safety net and devise a more equitable welfare system to mitigate the harsher effects of the hukou system and, eventually, to replace it.


http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/ ... ss=China&s=News

Africa's central role in fighting climate change


Jean-Michel Severino
Dec 10, 2009           
     
      

  



Although the responsibility of industrialised countries and emerging economies in the battle against carbon emissions is well known, Africa's place in the climate agenda has been largely neglected. Sub-Saharan emissions, estimated at only 3 per cent to 4 per cent of global man-made emissions, are deemed of little interest. Yet Africa is central to the global environmental crisis in two important ways.

First, Africa would be the first victim of major climate disturbance - with side effects on the whole planet. Experts predict that the continent will experience some of the gravest changes, whereas the capacity of African societies to respond to them is among the weakest in the world.

Several African countries are already experiencing reduced rainfall, soil degradation and the depletion of precious natural resources, which has a direct impact on the livelihoods of two-thirds of sub-Saharan Africans. The economic, social, migratory and security consequences of such vulnerability on the rest of the world cannot be ignored.

Second, Africa is one of the important actors in the global environmental crisis. Because of its vast natural heritage, the continent contains some of the most potent solutions to climate change. The Congo Basin represents the second-largest mass of tropical forest in the world, with 220 million hectares. This gigantic carbon-capture machine is, like agricultural land, one of the essential elements of climate control. And, yet, Africa's forest coverage fell by 10 per cent between 1990 and 2005 - more than half the recorded global shrinkage. Moreover, Africa will experience by far the largest growth in energy requirements of any world region in the next 50 years. The fight against climate change will be waged in large part over whether Africa's energy needs are met with fossil fuels or renewable energies.

It is vital that the Copenhagen delegates promote Africa's contribution to the world's delicate climatic balance. Efforts to preserve Africa's natural resources and to exploit the vast potential of its renewable energies are not free. But if Africa's carbon-storage capacity is viewed as a global public good, as it should be, then everyone should contribute to its provision.

Three promising tracks will have to materialise rapidly. The first consists of increasing the use of existing tools, such as clean development mechanisms, which enable actors from rich countries to promote projects that reduce emissions in developing countries.

The second track is official recognition of the carbon storage of African lands and forests, as well as rewards for "avoided deforestation". Africa has much to gain by making itself the guardian of a heritage that is essential to humanity's survival.

Finally, the "climate justice" plan, sponsored by France and others in Copenhagen, which aims to increase Africans' access to clean energy, is crucial. Linking public and private efforts to provide 2 billion Africans with renewable energy will therefore be one of the major challenges of the coming decades.

Jean-Michel Severino is the CEO of the Agence Française de Developpement. Copyright: Project Syndicate

http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/ ... sight&s=Opinion

Too big to fail in the fight against fanaticism


Jim Hoagland
Dec 14, 2009           
     
      

  



In the streets of Tehran, young Iranians shout "Death to the Dictator" instead of "Death to America". Across the border, Iraqis worry that new violence, after months of relative calm, will undermine the political process they adopted under US pressure. But they also voice renewed determination to repel the sadists and killers who once dominated their land.

In Pakistan, a weak and unsavoury civilian president, Asif Ali Zardari, seems with US help to be prodding his duplicitous military to abandon its complicity with al-Qaeda and the Taliban and fight them as an existential threat to Pakistan and Afghanistan.

None of these developments is a cause for victory celebrations. They are still tentative. But, when measured against the conventional wisdom of a few years ago about the likely results of foreign intervention in a region that has been locked in turmoil and despotism for centuries, these events represent at least temporary progress.

They help underline US President Barack Obama's defence of his Afghan policy in his Nobel Peace Prize speech as a watershed event. In four decades, Americans have gone from the national certitude that there should be no US combat troops stationed in what was once called the "arc of crisis", to broadly accepting the notion that it is possible to devise an optimal US military presence in the Middle East and the Gulf.

Obama's aides have even sold the narrative that, through disciplined presidential quizzing of his own policymakers, we can arrive at the answer to whether 20,000, 40,000 or some other number of new troops will bring success in Afghanistan.

Today we are told by no less than a presidential Nobel laureate that there are, in fact, worse things than waging war in this region and we must fight in even the most unpromising circumstances to prevent them. History suggests that Obama is right in principle but will see much go wrong in practice.

This proved true of the non-intervention policy of the past, as well as the recent US-led invasions of Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. We wind up without control of the oil fields, which have created ruinous transfers of oceans of money to corrupt Middle East regimes and terrorist organisations, and with Iran seeking a nuclear weapon that will cause a region-wide atomic arms race.

The US would benefit from an independent, broad-ranging examination of its interests and policies in the greater Middle East undertaken by a presidential commission of former officials and academics. It would at least remind us that history does not march in a straight, predictable line.

In Oslo, and earlier this month at West Point, Obama sketched the stakes of the US war on fanaticism centred now in Afghanistan. He is challenging the world to assess the global consequences of permitting the US to fail there without significant help. In the end, the international community should decide that the US is too big - and too important to global stability - to fail.

Jim Hoagland is a Washington Post columnist


http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/ ... sight&s=Opinion

Two similar sets of laws, one basic difference


Frank Ching
Dec 15, 2009           
     
      

  



Following Portugal's Carnation Revolution of 1974, the new socialist government in Lisbon offered to return Macau to China but the offer was turned down. China knew that, if it took back Macau, there would be alarm in Hong Kong. The fates of Macau and Hong Kong were, and still are, very closely connected. In the end, China did not take Macau back until after the handover of Hong Kong from Britain.

