Media giants dance around sales stake

General Electric is in the tricky position of negotiating simultaneously with Vivendi and Comcast Corp. on mega-deals surrounding NBC Universal that are separate but also inextricably linked. The shimmying among the sides is likely to go on until at least Nov. 15, the start of the contractually mandated three-week window in which Vivendi has to give GE a yea or nay on whether it plans to sell its 20% stake in NBC U.

GE is certainly signaling that it is ready to begin its exit out of showbiz, nearly 25 years after it acquired NBC. And Vivendi is giving indications that it's ready to unload the minority stake that it has held since selling Universal to GE in 2004.

Up until a month ago, the betting internally at NBC was that Vivendi would take it down to the wire but ultimately decide to hold on to the stake rather than sell in a down market. But that was before Comcast entered the picture in a serious way.

At present, GE is pursuing a pact with Comcast that would have the cable giant assume 51% ownership of NBC U. Comcast would contribute its cable channels, including E! and G4 and several regional sports cablers, and $4 billion-$6 billion in cash to create a new-and-improved NBC U. Part of this deal would also give GE the right to sell more of its stake to Comcast over a seven-year period.

But GE's plan with Comcast hinges on Vivendi unloading its stake at a price that GE and Comcast can stomach. Word surfaced in the Wall Street Journal last week that GE and Vivendi were about $500 million apart on the pricetag for a sale. In the grand scheme of mega-mergers, $500 million is pocket change, and that stoked optimism that a three-way agreement would be reached.

Of course, no deal in Hollywood is ever done until a raft of lawyers say it's done, so there are plenty of wild cards. Vivendi CEO Jean-Bernard Levy has no incentive to tip his hand early while trying to extract the highest price for its 20% chunk. The Comcast deal under discussion values NBC U at around $30 billion. Vivendi is said to see the Peacock more in the $32 billion-$33 billion range.

GE chairman Jeffrey Immelt made what was likely a carefully timed appearance at a tech confab in San Francisco on Oct. 21 in which he seemed to try to dampen expectations of the Vivendi/Comcast scenario sailing through. He did acknowledge that GE is considering multiple options for NBC U, which is a significant change from the "Why would we want to sell?" stance that it has maintained ever since the union of U and NBC in 2004. For a company that makes most of its money building medical devices, jet turbine engines and household appliances, the unit that manufactures movies and TV shows has unavoidably been a bit of sore thumb.

Comcast CEO Brian Roberts, on the other hand, has made no secret of his desire to see his family-controlled firm become a bigger player in the programming arena. Even if Comcast winds up having to kick in a little more cash, the deal under discussion would bring the company wildly attractive assets (USA Network, Syfy, Bravo, CNBC, MSNBC and a film studio to boot) at a bargain-basement price.

And that would be the kind of fancy mogul footwork that Wall Streeters could cheer.

SLPP fails to get it right

From my personal assessment of Sierra Leone’s Grand Old Party (GOP), the Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP), it is still very evident that the party hasn’t been able to grasp the reasons that culminated in its failures in recent national politics of Sierra Leone.

Some will say that those who are in positions of authority and who are responsible for influencing the party’s policies or implementing them do understand what the party needs to do to regain its past glory, but due to the chronic and dangerous problems of egotism and other personal reasons, they are failing to face the truth and redeem that party’s image and glory. On the other hand, some think that there is a seeming lack of understanding of what the party needs to do to regain the support of the people of Sierra Leone. Another school of thought is that the party is over confident about its return to power in Sierra Leone – the same confidence it had in 2007 which led to its failure to the incumbent All People’s Congress (APC). I had had high hopes in the future of SLPP after the election of Mr. John Oponjo Benjamin as the national chairman. Meanwhile, occurrences over the past several months are pointing to a looming problem the party may face in the near future.

I happened to have attended the inauguration ceremony of the newly elected executive of the SLPP Delaware Valley Chapter – and a dance organized by that chapter on Friday, September 25th, 2009 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. The occasion was very successful as many Sierra Leoneans attended – including representatives from the APC. During that occasion, I sensed that all of us were cajoled by the frenzy of the night – an emotion that led some speakers into making political gaffes and sensitive misstatements. I was quick to draw my attention to the fact that though the SLPP made financial gains through the gate fees, but the party must have paid closer attention to the crowd mix and understand that some attendees were at the occasion to observe a political party that is realistically struggling to regain the people’s trust and confidence. Hence, my least expectation was for the party to have allowed any political blunder at any level at this time.

One of the speakers was the Chairman of SLPP, Western Area, Sierra Leone, Mr. Lansana Fadika. I was interested in listening to this very energetic guy whose enthusiasm and commitment to the party is remarkable – at least I could sense that from his energy. I was also interested in him speaking because he is one of the important national leaders of the party in Sierra Leone. Therefore, his position in the party makes him more knowledgeable about the party’s approach to addressing its problems; or, he was the appropriate guy who could represent the views of the party from the national executive point of view. Indeed, I concluded my analysis of his speech based on these perceptions about him.

Unfortunately, I was saddened by Mr. Fadika’s over-confidence and ‘downing’ of his brothers and sisters of the People’s Movement for Democratic Change (PMDC). Mr. Fadika presented the SLPP to the audience as a party that still commands loyalty from majority of Sierra Leoneans unlike the current feasible assessment of the party from the four regions of the country. As a Grand Old Party, I would expect more political maturity and less confrontation from anyone who represents that party of ours. Mr. Fadika’s over-confidence scared the heck out me about what is the future for this party. My scare and reservation will only probably go away if I see the SLPP regaining massive support from the people of our country’s capital city, Freetown; regaining control of the Freetown city council, healing the internal wounds among its members, bringing together the divide between its people at the party’s south-eastern base, addressing the issue of late Sam Hinga Norman, and regaining the trust and confidence of the Sierra Leonean people. Those have not happened yet, and do not seem to easily happen as evidenced by the lack of focus on those important issues.

On another note, I feel troubled to deduce from Mr. Fadika’s speech that the SLPP national authority still doesn’t know how to approach the important issue of the PMDC. What I saw in Mr. Fadika’s speech was a representation of an endless resentment and anger at PMDC. This is what Mr. Fadika said, “La tell oonu all, PMDC don die – en ee nor dae ever grap again. APC ful dem, sak dem man dem all, en don lef dem now. Den all geh for cam back to we by force”.

I was troubled by these statements as it represented to me that despite the well attended national convention of the PMDC recently in Kenema; despite the close links between that party and the ruling APC; and despite the party’s capability to take away votes from the SLPP, the SLPP has not grasped the simple concept that ‘politics is a number game’. While the APC is openly and untraditionally supporting the PMDC and its grass root members – further dividing the SLPP votes in its traditional south and east of the country, the SLPP which has closer relationship with the PMDC continues to play the blame game and fails to reach out to their brothers and sisters who were once members of the GOP. I am not sure why Mr. Fadika thinks that the continued split of the south-eastern votes between the SLPP and APC will get the SLPP back to power. I am not sure why Mr. Fadika thinks that with SLPP’s struggle with the electorate in the north, west, south and east of Sierra Leone will get the SLPP back to power. Well, some in the SLPP might say, let us just leave the PMDC to dissolve itself naturally. While that wishful thinking might make meaning to SLPP now, but PMDC seems to be running its normal organizational operations despite the fact that some of its members have defected back to the SLPP. However, some of their other members might still decide to go to the APC. Meanwhile, I am in total agreement with Mr. Fadika on his statement about the APC. I think that he was politically correct. But his over confidence is dangerous for the party, especially when it is observed to be held so highly by a man considered as one of the staunch national executive members. His current position on PMDC might be the same across the national executive – which worries me.

Being born in an SLPP family, raised with that party’s political philosophy and ideology, participated in the party’s activities in the Young Generation wing in Kenema and in the United States, I took a hard decision myself in 2005 to join other Sierra Leoneans to form the PMDC. Neither I nor any of those founders of PMDC did any wrong to anyone in forming that party. What we did was exercising our free democratic rights as free Sierra Leoneans because we felt something was going wrong in the SLPP which seemed irresolvable – an attestation which continues to manifest itself even today. We thought that strangers and people with political blemishes were clandestinely taking over the SLPP, and nothing substantial was happening to address the problem. We thought that despite his chronological age which was by far an age equivalent to our grand fathers, but that we were more of seniors in SLPP than Berewa who was selected by Kabbah and his cohorts. While in the PMDC, I held the position of Assistant Secretary General of the party’s USA/Canada region, Secretary General of the party’s Delaware Valley chapter, member of the Technology team, leader of the USA delegation to the 2007 conference held in Bo, and webmaster of the party’s website. Holding these positions, I got to know much about the PMDC starting from the leader down to the grass root members.

One thing I am certain about is the fact that PMDC is not ready to die yet as Mr. Fadika opined. That party, though the Sierra Leonean people are not yet ready to let it form national government, but will continue to be a force to reckon with despite how we view it: It will continue to take away votes from the SLPP. It will continue to keep the APC in power. This is just the plain truth. Members of that party are determined to continue and don’t buy into egotism and all of the other personal ‘stuff’ that naturally distract formidable organizations from their goals. So rhetoric like Mr. Fadika’s may even encourage those on the fence to stay back with the PMDC because they’ll certainly begin to feel that there is resentment against them even if they decide to come back to the SLPP. Can you imagine Mr. Fadika what it’ll mean to the SLPP if the APC including the President, Ernest Bai Koroma hears that a unity meeting has suddenly taken place between the SLPP and the PMDC? Do you understand the political advantage of that move?

