What is going on?

31 December 2010

I have finally reached a conclusion that I simply do not understand Dubai. The news this week makes little sense and suggests that very few of the lessons of 2009/2010 have been heeded.

1. Nakheel will start building again.

The Dubai government will give Nakheel $871m in funds to help the realty developer pay off certificate holders for the sukuk maturing in January And then Nakheel will restart five more projects. Work will resume on Jumeirah Park, Badrah, Veneto, Jumeirah Heights Clusters, Jumeirah Village the Triangle and Circle.

These five projects come after Nakheel announced in October that it would start work on three projects: Emirates Cluster in International City, Al Furjan and The Gardens View villas.

In a statement to Nasdaq Dubai yesterday, Nakheel said that the Dubai Financial Support Fund has given it close to $871 million (Dh3,199 million) to pay off certificate holders for the sukuk maturing in January.

The last thing that Dubai needs now is new developments to come on line. It needs existing developments to be completed to the standards expected in their initial community development plans. It needs road and power infrastructure to be completed. The Defence roundabout reconstruction has already taken four years and is far from complete. With house and apartment prices collapsing Dubai does not need a new injection of empty buildings. Yet Nakheel will proceed with:

Jumeirah Park — a residential development within Jumeirah Park and close to Palm Jumeirah.
Badrah — the second residential development within the new city master plan of Waterfront, a project at the roots of the Palm Jumeirah.
Veneto — high-end town houses and villas in Waterfront.
Jumeirah Heights Clusters — two bedroom lofts within the larger development of Jumeirah Heights that has a Village Centre and The Fronds.
Jumeirah Village the Triangle and Circle — a community of 6,000 villas and town houses.

Two of thes developments are in the Waterfront which Nakheel promised would be a development larger than Hong Kong.

This is  madness.

2. Visa fees for Canadians.

The Gulf News editorial on visa fees for Canadians is below. Another argument from the UAE is that they asked that their citizens be accorded the same rights as Canadians ie visa free access. Canada refused. So the UAE argues that the treatment is reciprocal.

But on that argument citizens of the UK, the Schengen Area, Japan, Australia and USA should all be moved from the visa-on-arrival list and have to pay up to $1000 USD for a visit visa to the UAE because UAE citizens require visas to visit those countries.

3. Two year work visas.

In the early days of the property boom the announced intent was that purchasing Dubai property would also allow the buyer UAE residency. This was never implemented. A work visa was required for residency. The three year work visa is now a two year visa. The authorities argue this allows greater mobility of labour and makes it easier to change employer. It looks more like a revenue generator.

4. Quotas

There was a call for private companies in the UAE to employ a minimum of 20% UAE nationals. With UAE nationals comprising only some 10% of the workforce and with their preference for public sector work this can only happen if the UAE economy shrinks dramatically.  There are other points to be made here but not on a public page.

5. The new airport

Could this be the ultimate white elephant. I always thought a single very large airport could serve the emirates of Abu Dhabi and Dubai as the hub of a merged Emirates and Etihad airline. It will not happen. Abu Dhabi wants its own airport. This is about prestige. It is also a recognition that Abu Dhabi is the nation's capital. The new Jebel Ali airport is in Dubai. It is now served by four or five cargo flights a day onto its single runway. There may be a passenger terminal for limited use by the end of 2011. But road access is poor and there is not rail or metro access. So who will want to fly there?

Meanwhile the existing Dubai airport continues to be expanded although the extension to Terminal 3 is progressing slowly - this may be related to delayed payments to contractors. There is no announced opening date. EK has delayed deliveries of its fleet of A380s with I think just two new planes to be delivered in 2011. The new terminal is necessary for the growth planned in 2012.

Will the new airport ever be finished. Is the expense justified. Does Dubai genuinely need the biggest of everything. There are still periods at DXB when the airport is hugely under-used. Both Singapore and Hong Kong manage there growth with two runway airports. Is a five runway airport a symbol or a necessity?

6. New Year's Eve.

Two years ago New Year's Eve was cancelled in solidarity with the Palestinians. This year, one week before the new year, desert parties were effectively banned by saying that they could not play music or serve alcohol. Why do this with one week's notice to events that have been planned for months? Tour operators lose money and credibility. The very same tour operators that the city needs to keep encouraging people to return to Dubai.

7. Licensing/Drinking

Lots of notices in the last week about drinking in the UAE suggesting that even tourists who consume alcohol should have an alcohol license. It is clear that while drinking in hotels is tolerated the law when you are out on the street is very different.

The trains will run to 2am this morning. But if you have had too much to drink you take the train at your peril.

And why are all those taxis parked outside the Metropolitan Hotel at 2am every night?

Dubai is a city of huge contradictions and conflict. In many ways it is a very tolerant place. But there is always a sense that on a personal or a wider level things could change at any time.

Going too far

31 December 2010

What was a long running battle over landing rights has turned into a full scale diplomatic battle. But one government is democratically elected by its people; and the other is appointed by the rulers of the UAE. One government can be removed by its citizens. One cannot.

This escalation makes both sides look foolish. The trouble is both sides are backing themselves into corners.

Now the Gulf News - which is basically the government's pr machine has come out with this bizarre editorial justifying the extortionate visa fees being charged to Canadians who from 2 January will require a visitors visa to enter the UAE.

Just in terms of facts - Harper's government is a coalition - by necessity it is more moderate than a single ruling party. Canada does have open skies - with countries where both parties benefit. Emirates wants - not to fly UAE nationals into Canada - but residents of the GCC countries and India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. There is little benefit for Canada. A few extra jobs as EK sales agents. But Air Canada would hurt. Air Canada has no interest in flying to Dubai. Dubai is a hub - a transit stop.

But this editorial is embarrassing - we don't like the Canadian PM or his policies so we are going to charge outrageous visa fees for any Canadian's visiting Dubai.  Whatever happened to the art of diplomacy.

If you hit someone often enough with a sledgehammer at some point they will probably hit you back. Maybe it is time the Canadians stopped taking the abuse and handed out some of their own. Time to take away Emirates and Etihad's overfly rights?

Gulf News - Editorial - 31 December 2010

"Effective Sunday, all Canadians entering the UAE will require a visitor's visa. Previously, Canada was one of 33 countries whose citizens were exempt from pre-obtaining a visa, with permission to enter being granted on arrival.

So why this change? That question is best answered from the Canadian perspective.

Canada had rightly earned a status in the international community as a fair and open-minded country, willing to open its doors to all, willing to assist the needy, willing to embrace the downtrodden. It was always viewed as a nation willing to accept those fleeing political, religious and ethnic strife; its fabric enriched by the fact that one-in-three of its people were born elsewhere.

Sadly, this progressive outlook has changed.

Ever since Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his right-wing Conservative government came to power, the veneer of civility has slipped. Politics in Ottawa has become polarised — it is Harper's way or the highway. Independent institutions such as Statistics Canada or the Atomic Energy Control Board have suffered from political interference from the Prime Minister's Office.

Where Canada once was a friend of the Palestinians, the Harper government now embraces Tel Aviv and its politics of colonisation. Where open skies were supposed to exist, the government of Canada embraces protectionism. Where companies were independent, they are now subsidised and granted preferential treatment, as is the case with Air Canada.

Where Canada was a nation once dedicated to peacekeeping, it is now engaged in peacemaking, its handling of detainees in Afghanistan a blight on the record of Canada's Department of National Defence and the Armed Forces of Canada. And it has ignored its own court decisions to abandon Omar Khadr in Guantanamo Bay. He was but a boy soldier in Afghanistan, now convicted by a kangaroo court.

That's why Canada's citizens need a visa."

flydubai to Chittagong

30 December 2010

flydubai has announced its first entry into Bangladesh, with flights to Chittagong, the country's second largest city.

Ghaith Al Ghaith, CEO, flydubai, said, "Adding a new dimension to the flydubai network, flights to Chittagong will not only cater to the Bangladeshi workforce in the UAE, but also be instrumental in increasing trade and business between our two nations.

"The picturesque city of Chittagong boasts a busy international seaport and is an important economic and commercial hub of the country. Located in the midst of green forests, the city is a popular tourist attraction which offers both hilly terrains and sandy beaches.

Four times a week flights from Dubai to Chittagong begin on January 17, 2011 with service on Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. Flight FZ587 departs from Dubai at 1340hrs, landing in Chittagong at 2020hrs local time. The return flight FZ588 takes off from Chittagong at 2120hrs, arriving back in Dubai at 0125hrs local time. This latest route by flydubai will operate daily starting March 27, 2011.

The one-way fare to Chittagong from Dubai will cost from AED460, including one piece of hand luggage weighing up to 7kg plus one small laptop bag or hand bag. Flights from Chittagong to Dubai start from USD 200.

Flights for Chittagong are available for purchase from December 30, 2010 on the website, www.flydubai.com.
 

Beware the watermelons

30 December 2010 - The Economist

“It's true that we feel anti-government, and we will try to avoid serving the government’s demands,” says a uniformed police colonel calmly but deliberately. Sitting behind his desk in Khon Kaen, a provincial capital in north-eastern Thailand, he says that about 90% of his local colleagues harbour equally seditious thoughts. They are fed up with being exploited by the government in Bangkok to “discredit and obstruct the opposition every day”, manufacture evidence and apply the law unequally.

The colonel, who is reluctant to give his name, was one of the many officers bused into Bangkok to police the demonstrations last April and May by self-styled “red shirts”, the main opposition to the government. By day he loyally did his job, but by night he, like many of his colleagues, donned a red bandanna and fraternised with the protesters. He was not there on May 19th when the army—unjustifiably in his view—stormed the red-shirt camp. He complains that, although many of the protesters who were rounded up are still in prison, no one has yet been brought to justice for the killing of 90 or so people during the weeks of protests. The injustice and oppression in Thai society that red shirts talk of is what “the police see and feel every day”, the colonel says.

On December 22nd the government lifted a state of emergency that it had declared in Bangkok and surrounding areas during the red-shirt unrest. But such complaints by a senior officer suggest that the conservative coalition government led by Abhisit Vejjajiva of the Democrat Party is far from secure as it begins its third year in office. Openly red policemen are nicknamed tomatoes by the public. The colonel says that in his part of Thailand only a slightly smaller proportion of soldiers than police share his political views. Green on the outside but red at the core, these troops are called watermelons.