Both Hong Kong and Macau were provided with a Basic Law by the National People's Congress. These mini-constitutions are largely similar, but with some significant differences. Each, for example, contains an Article 23 obliging the local government to enact laws prohibiting treason, secession, sedition and subversion against the central government.

With the 10th anniversary of the establishment of the Macau Special Administrative Region approaching on Sunday, a symposium was held in Beijing a week ago to mark the coming into effect of Macau's Basic Law.

Wu Bangguo, the NPC chairman, had words of praise for Macau that, to many, seemed like veiled criticism of Hong Kong. For one thing, he praised Macau's people because they "did not politicise conflicts and problems" and had properly handled relations between Macau and Beijing.

He also praised the patriotism of Macau's people and said they agreed that "Macau affairs are China's internal affairs" and they "resolutely oppose and resist interference by external forces". Furthermore, he said that the promulgation of Macau's state security law, in line with Article 23, had further strengthened local people's concept of nationhood.

He did not have to mention that Hong Kong has still not implemented Article 23 legislation after the fiasco in 2003, when half a million people marched to oppose the proposal.

No doubt, in Beijing's mind, many people in Hong Kong have not properly handled relations with the central government and so are not even allowed to travel to the mainland. They have also invited "interference by external forces" and politicised "conflicts and problems".

Of course, Chinese officials denied that the words were directed at Hong Kong. Li Gang, a deputy director of the central government's liaison office in Hong Kong, rejected the idea that Wu's remarks were actually criticism of Hong Kong.

Nonetheless, many Hong Kong politicians - and, no doubt, government officials - are interpreting Wu's remarks as pressure on the former British colony to implement Article 23. If this does not happen in the remaining years of Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen's term, no doubt the next chief executive will see it as one of his primary missions.

There are other striking differences between the Macau Basic Law and that of Hong Kong. For one thing, while Hong Kong's legislature is technically fully elected, albeit in various ways, Macau's has appointed members. The Macau Basic Law, speaking of the legislature, says simply: "The majority of its members shall be elected."

Unlike the Hong Kong Basic Law, which says the ultimate goal is the election of both the chief executive and all legislators by universal suffrage, the Macau Basic Law is silent on that point. Since China had two more years to ponder the provisions in the Macau Basic Law, it seems likely that they more accurately reflect Beijing's preferences.

The British lobbied hard for an elected legislature to be put first in the Joint Declaration, and then implemented in the Basic Law. The Portuguese, it seems, did not consider it important. The result is that Macau's much tamer population, which can probably be counted on to return chief executives and legislators acceptable to Beijing, have been denied such a right. Ironically, Hong Kong's much more assertive population is demanding such a right, and Beijing clearly does not feel comfortable about granting it.

Frank Ching is a Hong Kong-based writer and commentator

http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/ ... sight&s=Opinion

Obama revives the fight between good and evil


David Brooks
Dec 16, 2009           
     
      

  



If you were graduating from Princeton in the first part of the 20th century, you probably heard the university president, John Hibben, deliver one of his commencement addresses. Hibben's running theme, which was common at that time, was that each person is part angel, part devil. Life is a struggle to push back against the evils of the world without succumbing to the passions of the beast lurking inside.

You, and your generation, would have been aware that there is evil in the world, and the presence of Hitler and Stalin would have confirmed it. You would have known it is necessary to fight that evil.

At the same time, you would have had a lingering awareness of the sinfulness within yourself. As the cold-war strategist George F. Kennan would put it: "There is a little bit of the totalitarian buried somewhere, way down deep, in each and every one of us."

So, as you act to combat evil, you wouldn't want to get carried away by your own righteousness or be seduced by the belief that you are innocent. Even fighting evil can be corrupting. You would have also championed the spread of democracy, knowing that it is the only system that fits humanity's noble yet sinful nature. In short, you would have been a cold-war liberal.

Cold-war liberalism had a fine run in the middle third of the 20th century, and it has lingered here and there since. But, after Vietnam, most liberals moved on. It became unfashionable to talk about evil. Some liberals came to believe in the inherent goodness of man and the limitless possibilities of negotiation. Some blamed conflicts on weapons systems and pursued arms control. Some based their foreign-policy thinking on being against whatever president George W. Bush was for.

President Barack Obama never bought into these shifts. In the past few weeks, he has revived the Christian realism that underpinned cold-war liberal thinking and tried to apply it to a different world.

In 2002, Obama spoke against the Iraq war, but from the vantage point of a cold-war liberal. He said he was not against war per se, just this one, and he was booed by the crowd. In 2007, he spoke about the way US theologian Reinhold Niebuhr formed his thinking: "I take away the compelling idea that there's serious evil in the world and hardship and pain. And we should be humble and modest in our belief we can eliminate those things. But we shouldn't use that as an excuse for cynicism and inaction."

His speeches at West Point and Oslo are perfect explications of the liberal internationalist approach. He spoke of the high ideals of human rights activists and America's history as a vehicle for democracy, prosperity (SEHK: 0803, announcements, news) and human rights. Most of all, he talked about the paradox at the core of cold-war liberalism, of balancing "two seemingly irreconcilable truths" - that war is both folly and necessary.

He talked about the need to balance the moral obligation to champion freedom while not getting swept up in self-destructive fervour.

Obama has not always got this balance right. But his doctrine is becoming clear. The Oslo speech was the most profound of his presidency, and maybe his life.