I decided to return to the SLPP because I think that with the new leadership of the party, it may advance policies and implement activities that will positively influence national interest and support again. However, I have sensed that there is so much at stake in this GOP that if the whole of 2009 is wasted without making any policy statement on how it intends to progress, and making a realistic progress in achieving unity with the PMDC, but believes that PMDC’s natural death is inevitable, fundamentally, the party continues to weaken itself while strengthening the incumbent APC. Up to this minute that I am writing, there is nothing on record to show the effort of the SLPP in officially reaching out to the PMDC in resolution of whatever may have been the problem between the two parties. This further justifies the belief which many hold that the SLPP hasn’t still got it yet. This party just doesn’t understand the immense importance of “every man is important in a simple majority political system”. The whole of 2009 has been wasted lambasting each other either verbally, physically, or virtually on the Internet, on e-groups, or casting blames on PMDC for the party’s failure. Nothing has been done to address the issue of late Sam Hinga Norman and return that trust back to its base. Nothing has been done to find out the reasons that led to the party’s failure from different fronts.

Another very important problem I have physically identified within the SLPP is the problem of grudges among members for each other. I can cite an instance on the recent chapter election held here in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to elect its chapter executive. While the elections were one of the best ever SLPP held elections in the diaspora, it left scars that are still difficult to heal. While there was a large turnout of the Sierra Leonean people (some of whom were SLPP members already, and some who registered with the party during that election period), and raising funds up to the tune of $10,000, evidences show that people were being intimidated and politically ostracized and marginalized for freely exercising their democratic rights. People faced and continue to face these out castings because they chose to support particular candidates in the past elections. This kind of action and reaction among the SLPP members is easily identified at almost all levels of the party’s hierarchy. Up to this moment that you are reading this article, people who consider themselves as members of the SLPP do not talk to each other because of these petty ‘stuff’. Similarly, if you happen to check into what discussions ensue among members of the SLPP on the e-groups, they mostly are about attacking each other, castigating each other, etc., other than suggesting strategies that may help the party re-surface again on the political front. These show signs of internal mayhem that the SLPP is grappling with.

Some of us living in the diaspora must have learnt some lesson from the USA political system after the September 11 attack on the world trade center, the pentagon and in Pennsylvania. After those attacks, the senate and congress formed a joined committee to investigate the reasons that led to those attacks – even though some of the reasons were known. When that committee identified the reasons, it came up with recommendations as to how such attacks could be prevented from recurring. Today, those recommendations are being implemented at the federal level of the USA government. Though different situations, but I personally was expecting the SLPP to have set up an independent committee to carefully and genuinely investigate the reasons that led to the party’s failure in the past national and local council elections. The results of those investigations may prevent a future failure of that magnitude – as long as the investigations are honest, reliable, genuine, neutral, and not influenced by any internal or external forces. The results of those investigations will not only be useful to the party in averting future failures, but rather, they will be an important asset to the party which could be useful to the future generations.

I am certainly aware of the fact that some people or cynics may view my assessment in a negative form, or begin to doubt my true return to the SLPP, but looking at the precarious nature of the SLPP internal problems and the impact those problems will create for the future generations of the party, it is important at this point that some young folks of our party start openly coming out on those problems. Some of us have suggested these points to authorities within the party, but our suggestions seem to be falling on deaf ears. We understand how the decision of few people will affect the lives of many people, even our unborn generations. We saw how we were affected by the poor judgment and decision of Tejan Kabbah and few people around him. The worst that SLPP will do at this nick of time is to allow a recurrence of the same problem that led the party to its current predicament. I would therefore again remind the SLPP to start a serious work on addressing the party’s internal problems, including reaching out to the PMDC openly without any reservation before the end of 2010. This party has no time in its favor and must not allow insensitivity to plague its people for another time. This is just my fair assessment and personal opinion of the SLPP. Don’t mean to hurt anyone.

University - Jerry Colangelo Joins Board of Grand Canyon Education Inc.

Many business analogies can be made by drawing on sports experiences, and Grand Canyon Education Inc., owner of Grand Canyon University (GCU), will now benefit from someone who is steeped in this world with the addition of Jerry Colangelo to its board of directors."With its traditional campus atmosphere, commitment to athletic programs and unique business model all structured within a faith-based framework, Grand Canyon University is an institution that makes me excited about the future of higher education," Colangelo said. "It has a 60-year heritage of producing graduates and professionals who are invested in their communities, and with its expanded base of more than 25,000 students throughout the country, GCU?s community minded spirit extends well beyond Arizona's borders."Recognized as one of the most influential figures in sports business, and current Chairman of USA Basketball?s Board of Directors and Managing Director of USA Basketball Men?s Senior

Many business analogies can be made by drawing on sports experiences, and Grand Canyon Education Inc., owner of Grand Canyon University (GCU), will now benefit from someone who is steeped in this world with the addition of Jerry Colangelo to its board of directors.

"With its traditional campus atmosphere, commitment to athletic programs and unique business model all structured within a faith-based framework, Grand Canyon University is an institution that makes me excited about the future of higher education," Colangelo said. "It has a 60-year heritage of producing graduates and professionals who are invested in their communities, and with its expanded base of more than 25,000 students throughout the country, GCU?s community minded spirit extends well beyond Arizona's borders."

Recognized as one of the most influential figures in sports business, and current Chairman of USA Basketball?s Board of Directors and Managing Director of USA Basketball Men?s Senior National Team program, Colangelo is a leader with the vision to help Grand Canyon Education further its goals as a leader in market-supported higher education. Colangelo is familiar with many of Grand Canyon University's prominent athletic alumni, among them former Phoenix Suns' basketball player and current Sacramento King's Head Coach Paul Westphal.

As evidenced by his involvement in dozens of boards over the years, from arts organizations to community revitalization efforts, Jerry Colangelo's expertise and impact go far beyond the sports world.

"He's an individual that enterprises seek out because of his intellect and strategic vision," said Grand Canyon Education?s Executive Chairman Brent Richardson. "He will be a tremendous advisor to Grand Canyon Education as we enhance our campus and grow our unique business model," he said.

GCU will soon kick off a new basketball season with hopes of leading its basketball programs to greater levels within the NCAA. Colangelo's insights from owning two major sports franchises and his deep involvement in the Phoenix community will help as Grand Canyon Education's profile in Arizona and beyond continues to grow.

"Jerry's strong Christian faith, his business successes and his insights as an international leader in sports will be great assets as we continue to evolve as Arizona's private university," said Grand Canyon Education?s CEO Brian Mueller.

About Jerry Colangelo

As Managing Director of the USA Basketball Men?s Senior National Team program, Colangelo was instrumental in selecting the players and coaches that compiled a 36-1 overall win-loss record culminating with the gold medal at the 2008 Beijing Olympics. He has been the face of the NBA Phoenix Suns franchise since its inaugural season in 1968. His roles have included general manager, head coach, president, managing general partner, chief executive officer and his current role as chairman. He served as the Chairman of the NBA?s Board of Governors, and served as a member of the league?s Finance Committee, Long Range Planning Committee, Expansion Committee, and Competition and Rules Committee.

He also was on the founding committee for the WNBA. He brought Major League Baseball to Phoenix in 1998 and served as Chairman and CEO of the 2001 World Champion Arizona Diamondbacks, going from expansion team to World Champion in just four years. As with the NBA, Colangelo was involved with the governing of baseball, serving on the Legislative Committee and on the board of directors of the MLB Advanced Media arm of the league. Colangelo?s impact on the game of basketball and the state of Arizona has been so significant he was elected to the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame, the Arizona Republic named him the Most Influential Sports Figure in the state of Arizona for the 20th century, and both the Phoenix Business Journal and The Sporting News magazine regularly vote him among the most influential people in business and/or sports.

Embracing 'sports-for-life' concept; Chesterfield complex seen as way to expand sports options in area

Can you imagine a place where you can get in a daily 45-minute workout with Olympic-caliber athletes, then go watch an Indoor Football League game or a minor league hockey game, all for the same price?

Steve Burton can. And that's why SportsQuest's CEO is confident that Richmond-area residents will embrace his 250-acre, $250 million campus in Chesterfield County.

"I am not the only one that thinks this will work," he said. "Our community has repeatedly taught me that our campus is what they have always dreamed about. I just want to help make our community dreams come true.

"I have learned that 'sports for life' is a concept that Richmond loves. We truly love to play our sports...We also love to watch the sports that we play.

"SportsQuest is simply going to offer a platform that will allow people a wide range of options for finding a sport that they can play for life, whether it be for recreation, for fitness or to chase Olympic dreams."

SportsQuest will offer youth development and club sports. It already is a training ground for Olympic athletes as speedskaters Kimberly Derrick and Jordan Malone have qualified for the 2010 U.S. Olympic Short Track team.

It has a professional sports arm with the Richmond Revolution, an Indoor Football League team, and Arena Racing USA (think NASCAR indoors with smaller cars). SportsQuest President Phil Evans is working on adding professional teams in lacrosse, hockey and basketball.

"We think we have the perfect location for an ECHL [East Coast Hockey League] team," Evans said. "Our complex will be like no other in terms of the breadth and variety of venues."

Burton says it's clear that amateur and youth programs could become the backbone of the campus.

He believes the youth-development programs and club sports will attract greater athletic participation among the 312,000 county residents, including about 60,000 students in Chesterfield County Public Schools.

"I would like to give more kids an opportunity to compete in scholastic sports," Burton said. "We want to provide a wider range of sports so we can develop a wider range of talents in alternative sports."

Burton's ambition is gaining support among two influential and potential partners: Sports Backers and Chesterfield County Parks and Recreation.