The government promised a process of “reconciliation” after the killings in May, but there is little sign of one. Even the best-mannered of the government’s critics—let alone the radicals in the north-east—survive in an atmosphere of fear and intimidation. The government is required to hold general elections before the end of 2011. In a broadcast on December 26th Mr Abhisit hinted that the poll will take place sooner rather than later. He hopes the election will be peaceful, but in today’s bitter and polarised political environment few expect the build-up to them to be anything other than violent. The red shirts have vowed to take to the streets again twice each month. A new and apparently harder-line army chief, General Prayuth Chan-ocha, is waiting for them.

A lot, then, will turn on the strength of the red shirts. The movement was founded to support the former prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, who was ousted in a coup in 2006. For many reds, Mr Thaksin remains a hero. They hope for his return from Dubai after the election. Mr Thaksin is particularly popular in rural areas, such as the north-east, where his microcredit and health-care schemes helped the poor so much that the present government is extending them.

Mr Thaksin’s supporters also credit him with trying to bring democracy to Thailand. (He convincingly won two elections before being forced into exile.) They believe he was usurped by a conservative, aristocratic establishment. Many red shirts favour a reform of the monarchy, to reduce its power and influence. Mr Thaksin’s supporters range from former provincial governors to students sporting Che Guevara T-shirts, and from businessmen to policemen. If all his supporters voted for his Pheu Thai party then it would almost certainly win the election, even if not with an overall majority.

The government has used the emergency laws and other security legislation to round up red-shirt activists. But the movement is now strong enough in areas like the north-east to flourish in spite of such measures. The red shirts have set up their own radio stations to compete with the government’s despised broadcasting service. The government, knowing how influential these stations can be in rural areas where villagers depend on radio for news, has been playing a cat-and-mouse game to get them off the air. Thanik Maseepitak, a red businessman, erected a state-of-the-art radio mast and equipped a broadcasting studio in Khon Kaen early in 2010, only for it to be ruled illegal. Two hundred soldiers arrived in October to cut all the mast-wires and cart off the studio kit. Undeterred, he has just set up another radio station in a nearby village. To avoid detection it changes frequency almost every day.

Doubts persist as to whether the movement can emerge as anything more than a fan club for Mr Thaksin, who is a divisive figure in Thailand. (In 2008 he was convicted in absentia of corruption.) The leadership of the Pheu Thai party is weak and disunited, and there could well be defections from the party as it wrestles with the question of how much influence Mr Thaksin should exert over it. This could play into the hands of Mr Abhisit. In order to win over red-shirt supporters, his government has announced a string of populist economic policies, such as free schooling for 12m students, more financial support for the elderly and, most recently, low-cost loans for the poor. Thailand’s strong economic performance might help him too. But the ripe tomatoes and sour watermelons remain to be convinced.

When Harvey met Bob

26 December 2010

Where did 25 years go !

Live Aid was on 13 July 1985. I was working in Chicago. Radio coverage was poor. TV coverage in the USA was not much better. But it was a world changing event. There have been charity concerts and telethons since. But nothing quite like this.

TV was still in the stone age. There was no mobile phone to connect everyone.

There were linked concerts in London and Philadelphia. The whole concert was put together in months. There were no contracts.  People said they would turn up to perform and they did.

25 years later. I suspect such a show would be impossible. The lawyers would never let it happen. Health and Safety rules would overwhelm the oragnisers.

Now the planning and organisation of Live Aid has been made into a movie by the RTE and BBC2. When Harvey Met Bob. Two egos. One, big idea. The story Harvey Goldsmith and Bob Geldof.

With music from The Boomtown Rats, Queen, David Bowie, Elton John, Sting, Ultravox, Status Quo, Paul Weller, Spandau Ballet, Band Aid and Paul McCartney.

The film stars Ian Hart as Harvey Goldsmith and Domhnall Gleeson as Bob Geldof and was filmed in Dublin summer 2010

What happened: In October 1984 Geldof's career as a rock star was at something of a low point. One night he comes home to see his wife, Paula, in the dark quietly watching the legendary BBC broadcast by Michael Buerk from the feeding camps in Eritrea province. Bob takes his eyes from the screen only once to see Paula holding their baby and weeping.

Deeply affected Bob into action. First he persuades a host of rock stars to give their name and talent for free to the Band Aid record - "Do they know it's Christmas" - which sells millions of copies. But when he goes to Ethiopia to ensure the proceeds from the record will reach the starving people, he realises that so much more needs to be done. He needs to raise even more money to fulfill his promise that every penny from the record will get there. It is at this point that he conceives the idea of a global music event to feed the world.

Enter Harvey Goldsmith, the famous and well-respected music promoter. In a matter of months they took the project from a madcap idea and a list of unconfirmed acts, to the biggest televised international charity event in history.

The shows were live in 185 countries around the world and seen by some 1.5 billion people. This was the first massive use of satellite television on a global basis. Autograph broadcast live from Moscow. East was meeting West.

It does seem a little strange that the BBC has resurrected Live Aid in a year when Goldsmith and Bob Geldof received a formal apology from the Corporation, after a World Service programme suggested the cash raised for Africa by Band Aid had helped to fund weapons rather than charity.

Goldsmith is no fan of the new movie complaining that "they portray me too much as a wide-boy promoter and slightly uncaring...It's not true: I didn't get involved with Live Aid for any other reason than I believed in the event."

Strangely the film completely ignores Midge Ure. Ure wrote "Do they know its Christmas?" and was a Band Aid trustee.

The BBC has also made a retrospective documentary of the event. Most of the performers, presenters and organisers of the show have been interviewed. Geldof does a very good Prince of Wales impersonation! The interviews are cut in with footage from the concerts.

Stand out performances from Sade, Elvis Costello, Paul Young, Dire Straits, Sting, U2. Queen probably stole the show. Phil Collins performed live in the UK and the USA; in the USA he was performing with Led Zepellin. 25 years on the show remains an inspiration.

Incidentally - the ruler of Dubai donated gbp 1 million on the day.

Live Aid online
Live Aid in their own words

England's white, unpleasant land

24 December 2010

The UK airports have been a mess for Christmas. But they are their own worst enemy. The problems are not snow and ice. But the people that own, operate and manage the airports.

Worse still, taxes and fees for use of the airport are among the highest in the world. And it is the passenger that pays these fees.

There are few worse experiences than entering the UK through one of London's third rate, third world airports. Twice this year I have traveled with Tai to the UK; since she is a Thai national we queue up with the non EEC passport holders.

In the summer it was Terminal 3 at Heathrow; yesterday it was the South terminal at Gatwick.

The experience is miserable. And it must make people wonder why they are visiting this miserable place.

In simple terms yesterday it took just over a hour to clear immigration. But there is so much more to it.

The immigration area is a dump. A cold cheerless barn. It may be under renovation but there is no excuse for such a miserable space staffed by such miserable people.

There are up to ten desks for staff to handle non EEC arrivals. At times only two were in use. Is it that hard to train people to do this job? Is it that hard to recruit sufficient people to make sure that the maximum possible wait is no more than 30 minutes.

Is it that hard to have staff there to organise queues. To tell people where they should go. To identify families with young children or elderly passengers and give them a separate desk so they do not have to queue for an hour?

Is it that hard for staff to greet people visiting the country with a smile and a welcome. Both London and Gatwick seem to have gone to the greatest lengths to employ some of the most surly and miserable people they can find.

Many non EEC passport holders have already had to apply for entry visas. Why not separate the queue between those with and without visas?

Imagine similar scenes at Singapore - impossible. A maximum queue of a few minutes; welcoming staff; sweets at the counter.

Yes Bangkok can take longer when it is busy; but I have still never waited longer than 30 minutes.

Dubai gets busy; but the staff there are welcoming; sometimes humorous and always efficient.

Even in the USA we are greeted with short queues and a smile - everywhere except LAX, which probably employs refugees from London's airports.

We are arriving in your country to spend money, to prop up your crumbling economy, to help you retain the jobs that you don't deserve to keep. The least you can do is treat us with the respect that we would give you as visitors and make us feel a little bit welcome.

So thank you Gatwick Immigration for making the arrivals experience as genuinely miserable as possible for as many people as possible.

EK 29 diverts and then gets stuck at BHX

21 December 2010

Picture and video from the BBC

Emirates flight EK29 on 21 December diverted from Heathrow Airport due to the freezing weather conditions and then became stuck in a grass verge after landing at Birmingham Airport.

The Boeing 777-300ER was carrying 282 passengers and landed at 1354 GMT, Birmingham Airport said.

While taxiing to the terminal it appears to have missed the taxiway, and gone on to the grass where a set of wheels became stuck.

Passengers were disembarked and the aircraft was due to be moved by midnight, the airport said.

A pilot of another plane scheduled to land at Birmingham, who saw what happened and asked to remain anonymous, said aircraft could "slip and slide" as much as cars could.

Passengers from the flight told BBC News that they were kept informed of what happened.

One man said: "The plane was taxiing to the gate and the pilot appeared to cut the right hand turn a little too close and his main, right landing gear was off the tarmac in the mud, sinking.

"I looked out and it was about 8in (20cm) [deep].

"They did appear to try to rock it loose."

Passengers were on the plane for one-and-a-half hours before getting off, he added.

Metal steps had to be defrosted before they could be used by passengers Stairs which were brought to the aircraft so people could get off also had to be defrosted first, a passenger claimed.

Emirates lashes out at BAA amid winter chaos

19 December 2010 from : Arabian Business.

"A senior Emirates official has criticised the British Airports Authority (BAA) for refusing to allow two of its aircraft to land in the UK, and has warned that the airline faces a massive task in coping with the backlog of passengers now stranded in London.

Earlier on Sunday, London Heathrow – Europe’s largest airport – announced that it would not accept any arriving flights, with only a handful of departures.

“Emirates was surprised to be told by the British Airports Authority (BAA) that after two of our flights from Dubai to London Heathrow were fully on route, they were not going to be allowed to land because the airport was closed,” said Emirates president Tim Clark in an emailed statement.

“This is despite the fact that we operated these flights in compliance with the BAA requirements that Heathrow Airport would accept flight arrivals after 11:00 am local time.