David Brooks is a New York Times columnist


http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/ ... sight&s=Opinion

Gold may prove to be an illusory safe haven


Nouriel Roubini
Dec 17, 2009           
     
      

  



Gold prices have been rising sharply, breaching the US$1,000 barrier and, in recent weeks, rising towards US$1,200 an ounce and above. Today's "gold bugs" argue that the price could top US$2,000. But the recent price surge looks suspiciously like a bubble, with the increase only partly justified by economic fundamentals.

Gold prices rise sharply only in two situations: as a hedge when inflation is high and rising; and, when there is a risk of a near depression and investors fear for the security of their bank deposits, gold becomes a safe haven.

The last two years fit this pattern. Gold prices started to rise sharply in the first half of 2008, when emerging markets were overheating and commodity prices were rising. Even that rise was partly a bubble, which collapsed in the second half of 2008, when the world economy fell into recession. As concerns about deflation replaced fear of inflation, gold prices started to fall.

The second price spike occurred when Lehman Brothers collapsed, leaving investors scared about the safety of their financial assets. When that panic subsided, towards the end of 2008, gold prices resumed their downward movement.

Gold rose above US$1,000 again in February-March, when it looked like most of the financial system in the US and Europe might be near insolvency. That panic subsided - and gold prices started to drift down again - after US banks were subjected to "stress tests", and the global economy bottomed out.

So, with no near-term risk of inflation or depression, why have gold prices started to rise sharply again in the last few months? There are several reasons.

First, large, monetised fiscal deficits are fuelling concerns over medium-term inflation. Second, a massive wave of liquidity is chasing assets, including commodities, which may eventually stoke inflation further. Third, dollar-funded carry trades are pushing the US dollar sharply down, and the lower the dollar, the higher the dollar price of oil, gold and other commodities.

Fourth, the global supply of gold is limited, and demand is rising faster than can be met.

Finally, sovereign risk is rising - consider the troubles faced by investors in Dubai, Greece and other emerging markets and advanced economies.

But, since gold has no intrinsic value, there are significant risks of a downward correction. Eventually, central banks will need to exit quantitative easing and zero-interest rates, putting downward pressure on risky assets such as commodities. Or the global recovery may turn out to be fragile and anaemic, leading to a rise in bearish sentiment on commodities - and in bullishness about the US dollar.

Recent gold price rises are only partially justified by fundamentals. Nor is it clear why investors should stock up on gold if the global economy dips into recession again. If you truly fear a global meltdown, you should stock up on guns, canned food and other commodities you can actually use in your log cabin.

Nouriel Roubini is professor of economics at the Stern School of Business, NYU, and chairman of Roubini Global Economics. Copyright: Project Syndicate


http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/ ... sight&s=Opinion

Cities to the rescue
Many great metropolises are not waiting for their national governments to act on climate change

Christine Loh
Dec 18, 2009           
     
      

  



Whatever happens in Copenhagen today, we should take heart from the message city mayors around the world sent to climate-change negotiators earlier this week. More than a hundred mayors held their own summit in the Danish capital and told their respective country's ministers to be brave and commit to tough carbon-reduction targets because cities could deliver.

Copenhagen aims to become the first carbon-neutral city by 2025; it plans to reduce carbon emissions by 20 per cent by 2015, with a total of 50 initiatives to push it down to zero a decade later. For example, the city will build a new geothermal power plant, use more wind and biomass power, increase district heating and experiment with district cooling, as well as roll out hydrogen and electric vehicles.

Pedestrians and cyclists already have the right of way on roads designed to make life as smooth and speedy as possible for them. Whether in pleasant summer or freezing winter, Danes cycle - because it is the fastest way to get around. The mayor of the city, Ritt Bjerregaard, waxed lyrical about how children are encouraged to cycle from an early age, and how the city is constantly thinking of ways to make biking an even better experience. For example, very soon, cyclists will be able to use PDAs to tell friends where they are on their bike - a sort of Facebook for cyclists.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said it wasn't practical to wait for national governments to act because cities have to get on with the job of solving problems. Last year, New York pledged to reduce carbon emissions by 30 per cent in 10 years.

He said his city had copied Copenhagen, and now had 260 kilometres of cycle paths. Still more will be created, because New Yorkers want them. Moreover, America's largest city is working hard to retrofit old buildings to improve their energy efficiency; this is where the city has the best potential to reduce carbon emissions. Bloomberg stressed that thousands of jobs were being created through the mandating of building upgrades. All public buildings will be retrofitted, and it is estimated that the work will have paid for itself, with improved efficiency, in seven years. All buildings are now required to carry out energy audits and publish the energy-efficiency data online. This will give owners and tenants information and transparency, which in turn should result in more-energy-efficient buildings.

Hong Kong, like New York, also needs to focus on its buildings since they consume 89 per cent of electricity generated locally. The government has just introduced legislation on building energy codes, but lacks a retrofitting plan as aggressive as the Big Apple's. Hong Kong, without a mayor, was represented at the summit by environment minister Edward Yau Tang-wah. He talked about the government's HK$450 million "matching fund" for carrying out carbon audits; in eight months, 7,000 buildings had been registered to participate - representing one-sixth of the buildings in Hong Kong.

This is not bad, but Hong Kong can obviously push much harder to catch up with what other cities are doing.

In 2007, Hong Kong pledged to reduce its energy intensity from the 2005 level by at least 25 per cent by 2030. This is only a relative reduction, as it is tied to growth and represented the best efforts of the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum at the time.

Now that Beijing has unveiled an intensity target of 40 per cent to 45 per cent by 2020, compared with 2005 levels, Hong Kong obviously cannot remain where it is. Indeed, as the richest part of China, there is no shortage of things Hong Kong can do to spur green and low-carbon development, jobs and quality of life.