Officials for both organizations agree there's a need for additional athletic facilities in the county like Ukrop Park, the new home of the Richmond Kickers Youth Soccer Club. It opened at Chippenham Parkway and state Route 10 in August. The $8.5 million, 34.5-acre sports complex features six lighted athletic fields and an aquatics center.

"I think its great to have both these projects," said Mike Golden, executive director of the county's parks and recreation department. "It's a difficult time for any major economic major project to go forward, but [Burton] has the experience of taking things to a higher level. He has a good chance of making it happen, and I hope he can pull it off."

The Chesterfield County Public School administrators and athletic and activity directors have begun to see the potential of SportsQuest.

"We have met with Dr. Burton on a couple of occasions," said Ted Salmon, activities director at CosbyHigh School in Chesterfield County. "We're interested in having a partnership [with SportsQuest]. How we will do that remains to be worked out over the next 18 months."

The financial impact on schools will be minimal according to Burton. He has offered to provide thefacilities without cost.

"I only offer them a chance to expand their programming, which doesn't cost the school anything," he said.

"Our goal is to expand events, not compete. If we were to offer, for example, basketball, we would only do it if they want to expand the numbers of kids to play. It's something we might do in the off-season, so it doesn't compete with their current basketball schedule."

It's a compromise that apparently has defused some concerns among school administrators.

"It looks like it would be just one of the premier athletic facilities on the East Coast, maybe even nationally when it's fully completed," Salmon said. "It's [Burton's] desire to explore every opportunity to benefit the young people in Chesterfield.

"To have this kind of facility in Chesterfield, which is accessible to us because of its location, we have to be open-minded in working with the SportsQuest facility."

Jon Lugbill, executive director of Sports Backers, expressed confidence that SportsQuest can succeed despite an uncertain economic climate unsuited for such an ambitious task.

"One of the things we look at is the quality of events, which determines the quality of the venue," Lugbill said. "If a lot of Steve's plans come true, we're going to have an opportunity to expand what we do, and that would be great for the region."

Burton envisions a wealth of partnerships. He's hoping for residual benefits with parks and recreation, which draws more than 4 million visitors annually.

He thinks SportsQuest could conceivably attract about 25 percent of the county's parks and recreation visitors.

Golden said there could be a financial upside for the county, which spends $4-$6 million annually on maintenance and renovations.

The SportsQuest complex, which is expected to have several artificial fields available throughout the year, will lessen the wear and tear of county fields that typically are available only 32 weeks each year.

"This could relieve the county's financial burden of caring for facilities," Golden said. "They're looking to host tournaments on weekends and are willing to have the community use their facilities during the week. It's a huge benefit for us. It's an economic development project for the county, too."

According to Golden, this is the most expansive project ever planned for Chesterfield County. Harry G. Daniel Park, completed in the mid-1980s, consists of 20 athletic fields and the Chesterfield First Tee.

"You've got to bring a lot of parties together to make this happen," Golden said, "and that's going to take a lot of conversation, lot of capital and resources. The question is, can he develop a business plan that brings all these resources to the table?"

Olympic and professional sports also are important to SportsQuest. Burton has been working to bring governing bodies for U.S. Olympic sports to the area while Evans has focused on developing professional sports.

SportsQuest will provide training, living and dining facilities for elite-level athletes. What Burton wants in return for the office space and housing and training sites is content.

"Every year, we would be in the rotation for their Olympic trials, in rotation for national championships," Burton said. "We'd be given an annual competition that is of prominence and will be held on our campus. If we can get that in 20 sports, there's always going to be something happening at a really high level that people could enjoy being part of."

Burton wouldn't mind if USA sports governing bodies, mostly located in Colorado Springs, Colo., and Indianapolis, picked up and moved to Richmond, but he knows that's unlikely to happen.

"What we want to have is representation by someone at the governing body," Burton said. "They could move their corporate headquarters to us. They could move their mid-Atlantic regional rep for a sport to us.

"We'll provide executive suites, so you might move just one or two people here."

He thinks that if area athletes see the top fencers, cyclists, badminton players and team handball players perform, local interest in those sports will increase.

"If you can grow more people doing it, you'll grow more people who want to watch it at the highest level," Burton said.

Steve Pastorino, general manager of USA Team Handball, said his organization would consider opening a regional office or a high performance center when the SportsQuest project "comes to fruition."

Dan Cloppas, CEO/Secretary General of USA Badminton, had not heard of SportsQuest until a reporter called.

Cloppas found the idea of trading competitions for office space or a training center workable.

"We'd certainly be interested in having something on the East Coast," Cloppas said.

Most of the country's elite badminton players live in Southern California.

Cloppas said his organization would like to have an elite training center in five regions of the country.

"Our idea is that we can provide a consistent landing site for these sports that they can use year-in and year-out," Burton said. "These governing bodies can do not only the high performance piece, but also innovate and offer youth development and recreational programming.

USA sports organizations call for resignations of top USOC officers

The leaders of the organizations that train U.S. Olympians are calling for the immediate resignations of U.S. Olympic Committee chairman Larry Probst and acting chief executive officer Stephanie Streeter, citing "events over the past six months," which include Chicago's first-round loss last week in its bid to host the 2016 Summer Games.Separately, the USOC announced Wednesday that it is beginning a search for a permanent CEO and that Streeter will not seek the position, although she will remain until the new CEO is hired, likely through the 2010 Winter Olympics in February.

"It's too little, too late," says Skip Gilbert, chairman of the Association of Chief Executives for Sport. "It's time for her to leave."

As for Probst, Gilbert says that, like Streeter, his lack of a sports-business background or Olympic experience is damaging.

Probst said Wednesday that "obviously what we're doing internationally is not living up to our expectations. We've got to be different, we've got to change, and we've got to be better."

A survey completed in recent days by 44 ACES members found that 38 do not approve of how either Streeter or Probst are handling their jobs.

When Swiss IOC member Denis Oswald was asked if the 2016 vote was a defeat for the USOC rather than Chicago, he said: "That's my impression, yes."

Gilbert calls Probst, a longtime executive at video game-maker Electronic Arts, "a nice guy" with "a great business resume."

"But realistically," Gilbert says, "it would be as if you're about to start Game 1 of the World Series and you put someone who's never played baseball in as your starting pitcher."

Probst, 59, says he intends to stay on as chair as long as the USOC board wants him to remain in the position. He has three years left in his four-year term. The nine-member board is the only body with the power to make leadership changes.

"We are prepared to push this. We firmly believe that there will be other groups, other constituency bodies within the Olympic movement, that will follow our lead," Gilbert says.

If the board doesn't act, Gilbert suggested his group might seek congressional action. The Senate Commerce Committee in 2003 investigated a USOC ethics controversy that spawned numerous resignations and infighting. Out of that came the board structure that gave power to Probst and Streeter.

The USOC had no reaction to the call for resignations Wednesday, other than to note that the board is meeting later this week and might have a response then.

The USOC is aiming to have a new CEO in place by March 2010, Probst says. Streeter will remain until then but says she ultimately wants to return to the "corporate sector."

"It's more about a decision to go back to that than anything else," says Streeter, formerly the CEO of Banta Corp., a printing and supply management company, adding that she made the decision to not seek the permanent USOC job a month and a half ago.

Streeter, a USOC board member since 2004, stepped into the CEO position after Jim Scherr, who held the post for six years, was forced to resign in March. At the time, Probst said the economic climate required "a new and different set of skills" from the organization's leaders.

During Streeter's seven-month tenure, the USOC says it reduced expenses by 17% and increased income by 10%. In the past year, the USOC has lost three major sponsors (Bank of America, General Motors and Home Depot), while signing on Procter & Gamble and a handful of other minor sponsors.

Probst said Wednesday that the USOC board was "disappointed" Streeter wouldn't seek the permanent position and that "she has done an excellent job."

The USOC announced last month that it would begin a CEO search soon after the International Olympic Committee chose the 2016 host. But the 2016 results put a sharper definition on the job requirements.

The USOC will look for candidates with CEO-level business acumen, a background in international sports, multilingual skills, the desire to travel all the time and everywhere, and a commitment to stay with the job 10 years or more, Probst says.

"We are going to be very thoughtful about this," he says, "and we are going to involve all of the various stakeholders that have an interest in this and make sure that we find a truly extraordinary individual because this is an extraordinarily challenging position."

Chicago was ousted after garnering just 18 of 94 first-round votes cast, even though President Obama traveled to Copenhagen on Friday to make a personal appeal on Chicago's behalf.

The 2016 winner, Rio de Janeiro, will host the first South American Olympics, an historic opportunity that would have been hard for Chicago to overcome regardless of the USOC's shortcomings. The nature of Chicago's loss, though, especially coming on the heels of New York's early exit in the voting for the 2012 Olympics host, highlighted the USOC's lack of influence in the IOC.

The early rounds of IOC host-city selection are largely determined by bloc voting, where calling in favors on longtime loyalties and alliances can keep a city alive long enough to be determined on its merits in the final round.

"We need to do the work and take the time over the long haul to have more of a presence in the international community and with the International Olympic Committee," Probst says. "We need to hire a CEO who is willing and has the capability to travel extensively internationally over a long period of time to help build those relationships."

Until recent years, the USOC wielded power in the IOC because of its money-making potential. Most of the IOC's top sponsors were U.S.-based, and, like the U.S. television networks that pay the IOC the most lucrative rights fees, they benefited most when Games were held on U.S. soil.

Now those sponsors are more global, and the IOC, by awarding the Games to countries such as China and Brazil, is paving its way into new markets. As for U.S. broadcasters, the staging of the Olympics in Rio, in a time zone just one hour later than New York's, means negotiations for the 2016 rights will be competitive.

So instead of waving the almighty dollar, the USOC now must cultivate affiliations to succeed in the arcane world of the IOC.