“This has caused enormous inconvenience to the 900 plus passengers on-board, in addition to those who have already been stranded in the UK and Europe,” Clark added.

The Emirates president said that the airline had also had to cancel three further fully booked Heathrow flights today, and that return flights to Dubai had also been affected as a result.

“Emirates’ ability to mount the extra sections required to recover the enormous back-log is very limited and we will be discussing this issue with the BAA,” he said.

However, Clark said that all other Emirates flights in and out of the UK had been operational.

On Sunday afternoon, Emirates announced that it will not be accepting passengers for travel to Heathrow for the next 24 hours – until roughly midday on Monday, UAE time."

Bling the halls with too much jewelry

19 December 2010

Bling the halls with too much jewelry, tra la la la la, la la, la la

Tis the season for excessive folly etc....

Sometimes I think Abu Dhabi gets it and will avoid the excesses and bling culture that made Dubai so miserable. And then they go and spoil it all. The Emirates Palace hotel proudly heralded what it thought to be the world’s most expensive Christmas tree, valued at more than $11m.

The 13-metre fake evergreen tree is located in the hotel’s lobby, and is decorated with silver and gold bows, ball-shaped ornaments and small white lights.

However, the record value of the tree is due to the necklaces, earrings and other jewellery draped over its branches.

Khalifa Khouri, owner of Style Gallery, which provided the jewellery, said that the tree held 181 diamonds, pearls, emeralds, sapphires and other precious stones.

So much for a humble birth, in a manger, wrapped in swaddling clothes.

 Hans Olbertz, general manager of the Emirates Palace, told AFP that "the jewellery has a value of over $11m -- I think $11.4m, $11.5m."

Olbertz added that the hotel planned to contact the Guinness book of world records about the tree, which will remain in its location until the end of the year.

The general manager added that he did not believe the tree would offend religious sensibilities. Oh dear. Too much bling must wash away any sense of reality.

But today the hotel is telling a very different story: The hotel has now said it regrets the move.

A statement from the hotel said it regretted “attempts to overload the tradition” by dressing the 13-metre fake tree with jewellery comprising gold, diamonds, rubies and other gems. The statement added that "putting the Christmas tree [up] is not a novelty, rather it is a tradition meant to share in celebrating occasions guests hold while they are away from their home countries and families."

A Christmas folly.

Heathrow chaos

19 December 2010

One of the problems at Heathrow - lack of sophisticated snow cleaning equipment ! The airport is effectively closed today. England's premier gateway closed. Even Gatwick is open.

from @mikekeenan on twitter !

Let it snow.....

18 December 2010

EK001 landed about 90 minutes late at Heathrow this afternoon and appears to be following the snowplough tracks to the gate - actually it is behind a "follow me" truck!

Thai media and government unite in confusion

17 December 2010

The dometsic Thai response to the US embassy cables from Bangkok has bene predictably confused, obstinate and miselading.

Thani Thongpakdi, foreign ministry spokesman, said: "Regarding documents that have been released by Wikileaks in general, Thailand is not in a position to confirm the accuracy or authenticity of such documents because they were not issued by us.

"Additionally many documents seem to be conveying hearsay or gossip which in some circumstances may have been reported out of context. We should therefore not give credence to them."
 

Thanong - the Managing Editor of the Nation newspaper tweeted that - For we are publishing stories from electronic information, which we don't know for sure where they come from. He added that "In court, what kind of evidence we may produce to back our claim that the story we published was true -- a copy from Guardian?"

Note he is editing the same newspaper that gleefully ran leaked cables from the US embassy in Singapore where Singaporean official visserated most of their SE Asian counterparts.

Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban said the leaked classified information will not have much effect on Thailand.

"We don't have any secrets," Mr Suthep said. "What happens in Thailand, we tell the media and the people."

what is interesting about the Wikileaks project is that we have access to the actual cables (minus redactions). It is not a newspaper's summary. So what Thani is in essence saying we should ignore what the US Embassy states. Does this then also apply to any media report about an statement by Prem or Siddhi? (or just ones that are uncomfortable to answer?).
 

BP can understand the sensitivity of reporting about certain issues, but there is plenty of other information in the most recent cables which do not breach the law and reflect negatively on PAD and also Thaksin. At the very least, shouldn't they be printing what they can? How long will this collective groupthink last?

 

Wikileaks on the big issues in Thailand

16 December 2010

Wow. A newly released cable from the US embassy in Bangkok from January this year has really laid bare some big issues in Thailand. And like everyone else online there is only so much that can be said here. And I should not link to the websites that are carrying the redacted cable But my reader knows where and how to look for it.

So what does it all tell us:

1. That the US Embassy has access to the highest levels of Thai society. The latest cable to be released describes meetings between US Ambassador Eric John and three members of Thailand’s Privy Council - General Prem Tinsulanonda, the head of the privy council and a former prime minister, Anand Panyarachun, another former prime minister, and Air Chief Marshall Siddhi Savetsila.

2. That the US Ambassador and his analysts have a pretty good understanding of Thai issues - which tends to put paid to the usual farang dont understand Thailand argument that you hear trumpeted so often.

3. That much of what we all suspected is real.

4. That Abhisit is the establishment's man.

5. That there are private discussions taking place concerning sensitive issues that the Thai newspapers would never dare discuss.

6. The public airing of views expressed privately could make certain relationships difficult at best. Sorry it is hard to be more precise.

7. This is where the lese majeste laws are so messed up in Thailand; people are serving long jail terms for saying or doing far less than has been said by the privy council members.

8. This cable and its revelations will not get a mention in the Thai press but in the international media and community, where information flows more freely, a light is being shone directly into some of the murkiest corners of the Thai establishment.

9. The full content of these cables will inevitable be translated and circulated in Thailand.

The rights and wrongs of hacktivism

16 December 2010 - The Economist

Demonstrators are a tiresome lot. They block streets and clog traffic, costing other people time and money; they divert police attention, draining budgets and perhaps helping criminals. But decent countries allow disruptive protests and even deploy the forces of law and order to protect them. That is the price of political freedom, negotiated over many years and subject to many checks and balances.

Now the issue has arisen in cyberspace, with online protests both in defence of and in opposition to WikiLeaks, a whistle-blowing site. Working out which sorts of activities deserve protection and which prosecution is tricky—and the details of prosecution even more so.

Two ends of the spectrum are clear. Consumer boycotts are a matter of individual choice. There is nothing wrong with people expressing their disapproval of companies that have dumped WikiLeaks, such as Visa, MasterCard, Amazon, PayPal, by stopping doing business with them. But using the internet to try to disrupt, say, power supplies or the fire service, as happened in Estonia in 2007, is a crime.

The difficult areas lie in the middle, especially around the “hacktivists” who are the main actors on both sides. Their favoured technique is a “denial of service” (DOS) attack, from one computer or a distributed network of many (hence the acronym DDOS). This involves bombarding computers that run the target’s website with more traffic than they can handle. As a result the website becomes hard to reach, or crashes completely. That hurts the victim and signals to the world the strength of feeling of the perpetrators. It causes no direct physical harm but may be disruptive and costly.

In many countries DDOS attacks are illegal. In Britain, for example, they carry a maximum ten-year jail term. That does not necessarily make them wrong: civil disobedience, against British rule in India, or against segregation in America, has a long, honourable history. Such tactics may even be useful against authoritarian regimes (even if more often it will be the governments that use them against their opponents).

The closest equivalent to a DDOS attack in the offline world would be a mass sit-in or a mob milling around a building, making entry and exit impossible. In most countries the police would respond to such cases by clearing a path to the door, arresting protesters if they resisted violently, but allowing the protest to go ahead. Some argue that DDOS attacks are, similarly, a legitimate expression of dissent. Governments should have computers large and sophisticated enough to deal with such attacks; if necessary, they should help vital commercial services such as banks and energy companies to resist them.

But in a free society the moral footing for peaceful lawbreaking must be an individual’s readiness to take the consequences, argue in court and fight for a change in the law. Demonstrators therefore deserve protection only if they are identifiable. Some countries (like Germany) even prohibit protesters from wearing masks.

Protesters in cyberspace, by contrast, are usually anonymous and untraceable. The furtive, nameless nature of DDOS attacks disqualifies them from protection; their anonymous perpetrators look like cowardly hooligans, not heroes. This applies to those attacking WikiLeaks too—a point American politicians calling for reprisals against Julian Assange’s outfit should note. Posses and vigilantes, online and off, mete out rough justice, at best. That is no substitute for the real thing.

The slow demise of DAE

15 December 2010

Dubai Aerospace Enterprise Ltd., the state-owned aviation services and leasing company, may cancel more aircraft orders with Airbus SAS and Boeing Co. next year as the emirate battles the impact of the global credit crisis, a Bloomberg report said today.

DAE plans to make adjustments to its order book with the manufacturers and the number of cancelations may be similar to those made this year.

The company, set up in 2006 with the aim of becoming one of the world’s biggest airplane lessors, in July dropped orders for seven Airbus wide-body planes and 18 narrow-body jets, according to figures released by Airbus. A contract for 15 787 Dreamliners was removed Aug. 5 from Boeing’s online backlog listing.

DAE, which has 45 aircraft on its books according to its website, entered the leasing market during what was the peak of an air-travel boom, and has since been hit by a slump in demand.

The Dubai-based company placed an order in 2007 for 70 Airbus A320 single-aisle planes and 30 A350 jets valued at about $13 billion at list prices. DAE also ordered 70 Boeing 737s, 15 787s, 10 777-300ERs and five 747-8 freighters that year, valued at $13.7 billion. As of last month, DAE has 81 Boeing planes on order, according to data supplied by the manufacturer today.

DAE is close to selling a minority stake in aviation- services company StandardAero as it seeks to raise funds. DAE bought U.S.-based aircraft-maintenance groups Standard Aero and Landmark in July 2007 for $1.9 billion and later merged the two companies.

DAE was founded by the Dubai government in 2006 with a $15 billion capital base. The company originally had six divisions - DAE Capital, DAE Services, DAE Manufacturing, DAE Airports, DAE Engineering and DAE University. It has since shut all units except for leasing division DAE Capital and DAE Manufacturing.