Perhaps one thing Hong Kong needs to do is stop emphasising the city's relatively "low" carbon emissions, at 6.7 tonnes per capita, and focus on the performance of our buildings relative to those in New York, Copenhagen, Tokyo and Singapore, an area where we do poorly.

It was good to hear Bjerregaard say: "Tell national leaders they don't have to worry - we [cities] can do it." Clearly, if we want to reduce emissions as quickly as possible, cities should be our main focus.

Christine Loh Kung-wai is chief executive of the think tank Civic Exchange and senior policy adviser to C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group

http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/ ... ong+Kong&s=News

Civic Party will be big loser if plan goes awry


Frank Ching
Dec 21, 2009           
     
      

  



It is ironic that the Democratic Party has rejected the plan formulated by the League of Social Democrats for a legislator from each electoral district to resign, triggering by-elections, while the Civic Party has embraced this radical move, which is fraught with danger.

After all, when the Civic Party was first formed, its leaders were seen as highly sophisticated professionals who were politically moderate and who would provide an alternative to the Democratic Party, which had a history of social activism that appealed to the grass roots.

But Hong Kong has seen growing political radicalism in recent years, reflected in the emergence of  the league and its loud-mouthed  banana-throwing representatives in the Legislative Council.

The Civic Party, by throwing its lot in with the party of "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung, is playing a high-risk game, changing its image and shifting its political base.

Actually, the whole idea of a "de facto referendum" is questionable. For one thing, will voters see it as a referendum or will they simply vote for the candidate of their choice?

If the election were a referendum, then it would not matter which candidate the league-Civic Party coalition put forward. However, this is clearly not the case.

Thus, the league's Albert Chan Wai-yip has offered not to seek re-election but to let former Democratic Party chairman Martin Lee Chu-ming run, to enhance the chances of electoral victory.

More to the point, what is the referendum supposed to be on? It has to be a very specific proposal but, so far, no such suggestion has been forthcoming. And even if a proposal is formulated and the league and Civic Party candidates run on that platform, there is no way they can insist that their opponents go along with them and allow this to be a single-issue election.

Of course, if the proposal is for universal suffrage in 2012, then probably all pro-establishment candidates will take the position that Beijing is already committed to universal suffrage in 2017, so it is pointless to campaign for any other year.

The entire pan-democratic camp stands to lose. The pro-government camp will certainly pool their resources and support a single candidate in each electoral district in an attempt to wrest one or two seats away from the incumbents.

If the league-Civic Party coalition fails to retain all five seats, the so-called "referendum" would be deemed a failure. And the pan-democratic coalition in the legislature would have been weakened, quite possibly to the extent that it may no longer be in a position to veto government proposals that require a two-thirds majority in Legco.

The pro-establishment parties will enter the by-elections with little to lose. After all, they are running for seats held by democrats.

Members of the league are street fighters. They have brought their tactics into the Legco chamber and opinion surveys show that a majority of voters oppose such behaviour. If the league loses a seat or two, its members can simply go back to the streets to continue their tactics.

The Civic Party, however, is different. Its leaders are barristers, not street fighters. If its members lose, they lose, period. They cannot turn to the streets. The Civic Party lacks the Democratic Party's grass-roots network, so the by-elections will not be easy for its candidates.

The Democratic Party, understandably, does not want to give the Civic Party anything beyond moral support. After all, active campaigning to urge Democratic Party supporters to vote for Civic Party candidates may result in the Democratic Party losing these supporters for good. Understandably, that is a risk no political party wants to take.

A lot more thought needs to go into this referendum idea. As it stands, the pan-democrats have everything to lose and little to gain.

Frank Ching is a Hong Kong-based writer and commentator. [email protected]


http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/ ... sight&s=Opinion

Global washout
Barack Obama must share much of the blame for the Copenhagen climate conference disaster

Jeffrey Sachs
Dec 22, 2009           
     
      

  



Two years of climate-change negotiations have ended in a farce in Copenhagen. Rather than grappling with complex issues, US President Barack Obama decided instead to declare victory with a vague statement of principles agreed with four other countries. The remaining 187 were handed a fait accompli, which some accepted and others denounced. After the fact, the UN has argued that the document was generally accepted, though for most on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

Responsibility for this disaster reaches far and wide. Let us start with George W. Bush, who ignored climate change for the eight years of his presidency, wasting the world's precious time. Then comes the UN, for managing the negotiating process so miserably during a two-year period. Then comes the European Union, for pushing relentlessly for a single-minded vision of a global emissions-trading system, even when such a system would not fit the rest of the world.

Then comes the US Senate, which has ignored climate change for 15 consecutive years since ratifying the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Finally, there is Obama, who effectively abandoned a systematic course of action under the UN framework, because it was proving nettlesome to US power and domestic politics.

Obama's decision to declare a phoney negotiating victory undermines the UN process by signalling that rich countries will do what they want and must no longer listen to the "pesky" concerns of many smaller and poorer countries. Some will view this as pragmatic, reflecting the difficulty of getting agreement with 192 UN member states. But it is worse than that. International law has been replaced by the insincere, inconsistent and unconvincing word of a few powers, notably the US. America has insisted that others sign on to its terms - leaving the UN process hanging by a thread - but it has never shown goodwill to the rest of the world on this issue, nor the ability or interest needed to take the lead on it.

From the standpoint of actual reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions, this agreement is unlikely to accomplish anything real. It is non-binding and will probably strengthen the forces of opposition to emissions reductions. Who will take seriously the extra costs of emissions reduction if they see how lax others' promises are?