Such relationships also could ease any underlying tensions between the USOC and IOC and perhaps help avoid future ones.

In the last year, a long-running dispute with the IOC over revenue sharing — the USOC receives 20% of IOC sponsorship revenues and 12.75% of broadcast rights fees while the other 204 national Olympic committees share the rest — boiled over. And the IOC balked at the USOC's plans to launch a U.S. Olympic network, because the IOC is concerned such a network will undercut its U.S. broadcast partner.

The revenue-sharing discussions were delayed until 2013, and the USOC put the network plans on hold after Probst negotiated truces with IOC president Jacques Rogge. Rogge said before last week's vote that he didn't believe those issues would affect Chicago's chances.

Probst says Chicago's loss has inspired him to devote more time to the USOC.

"It's clear to me that going forward, in order to be as effective as possible, it really needs to be done on a full-time basis and I'm prepared to make that commitment," Probst says.

Whether the USOC board will let him, and whether he would then be allowed to work without criticism, remains to be seen.

"If you look at the shortcomings that we feel Larry brought to the table — which was no sport experience, no experience within the Olympic movement, no international contacts to drive the relationships of our global partners — those are all pretty significant gaps in the ability of a chairman of the United States Olympic Committee to be able to embrace," Gilbert says. "If you don't know what you don't know, you can't really lead from a dynamic position."

A Tale of Two Supermen

For better or worse, our American Idiocracy has come to rely on athletes as national pedagogues. Michael Jordan educated the country about commitment and just doing it. A.C. Green lectured us about sexual caution. Serena Williams and John McEnroe taught us what sportsmanship is—and is not. And Charles Barkley outlined how society should define role models

So when a single week like this one sees both the Justice Department back states’ medical marijuana laws, and a Gallup poll show record-level support for pot legalization, we can look to two superjocks—Lance Armstrong and Michael Phelps—for the key lesson about our absurd drug policy.

This Tale of Two Supermen began in February when Phelps, the gold-medal swimmer, was plastered all over national newspapers in a photo that showed him hitting a marijuana bong. Though he was smoking in private, the image ignited a public firestorm. USA Swimming suspended Phelps, Kellogg pulled its endorsement deal and the Associated Press sensationalized the incident as a national decision about whether heroes should “be perfect or flawed.”

The alleged imperfection was Phelps’ decision to quietly consume a substance that “poses a much less serious public health problem than is currently posed by alcohol,” as a redacted World Health Organization report admits. That’s a finding confirmed by almost every objective science-based analysis, including a landmark University of California study in 2006 showing “no association at all” between marijuana use and cancer.

Alcohol, by contrast, causes roughly 1 in 30 of the world’s cancer cases, according to the International Journal of Cancer. And a new report by Cancer Epidemiology journal shows that even beer, seemingly the least potent drink, may increase the odds of developing tumors.

Which brings us to Armstrong. This month, the Tour de France champion who beat cancer inked a contract to hawk Anheuser-Busch’s alcohol. That’s right, less than a year after Phelps was crucified for merely smoking weed in private, few noticed or protested the planet’s most famous cancer survivor becoming the public face of a possible carcinogen.

“Apparently, it’s perfectly acceptable for a world-class athlete to endorse a substance like alcohol that contributes to thousands of deaths each year, as well as hundreds of thousands of violent crimes and injuries,” says Mason Tvert, a co-author of the new book Marijuana Is Safer.

“Yet a world-class athlete like Michael Phelps is ridiculed, punished and forced to apologize for marijuana, the use of which contributes to zero deaths, and has never been linked to violent or reckless behavior. Why the double standard?”

The data prove the answer isn’t about health, and our culture proves it isn’t about widespread allegiance to “Just Say No” abstinence. After all, whether through liquor commercials, wine magazines, beer-named stadiums or cocktail-drenched office parties, our society is constantly encouraging us to get our liquid high.

No, the double standard is about know-nothing statutes and attitudes promoting the recreational use of alcohol and banning the similar use of marijuana—all thanks to retrograde mythologies of post-Sixties Americana. In our now-dominant backlash folklore, the patriots are the straight-laced Joe and Jane Sixpacks—and the Armstrongs who encourage their drinking. Meanwhile, the supposed evildoers are the pot-smoking Cheeches, Chongs and Phelpses, whose marijuana use allegedly underscores a dangerous hippie-ness.

Ergo, the moral of this Tale of Two Supermen: To end contradictions in narcotics policy and permit safer recreational drug choices, we have to first reject the outdated Silent-Majority-versus-Counterculture iconography that defines so much of our politics. We must, in other words, replace caricatures with scientific facts and mature into something more than an Idiocracy.

Dumb Empires become Dead Empires

We Have Entered a New Dark Age

Characteristic of a Dark Age are death, famine, pestilence and war. Of course, we have adapted to the modern. We drown investigative journalists in Holiday Inn bathtubs. Lynchlng census takers, we decorate the corpse with a magic marker. There is such enthusiasm for war we don't require a reason to start one. Fear, intimidation and ignorance triumph.

Public and private officials have subverted and prostituted traditional American institutions and values. The latest criminal scam began in the financial sector. Deregulation allowed bankers to enter the insurance, hedge fund and financial service industries. They initiated all manner of fraudulent credit instruments. For quick profits they doomed investors and home owners to bankruptcy. They built up stock market and housing prices to an unsustainable level forming financial bubbles. When the bubbles burst, millions of citizens faced ruin. Consequently, retail sales crumbled, small businesses failed and unemployment soared.

To counter the economic crisis, the banks demanded bail-outs to avert catastrophe. They would use the funds to restore credit for consumers and small business to encourage employment.

Instead, the banks restrained credit to build up tremendous cash reserves. In essence they used taxpayer money garnered at zero percent interest to pursue other profit-making possibilities. The taxpayers assumed all the risks while the banks raked in the profits.

Gold Market Analysis & Gold Investment Research

GOLD IS the best game in town and when the music stops it may be the ONLY game in town that can yield any sort of return, reckons Neil Charnock of GoldOz
The music I refer to here is the sound of spin given some measure of credibility (only to the un-initiated) by massive stimulus spending which has kept this farce of an economy on its last legs through various stages for nine years.
Why do I claim that gold is the best game in town? Gold has outpaced all investment classes over recent years – meaning that it IS the leading investment class of this decade. Gold is now at record highs against the US Dollar, and has broken above resistance (but you have heard all that already). Gold remains real money and vital to the monetary system at the highest levels, because it IS real wealth and it IS a real store of wealth.
Even today, many people do not realize that the currencies they are forced to use for transacting goods and services are backed by nothing except confidence and more paper. Gold Bullion cannot be forged or printed, it cannot be won from the earth without honest effort and hard work so it is rare.
Gold is also a major part of the cultures that are in the process of inheriting some of the power that the USA is at present losing. With vast pools of monetary reserves, manufacturing capacity, cheap labor and/or oil reserves at their disposal, countries like China, India, Russia and those in the Middle East are in a unique position in this new emerging era. They love gold and we now have to face an era with a more powerful Islamic banking system that loves gold too. Gold is their favorite commodity and money.
The only way out for US citizens is to get capital out of the USA, I believe, or at least to get their US Dollar's away from the US banking system. This is best done by Buying Gold – in my opinion, gold IS the answer.
Gold is won from the earth by mining companies who are in a unique position in the economy at this time in history. They will become, in essence, like a form of central bank, churning out real money to be used to stabilize economies and currencies used for international trade. The US's trading partners have had to suffer an imbalance of power since 1944 when the Bretton Woods Agreement came into force, and the USA was handed this privilege and responsibility because it held the most significant proportion of the global gold reserves at the end of WW2.
US Dollar's were originally convertible into gold on request. However that all ended in 1971 when President Richard Nixon withdrew this function. Inflation of the money supply and the "great" modern monetary-banking experiment was here in full force. This was managed more covertly and expertly than any similar deeply flawed and dishonest monetary experiment in history. That is to say it lasted longer than any similar experiment to such a degree that the modern economic mantra became a new "truth" that even infiltrated education and common beliefs.
As for the so called fantastic era of growth and prosperity, there have been many advances but also many disadvantages too. There is no doubt it was great while it lasted if you were the one with the food and a good job and nice car/house/holidays etc. But have we really had any meaningful growth in GDP in the Western economies? What about culture, human rights and other higher values revered by civilizations at their heights through history?
Long-time "gold bugs" adjust the current price of gold to allow for inflation, and quite rightly so. The peak of Gold at $850 per ounce in 1980 Dollars can be conservatively shown to be equivalent to $3,000 in 2009 Dollars. But how about adjusting GDP growth to reflect true inflation, too? Would it not show a continuous depression for the last 20 years in the Western world – no real growth at all, which is absolutely sustainable.
The real capital movement was from manufacturing to the finance sector, from the West to the East and Middle East, from the middle classes to the super rich and the power gradually shifted from the people to the Corporations.
This is a type of shell game where the same particles are shifted around but nothing really changes. The populace gets the fleeting idea at times that they are like the white mouse running around in the wheel in the glass case getting nowhere. But they quickly shift this thought to the back of their mind and out of sight.
House prices went up in the US and refinancing paid for massive purchases of widgets, houses, SUV's, electrical equipment and concrete jungles in China and India but nobody really got any better off – they just went deeper into debt all the while, totally distracted by their new "wealth" as they lost their rights and values.
Look where it all started and then where it went wrong for the common man and the middle classes of the Western World. The '70s were marked by increasingly massive price inflation and fear that the US Dollar would blow up in an unregulated roar – and it nearly did. Gold asserted itself once again at the end of the '70s and history tells that it was put back in its box to suffer through the '80s and '90s in a controlled slumber. This part of history is fascinating if you want to research it. Please do; it will assist your understanding of where and why we are here now staring into our own financial abyss.
World power is shifting and respect for the once mighty US Dollar is gone. The chance of writing off bank debts and clearing balance sheets is unfortunately gone too. Debt woes merely deepened and now interest alone costs the US over 5% of its GDP every year. Trader mentality – your first loss is generally your best loss but that is just too hard for some to swallow – "the song remains the same".
Government stimulus packages have given the banks some breathing space to rebuild and play the yield curve, writing off some bad debt. It bought them time and it bought time for the populace and business to reduce debt too. Initially it was government capital injections that restored the bank reserves and liquidity, but not enough for them to pass on via strong lending activity so the government had to fulfill this with cash for this and cash for that. Clunkers, houses, etc…
The lack of lending capacity and activity – and the lack of a debt securitization market which allows the banks to shift debt to another party so that they can lend their allocations again all over again – is the reason for this great jobless "recovery". I have been reviewing the company report pages as I ready myself to update GoldOz Members pages this week and took notes on which companies raised capital, either borrowing or receiving money via new share issues. I was going to add to our file on capital raising, but there were so many that I have considered doing a list of the companies that have not raised money instead.
In such a tight debt market it is striking and highly significant to see the amount of money raised in the Australian gold sector since late last year. The smart moneyed sophisticated investors and banks ARE buying into this sector. They believe gold IS a great investment in this highly risk adverse economic climate. For decades they considered the Gold Mining sector to be high risk; the wheel does turn while the masses are asleep.
These stimulus packages are coming to an end near mid-2010, so where do we go then? The smart money IS getting into gold and IS getting into gold shares. The stimulus money is working its way through the system and this takes longer than most people and analysts think. For now the show goes on and we see the Dow back around 10,000...but is that inflation-adjusted? How much new money has been created since the Dow first reached this level in April 1999...?
The emperor is wearing a suit of nothing – he is nude and most people can see that and are waking up and scared and don't know what to do. This is not the fault of Obama or Rudd (Prime Minister of Australia) or the other new leaders, so don't waste your time getting angry at them even if they are making some bad decisions. They are caught in between a rock and a very hard place with nowhere to turn.
I hate to be negative as it is not in my nature. I prefer to stay with an up-trend and promote survival. The message is important enough to cover again and again however – cover your rear end and get up to speed and fast. Time is running out before the next down leg and you have the chance to do something – it is up to you.
We cannot in all honesty tell how the game will play out. The global power dynamics are shifting; dangerous geopolitical tensions are emerging over currencies, commodities, food, land and oil. The economy is in uncharted waters and we all need a hedge – protection from these uncertain times. Gold IS and always WAS important, valuable and a safe haven in troubled times.