DAE shareholders include Istithmar World, a subsidiary of Dubai World, the government-owned company that is seeking to restructure $24.9 billion of debt, and Dubai International Capital, which has also has asked lenders for an extension on some debt.

flydubai's new Saudi routes

15 December 2010

Dubai's first low cost airline, has announced its latests of Yanbu and the agricultural city of Gassim in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Yanbu, Saudi Arabia was the 29th destination for flydubai with services beginning January 7.

flydubai's first service to Saudi Arabia was Abha, located in the south west of the country and the capital of Asir province.

The new flights to Gassim will operate three times per week from January 18, 2011.

The city of Gassim borders with the east of the Saudi capital of Riyadh and the Holy city of Madina. Comprising 10 governates, Gassim is known for its rich agricultural environment and as a major exporter of some of the Kingdom's finest dates.

The cost of eliminating an ex PM

15 December 2010

From one of the US embassy in Bangkok documents released today by Wikileaks:

"XXXXXXXXXXXX said he had been surprised to learn that the contract on Thaksin’s life entailed a relatively low payment of only several hundred thousand Baht (in the range of 10,000 USD), although it also entailed resettlement abroad for the person(s) directly involved."

Dubai's North Korean restaurant

15 December 2010 - noted in the National newspaper.

New to Dubai is the Okryugwan restaurant in Deira; what is unusual is that all the waitresses wear North Korean flags on their blouses.

It is like any other Korean restaurant on first impression, with cold noodles and a warm welcome.

The restaurant, which opened near the clock tower in June, is believed to be part of an international chain of eateries established by the North Korean government in what experts say is a bid to boost state coffers.

The restaurants are seen as a regime-supported way to earn foreign exchange. And it is a big deal to be sent out to operate one. Even the waitresses are screened for political reliability and their families back in North Korea face punishment if they defect.

The majority ownership in the restaurant is held by an undisclosed local partner. The Chinese businessman Gavin Tang, who has worked in the Emirates for more than two decades, has said he also has a stake in the venture.

The restaurant manager (Ms. Jin) told the National that “everyone knows that it is run by the North Korean government" adding that “a group of people from the foreign ministry direct the restaurant.”

The chain has locations in Nepal, Thailand (where in Thailand?), Cambodia and China and recently opened in Amsterdam. The Dubai restaurant has become popular with Japanese, Chinese and Korean businessmen and is mentioned frequently on Japanese community message boards for the nightly cultural performance by its waitresses.

If only for one evening, the restaurant offers those who may never travel to North Korea a rare glimpse into its culture. The eatery is largely devoid of political references despite its communist sponsorship and soothing paintings of waterfalls and misty mountains adorn the walls.

A plasma television screen shows a video of exotic fish, which apparently runs on a loop, throughout the night. The saccharine keyboard music is replaced at 8pm by the waitresses’ performance, which includes multilingual karaoke singing and traditional fan dancing. All of the food is imported from North Korea, Ms Jin said, including the cold noodles for which the restaurant has become famous.

The restaurant chains allegedly have to turn a tidy profit. One such restaurant in China was obliged to make annual payments of as much as US$30,000 to the Pyongyang government or risk being closed down, according to reports from defectors.

Ms Jin declined to comment last week on whether the profits from the restaurant were sent back to North Korea.

“Journalists shouldn’t ask such outrageous questions,” she said.
 

Questions from Bangkok

12 December 2010

"Andrew Buncombe writing today in the Independent on the reaction to the leaked DSI report asks some questions that need to be answered; th eembarrassment for Thailand is that 7 months on these questions are still not being addresses and may never be:

Now we know that the troops responsible for shooting into Wat Pathum were not raw recruits but supposedly "élite" special forces. Even if, as they claim, someone was firing at them from the temple (and remember, no independent witness has come forward to verify this), did they not pause to think that their bullets might harm the innocent? Precisely what special training to these troops receive?

What also remains unclear is the intention of the soldiers. Are we supposed to believe someone struck by three bullets could be the victim of loose "covering fire"?

If, on the other hand, those shots were aimed, what was going through the minds of the soldiers as their sights came to pause on young female volunteers wearing shirts marked with large green crosses that in Thailand signify a medic? Or, for that matter, on journalists wearing green armbands that had been handed out for the media?

Although it confirms the deadly role of the troops, Thailand's Department of Special Investigations report still leaves unanswered many of the most vital questions that were being asked in the immediate aftermath of 19 May. Who was in control that day and who gave the order to shoot? Did Thailand's Prime Minister, Mr Abhisit, approve of these orders? What was his role? And what is he going to do about it now?"

Meanwhile PM Abhisit lives in a state of blissful denial or ignorance : according to the Bangkok Post Abhisit Vejjajiva yesterday suggested that it is too early to "jump to conclusions" that security forces were responsible for the deaths of civilians killed during the red shirt rallies in Bangkok.
 

Singaporean diplomats neighborly views

11 December 2010

The Singaporeans appear to have some decently smart analysts in their ranks. They might be a little embarrassed at their views becoming more widely known but they should be proud of their shrewd commentary.

Cables from Wikileaks show that Singaporean diplomats think the leaders of some close Asian allies are corrupt, incompetent or stupid.

Confidential diplomatic notes given by the whistleblower website to Australia's Fairfax media group contained unflattering assessments of key figures in Malaysia, Thailand, India and Japan.

"A lack of competent leadership is a real problem for Malaysia," permanent secretary for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Bilahari Kausikan reportedly told US Deputy Secretary of Defence for East Asia David Sedney in a cable dated September 2008.

As such, "the situation in neighbouring Malaysia is confused and dangerous," fuelled by a "distinct possibility of racial conflict" that could see ethnic Chinese "flee" Malaysia and "overwhelm" Singapore, Bilahari was quoted as saying.

Another official, Peter Ho, reportedly described Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak as "an opportunist" who "would not hesitate" to be critical of Singapore if "it is expedient for him to do so."

He said allegations linking Najib to the murder of a Mongolian woman in 2006, which the leader has strongly rejected, would continue to "haunt" his political fortunes.

Bilahari was also critical of the Thai government in 2008, labelling then premier Thaksin Shinawatra as "corrupt" along with "everyone else, including the opposition."

He also said someone who cannot be named here (search online for the full story) was "very erratic, and easily subject to influence," and warned of continued instability in Thailand.

In another 2009 memo, Singapore's ambassador at large Tommy Koh -- known for being mild-mannered and eloquent in public -- was uncharacteristically blunt in his assessment of Japan and India.

"Koh described Japan as 'the big fat loser' in the context of improving ties between China and ASEAN," a leaked cable detailing a meeting between him and US officials stated.

"He attributed the relative decline of Japan's stature in the region to Japan's 'stupidity, bad leadership, and lack of vision,'" it added.

"He was equally merciless towards India, describing his 'stupid Indian friends' as 'half in, half out' of ASEAN (the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.)"

Further WikiLeaks revelations have shown that leaders in Singapore also believe Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim had sex with a male aide in a honey trap set by his enemies.

There was no immediate reaction from the Singapore government to the leaks but the pro-goverA US state department cable dated November 2008 and given by the whistleblower to Australia's Fairfax media group detailed intelligence gathered by Australian and Singaporean intelligence on the opposition leader's case.

"The Australians said that Singapore's intelligence services and (former prime minister) Lee Kuan Yew have told ONA (Office of National Assessments) in their exchanges that opposition leader Anwar 'did indeed commit the acts for which he is currently indicted'," the cable read.

It added that Singapore reached its conclusion based on "technical intelligence," which a Fairfax report said was likely to involve intercepted communications.

A Wie problem with the par 5s

10 December 2010

Had a very pleasant walk around the Emirates Golf Club watching Michelle Wie and Stefani Michl. Ms Wie was striking the ball well - she just could not buy a putt until the 16th and 17th.

And the par fives, which with her length, should be a strength, she played in 5, 6, 6, 7. The 7 was on the 19th. Big mistake as it left her 8 behind the leaders.

Her back problems cannot help her and she looks to be swinging well within herself; maybe 75%. She birdied the third hole to go 2 under, but then had two bogeys on the back nine before stringing together two birdies. On the 18th, she double-bogeyed to move to even par 216 for the tournament.

Nice sunshine; blue sky; some decent golf and a walk in the park.

Probe reveals Thai troops' role in civilian deaths

10 December 2010

The Thai military played a larger role in the killing of civilians during political unrest in Bangkok this year than officials have acknowledged, leaked state documents seen by Reuters show.

A preliminary state probe into political violence in April and May concluded Thai special forces positioned on an elevated railway track fired into the grounds of a Buddhist temple where several thousand protesters had taken refuge on May 19.

Three of six people shot dead at the temple were likely killed by troops, the investigation found, directly contradicting statements by the Thai military, which has denied soldiers were responsible for the killings at the temple.

The report said there was not enough evidence to come to a conclusion about who was responsible for the other three deaths in the temple, but it said all six victims were hit by high-velocity bullets.

"There is a reasonable amount of facts, evidence and witness accounts to believe that (three) deaths resulted from security officials' actions on duty,"" the investigators said, recommending that police look into the deaths further.

The report quoted soldiers involved as saying they fired warning shots and cover fire, and had been shot at from the temple.

The findings by Thailand's Department of Special Investigation (DSI) are likely to embolden the "red shirt" anti-government protest movement challenging the legitimacy of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, who in June blamed armed elements among the protesters for the temple deaths.

Wat Prathum Wanaram, a Buddhist temple, had been designated a "safe zone" for women, children, the elderly and the infirm. Thousands fled there when the military used force on May 19 to disperse protesters occupying a nearby commercial district.

According to the DSI's investigation, witnesses reported scenes of chaos outside the temple as gunshots rang out and civilians fled a shopping area.

One witness said he saw soldiers firing from the elevated train track into a medical tent inside the compound, where two nurses treating wounded civilians were killed.

Ninety-one people were killed and at least 1,800 were wounded during the unrest in April and May. More than 30 buildings were set on fire. It was the worst political violence in modern Thai history.

The DSI is investigating a total of 89 deaths linked to the unrest but the government has yet to publicly release any findings despite pressure from human rights groups.

The findings seen by Reuters were contained in two DSI reports -- one on the temple shootings and another on the April 10 death of Reuters cameraman Hiro Muramoto.