The reality is that the world will now wait to see if the US accomplishes any serious emissions reduction. Grave doubts are in order on that score. Obama does not have the votes in the Senate, has not displayed any willingness to expend political capital to reach a Senate agreement, and may not even see a Senate vote on the issue next year unless he pushes much harder.

The Copenhagen summit also fell short on financial help from rich countries to poor nations. Plenty of figures were thrown around, but most of these were, as usual, empty promises. Aside from announcements of modest outlays for the next few years, which might - just might - add up to a real few billion dollars, the big news was a commitment of US$100 billion per year for the developing countries by 2020. Yet this figure was unaccompanied by any details about how it would be achieved.

Experience with financial aid for development teaches us that announcements about money a decade from now are mostly empty words. They do not bind the rich countries at all. There is no political will behind them. Indeed, Obama has never once discussed with the American people their responsibility under the UN Framework Convention to help poor countries adapt to the impact of climate change.

One of the most notable features of the US-led document is that it doesn't mention any intention to continue negotiations next year. This is almost surely deliberate. Obama has cut the legs out from under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, in effect declaring that America will do what it will do, but that it will not become further entangled in messy UN climate processes in 2010.

That stance might well reflect the upcoming 2010 mid-term Congressional elections in the US. Obama does not want to be trapped in the middle of unpopular international negotiations when election season arrives. He may also feel that such negotiations would not achieve much. Right or wrong on that point, the intention seems to be to kill the negotiations. If the US does not participate in further negotiations, Obama will prove to have been even more damaging to the international system of environmental law than Bush was.

For me, the image that remains of Copenhagen is that of Obama appearing at a press conference to announce an agreement that only five countries had yet seen, and then rushing off to the airport to fly back to Washington, to avoid a snowstorm back at home. He has taken on a grave responsibility in history. If his action proves unworthy, if the voluntary commitments of the US and others prove insufficient, and if future negotiations are derailed, it will have been Obama who single-handedly traded in international law for big-power politics on climate change.

Perhaps the UN will rally itself to get better organised. Perhaps Obama's gambit will work, the US Senate will pass legislation, and other countries will do their part as well. Or perhaps we have just witnessed a serious step towards global ruin through our failure to co-operate on a complex and difficult challenge that requires patience, expertise, goodwill and respect for international law - all of which were in short supply in Copenhagen.

Jeffrey D. Sachs is professor of economics and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. He is also a special adviser to the UN secretary general on the Millennium Development Goals. Copyright: Project Syndicate

http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/ ... 26+World&s=News

Great energy game


FRANK CHING

Dec 23, 2009           
     
      

  



Years of building friendship with the countries of Central Asia have paid off for China with the opening of a 1,833-kilometre pipeline last week that will bring natural gas from Turkmenistan through Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan to Xinjiang, where it will be piped to major cities in the east and south, possibly including Hong Kong.

Currently, China produces almost all the gas that it consumes. However, when it reaches full capacity, the pipeline will be capable of delivering 40 billion cubic metres of gas a year, more than half the amount that the country consumed last year.

At present, gas accounts for only about 3 per cent of mainland China's energy mix, with coal being predominant. But it wants gas to make up a larger component of that, because it is cleaner.

Beijing is scouring the world for oil and gas to fuel its economy and has successfully developed energy sources in far-flung corners of the world, including Africa and Latin America, in addition to the Middle East. The Central Asia pipeline is a major feather in its cap.

The Chinese have gone about their mission quietly, building up relations with countries through sure-footed personal diplomacy. President Hu Jintao or Premier Wen Jiabao travel to Central Asia virtually every year. Central Asian leaders, too, are frequent visitors to Beijing. The president of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev, has paid 16 visits to China since the two countries established diplomatic ties in 1992.

China has nurtured its relationship with Central Asia since well before the setting up of the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation - a grouping that includes Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, in addition to China and Russia - in 2001.

Beijing makes a point of focusing on economic co-operation. But, by cementing economic relations, it also achieves political goals. Thus, when violence erupted between Han Chinese and Uygurs in July, all the members of the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation supported Beijing's position that events in Xinjiang were domestic affairs and endorsed efforts by Beijing to "restore order". The pipeline deal positions China as a major player in Central Asia, which hitherto was dominated by Moscow. Now that the pipeline is in place, Turkmenistan does not need to be dependent on Russia, which used to be the only customer for its natural gas.

In fact, the Turkmenistan deal is but one of many Central Asian projects in which China is involved. It has also offered a US$15 billion loan to Kazakhstan, part of which would be used to acquire a 50 per cent interest in the country's largest oil-producing company. Economic deals with China provide Central Asian countries with an alternative to reliance on Russia or, at the least, strengthen their hand when dealing with Moscow. "This pipeline will have a positive impact across the entire region and beyond," said Turkmen President Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov. "It will become a major contributing factor to security in Asia."

This is the first major gas export route from Central Asia that does not go through Russia. It was built in just over two years, whereas the Russians have been talking about building a gas pipeline to China for five years. While China is interested in diversifying its sources of energy, Central Asian countries are interested in new markets. Projects like the Turkmenistan pipeline, therefore, serve their mutual interests. If Russia is unhappy with the latest turn of events, it is playing the role of graceful loser, with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin saying that Russian plans for pipelines to China would not be affected.