The world of Karl Marx

When Marx was born in the early 1800’s, the world’s way of life was rapidly changing. The human race was exploring the new frontiers of scientific discoveries. Inventions such as the steam-powered locomotive, the battery, and the electric light were becoming a reality. The sewing machine brought convenience to women’s lives. Prior to this invention, clothes and other materials were sewn by hand. Elias Howe made it possible to produce clothing for the masses
John Stevens, with help from his sons, erected a circular railway in Hoboken, New Jersey, as early as 1826. Within the same span of time, the art of photography began to flourish. The doctor’s stethoscope was developed, along with the typewriter. In 1828, the first telegraph in the USA was invented by Harrison Dyar.
On May 24, 1844, from the Supreme Court chamber in Washington, D.C., Samuel Morse sent out the telegraph message “What hath God wrought?” to the B & O Railroad Depot in Baltimore. Maryland.
The world was still in transition from the old feudal societies. One of the things that were slow to disappear within Western Civilization was the dramatic financial inequities that existed between the haves and have-nots. The working conditions for the average laborer were often pretty dismal. As the economy shifted from agriculture to factory- based industry, children labored alongside adults. The factory owners found children useful not only because they could be paid minimal wages, but also because their small stature made them more suitable to operate machines that fit in tight spaces.
It was during this time that Marx began to shape the philosophies of the rest of the world. Unfortunately, the thoughts that continuously flowed from his pen have incited revolutions around the world. As many as one third of the earth’s people have been subject to communistic thinking in one form or another, as a result. Although the Soviet Union has given up its power, communist regimes continue in power to this day.

Weak dollar raises talk of alternative world currency

Just about every day seems to bring more bad news for the dollar.
Recent months have witnessed a steady erosion in the greenback's value, down 16% since March against the currencies of the top U.S. trading partners. On Wednesday, the euro broke through the symbolically important $1.50 barrier for the first time in 14 months.
Depending on whom you believe, a dollar hovering near its 52-week low represents either the market's devastating verdict on the Obama administration's profligacy or a salutary rediscovery of risk by newly emboldened investors.
Maybe it's a bit of both. But the downbeat drumbeat bangs on. Chinese officials openly worry about taking a bath on their enormous U.S. Treasury holdings. Foreign bankers talk of promoting an alternative global currency, such as the euro, yuan or a new synthetic medium of exchange cooked up by the International Monetary Fund.
In the U.S., some voices on the right, such as Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., detect an anti-American conspiracy to scuttle the dollar. But the roster of those opining on the dollar's woes includes establishmentarians such as Robert Zoellick, president of the World Bank and a former top official in Republican administrations. "Looking forward, there will increasingly be other options to the dollar," he warned last month.
As the U.S. tries to repair its crisis-battered economy, is the end of dollar supremacy about to make a tough job even tougher?
Not any time soon. There are "lots of reasons to be concerned about the dollar. … (But) a weaker dollar is a fantastic boost for the United States, and it's a problem for the rest of the world," says Kenneth Rogoff, former IMF chief economist.
A natural monopoly
Since supplanting the British pound more than 60 years ago, the dollar has reigned supreme in global markets. As of the end of June, the most recent data available, 62.8% of foreign exchange reserves worldwide were held in the form of U.S. dollars. An additional 27.5% were stockpiled in euros, according to the IMF.
The dollar's position has eroded in the past five years. In mid-2004, it made up 67.9% of world reserves. "A lot of people get excited about this. But in the 1970s and 1980s, there was even bigger volatility in the dollar share of reserves," says Stephen Jen, managing director of BlueGold Capital Management, a London-based hedge fund.
In March, Chinese Central Bank chief Zhou Xiaochuan proposed shifting global finance to a reliance on a new international reserve currency rather than the dollar or any other national unit. The aim would be to avoid the periodic crises that have characterized recent decades. But Zhou acknowledged that any such change would take "a long time."
The instability of a world economy so dependent on any single national currency is prompting even some leading American figures to argue for a gradual move away from the dollar. Fred Bergsten, former assistant Treasury secretary in the Carter administration, says a major cause of the current crisis was the destabilizing linkage between the U.S. trade deficit, enormous capital flows from abroad that financed it and the global dominance of the U.S. dollar. He argues in a new Foreign Affairs article that, to avoid a repeat episode, the U.S. should promote a move to a "multi-currency system" involving the euro and the yuan.
For now, the dollar's fundamental standing remains what it's been for decades: a convenient medium of exchange for buyers and sellers around the world. Just as Chinese merchants speak the global language of English when trading with Saudi oil barons, they use the global currency to buy the oil. "The reserve currency is a natural monopoly. It's so convenient to list prices in a single currency," says Harvard University's Rogoff, co-author of This Time Is Different, a study of financial crises.
The U.S. benefits from the dollar's unique role, enjoying what French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing memorably labeled the "exorbitant privilege" of being able to borrow abroad in its own currency. That insulates Americans from the danger of seeing their debts skyrocket in response to a sharp decline in the dollar's value.
The dollar doesn't owe its global role to international affection for Americans. Investors relying on the cold logic of the marketplace are drawn to the greenback by specific advantages that make the rise of a dollar rival inherently difficult. "There's no equally attractive alternative," says economist Barry Eichengreen of the University of California-Berkeley.
In the short run, the only currency that could challenge the dollar is the euro. It, too, has a continental-size economy behind it, and a decade after its introduction, the European currency has established itself as a fully convertible, stable store of value.
But for all its attractions, the euro lacks some essential attributes. Although the European Union has a central bank, comparable to the Federal Reserve, there is no European treasury. Instead, there are 27 European treasuries. Investors can't easily track or influence fiscal policy on the continent.
The dollar is also buoyed by the existence of a massive government bond market. There's roughly $4 trillion worth of U.S. Treasuries floating around, and almost $100 billion changes hands each day, according to investment management firm Pimco. Trading that's carried on almost 24 hours a day, rolling east to west from Tokyo to London to New York, makes it easy to move into and out of dollar positions in a hurry.
Europe, by contrast, has no analogue to the U.S. Treasury market. Instead there is a fragmented scene with individual sovereign debt from Germany, Italy, France and other EU members. No individual market enjoys anything like Treasuries' liquidity and size.
There's another potential dollar rival on the horizon, though its day likely lies a decade or more in the future. Just as the United States overtook the British empire, China's economy one day is likely to pass the U.S.'s. When it does, the yuan would be in position to fill the dollar's global role.
But before it does, China will have to thoroughly overhaul its existing financial system. Today, the yuan isn't freely convertible into other currencies, and there are strict limits on the cross-border movement of the Chinese currency. Chinese officials publicly have committed themselves to freeing the yuan to float alongside the dollar, euro, yen and other major currencies. That change, however, won't happen overnight.
Even if foreign investors have concerns about having so much of their national wealth tied up in dollars, there is a limit to what they can do about it in the short run. The Chinese, for example, have little choice but to keep recycling into Treasury purchases their dollar surpluses from trading with the United States. Beijing wants to prevent the yuan from appreciating against the dollar, to protect employment in its export sector. Even as it worries about the long-term prospects for its dollar-denominated investments, it has to keep buying dollars to do so.
"There's a gap between what's feasible and what central banks would like to do," said Steven Englander, chief foreign exchange strategist for Barclays Capital in New York.
Further to fall
The dollar's long-run prognosis is negative. In the wake of the crisis, a retrenchment in cross-border financial flows will mean less demand for dollar-denominated assets. And with Uncle Sam's printing press running overtime to cover the government's trillion-dollar budget deficits, the currency is expected to be further cheapened, says Eichengreen.
The decline in the dollar's value in the past seven months largely reflects an unwinding of the "flight to quality" that occurred during the most panicked crisis phase. Amid unprecedented levels of uncertainty late last year, investors flocked to assets denominated in the largest, most liquid currency. That drove the dollar's value against the euro, for example, up about 13% over the three months ended in March.
Since then, the euro has regained the lost ground and then some. A euro, which settled at $1.50 Wednesday, was at $1.43 in December.
In the political realm, the dollar's weakness is interpreted as a referendum on American decline. But its steady slippage this year is in line with economic fundamentals — that is, near-zero U.S. interest rates.
That said, neither the euro nor Japanese yen have had anything to celebrate. The biggest beneficiaries of the move out of dollars since March have been currencies of countries that heavily export raw materials, such as the Australian dollar (up 33% against the greenback) and the Canadian loonie (up 21%).
U.S. officials historically repeat mantra-like that they favor a "strong dollar." That really should be interpreted as a fancy way of saying "no comment."
So far, the dollar has only retreated back to the level it was at before the Lehman Bros. bankruptcy filing in September 2008 turned an economic downturn into a global financial panic. A weak dollar would be a problem if it contributed to inflation by increasing the cost of imports, or if it got so low so fast that the Fed felt compelled to raise interest rates to attract foreign investors. Neither is the case today.
The shrinking dollar also carries important economic benefits for the U.S. economy as it tries to climb out of recession. By making U.S. goods less expensive overseas, a weaker dollar provides a welcome boost for exports. The Obama administration has said it wants to rebuild the U.S. economy to rely more on making goods here to sell to people in other countries instead of depending on buying more and more stuff made elsewhere.
"The U.S., in the new normal, is going to have to export more because U.S. households will be saving," said Eichengreen.