Muramoto, a 43-year-old Japanese national based in Tokyo, was killed by a high-velocity bullet wound to the chest while covering protests in Bangkok's old quarter.

The report quoted a witness who said Muramoto collapsed as gunfire flashed from the direction of soldiers. Thailand's government has not yet publicly released the report into his death despite intense diplomatic pressure from Japan.

Reuters Editor in Chief David Schlesinger called for the immediate public release of the full report.

"The Thai authorities owe it to Hiro's family to reveal exactly how this tragedy happened and who was responsible," Schlesinger said in a statement.

The detailed accounts of soldiers opening fire on civilians could inflame public anger and galvanize supporters of twice-elected and now-fugitive former premier Thaksin Shinawatra, who has called for an international probe into the April-May violence, including the contentious deaths at the temple.

One witness hiding under a car at the temple said he was shot at four or five times by men in camouflage uniforms positioned on the elevated mass transit Skytrain track.

He was hit once and helped to safety by a monk. Autopsies showed bullets found in four of the six bodies inside the temple were the same type that soldiers on the elevated tracks said they were equipped with. An unknown number of people were wounded at the temple.

Soldiers quoted in the DSI report said they fired warning shots toward the temple and came under fire from black-clad gunmen from below and by another gunman in the temple. They said they were providing cover fire for troops on the ground, who had requested backup.

Tharit Pengdith, director general of the Department of Special Investigation, said the DSI had concluded its preliminary investigation and passed the results to the police but had not publicly disclosed the contents.

"The investigation report is a sensitive issue to talk about or to confirm its authenticity," he said. "It's an official secret. To confirm the authenticity of the report sent to police would affect the rights of the people whose names were in it."

He would neither confirm nor deny the authenticity of the two reports seen by Reuters but said police will now investigate the case of the three people believed to have been killed by troops at the temple, along with three others possibly killed by troops, including Muramoto.

The results of the police investigation will be sent to the DSI and government prosecutors.

If troops are found responsible for civilian deaths, families could sue for compensation. But authorities could also claim shootings were committed in the line of official duty.

Fifa backtracking on Qatar 2022

10 December 2010

Apparently the self anointed god of football FIFA President Sepp Blatter has said that countries near Qatar could host some 2022 World Cup games, according to L’Equipe newspaper.

FIFA executives last week chose Qatar as the first Arab nation to host the tournament.

Blatter said Australia, another bidder, had proposed to host games in New Zealand and Qatar could do the same with “nearby countries,” L’Equipe reported.

It looks like FIFA Is already having doubts about Qatar's ability to host the event - within the next two years before stadium building is substantially under way I will bet that the tournament is moved to January 2022 to avoid the summer heat. The tournament being played in the time set aside by most European leagues for their winter break.

Incidentally this would be hugely sensible and make for a much more enjoyable tournament for fans and players.

Liu Xiaobo – a democratic hero forged in the fire of Tiananmen Square

10 December 2010 The Guardian

To the Chinese government, Liu Xiaobo is a convicted criminal. To dissidents, he is a champion of democracy. To Robin Munro, he may have been the difference between life and death.

As dawn approached on 4 June 1989, two men stood with the few hundred students left in Tiananmen Square. The streets nearby were bloodied by the authorities' brutal crackdown. With troops surrounding the last protesters, it was Liu and a handful of fellow intellectuals who brokered a peaceful exit.

"In the final moments it was Liu who took the microphone and said 'We have to leave: this is it,'" said Munro, who was then a human rights activist in Beijing and who will attend tomorrow's ceremony honouring the jailed writer.

"[Student] leaders were saying: 'We will die here for democracy.' He said: 'We have done everything we can.' I will always be grateful to Liu Xiaobo … He may have saved my life."

Liu had been working at Columbia University when he learned of the protests and decided to go home. He was changing planes in Tokyo when he heard that the government had condemned the movement and realised how dangerous it was to return.

"I even asked about flights returning to New York. But then I heard the boarding call for my flight to Beijing. I didn't have time to hesitate. I thought, what the heck, live or die, I'll just go," he recalled years later.

The decision would lead to the first of several incarcerations. But friends suggest his subsequent persistence was just as meaningful. Liao Yiwu, one of his oldest friends, said: "Because of him, Chinese history does not come to a stop. After 1989, many people chose to forget what had happened, chose to go abroad, chose to divert themselves into doing business, or even to work with the government – but he did not."

Yang Jianli, another close friend now living in exile, says Liu's thirst for justice and reform began much earlier. Born in 1955 in Jilin province, north China to an intellectual family – his father was a Communist party member – he was part of the generation of "educated youths" sent to labour in the countryside in the Cultural Revolution.

"Some took it as suffering and thought they should reward themselves when they had power and money later. Liu Xiaobo took it as experience that helped him understand the real suffering of the Chinese people at the hands of the Chinese government," said Yang.

In 1977 Liu was admitted to Jilin University to study Chinese literature, but he soon became interested in western philosophy. After finishing his postgraduate studies at Beijing Normal University he became a professor there. He married and had a son, although it is thought he divorced his wife in 1989, hoping to protect his family.

Despite his commitment to activism, friends say he is far from austere. "This is a huge misunderstanding," said Liao.

"Actually he is less of a political figure to me than a passionate poet. And we often make him sing. He sings terribly and we always make fun of him. He is nice, and funny too. He himself is not Charter 08, although he drafted it. He is human after all."

In the 1980s he alienated people with his outspoken remarks and abrasive, some thought arrogant manner. "[But] he has transformed himself over the past 20 yearsfrom an individual fighter and thinker to a leader; he has matured," said Yang. "My old impression of him was that he [didn't care] how other people felt when he made comments … He has changed tremendously."

His second marriage, to fellow poet Liu Xia, who is under house arrest, is a source of strength: "[It] gives him force to stand against the pressure," said Liao Tienchi, another friend in exile.

They married in a labour camp in 1996, where Liu was serving a three-year sentence for speaking out against one-party rule. Liu Xia's concerns about his involvement in Charter 08 – a manifesto to promote political reform in China – proved correct. Hours before it was published on the internet two years ago, he was seized at the couple's flat.

A year later, he was sentenced to 11 years for incitement to subvert state power, one of the harshest sentences handed to a dissident in years.

"We think the charge is against the Chinese constitution, because in the constitution it says that Chinese people have the freedom of speech, publication and demonstration," said Liu's lawyer Shang Baojun. "One-party rule or multi-party rule – it is just an argument about the form of the state, it is not trying to overthrow the government."

Jean-Philippe Béja, a friend of Liu and a China scholar at the Paris-based Centre for International Studies and Research, said: "Although he was convinced a lot of things were not right in China, he has always been ready to acknowledge positive developments. He said the space for civil society was developing.

"He never went underground and he took responsibility and wrote and talked in the open. I think that shows he was not the radical, revolutionary subversive described in the verdict."

Many believe the sentence was intended to make an example of Liu. But it also galvanised dissent at home and concern about human rights abroad. The Nobel judges say it convinced them to give him the prize.

Liu remains in prison in Jinzhou, six hours drive north of Beijing, and a swift release seems unlikely even if authorities were minded to consider a compromise such as medical parole, often applied to high-profile dissidents. He has repeatedly refused to leave his homeland. "I think he is a person that feels he has a mission in China," said Yang. Whether he can achieve that mission remains to be seen. The signs are not encouraging.

Thanks to China's strict censorship, Liu's name is barely known in the country. And since his win, pressure on fellow activists has intensified, not relaxed.

But Yang insisted that was only the surface. "With the help of the internet, Liu Xiaobo's name will reach every corner of China very, very soon and people will know his name," he predicted.
 

The right reaction

9 December 2010 - The Economist

"Big crimes deserve tough responses. In any country the theft and publication of 250,000 secret government documents would deserve punishment. If the leak costs lives, let alone the careers and trust that have already perished amid the WikiLeaks disclosures, the case for action is even stronger.

Nor should a government fear to act because its adversaries are popular and fight back. That the digital Jacobins of WikiLeaks have a cult following should not save them from condemnation or prosecution. Removing illicit material from the internet is hard. But governments spend a lot of money, rightly, on chasing child pornography, bomb-making techniques and copyright breaches to the internet’s margins. Similarly, discouraging WikiLeaks and those who give it financial and technical support is justified for elected politicians in a law-governed state.

But calibrating that response raises questions of principle, practice and priority. Businesses will go their own way. Some, such as PayPal, Visa and MasterCard, which handled donations to WikiLeaks, and Amazon, which provided web-hosting services, have dumped it as a customer in response to American outrage. More may follow. They risk attacks from its fans, just as those that refuse face hostility from their customers in America. Too bad: business is full of hard choices.

For the American government, prosecution, not persecution, offers the best chance of limiting the damage and deterring future thefts. The blustering calls for the assassination of Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder now in custody in London awaiting extradition to Sweden on faintly mysterious charges of sexual assault, look both weak and repellent. If Mr Assange has broken American law, it is there that he should stand trial, just like Bradley Manning, the alleged source of the stolen documents. If not, it may be some consolation that the cables so far reveal a largely flattering picture of America’s diplomats: conscientious, cool-headed, well-informed, perceptive and on occasion eloquent.

If America sticks to those standards now it will display a strength and sanity that contrasts with the shrill absolutism and cyber-vandalism of the WikiLeaks partisans. Calling Mr Assange a terrorist, for example, is deeply counterproductive. His cyber-troops do not fly planes into buildings, throw acid at schoolgirls or murder apostates. Indeed, the few genuine similarities between WikiLeaks and the Taliban—its elusiveness and its wide base of support—argue against ill-judged attacks that merely broaden that support. After a week of clumsy American-inspired attempts to shut WikiLeaks down, it is now hosted on more than 700 servers around the world.

The big danger is that America is provoked into bending or breaking its own rules, straining alliances, eroding credibility and—because it will not be able to muzzle WikiLeaks—ultimately seeming impotent. In recent years America has promoted the internet as a menace to foreign censorship. That sounds tinny now. So did its joy of hosting next year’s World Press Freedom Day this week. Chinese and Russian glee at American discomfort are a sure sign of such missteps.

The best lessons to bear in mind are those learned in such costly fashion during the past decade of the “war on terror”. Deal with the source of the problem, not just its symptoms. Keep the moral high ground. And pick fights you can win."