The United States, meanwhile, is showing unwonted interest in Central Asia. George Krol, deputy assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asia, announced a programme of annual consultations with each Central Asian country, beginning with a visit by Uzbekistan's foreign minister to Washington this month. Central Asia, Krol said, "is at the fulcrum of key US security, economic and political interests". The "Great Game" may not be afoot in the 19th century sense, but there is certainly a battle for influence in Central Asia and for access to its energy resources.

Frank Ching is a Hong Kong-based writer and commentator. [email protected]

http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/ ... lumns&s=Opinion

Bickering neighbours
China and India have much to offer each other - if they can resolve simmering differences

Sadanand Dhume
Dec 24, 2009           
     
      

  



While the Western media speculates about "Chindia's" challenge to developed nations, the two Asian giants are increasingly bickering in public. Both their media have taken their gloves off and there is tension along their frozen border. A spat between the two leading countries that have pushed globalisation forward could have a serious impact on a rapidly integrating world. But, against this backdrop, the odds of calm heads prevailing appear high.

For the first time in more than a decade - since India used a perceived threat from China to justify its 1998 nuclear tests - the world's two most populous nations find themselves bickering in public. In recent months, China has turned up the heat on a long-standing border disagreement over the northeastern Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, subtly challenged India's claim over the disputed territory of Kashmir, and stepped up criticism of India in its official media. For its part, India has beefed up its border defences, pointedly underlined its own territorial claims, reiterated its support for the exiled Dalai Lama, and expelled thousands of unskilled Chinese workers. The message: India will not be pushed around by its larger neighbour.

The two countries have not fought a war since the Chinese briefly marched into eastern India in 1962. At the same time, the public sparring is evidence of a heightened, and innately volatile, competition between nuclear-armed countries that see themselves as ancient civilisations marching towards a renewed global pre-eminence. How the two nations manage their relations has vast implications for the region and the world. Until now, no country has had to choose between an already imposing China and a fast-rising India. Indeed many, especially in Southeast Asia, welcome India's role as a natural counterweight to Chinese hegemony. An escalating conflict, however, could force countries to step off the fence and either acquiesce to, or openly oppose, China's ambition to be Asia's unquestioned heavyweight.

The room for miscalculation appears greater on Beijing's side than New Delhi's. Still basking in the afterglow of the successful 2008 Olympics, with a rapidly modernising military and an economy three times the size of India's - and growing faster - the Chinese may be tempted to settle talk of parity between the two nations once and for all. As in 1962, a decisive Chinese victory in a short war would severely dent India's ambition to be seen as a peer. It would also cap the long-standing Chinese strategy of penning India in a regional box by cultivating strong ties with nations on its border - Myanmar, Bangladesh and, especially, Pakistan. With Japan in sharp demographic decline, a humbled India would also tilt the debate in Asia over which model of governance - China's one-party authoritarianism or India's freewheeling democracy - is better suited to the region's needs. Domestic compulsions may also explain Chinese behaviour. Uneven development and a paucity of human rights have stoked ethnic tensions among Buddhists in Tibet and Uygur Muslims in Xinjiang. Indeed, China's vocal disputation of India's claim to Arunachal Pradesh - referred to as southern Tibet by Beijing - is motivated, in part, by fears Tibetans will nominate a successor to the current Dalai Lama from an area outside Chinese control.

The border dispute dates back to 1914, when the British drew the so-called McMahon Line between the two countries. India recognises the line, China does not. Over the past six years, 13 rounds of talks have failed to produce an agreement. In June, China upped the ante by voting down a US$2.9 billion Asian Development Bank loan to India, a small portion of which was to be used for irrigation projects in Arunachal Pradesh, on India's side of the McMahon Line. Last month, Beijing objected to a visit to Tawang - home to a historic Buddhist monastery and the birthplace of the sixth Dalai Lama (1683-1706) - by the Dalai Lama.

Despite the effort by New Delhi to downplay the extent of its deteriorating ties with Beijing, a host of smaller incidents also underscore India's concerns about its giant neighbour. India has filed more anti-dumping cases against China in the World Trade Organisation than any other nation and has banned imports of Chinese toys, milk and chocolate, ostensibly for safety reasons. This summer, India changed visa regulations to effectively force thousands of unskilled Chinese workers to leave.

Nevertheless, in the short and medium term, neither China nor India have any interest in allowing their disagreements to spin out of control. In the longer term, however, for Beijing to successfully manage its relationship with New Delhi, it must learn to see India as Indians see it. Despite poor infrastructure, greater poverty and a smaller economy, Indians broadly view their country as China's peer.

India's foreign-policy establishment and strategic elite are willing to respect core Chinese concerns on sensitive issues such as Tibet, Taiwan and Xinjiang. They also see a natural confluence of interests in bilateral trade - despite concerns about dumping, China is India's top trading partner - and in a unified approach to climate change. Both resist binding caps on, and international scrutiny of, their carbon emissions.

At the same time, India's raucous democracy, vibrant free press and sense of impending arrival on the world stage make it nearly impossible for New Delhi to make concessions to Beijing that signal a loss of face. A belligerent China only fans Indian fears and pushes it towards deeper strategic co-operation with the US. It also destabilises the region by raising the stakes for Southeast Asian nations that would like to see both nations prosper rather than be forced to take sides.

How Beijing manages its fraught relationship with New Delhi will go a long way towards reassuring Asia's smaller nations of the credibility behind China's often-stated "peaceful rise" theory.

Sadanand Dhume is a Washington-based writer and journalist. He is also a non-resident fellow at the Asia Society. Reprinted with permission from YaleGlobal Online.

http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/ ... ss=China&s=News

How we sold the pink dolphins down the river


Frank Ching
Dec 28, 2009           
     
      

  



The hoarding next to the old Star Ferry terminal in Central, erected to keep reclamation from prying eyes, has been decorated with appealing drawings by primary schoolchildren expressing their dream of what they wish Hong Kong harbour to look like.