China-India Accord to Scuttle UN Climate Treaty

The United Nations has been holding forums around the world to build support for a new climate treaty to be drafted in Copenhagen in December to replace the expiring Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto document did not require the developing countries to do anything about reducing emissions. The United States and European Union have been trying to find some formula that would persuade the developing countries to sign on to the new treaty. China and India, along with Brazil, Mexico and South Africa, have been adamant about staying out of any global requirement. By forming regional alignments that keep policy in the hands of national governments, the developing countries expect to be able to resist Western and UN pressure
It is easier to stay independent of the climate paranoia if one does not believe the planet is in peril. Xiao Ziniu, director general of the Beijing Climate Centre, told the British Guardian newspaper recently that "There is no agreed conclusion about how much change is dangerous....Whether the climate turns warmer or cooler, there are both positive and negative effects....In Chinese history, there have been many periods warmer than today." He disputed the disaster warnings of the UNIPCC, saying, "The accuracy of the prediction is very low because the climate is affected by many mechanisms we do not fully understand."
An article published in China's Science Times on September 7 cited a study done by Ding Zhongli, vice president of the Science Academy of China. It argued that there is no solid scientific evidence to strictly correlate global temperature rise and CO2 concentrations. Professor Ding noted that some geologists believe that global temperature is related to solar activities and glacial periods, meaning human activity is only one factor that can cause climate change. "Up to now not a single scientist has figured out the weight ratio of each factor on global temperature change," he wrote.
The author of the Science Times article, Wang Jin, used Ding's study as part of his larger argument that, "the massive propaganda ‘human activity induced the global temperature increase' has been accepted by the majority of the society in some countries, and it has become a political and diplomatic issue. Why do the developed countries put an arguable scientific problem on the international negotiation table? The real intention is not for the global temperature increase, but for the restriction of the economic development of the developing countries." The problem for Beijing is, according to Wang, "How can China fight for its right to emit while continuing to develop its economy?"
The answer is to confront the issue head on. At a UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meeting in Thailand Oct. 5, China and the Group of 77 developing nations reiterated their opposition to any binding commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from "poor" countries and countries with "economies in transition." They were prepared to walk out of the climate talks if there was any language in the drafts leading to Copenhagen that would limit their actions. As a result, the two weeks of talks in Bangkok ended "without a consensus" on how to proceed.
The danger is that the West will draft a treaty that will only apply to America and Europe, crippling their economies. This was certainly the hope of the Nobel Committee when it awarded its Peace Prize to President Barack Obama. "Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting," said the Nobel proclamation.
It was also on President Obama's mind when he accepted the award, "We cannot accept the growing threat posed by climate change, which could forever damage the world that we pass on to our children -- sowing conflict and famine; destroying coastlines and emptying cities. And that's why all nations must now accept their share of responsibility for transforming the way that we use energy," said Obama, whose alarmist rhetoric was almost verbatim with what he had said at the UN Climate Summit September 22.
In 2007, the Nobel Peace Prize was shared by former Vice President Al Gore and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UNIPCC), "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change." The 2007 award was also a slap at the Bush Administration which had refused to accept the Kyoto Protocol. Shortly after the award to Obama was announced, Gore said he was optimistic that a new treaty will be approved in Copenhagen.
The work of the UNIPCC is cited in the "cap and trade" American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) passed by a narrow vote in the House last June. On September 30, SenatorsJohn Kerry (D-MA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) introduced the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S. 1733) which will be the vehicle for climate legislation in the Senate. The bill states, "the United States should lead the global community in combating the threat of global climate change and reaching a robust international agreement to address global warming under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change."
The Kerry-Boxer draft aims to reduce CO2 emissions 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 compared to the 17 percent cut set in the House bill. As Bradford Plumer noted in a blog at The New Republic Sept. 30, "thanks to the recession, we'll be 8.5 percent below 2005 levels by the end of this year, which is why Boxer stumped for a steeper reduction." In other words, economic ruin is an integral part of the Green agenda.
The Congressional targets are still less than the goal of a 40 percent cut in emissions from 1990 levels by 2020 being pushed by the UNFCCC.
The most controversial part of the Nobel Committee's award statement was the assertion that Obama's "diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population." Basing American policy on foreign opinion is not the proper duty of a President of the United States whose job is to lead his own nation to greatness. But the Nobel Committee was also being delusional in an ironic way. The majority of the world's population wants to progress and improve its material standard of living. The governments which represent them outside America and Europe reject the notion that they should give up their aspirations for a better world to appease an unfounded climate paranoia among Western liberals. And they are right.