Shame on countries boycotting Nobel ceremony

9 December 2010

The Chinese government has reiterated its call for countries to boycott Friday’s Nobel Peace Prize ceremony.

Sadly and foolishly some countries have agreed to boycott the ceremony. It is a sad world when profit and trade is seen by a nation as more important than the most recognised international peace award recognising basic human rights.

The Nobel peace award was awarded to Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo, a political activist who is currently serving a 11-year jail term.

As is the usual practice, 65 embassies in Oslo were invited to tomorrow's ceremony. Nineteen countries, including China, Pakistan, Russia, Kazakhstan, Colombia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, Afghanistan and the Philippines declined invitations. The Philippines is now planning to attend after significant domestic protests. As of Tuesday, Sri Lanka and Algeria were yet to respond.

Sadly this year will be the first time a laureate or his or her representative is not formally represented at the Oslo awards gala since Nazi Germany barred pacifist Carl von Ossietzky from going in 1935. Mr. Ossietzky was a pacifist who had spoken out against the Nazis and been imprisoned in a concentration camp. A furious Adolf Hitler banned all German citizens from accepting a Nobel in any category. Three laureates were unable to attend their ceremonies, but they had family members pick up their award for them.

Meanwhile, the European Commission warned Serbia on Wednesday its decision to shun the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony for a Chinese dissident would send the wrong message about its readiness to progress toward European Union entry.

China has flexed its economic muscle in drumming up support for the boycott. Most of the 18 states joining it -- including Serbia -- have strong commercial interests with China or share its hostility toward Western human rights pressure.

Belgrade has a number of business deals at stake, ranging from loans for major coal-powered plants to a bridge construction project over the Danube.

It also relies on Chinese support in the U.N. Security Council for its opposition to the independence of Kosovo, a former province of Serbia that seceded in 2008. Guess what China gets in return; recognition of its occupation and control of Tibet.

The Serbian foreign minister said that the decision "perhaps does not leave the best taste in the mouth, but we had to take into account our relations with key political players in the world...China is Serbia's proven friend, and has offered unconditional support in our difficult moments, which meant a great deal.

So it is all about politics - and nothing to do with the principles of peace and human rights that the Nobel Prize was founded to recognise. And Serbia, after its recent history, should value peace and human rights more than most nations.

Joining China in staying away also are: Russia, Kazakhstan, Colombia, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Egypt, Sudan, Ukraine, Cuba and Morocco.

More embarrassingly even the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navanethem Pillay, won't be there. That is feeble.

Their absences come after a relentless pressure campaign by China's government. Beijing sees absolute national sovereignty as a key to national cohesiveness. There are many reasons for this. The country has seen its sovereignty violated repeatedly by Western powers and Japan over the past 200 years. Today it fears secessionist movements in Xinjiang and Tibet, and it also seeks to assert authority over Taiwan. It is also animated by a culture that often places collective progress over individual rights.

Sadly wherever human rights are massively abused today, China is the main protector of the abusing government. In Sudan, China shielded the Bashir government in the U.N. as Sudanese troops and allied militias used Chinese arms to commit genocide in Darfur. Brutal regimes in Burma and North Korea similarly could not survive without strong Chinese support, protection and weapons. China has blocked efforts to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and to pressure Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka to adhere to international human rights norms.

That's a pretty depressing list - built around China's access to the resources that it needs. And as China grows there is little that foreign states can do other than listen to China's rhetoric.

Second technical win for Democrats

9 December 2010

Today the Constitution Court in Bangkok decided, by a 4:3 majority, to drop a case seeking the dissolution of the ruling Democrat Party accused of unlawfully receiving a 258 million baht donation from cement giant TPI Polene Plc in 2005.

The court dismissed the case on the grounds that the process of filing the case with the Office of the Attorney General seeking the dissolution of the Democrat Party was procedurally incorrect and unlawful.

The case was filed by Puea Thai Party MP for Udon Thani Kiat-udom Menasawat with the Election Commission on March 26 last year. He accused the Democrat Party of not disclosing a donation it received in 2005 from TPI Polene.

He alleged TPI Polene channelled the money to the Democrat Party for election campaign purposes under the pretext of hiring Messiah Business and Creation, an advertising company, for 258 million baht to produce marketing material for TPI.

Mr Kiat-udom alleged this was a violation of the Political Party Act.

The court ruled today that Election Commission chairman Apichart Sukhagghanond, in his ex officio capacity as political party registrar, had never recommended that the dissolution case be forwarded to the OAG, and that election commissioners were not themselves empowered to make a decision on behalf of the political party registrar.

Under normal procedure, on receiving a complaint the EC is to set up a committee to investigate. The investigation results must be submitted to the political registrar. The political party registrar then makes a recommendation and forward sit to the EC for endorsement.

In this case, Mr Apichart, as party registrar, had not recommended that the Democrat Party be dissolved. So the EC's decision to ask the OAG to forward the case seeking to dissolve the Democrat Party to the Constitution Court was procedurally incorrect and unlawful, the court said.

Mr Jaran said the court voted 4:3 to dismiss the case against the Democrat Party.

On Nov 29, the Constitution Court voted 4:2 to dismiss another dissolution case in which the Democrat Party was accused of misusing a 29 million baht political development fund, on a similar legal technicality.

The man who kicked the hornet's nest

8 December 2010 - The Guardian

"Is this the end or beginning?" Betjeman put those words into the mouth of Oscar Wilde as he sat in the Cadogan hotel waiting to be arrested for sexual offences in 1895. Similar thoughts must have flitted through the mind of Julian Assange as he prepared to present himself at a London police station yesterday. He was duly arrested in relation to alleged sex offences in Sweden and remanded in custody for a week. Under technological, legal, financial, corporate and governmental attack from all sides, Assange has managed to keep his subversive website, WikiLeaks, staggering on, spilling classified secrets around the globe. Will WikiLeaks be floored by the arrest of its driving inspiration? Or will its actions, ethos and notoriety prove it to be indestructible and thereby demonstrate that there are new forces in the world which can effectively challenge established patterns of power and control of information? Is it the end or the beginning?

Of the charges themselves it is unwise to say anything. The internet is awash with conspiracies, smears and rebuttal, but for the moment it is best to let the Swedish judicial process take its course. It is, though, difficult to see what purpose is served by locking Assange away this week, given that a number of reputable people were prepared to stand surety for his bail. The best way of demonstrating that the charges have nothing to do with silencing WikiLeaks is to let it carry on leaking while Assange faces his accusers.

But, 10 days into the disclosures, a number of questions about the way the world has changed are becoming more clearly framed. The first concerns diplomacy itself. Should diplomats be able to speak confidentially with their governments and sources?

The answer is, clearly, yes. Without secret communication there could be no meaningful diplomacy and textured communication between countries. But at least two further issues immediately come into play. Diplomatic sources deserve protection, too – and it is apparent that the US government must rapidly reconsider the way it exposed the confidences of sensitive sources to a potential audience of millions of Americans cleared to read "secret" material. And if American diplomats must troop around TV studios citing the Vienna convention, which protects diplomatic embassies and communications as "inviolate", then they must do a better job of explaining why Hillary Clinton was recently sending out demands on behalf of the CIA to spy on foreign envoys at the UN and around the world. If the sanctity of the diplomatic bag is to mean anything, it must be a universal value.

The implications of the WikiLeaks disclosures for vast government databases are considerable. The confidential medical records of more than 50 million UK citizens will soon be sitting on a centralised £12bn computer system which can be accessed by as many as 250,000 NHS staff from 30,000 terminals. The NHS Spine is, essentially, no different from Siprnet, the military intranet at the heart of these leaks. The vision of a 22-year-old private soldier reading – and allegedly copying – the innermost secrets of US diplomacy is hardly a reassuring one.

The general principle of confidential information comes into conflict with freedom of expression issues the moment such material is leaked. That is not to argue that it is right to "dump" all the American cables for the whole world to read. It is plainly not. They need to be handled with care and a responsible eye on the possible damage to individuals and operations. WikiLeaks may have erred in some of its judgments over where the precise line should be drawn – but, in general, alarmist predictions of the sky falling in following publication of war logs and cables have failed to materialise. Mr Assange is accused of being relentlessly anti-American. But, for some years, he ploughed a rather lonely furrow publishing material which embarrassed corrupt and repressive governments elsewhere – an enterprise not dissimilar in its intent to organisations such as Transparency International, which is generously supported by the US government. Instead of wholesale condemnation of the leaks, it is more fruitful to look at the individual stories that are emerging and judge each on its importance and the public interest served. The anti-cable camp has veered from predicting harm to a metropolitan shrug that they tell us nothing new. Neither charge is right. In particular, countries with repressive governments and without a free press have a great hunger to read what their rulers have been saying and doing. We should not sneer at the opportunity these cables offer.

It is true that some of the dispatches confirmed what we already knew: that there was deep animosity between the Arab Gulf states and their Iranian neighbour, for instance, or that the Russian prime minister, Vladimir Putin, sat astride a virtual mafia state. Some stories broke new ground – the CIA instructions to spy on the UN being one example. China's willingness to see the Korean peninsula reunited under a government in Seoul changed the way we saw an old conflict; and the revelation that a senior Chinese official had co-ordinated the assault on Google took that story into new territory. Yemen's private willingness to admit that US bombs were their bombs, and the extent to which the US had lost control of policy in Pakistan, also opened eyes.

Closer to home, the "special relationship" has taken some dents. US criticism of the performance of British troops in Sangin, the cockpit of the Afghan insurgency, caused palpable anger among British soldiers, particularly as the US are themselves starting to take heavy losses in Helmand. This can only increase the estrangement of public opinion to the war. It was instructive to learn that the US had been given assurances that the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war would not reveal anything damaging to US interests.

What of the internet itself? What many people had thought was a resilient web – a communications network that could "route around censorship" – has, after all, a few points where failure, whether technical or political, stifles communication. The ironies hardly need spelling out. For a powerful argument of the potential of the beneficial power of the web, go no further than Mrs Clinton's powerful January 2010 speech on internet freedom in which she lauded the "iconic infrastructure of our age", adding this warning: "As in the dictatorships of the past, governments are targeting independent thinkers who use these tools." She meant Iran and China, but there is widespread unease at the tactics her own administration is using to stifle WikiLeaks into silence.