Interestingly, many of these works show dolphins frolicking in the water, reflecting the widespread affection for the marine mammals that inhabit our neighbourhood.

The dolphin was Hong Kong's official mascot of the 1997 handover ceremony. But now that work has officially started on the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau bridge - the world's longest sea bridge - the survival of these creatures is in doubt.

Dolphin-watching is a favourite pastime of tourists and locals alike. All too often, the dolphins encountered bear scars - testament to encounters with ships, very likely the high-speed hydrofoils that ply between Hong Kong and Macau.

The ceremony to launch construction of the 50-kilometre-long bridge, held in Zhuhai on December 15, was attended by Vice-Premier Li Keqiang and the chief executives of both Hong Kong and Macau. Li said of the bridge: "It is of great significance to maintain the long-term prosperity (SEHK: 0803, announcements, news) and stability in Hong Kong and Macau, and enhance the overall competitiveness in the region."

That is undoubtedly true. The bridge's economic value is not in doubt. It will further integrate Hong Kong into the economy of the Pearl River Delta and facilitate development of the western side of the delta.

What is in doubt, however, is the ecological price to be paid by innocent marine life. An Environmental Impact Assessment Report optimistically declared that the impact of this massive construction project on the Chinese pink dolphin in Hong Kong waters was "insignificant".

Zhu Yongling, a mainland official, was quoted as saying at the inauguration ceremony that the construction project would endeavour to protect the maritime environment and marine life, such as pink dolphins. "We will control the construction noise and turbidity of the seawater, and prevent oil pollution," he said.

The construction, which will take six years, involves reclamation to create two artificial islands - one near Chek Lap Kok - as well as the building of a six-kilometre undersea tunnel. Such large-scale work will involve much dredging, noise and water pollution, the loss of fish on which dolphins feed, not to mention physical danger to the dolphins themselves.

A report in the Macau Post Daily, citing "informed sources", said the project "is planned to include the setting-up of a protection area for pink dolphins". However, no details were provided. Certainly, where Hong Kong is concerned, the creation of a marine park for dolphins has been vetoed - until after the damage has been done: officials here have decided that such a park will only be established once the bridge has been built.

According to Cheng Ting-ning, Hong Kong head of the project, the park could only be designated in 2015, after most of the marine construction activities had been completed: "The park is designated for dolphins to live peacefully in the future... we have to gather more realistic data to convince the public there is need [for] a marine park."

By that time, so few dolphins might be left that the government could conclude there was no need for a dolphin marine park. Incredibly, Cheng said dolphins disturbed by the construction would go away and return when the work had ended. It is as though he was going to put up a sign saying: "Temporarily out of service" and the dolphins would find some other habitat for the next six years.

This is the same attitude as that of the anonymous Marine Department official who said, in June 2007, that there was no need to put measures in place to protect dolphins from high-speed ferries because they are smart and know how to get out of the way.

Tell that to the Yangtze River dolphins, which are now extinct.

Frank Ching is a Hong Kong-based writer and commentator

http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/ ... sight&s=Opinion

Nixon and Kissinger set precedent for Obama


Ian Holliday
Dec 29, 2009           
     
      

  



A prominent foreign policy initiative in the first year of the Obama administration was a first step to reshape bilateral relations with Myanmar. Long built on rejection of an authoritarian regime, US policy is now moving towards engagement.

As the process unfolds, it is worth exploring striking parallels with a major shift launched 40 years ago when the Nixon administration sought to bring in China from the cold. Then, as now, a new president was confronted with bipartisan support for an isolationist stance.

In 1969, Richard Nixon inherited a Red China policy that demonised Mao Zedong's Communist regime and allied the US with Chiang Kai-shek's Taiwan. In 2009, Barack Obama was heir to a Burma policy that denounced Senior General Than Shwe's junta and linked the US with Aung San Suu Kyi's democrats. Both presidents knew instinctively that US policy had strong emotional and ideological underpinnings. But both saw that it was not working.

In the late 1960s, the result was major policy change. Nixon began to abandon prevalent Red China discourse and talked instead of the People's Republic. National security adviser Henry Kissinger established secret contacts with premier Zhou Enlai . Ping-pong diplomacy took American athletes inside China. A secret trip by Kissinger in July 1971 set up the diplomatic coup of February 1972: Nixon in China.

Four decades later, Obama has travelled no more than a fraction of this distance with his Myanmar initiative. In February, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton acknowledged US policy failure and instituted a formal review. In September, state-to-state contacts were re-established in New York. In November, US officials completed an exploratory mission to Myanmar. In response, the ruling generals minimally expanded dialogue channels with Suu Kyi.

At this early stage, what lessons Obama might take from Nixon? Clearly there are differences, marked by China's sheer size and influence. But with a population of 55 million and strategic location, Myanmar is not unimportant. Perhaps the one significant distinction in the Myanmar case is a general election promised for 2010, which has no Chinese equivalent. If this results not in confirmation of the junta, but in a bolstering of democratic forces and institutions, Nixonian stratagems will not be required.

However if, as seems likely, a darker scenario unfolds and the core elements of an oppressive state remain defiantly in place, then the time will surely come for the US to bite the bullet of direct, high-level engagement aimed at hauling Myanmar into the modern world.