FACE TO FACE with Riaz H Khokhar

After 9/11, geo-political environment and security situation in this region has changed altogether. Particularly America’s indifference towards Muslims has made the situation even more complicated. As a foreign affairs expert how do you see this whole situation?
There is no doubt that 9/11 was a horrific incident, I think every sane human being will not only deplore it but would certainly condemn it. There is also no doubt that it changed the strategic environment of the whole world. 9/11 is one day in 21st century that could never be forgotten because it has not only transformed life in America but it had a huge impact all across the globe including South Asia.
And South Asia has probably suffered the most. The American anger was understandable, however it is debatable whether it was wise to attack Afghanistan or not. Perhaps, lot of people in the USA, think it was a lopsided approach. Now we have been in a situation for the last eight years and what has the US achieved? I am not going to refer to Iraq as it stands out as a disaster on its own. Afghanistan is a disaster in the pipe line. So the situation in Afghanistan is very complicated and Pakistan got sucked in this war on terror. This has not been our war but it has now become our war. The most unfortunate thing is that the then Pakistani leadership headed by president Musharraf did not really think through the implications of this difficult war.
Well Iraq is altogether a different story, in order to get rid of one person Saddam Hussain; the US destroyed a whole country and killed several hundred thousand innocent people. They had to invent information and the intelligence to deceive the world community about weapons of mass destruction. As a result, thousands and thousands of people were killed. It is still not over and Iraq is a huge mess. It is not clear how stable Iraq would be. I am sure that all the neighbours of Iraq are wary and deeply concerned about the US intentions in the region.Coming back to Afghanistan, Pakistan because of perhaps predominantly personal interest of president Musharraf, Pakistan got into this understanding with the US and got involved in this war on terror. You know we didn’t have a problem of terrorism in Pakistan, if you look at August 2001. Although we had violence here and there but there was no serious and sustained threat of terrorism in Pakistan. We have had extremist elements but we did not have terrorism of this nature you see today, indiscriminate killings, car bombs and suicide bombers. As a matter of the fact Musharraf’s personal agenda has landed Pakistan in a quagmire.
What was actually the problem that forced the former president Musharraf to join the US-led campaign against war on terror?
Musharraf’s main problem was legitimacy. As you know he came to power after a military coup in 1999, and was ostracized by the international community. So he thought that 9/11 provided him a great diplomatic opportunity to legitimise himself. He was desperate.
Pakistan, itself a victim of terror, became a frontline state in war against terror. The decision has been largely flayed within the country. Was it a step towards right direction?
Let me be fair to Musharraf, it was a difficult situation and the option given to Pakistan was either be with us or against us. But where Musharraf actually made a huge mistake was that he made an open ended commitment to the US
Usually, in international diplomacy, you don’t make open ended commitments to a super power. Initially, the Bush administration had seven points in mind for negotiations with Pakistan. But without any serious scrutiny and proper analysis, Musharraf was too quick to accept all the seven points. The US leadership was utterly surprised.
What were those seven points?
Without going into the details, if you look at the book authored by Collin Powel, the former Secretary of State and other subsequent material that has come out of the US, they were really surprised that Pakistan had accepted all seven points. They were just thinking that may be Pakistan would accept two or three points, but it accepted all seven. President Bush in fact complimented Powel for his excellent diplomacy. What was necessary that we should have drawn red lines that we will do this and will not do that keeping in view our vital national interests. Now we are in deep trouble because of the responsibilities that we should not have accepted.
After the US invasion in Afghanistan, Pakistan gradually transformed into a battlefield. There have been scores of suicide bombings all across the country. The people in Tribal Areas (FATA) continue to suffer attacks by American drones. What is your opinion in this regard?
Yes, Pakistan has faced massive violence. There has been a huge loss of life and property. More Pakistani soldiers have died in this war on terror than the US or NATO causalities in Afghanistan. Pakistan has suffered economically. The destruction that has taken place in Pakistan particularly in FATA region and NWFP (North Western Frontier Province) is worth billions of dollars. The figure is quite staggering. Government is talking of some 38 billion dollars’ losses. So the damage is huge and it is still not over. The situation in Afghanistan is worsening with each passing day. America is now reviewing its policy, but it is not clear which way the cat will jump. More fight seems to be in store.
What more is in store for Afghanistan, what more is in store for Pakistan? But whatever one has read it seems that the US wants to shift its focus of war from Afghanistan to Pakistan.
Now that there is change in US administration, do you foresee any shift in America’s policy vis-�-vis this region?
No, it is the continuation of Bush policies. More forces have been brought in and now there is talk of deploying additional troops in Afghanistan.
Many people believe that it is the beginning of what the US think-tanks presume as clash of civilizations. Do you believe in such theories?
I think we must not look at it in that context. Rather we should see it as an effort by a super power to destroy Al-Qaeda and remnants of Taliban in Afghanistan to eradicate extremism and terrorism from the region. But strategy based on military power is far from effective. Bombing is not the answer.
A powerful idea has to be fought with an even more powerful idea. It is a war where you need to win hearts and minds of the people. Many people view foreign forces in Afghanistan as “occupation forces”. History proved that Afghanistan hate foreign forces. This is a historical truth.
How do you see the political situation in Afghanistan as it has a direct impact on the geo-political situation in this region? Do you think Mr. Karzai would be able to stabilize the situation in Afghanistan?
You see in Afghanistan, the war of winning hearts and minds of the people is already lost, due to the useless, incompetent and ineffective puppet regime. It has miserably failed to stabilize the political situation in the country. Karzai no doubt lives in Kabul but he can’t venture out of his palace, he is unpopular and is basically seen as a puppet. He has patronised warlords, drug lords and corruption
A peaceful and prosperous Afghanistan is indeed very essential for Pakistan. Certainly an Afghanistan at peace with itself and more concerned about the welfare of its people, is what Karzai should have focussed on. He has let down his own people and his masters as well. Look at the recently held elections in Afghanistan. It was a fraudulent election. I don’t see Karzai as an asset for the US or an asset for the people of Afghanistan. Frankly speaking he should have been dumped by the US. His election is a huge embarrassment for the USA and the west.
It is for the first time since 1947 that Pakistan had to mobilize its troops on its Western border. The government had also launched a full-fledged military offensive in the Malakand division, which is largely perceived as a conspiracy to destabilize Pakistan. Your opinion?
We have deployed over hundred thousand troops along the Durand line. Basically in two contexts, one of course, as a member of the United Nations, it is our responsibility under the Security Council resolutions that we should not allow any terrorists to be operating from our area. Our forces must ensure that there is no illegal cross border activity. Secondly, the military operation in Swat and Malakand division has to do more with the indigenous Pakistani Taliban and criminal elements who have joined the Tehreek-e-Taliban
I am not suggesting that there are good or bad Taliban. That is for us to judge later on. But the main thing is that the Taliban operating in Swat thought that they could challenge the writ of the state and could get away with it. The government of Pakistan, particularly the Pakistan army realized that this was a very serious threat emanating from within the country and therefore it had to be crushed. So it is in that context army operation was carried out in Swat to flush out these extremist elements who had challenged the writ of the government. You know these misguided Moulanas, Sufi Muhammad and Fazllullah had no business to start this thing. They basically thought that they would get away and be able to dictate their own terms to Pakistan. I really give huge credit to Pakistan army for taking this threat seriously and have dealt with it effectively.
Coming to the second part of the question, you know when you are facing a threat; there is an internal situation wherein the regional players would try to take advantage of it. This is a natural phenomenon and usually it happens….but I would say that the initial activities and all the negative things were generated by these local Talibans who were trying to impose their own value system and agenda and latter they were aided and abetted by criminal elements…who had found refuge in FATA and adjacent areas of Swat. And they are the ones who started looting, plundering and murdering.
Basically three things happened, as you know Moulana Sufi Muhammad said that they don’t accept the constitution of Pakistan. Secondly there was an incident of a woman who was lashed publicly, I think that stirred the soul of every Pakistani…and they realised that this is not what they wanted….no question. Islam enjoins that we respect women and not mistreat them. The public beating of the poor girl was a horrifying experience and generated a wave of anger in Pakistan. People of Pakistan were stunned and shocked.
It was really a horrifying incident, whether it was a genuine or not is a separate issue.
Moreover there were gruesome incidents of slitting throats. Public executions were a horrible experience for the people of Pakistan. We have had violence in the country but not of this nature. So these are actually the various factors that turned the tables on them. And that is why the people of Pakistan stood right behind the army.
There is a perception that the US, in league with its allies, is playing a double game just to create anarchy in Pakistan to justify its intervention to take over the nuclear arsenals. What is your take on this?
I don’t want to get into this kind of speculative thing. I think even the ideas of US coming and snatching or capturing Pakistan’s nuclear arsenals is utter nonsense. Let me be clear that Pakistan’s nuclear assets are in safe hands and there is no need to worry about.
Western world is very scared of Pakistan’s nuclear technology. Why?
This is an old problem; basically there is no rational reason for it. One fear is that the extremist organizations are present in this region and they may get their hands on Pakistan’s nuclear arsenals. I think this is far-fetched, very imaginative and has got nothing to do with reality.
Terrorism has now become a global challenge. In your opinion what is the way out to fight this threat?
Well, there are several reasons but in order to tackle this menace we have to address the root causes of terrorism, which is that, the people who have been deprived of the basic rights must given their fundamental rights. In Palestine, Chechnya and Kashmir you see the people are still living under foreign domination and the illegal occupation. This I think is one of the major causes that is contributing to extremism and terrorism.
What I really mean to say is that fundamental issues in the Muslim world like Palestine-Israel issue and Pakistan-India dispute over Kashmir has to be resolved. More importantly, the people of Kashmir have to be given their natural and legitimate right to decide their future.
Also in the Muslim world there is huge resentment about the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Western polices, the policies of the US administration, particularly president Bush generated lot of hatred in the Muslim world.
There has been severe criticism on Pakistan’s foreign policy? As an expert of foreign affairs do you think there is need to review and re-evaluate the policy?
Well, Pakistan’s foreign policy is made keeping in view the vital interests of the country’s internal dynamics and of course the external environment. There is a symbolic relationship between the internal and external policies.
We may have made some mistakes here and there in some context but essentially our foreign policy is centred on our relation with India, USA, European Union, China and the Muslim world. By and large I would say these relationships stand on their own. For example we have excellent relations with china. It is a trouble free relationship. The two countries having completely different social and political systems but they have developed a model relationship between two neighbouring countries.
Similarly, we have excellent relations with all Islamic countries. We have no problems with European countries. This is one of the best examples I can give you of Pakistan’s successful foreign policy. However, we do have problems in our foreign policy, especially with India and some issues with the US.
Indeed our relations with India are a very complicated subject. Not much progress has really been made despite our efforts to improve our relationship with India. We have not been successful this is a long and sad story……….
Our relationship with other world counties are also trouble free, co-operative and friendly and some of our friends have helped us a lot in different situations. Our relationship with America has gone through various stages there have been positive as well as negative phases. Howver in our relationship with USA, today, the American factor is dominating our foreign policy. As I told you earlier we have got into a situation because of this war on terror. This has complicated our foreign policy.