The academic Clay Shirky has blogged persuasively this week that the US government should openly use the law against WikiLeaks and others rather than muscle. "Whatever restrictions we eventually end up enacting, we need to keep Wikileaks alive today, while we work through the process democracies always go through to react to change. If it's OK for a democracy to just decide to run someone off the internet for doing something they wouldn't prosecute a newspaper for doing, the idea of an internet that further democratizes the public sphere will have taken a mortal blow." We agree.
 

Two steps backwards

8 December 2010

There is no tax in the UAE is a frequent refrain. But the UAE authorities have other means to drive up revenues.

Two big additional costs will hit home in the new year. Firstly, the labour card and residential visa validity has now been reduced to two years in the UAE. For companies like Emirates with some 40,000 expatriate staff in Dubai this is a significant additional cost and a time consuming bureaucracy.

The move means paying more often for a visa, labour card and health card.

State news agency WAM reported that the decision would lower the time that private sector employees are obliged to spend with one employer. Clutching at straws. Employees can already move with a no objection letter.

At the same time there are new rules for Emiratisation, which will again be effective from next month. Among the changes is a requirement for private sector firms to have no less than 15 percent of Emiratis on their workforce.

Fines for companies failing to observe the Emiratisation policy are as much as AED20,000 ($5400).

The next big hit is that Dubai residents will have to pay an average of 15 per cent more on their water and electricity bills, as well as an additional fuel surcharge that will be added to their statements starting from January 1, 2011, the Supreme Council of Energy in Dubai announced on today.

Dubai's Supreme Council of Energy on Wednesday said that it is raising water and utility rates by about 15 per cent from January 1, due to an increase in the prices of oil and gas — the main source of energy for Dubai's power plants.

Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (Dewa), the emirate's sole utility provider (ie a monopoly that can charge what it likes!), will also introduce a fuel surcharge that will fluctuate in line with the global prices and will feature separately in the bills.

DEWA said that the company did not expect this increase to be a shock for residents. The revision was described as "reasonable" and "quite moderate" as the consumption tariff and slab system has not been reviewed since March 2008.

None of this is going to help turnaround Dubai or encourage new investment. Dubai (and the UAE) badly needs to remain cost competitive in this difficult time.

Wikileaks deserves protection, not threats and attacks.

7 December 2010

Julian Assange - Published in the Australian

"In 1958 a young Rupert Murdoch, then owner and editor of Adelaide's The News, wrote: "In the race between secrecy and truth, it seems inevitable that truth will always win."

His observation perhaps reflected his father Keith Murdoch's expose that Australian troops were being needlessly sacrificed by incompetent British commanders on the shores of Gallipoli. The British tried to shut him up but Keith Murdoch would not be silenced and his efforts led to the termination of the disastrous Gallipoli campaign.

Nearly a century later, WikiLeaks is also fearlessly publishing facts that need to be made public.

I grew up in a Queensland country town where people spoke their minds bluntly. They distrusted big government as something that could be corrupted if not watched carefully. The dark days of corruption in the Queensland government before the Fitzgerald inquiry are testimony to what happens when the politicians gag the media from reporting the truth.

These things have stayed with me. WikiLeaks was created around these core values. The idea, conceived in Australia, was to use internet technologies in new ways to report the truth.

WikiLeaks coined a new type of journalism: scientific journalism. We work with other media outlets to bring people the news, but also to prove it is true. Scientific journalism allows you to read a news story, then to click online to see the original document it is based on. That way you can judge for yourself: Is the story true? Did the journalist report it accurately?

Democratic societies need a strong media and WikiLeaks is part of that media. The media helps keep government honest. WikiLeaks has revealed some hard truths about the Iraq and Afghan wars, and broken stories about corporate corruption.

People have said I am anti-war: for the record, I am not. Sometimes nations need to go to war, and there are just wars. But there is nothing more wrong than a government lying to its people about those wars, then asking these same citizens to put their lives and their taxes on the line for those lies. If a war is justified, then tell the truth and the people will decide whether to support it.

If you have read any of the Afghan or Iraq war logs, any of the US embassy cables or any of the stories about the things WikiLeaks has reported, consider how important it is for all media to be able to report these things freely.

WikiLeaks is not the only publisher of the US embassy cables. Other media outlets, including Britain's The Guardian, The New York Times, El Pais in Spain and Der Spiegel in Germany have published the same redacted cables.

Yet it is WikiLeaks, as the co-ordinator of these other groups, that has copped the most vicious attacks and accusations from the US government and its acolytes. I have been accused of treason, even though I am an Australian, not a US, citizen. There have been dozens of serious calls in the US for me to be "taken out" by US special forces. Sarah Palin says I should be "hunted down like Osama bin Laden", a Republican bill sits before the US Senate seeking to have me declared a "transnational threat" and disposed of accordingly. An adviser to the Canadian Prime Minister's office has called on national television for me to be assassinated. An American blogger has called for my 20-year-old son, here in Australia, to be kidnapped and harmed for no other reason than to get at me.

And Australians should observe with no pride the disgraceful pandering to these sentiments by Julia Gillard and her government. The powers of the Australian government appear to be fully at the disposal of the US as to whether to cancel my Australian passport, or to spy on or harass WikiLeaks supporters. The Australian Attorney-General is doing everything he can to help a US investigation clearly directed at framing Australian citizens and shipping them to the US.

Prime Minister Gillard and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have not had a word of criticism for the other media organisations. That is because The Guardian, The New York Times and Der Spiegel are old and large, while WikiLeaks is as yet young and small.

We are the underdogs. The Gillard government is trying to shoot the messenger because it doesn't want the truth revealed, including information about its own diplomatic and political dealings.

Has there been any response from the Australian government to the numerous public threats of violence against me and other WikiLeaks personnel? One might have thought an Australian prime minister would be defending her citizens against such things, but there have only been wholly unsubstantiated claims of illegality. The Prime Minister and especially the Attorney-General are meant to carry out their duties with dignity and above the fray. Rest assured, these two mean to save their own skins. They will not.

Every time WikiLeaks publishes the truth about abuses committed by US agencies, Australian politicians chant a provably false chorus with the State Department: "You'll risk lives! National security! You'll endanger troops!" Then they say there is nothing of importance in what WikiLeaks publishes. It can't be both. Which is it?

It is neither. WikiLeaks has a four-year publishing history. During that time we have changed whole governments, but not a single person, as far as anyone is aware, has been harmed. But the US, with Australian government connivance, has killed thousands in the past few months alone.

US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates admitted in a letter to the US congress that no sensitive intelligence sources or methods had been compromised by the Afghan war logs disclosure. The Pentagon stated there was no evidence the WikiLeaks reports had led to anyone being harmed in Afghanistan. NATO in Kabul told CNN it couldn't find a single person who needed protecting. The Australian Department of Defence said the same. No Australian troops or sources have been hurt by anything we have published.

But our publications have been far from unimportant. The US diplomatic cables reveal some startling facts:

► The US asked its diplomats to steal personal human material and information from UN officials and human rights groups, including DNA, fingerprints, iris scans, credit card numbers, internet passwords and ID photos, in violation of international treaties. Presumably Australian UN diplomats may be targeted, too.

► King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia asked the US to attack Iran.

► Officials in Jordan and Bahrain want Iran's nuclear program stopped by any means available.

► Britain's Iraq inquiry was fixed to protect "US interests".

► Sweden is a covert member of NATO and US intelligence sharing is kept from parliament.

► The US is playing hardball to get other countries to take freed detainees from Guantanamo Bay. Barack Obama agreed to meet the Slovenian President only if Slovenia took a prisoner. Our Pacific neighbour Kiribati was offered millions of dollars to accept detainees.

In its landmark ruling in the Pentagon Papers case, the US Supreme Court said "only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government". The swirling storm around WikiLeaks today reinforces the need to defend the right of all media to reveal the truth."
 

Assange arrested and detained in UK

7 December 2010

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was remanded in custody today after appearing in court on an extradition warrant.

Now Mr. Assange is not an easy man to feel sympathy for. There is an arrogance about him that grates badly. He is clearly no fan of authority. But as the founder of Wikileaks it may be that he is a leading figure in investigative journalism. Conveniently his arrest and detention is in the same week that Wikileaks has started to release the first of over 250,000 diplomatic documents from the USA to and from its overseas embassies.

Assange's arrogance also appears to extend into his personal life. And his personal relationships appear reckless and possibly illegal and offensive.

Here is the background: Julian Assange, WikiLeaks founder and spokesperson, leaks classified US Government documents onto the internet, making many enemies in the process. He gets invited to Sweden, by radical feminist Miss A (her name is all over the Internet - just search for it). Miss W, a friend of Miss A, meets Assange and a love (or maybe just sex) triangle of sorts is formed. One week later both women accuse Assange of sexual offences. The original prosecutor dropped the charges for lack of evidence. A Swedish politician takes up the case; finds another prosecutor is another city and now the Swedish authorities have issued a European warrant and Assange surrendered voluntarily in London this morning; appearing in court this afternoon.

Gemma Lindfield, for the Swedish authorities, told the court that Assange was wanted in connection with four allegations.

She said the first complainant, Miss A, said she was victim of "unlawful coercion" on the night of August 14 in Stockholm. The court heard Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.

The second charge alleged Assange "sexually molested" Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her "express wish" one should be used.

The third charge claimed Assange "deliberately molested" Miss A on August 18 "in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity".

The fourth charge accused Assange of having sex with a second woman, Miss W, on August 17 without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home.

It is hard to separate out the rape accusations from the US smear campaign and attacks on Wikileaks. It is bizarre that the most liberal of democracies are condemning the release of the diplomatic material. Let's face it - if Assange was in China doing the same thing, the West would have called him a dissident and given him a Nobel Prize.

Miss A is known in Sweden for her feminism views on how men achieve social dominance through sex and posted a blog entry on ‘7 Steps to Legal Revenge by Miss A’. To add to the fun Miss A has worked for a time, in an intern-like job, for the Swedish government in Washington DC and possibly elsewhere. The plot is thick.

The story begins the weekend of August 15. Miss A reportedly invited Assange to Stockholm, and was briefly appointed his press secretary during his visit.