The process is unlikely to be pretty. When Nixon and Kissinger dealt with China, they deceived Congress and the American people, discarded a central plank of US foreign policy, and reneged on statehood guarantees made to Taiwan. But the result was stunning.

In his Nobel lecture, Obama signalled an openness to new foreign policy ideas. If change does not come from within Myanmar in 2010, Obama should look to the case of Nixon in China for inspiration.

Professor Ian Holliday is dean of social sciences at the University of Hong Kong



http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/ ... sight&s=Opinion

The life and death of Akmal Shaikh
The Briton executed in China had a history of bizarre behaviour

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Helen Pidd
Dec 30, 2009           
     
      

  



Akmal Shaikh's journey from north London to his execution yesterday in a remote part of northwest China is a labyrinthine tale involving eastern European gangsters, hare-brained business schemes and a dream of international pop stardom.

It began in Kentish Town, where Shaikh lived with his wife and children. The couple ran a minicab business called Teksi on Fortess Road, close to Kentish Town's underground station, and life appeared to be good.

Shaikh's former solicitor, Bruce Hayim, told The Observer newspaper earlier this year that Shaikh was a "charming and charismatic man" - though the legal campaign group Reprieve said he had "a lifelong history of very strange behaviour".

His older brother, Akbar, said his sibling had shown signs of mental illness in 2001 after his first marriage had ended and "as he grew older he seemed to go off the rails".

In 2004, he was accused of sexually harassing a female member of staff and ordered to pay £10,000 (HK$124,400) in unpaid wages and damages by an employment tribunal, according to his local paper. In 2005, Shaikh's life started to unravel further. He left for Poland, said his brother, where he announced plans to set up an airline despite having no means to do so. With his lack of money and experience in the aviation industry, the venture soon foundered. Having turned his back on his family, he remained in Poland, sometimes sleeping rough, moving from Lublin in the east to the capital, Warsaw. At some point he acquired a girlfriend, who told the Observer she soon became concerned by his "really silly and crazy" behaviour, such as the time he sent her a fake letter purporting to show he had won £1 million.

He started a prolonged e-mail campaign, sharing his delusions with celebrities and government officials he had never met, firing off messages typed in an enormous 72-point font.

Hundreds of e-mails he sent to the British embassy in Warsaw from 2005 reveal the state of his mind. He claimed to have spoken to the angel Gabriel and said that he could have foiled the London bombings of July 7, 2005, had he only been allowed to hold a press conference. One e-mail appeared to be a letter to Father Christmas.

Some messages were copied to a group of 74 organisations and individuals, including Tony Blair, Sir Paul McCartney, George W. Bush and the BBC programme Top Gear.

But among the nonsense in the  e-mails was information Shaikh's lawyers claimed proved he had become involved with criminals who took advantage of his vulnerability. One mentioned a character called Carlos, who was going to help Shaikh achieve his dream of making it big in the music industry. Carlos, wrote Shaikh, had excellent contacts, and he knew a producer in Kyrgyzstan who could help him fulfil his dream of becoming a pop star. Though Shaikh had no singing experience, and even less musical talent, he recorded a song, an off-key track in English, Arabic and Polish called Come Little Rabbit, which, according to Reprieve, he believed had the potential to bring about world peace.

Two men who helped Shaikh record the song said it was clear he was psychiatrically ill.

It was Shaikh's case that in 2007, Carlos told him that he knew people in the music industry that could assist, and in September that year he paid for a flight for Shaikh to Kyrgyzstan. He was introduced to a man called Okole. Okole, Shaikh claimed he was told, ran a huge nightclub in China that would be the perfect venue for the debut performance of Come Little Rabbit.

En route to China, the two men stopped in Dushanbe, the capital of Tajikistan, where they stayed in a five-star hotel - which Reprieve said Shaikh believed was a sign of his celebrity status. There, Okole told him he would have to fly to China alone, as the flight was full.

Shaikh claimed Okole gave him a suitcase and promised to follow on the next flight. On September 12, 2007, Shaikh flew into Urumqi in Xinjiang and was stopped by customs officials on arrival. Two packets with about £250,000 worth of heroin were found in his luggage. Shaikh told the officials that he did not know anything about the drugs, and that the suitcase did not belong to him.

Reprieve said he helped the Chinese authorities with their inquiries and even set up a "sting" operation, telling Chinese officials to wait for Okole as he was due to arrive on the next plane. But Okole never turned up, and Shaikh was arrested.

Although he was sentenced to death shortly after, Britain's Foreign Office was not notified for many months, and in August last year, Reprieve took on the case.

Chinese law says a defendant's mental state should be taken into consideration if they are accused of serious crimes, but the Chinese authorities refused repeated requests for Shaikh to be evaluated by a doctor.

Although he was never assessed by a psychiatrist, Foreign Office officials were allowed to spend 15 minutes with him. From their description of Shaikh's behaviour, Dr Peter Schaapveld, a London-based psychologist, compiled a medical report in which he was able to deduce with "99 per cent certainty" that he was suffering from a mental disorder that could either be bipolarity or schizophrenia. Despite that diagnosis, Shaikh was put to death yesterday, becoming the first European citizen to be executed in China in nearly 60 years.

Relatives said that Shaikh was not even aware that he was going to be executed until they told him during a visit to death row in Urumqi on Monday.

"Drug trafficking is considered a heinous crime according to world consensus," Xinhua reported the Supreme Court verdict as saying. "The use of the capital punishment creates an effective deterrent against drug trafficking."

Xinhua also said that Britain had failed to provide sufficient evidence that Shaikh was mentally ill.

The Guardian


http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/ ... sight&s=Opinion