We have benefited marginally from the US relationship in terms of economic and military assistance but we have also suffered enormously. What the current situation in and around Pakistan is that we continue to suffer and there is no idea as when and where this saga is going to end
So there are voices in this country who do argue that Pakistan’s foreign policy should be in its own vital self national interest. But some times personal interests of our leaders take precedence. Musharraf ignored national interests and one seas continuation of that approach in the present regime in Islamabad.
Due to the prevailing hostility, the people of India and Pakistan have miserably failed to reap the benefits of regional economic co-operation. Backwardness, poverty, hunger and unemployment are the major challenges. Do you think the two nations could afford to be at loggerheads any longer?
Fundamentally it is in the interest of India as well as Pakistan to have good relations with each other. This is something, shall we say, a desire on both sides and I think it is there. Actually the problem is how to work out a modus vivendi between India and Pakistan. We have fundamental problems….the issue of Jammu and Kashmir is one principal problem that has been causing ill-will between the two nations. You know there have been wars, conflicts and tensions over this issue. So this, I think, is the root cause of the problem between India and Pakistan.
Secondly, we have other issues flowing out of it, the Siachen, and the water issue, which is becoming more serious by the day. We may not link them together but there is a certain degree of linkage after all the rivers are flowing through Kashmir. So this is a very serious issue that needs to be addressed.
Then you have Sir Creek and other minor matters for instance trade between India and Pakistan is not an issue, I think it can be easily sorted out provided the trade serves the interests of both the countries.
The trade between the two countries has reached to $ 2 billion and the potential is huge. What is actually happening at the moment, the balance of trade is heavily in India’s favour. Indian exports are 1.5 billion and Pakistan exports to India are 350 million. You see the huge gap and it is growing. We have to explore ways and means to narrow the gap. If it is not narrowed there will be a clamour in Pakistan to restrict Indian exports.
In other areas there is a dire need for confidence building measures, and developing improved contacts at all levels. We need to facilitate free flow of people if it is possible, I don’t know how it is at the moment but visa has been the big issue between the two countries.
What about back door diplomacy? Do you think it would be helpful to bridge the gap between the two neighbouring countries
In my opinion back door diplomacy has its limitations. Nothing should happen between India and Pakistan behind the backs of the people. Honestly speaking, I have serious reservations vis-�-vis the back channel diplomacy initiated during Musharraf’s rule. Because if parliament in India and the parliament in Pakistan, people in India and Pakistan don’t know what was being worked out how you can come to an understanding, you can’t shock and surprise your own people.
Musharraf is being blamed for giving too many concessions to India. People think that he was working on a “Sell out” on Kashmir and Indians were so happy and thrilled with him.
However, I believe that there should be no difference what is happening on the front channel and what is happening on the back channel. If they are operating on different spheres then there would certainly be other problems, sending wrong signals. I would say that we should have formal contacts for enhanced diplomatic relations, we should have more meetings more exchanges at all levels.
What about composite dialogue process?
Composite dialogue process I think is good provided both the countries pursue it sincerely. But there is so much lack of trust and confidence in each other that it stifles real progress….
What is the reason that India and Pakistan have not been able to settle the long pending dispute of Kashmir
Primarily there are three parties to the dispute, India, Pakistan and the people of Jammu and Kashmir. In my opinion the people of Jammu and Kashmir are the most important party and they must decide their own future. Whether, they want to join with India or Pakistan. If people of Jammu and Kashmir decide they want to be with India, we will accept it. If they decide that they want to accede to Pakistan, it seems that India will not accept it. The historical fact since 1948 is that India is scared that people of Jammu and Kashmir will decide against being with India
But we as a nation stand for Kashmiris’ right to self-determination and strongly plead that the people of Jammu and Kashmir must be given this right. India had made a commitment in the past and you know they took the problem to the United Nations. India even tried its best to have Pakistan declared as an aggressor but failed. Then we had series of UN resolutions, which were voluntarily accepted by India, Pakistan and the world community. These resolutions enshrined and sanctified the right to self-determination of the people of Jammu and Kashmir and determined how it should be honoured through a free and fair plebiscite.
What about UN resolutions
Those who think the UN resolutions are outdated are doing a great disservice to the Kashmiri cause. Here I would like to say that huge responsibility rests on those who claim to be the leaders of Kashmiri people. They should be vigilant and should neither compromise with Pakistan nor with India. They must hold steadfastly to the principle of self-determination and protect the interests of their own people.
Do you believe in out of the box solution? As it was suggested by the former president of Pakistan
What out of the box solution? Whatever Musharraf had suggested was absolute nonsense. He was basically ensuring that for all times to come Kashmiris remained enslaved under Indian domination. This is what he worked out…..Where is the solution now…..? He was neiher sincere to the people of Kashmir nor to the people of Pakistan. Many people here believe that he had no authority and no right to barter away the future of Jammu and Kashmir by his so-called back door diplomacy. He did not ask any body. In India, prime minister was answerable to the parliament. Musharraf was not answerable to any one. He thought he was God’s gift to Pakistan and he could play around with the fate of the people of Pakistan and the fate of the Kashmiris through his secretive back door diplomacy. He thought he was the only gifted mind in Pakistan. Basically he tried to appease India.
I know that other than a few people and a few so-called leaders, Musharraf’s policies had no support among the people of Kashmir. A few compromised individuals were with him. As a matter of the fact Musharraf undermined Pakistan’s principled position on Kashmir.
You have been High Commissioner to India in 90s and certainly you have had interactions with Indian leaders and government officials there. Did you see any change in Indian mindset vis-�-vis the issue of Kashmir?
Well when I was in India, those were very difficult days. I noticed no change in Indian mindset.
You were described as a “Hawk”, a hard liner. Why
Well I think it is very na�ve and stereotype way of branding people. I remember Mr. Natwar Singh who was once asked a similar question. I think he said, “We are not birds”, we are people and we have interests, the interests of our countries”. I don’t care whether I was described as a hawk or a hardliner. I was doing what I was asked to do. I did it faithfully. However, I have great respect for Indian leaders and great respect for my colleagues in the Indian Foreign Service, which is one of the best diplomatic services in the world. Very able and competent people, who know how to defend their country’s interests and I respect people who defend their country’s interest faithfully.
During the early years of Musharraf government, you served as a foreign secretary. In the meantime India and Pakistan formally decided to initiate peace talks so as to resolve all outstanding issues. Would you like to share with us the agenda that was set out for the bilateral negotiations?
The agenda of composite dialogue process is all clear, there were eight areas in which Jammu and Kashmir and security issues in my opinion is the most important issues. Then there is trade and several other issues. But Kashmir is actually the most important issue on the agenda. The composite dialogue will ultimately succeed or fail depending on the progress we make on these fundamental issues. I believe that both India and Pakistan mus sincerely pursue the composite dialogue and make efforts to resole all disputes. India is at the moment too pre-occupied with the question of terrorism and we are pre-occupied with Jammu and Kashmir. So we have to find some middle road and make sincere and serious efforts to resolve the problems.
Most importantly, the people of Jammu and Kashmir are suffering; the people of India and Pakistan are also suffering. This has to end. South Asia is facing multiple problems and most important issues are problems related to the development of this region. In the Composite Dialogue we have made marginal progress in some areas such as trade, people to people contacts etc. but no real progress on Kashmir and on durable peace in South Asia.
In order to resolve fundamental disputes, do you think the dialogue process should be properly institutionalized to ensure a smooth progress?
Dialogue is already institutionalized but at the moment there is a dead lock because terrorism is the key issue for India. And this is the reason that the foreign ministers of both the countries who met in New York recently could not agree as how to proceed on the dialogue
Although we don’t dismiss it as a problem, we recognize it is an issue between India and Pakistan but one should not ignore the fact that Pakistan is itself a victim of terror, we have so many problems, we want to solve it provided India first co-operates with us. What is happening at the moment India is accusing us and we are accusing India of interfering in Balouchistan and FATA (Tribal Areas). It is a blame game that must come to an end. The only way is that we must sit down seriously and solve the problems. If India lays down conditions that we will not do this until you do that it will not work out. Pakistan will not allow India to push it against the wall. So the best bet is to co-operate sincerely and seriously if we want to deal with the scourge of terrorism.
What is the motive behind the Indian approach? Do you think India is trying to back out from talks?
Well I don’t want to read the motives in Indian approach. To be fair to India what happened in Mumbai was a horrible incident, many people were killed and the city was badly hit. So I condemn it. I think the people of Pakistan also felt it badly and deplored the action. Now it has become a problem, India does not want to move forward unless this issue is resolved but this is not something that could be resolved in 24 hours. It will take time, like India we have our own courts and we have our own procedures. We have to put solid evidence before the courts. So in this area we need India’s co-operation. India has taken a position that “we have produced evidence” and you hang the person. This is not enough. Our courts are no different from Indian courts. Will such evidence stand up in Indian courts?
What is the scope and future of Composite Dialogue Process?
Well I hope the dialogue is resumed sooner the better would be for both India and Pakistan and the region and the international community. War between India and Pakistan is totally unacceptable and therefore we have just one option that is dialogue to find solutions to all our problems.
Do you agree with president Zardari’s idea of leaving Kashmir settlement to next generation
Not many people in Pakistan will agree with it. His late father in law, the martyred Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and the martyred Benazir Bhutto would certainly not share his view.
Under the given circumstances what is the possible solution of Kashmir dispute
Well it is not for me to decide what would be the solution. Solution actually comes through sincere dialogue. When you talk about out of the box solution that means you have to come up with some creative solution in which there is a win-win situation for all of us particularly for the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Their rights and aspirations must not suffer or sacrificed. They are the ones who have to decide... And here I would say people of Kashmir must strengthen their leaders and it is equally important for Kashmiri leaders not to allow their own interests to override the interests of their own people. They have to be more assertive. And the demonstrations, agitation whatever they want to do must be peaceful. Adhering strictly to peaceful means would certainly strengthen their moral position.
Pakistan has announced an autonomy package for the people of Gilgit Baltistan that generated a new debate in Kashmiri circles, what is your opinion in this regard
Look they did have certain needs, certain demands and as long as they are met administratively and politically without undermining Pakistan’s over all position on Jammu and Kashmir, I am for it. After all they have a right; they are not different from people of Pakistan and the people of Azad Kashmir. They must be treated fairly and equally and should be given all the opportunities as we people are enjoying.
Any message you want to convey to the people of Kashmir and the leadership of India and Pakistan?
My message is simple that India and Pakistan must get engaged in substantive dialogue to find solutions to all the problems. Let us work for peace and stability in South Asia. Let us work for the development of this region.
For the people of Jammu and Kashmir, I pray for their wellbeing and hope that one day they will Inshallah see, feel and breathe freedom. And for the several thousands who have been martyred, I salute them and respect them for their supreme sacrifices. They will always live and live forever.