According to the Swedish newspaper Expressen, Assange sexually harassed Miss A in Stockholm; then two or three days later traveled 20km to Enköping where he supposedly met Miss W who just happens to be a friend of Miss A. Miss A and Miss W decided a week later to go to a police station together saying that "Assange raped and harassed us”.

The women reported that a separate non-consensual incident of a similar character in which Assange allegedly had sex with them without using a condom.

Chief prosecuter, Eva Finné overruled the prosecutor on the night the report was filed, saying “I don’t think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape”.

On September 1, 2010 a senior prosecutor re-opened the rape investigation indicating that new information had come in; Claes Borgstrom, says “In both cases, what started out as voluntary sex subsequently developed into an assault.”

On November 20, INTERPOL, listed Assange as wanted at the request of Swedish authorities for sexual offences.

Meanwhile,US Federal authorities are investigating whether Assange violated criminal laws by releasing leaked government documents on the WikiLeaks site, suggesting possible espionage charges under which Assange could be extradited from Sweden to the USA.

Rep. Peter King of New York seconded the charge and asked whether WikiLeaks can be declared a terrorist organization.

In reality the leaked documents are little more than an embarrassment. But their release has made Assange a target of revulsion by many government officials.

Assange, on the other hand, portrays himself as a crusading journalist whose objective is to expose lying, corrupt and murderous leadership and organization that use secrecy to conceal unjust behaviour. The moral high ground hardly belongs to someone facing rape accusations. At best the guy is a player with questionable judgment in his choice of partners. At worst his arrogance is criminal and will be his downfall.

WL CentralAn unofficial WikiLeaks information resource

Dubai delays passenger launch at new airport

7 September 2010

Dubai may delay the start of passenger operations at its new Al Maktoum international airport by a few months, an official said today.

The airport — billed as the world’s largest when it becomes fully operational with expected passenger capacity of up to 160 million people a year — was planned to open for passengers in March 2011.

“At the moment, we are reviewing the opening date and it looks as if it’ll be later in the year,” Paul Griffiths, chief executive of Dubai Airports, told reporters on the sidelines of an aviation conference.

“We are going to review the passenger terminal capacity and and state of construction in a couple of months and then we’ll be looking at a date.”

The airport opened for cargo operations earlier this year.

Griffiths said a planned expansion at Dubai International Airport would increase capacity, allowing the smaller airport to handle up to 90 million passengers by 2018.

“So … it takes the pressure off us having to complete Al Maktoum in the timeframe we were looking for,” he said. If ever ?

Fifa says Russia 2018 and Qatar 2012

2 December 2010

Told you so - see below where I tipped Russia and Qatar.

I don't really mind Russia as a choice - I just would not go there. Too much crime. Too many mafia. And to be honest the Russian people are hardly welcoming. Unless you like to be mugged within minutes of arriving in the country. Maybe the World Cup will be good for the country.

But Qatar. This will be a TV world cup. Fans will stay home and watch.

FIFA will argue that awarding the 2018 and 2022 World Cups to Russia and Qatar sees the organisation continue to expand soccer's horizons while tapping into huge financial resources at a time of global economic uncertainty.

But why should a corrupt and political organisation of just 22 members sitting on FIFA's executive committee get to decide where one of the world's biggest sporting events is held? FIFA will need to sort its own house out. This may have been a great week for Russian and Qatar but it is a shocker for FIFA.

Russia won over rival bids from Spain/Portugal, Netherlands/Belgium and England for 2018 and Qatar ahead of the United States, South Korea, Japan and Australia for the subsequent tournament.

England were humiliated - out in the first round of voting with just two votes; one of those from the English FIFA delegate.

Rejecting familiar territories England, hosts of soccer's showpiece in 1966, Spain (1982), the U.S. (1994) and South Korea and Japan (2002 co-hosts) and going to Eastern Europe and the Middle East for the first time sees FIFA and its president Sepp Blatter continue a modern mission.

Brazil will host the next tournament in 2014, representing a return to South America for the first time since 1978 and a visit to one of the fastest growing economies.

Russia proposed in its bid document to FIFA a massive project of stadium construction and renovation, with proposals for 16 stadiums, 13 of them new, at a cost of $3.82 billion -- the largest figure among the four European bidders.

Qatar plans to renovate three stadiums and build nine new ones at a cost of $3 billion including the climate-control technology that will be needed to keep the temperature on the pitch to 27 degrees Celsius while outside it is a scorching 50 degrees. 12 stadiums for a nation with a population the same as Birmingham, England. Strange.

There will not be another vote for a World Cup until around 2020, or perhaps a couple of years earlier.

Press freedom: The Singapore grip

1 December 2010

From the Guardian -  17 November 2010

Singapore is proud of its place near the top of many international rankings. Its school system is by some measures the world's best. The island state promotes itself as diverse, competitive and cultured – an exciting global hub. But there are two league tables which shame Singapore. The first, compiled by the campaigning group Reporters Without Borders, places the country 136th in the world for press freedom – below Iraq and Zimbabwe. The second is the rate at which Singapore executes convicted criminals: arguably higher, per capita, than any other country in the world.

Singapore presents itself as a modern liberal democracy: it has a parliament, elections, courts, a constitutional right to free speech and the consumerist gloss of capitalism. Its citizens are free to become rich and to travel. Many do both. The country has by any measure succeeded since independence. But its autocratic political culture – overseen by the country's founding father and now official minister mentor Lee Kuan Yew – is highly and needlessly restrictive. The media is largely state-owned. Defamation and contempt laws threaten dissent. The latest victim of these is Alan Shadrake, a British-born writer sentenced yesterday to six weeks in prison and a large fine after being found guilty of contempt of court. His book Once a Jolly Hangman questioned the independence of Singapore's legal system, and its use of the death penalty.

It is depressing that a country as successful as Singapore should feel the need for such restrictions on free speech. Singapore argues that, without them, the balance between the country's Chinese, Malay and Indian populations would be upset. But the reality is that other successful parts of Asia – Hong Kong and Taiwan, for instance – have thrived by extending free speech and the rule of law. Singapore is making itself a less significant place by refusing to give its people the sorts of freedoms that are routine elsewhere.

On a practical level, the decision to prosecute Mr Shadrake was also foolish. His book has had far greater attention because of it, and Singapore's reputation has been harmed. Mr Shadrake is quite right to attack a criminal justice system whose victims are often poor migrant workers. His book was legitimate and – despite the court's claim to the contrary – largely accurate. The suspicion is that the Singapore government resented the exposure of a squalid system of routine executions which sits uneasily with the image it likes to present to the world. Singapore wants to be judged as a first-world nation. It must find the confidence to allow its citizens the freedoms that go with that status. Repression is not the route to success. In the end, it will prove its enemy.

More here : Columbia Journalism Review
 

EK changes for 2011

1 December 2010

This is the first release of new flight details and aircraft changes by Emirates for their 2011/2012 operating plan. This will chaneg over time especially as new destinations are added; together with additional frequency increases and aircraft allocation changes, most notably additional A380 deployments.

Dubai – Bangkok eff 30MAY11 28th weekly frequency resumes, EK374/375 operates Daily instead of Day x6

Also worth noting that Dubai – Bangkok EK372/373 which was expected to move to an A380 service will remain with 777-300 operation.

Dubai – Hamburg eff 01SEP11 Increase from 1 to 2 Daily. 2nd Daily flight operates with 3-class 777-200ER
EK059 DXB0900 – 1340HAM 773 D
EK061 DXB1500 – 1940HAM 772 D

EK060 HAM1525 – 2340DXB 773 D
EK062 HAM2125 – 0540+1DXB 772 D

Dubai – Sydney eff 02OCT11 2nd Daily nonstop service (3rd Daily overall) to be resumed
EK414 DXB0140 – 2230SYD 77W D
EK415 SYD0600 – 1330DXB 77W D 03OCT11-

Dubai – Singapore eff 30OCT11 Introduction of 3rd Daily NONSTOP with 3-class 777-300ER (non-suite; overall SIN service increase to 4 Daily)
EK354 DXB0325 – 1445SIN 77W D
EK355 SIN0200 – 0510DXB 77W D

Following routes sees planned aircraft change
Dubai – Colombo – Singapore eff 27MAR11 6 weekly 777-300ER and 1 weekly -300 operating (currently 5 weekly -300ER and 2 weekly -300)
Dubai – Lagos 27MAR11 – 29OCT11 EK783/784 777-300ER with Suites replace -300ER Regular First Class seating
Dubai – Guangzhou eff 27MAR11 Day x16 operates by 777-300ER with Suites (P), replacing regular First Class seating (F)
Dubai – Paris CDG eff 27MAR11 EK075/076 Daily 777-300 (currently 777-200 operates on Day 7, the rest with -300)
Dubai – Amsterdam eff 31MAY11 Daily 777-300ER (with suites; currently Day 2 operates with -200LR, the rest with -300ER)
Dubai – Munich eff 02AUG11 EK051/052 Day x1 Airbus A340-300 replace A330-200 eff 30OCT11 EK051/052 Daily A340-300
Dubai – Zurich eff 01SEP11 EK085/086 777-300ER (with Suites) replace -200. Service becomes 2 Daily -300ER with Suites
Dubai – Delhi eff 30OCT11 EK514/515 Boeing 777-200LR replace A340-500
Dubai – Hamburg eff 30OCT11 EK059/060 Boeing 777-300ER (with suites) replace -300
Dubai – Kuala Lumpur – Melbourne eff 30OCT11 Boeing 777-300ER with Suites replace -300ER with regular First Class Seating
Dubai – Madrid eff 30OCT11 Boeing 777-300ER (with Suites) replace Airbus A340-300
Dubai – Male eff 30OCT11 Boeing 777-300ER with Suites replace -300ER with regular First Class Seating
Dubai – Milan Malpensa eff 30OCT11 EK093/094 3-class 777-300 replace Airbus A340-300
Dubai – Moscow Domodedovo eff 30OCT11 EK131/132 Boeing 777-300ER with Suites operates Daily (currently 5 times a week with Suites)
Dubai – Nice eff 30OCT11 Airbus A340-300 replace A330-200

World Cup sites face D-day

30 November 2010